Are "assault weapons" anymore dangerous than a regular gun?

Says the counsel for gunsels. Please describe a defense weapon.

 

You mean like the Virginia Tech shooter? 10 round magazines didn't seem to stop one of the worst shootings in history. You mean Adam Lanza that changed magazines after shooting an average of 10 rounds out of a 30 round magazine?

 

Ardy, we understand that YOU would (probably) do whatever Big Brother govt tells you to do. We hope that you understand that WE will not. We understand what has (nearly always) happened when Big Brother gets too much information/power, so we're not going to let them know who has the guns in the US. Eff anyone who wants to know that, or to outlaw private sales. They can't possibly be trusted with such info.

 

The Newtown shooter reloaded before his magazines were empty (video game type behavior). Most shooters choose places where there is little or no opposition.

 

Of course it does. A stock protects the hand from the barrel heat. There is nothing practically different between an stock and a heat shield, except that the heat shield goes around the entire barrel, while the stock usually only goes under the barrel. The heat shield was invented by the U.S. military for bayonet use after shooting the firearm. Unless you are using a bayonet, it's no different functionally than the stock.

 

The state of Connecticut has mandated registration of all firearms arbitrarily reclassified as "assault weapons" in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident. Some owners have complied. The vast majority have refused. So far state authorities have not sought prosecution of those committing technical felonies by having unregistered weapons.

In simple terms, the state of Connecticut blinked first.

 

funny how gun supporters take both sides of the same debate

on one hand, smaller magazine szecwill not impede the bad guys
otoh smaller clip size is a dreadful limitation on law abiding gun owners
who apparently have a more difficult time reloading than the bad guys

 

well all the military around the world have come up with specs for what they want to equip their soldiers with
my guess is that they have thought about this
and feel that sOme features make the equipped soldier more powerful

those specs go in a general direction that can be described
and we can label weapons of this type as assault rifles
or daffodils if it helps the discussion

it seems to me a ludicrous argument to propose the military has no reason for the daffodil spec they develop or that that daffodils they put in the hands of the troops are actually less dangerous. not much different than a 22plinker.

 

have you even read the 2nd amendment it says nothing like that. the purpose of the militia was as a self defense alternative to having a large standing army

and no one is coming to take your guns. not because we are scared of you, but we are not interested in you and your guns chill out man

 

well i aint tryin
hope you do not stay up at night worrying about this

however you seem to think you are the star of some rambo movie that will go down fighting big government when they come for your guns sheesh get a more interesting life because no one cares much about who you are and how to take your guns

 

Never heard of a mass shooting where the perpetrator killed a single damned person with a mounted bayonet. So no, "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than regular weapons.

Just further display of ignorance and cowardice from the anti-gun movement.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not "video game" behavior-- that's professional shooter behavior. You always want to start an engagement with a new magazine, so any time you catch a break, you reload.

 

What is a barrel shroud? Do you know what that is?

 

Did you take basic English in school? I will break the amendment down for you:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia," at the time meant something that was in working order. It doesn't mean that the government controlls it, or some other statist dream you can come up with.

"being necessary to the security of a free State,"

The states were very worried about an over reaching centralized government that controlls everything, including the actions of each individual state via cooersion or force. The framers wanted to ensure that each state didn't have recourse against a centralized government. They just fought a huge war to break away from the crown, a monarchy.

The previous two parts of the amendment are called a preamble. If you don't know what that is, I gave included it for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preamble

an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
Synonyms: opening, beginning; foreword, prologue, prelude.
Antonyms: epilogue, appendix, conclusion, afterword, closing.

"the right of the people to keep and bare arms, "

Notice it says people. Not states. Not the government, not the city council... The PEOPLE. You are people. I am people. Elected position for district 14 is not people.

"shall not be infringed."

This doesn't need to be explained, does it?

 

More then anything else, Canada benefits from the lower population density.

The more people you have in an area (country-state/province/town), the more likely you will have crime. This is a proven fact, and one large advantage of Canada is that it has less people spread over a larger area. This is why towns like Los Angeles (8,282 people per square mile) and Detroit (5,142 per square mile) and even Juarez (19,290 per square mile) have much more crimes and gun incidents then say Boise (2,675.2 per square mile), Montreal (2,326 per square mile) or Victoria (1,280 per square mile).

And consider this. Boise Idaho has roughly the same population as Stockton, California. But the population density is much lower then the 4,600 people per square mile of Stockton. And the crime rates are higher in Stockton.

Boise is considered by many as one of the safest cities in the nation, with 7 murders in 2012. Stockton on the other hand is the 10th deadliest city in the country, with 71 murders in 2012. Yet Boise is also a haven for hunters, and has open carry of pistols and rifles perfectly legal without a permit. It even mandates a "shall issue" law for concealed carry, with any permit being granted within 90 days unless the individual is not qualified for other reasons (background check, failure to take mandated classes, etc).

When I was living in Boise, it was not unusual to see school kids carrying their rifles on the city busses or even school busses (I did it many times myself), and nobody raises an eyebrow. Before getting her concealed carry permit my mom open carried for many years.

 

Then present the argument for how a flash suppressor renders a firearm more powerful than one that is devoid of a flash suppressor.

 

A gun need not be more powerful in order to be more effective as a weapon. In fact, once a gun has about the power level of the 223, given a good softpoint load in it, any additional power comes with losses that make the gain in power un-desirable. Like heavier weight of ammo, increased recoil, less velocity which equals less (easily attained) range. The flashhider screws off and makes a ready mount fora silencer. Anyone with any sense at all can see how a silencer can be a major help in a gun battle. It reduces flinching from the blasts, doubling your effective range (without ear protection). it eliminates flash at night, saving your night-adapted vision. the reduction in sound, and the removal of concussion and lack of flash make it hard for the enemy to locate the shooter. If subsonic ammo is used and the breech is locked shut, it is often possible to kill several of the enemy before they even realize that they are under fire. Just the flashhider is an aid to effective fighting, in that it helps preserve your night-adapted vision.

 

A hand guard like this? I can fire a whole bunch of rounds before that hand guard lets any heat through, and saving me from injury.



That would mean that this rifle, a 10/22, is indeed, by your definition, an "assault weapon". Unless of course you don't mean to apply the same criteria of "assault weapon" unless it's a certain caliber?

Help me understand.

And while you're at it please explain why you fear an AR underneath someone's jacket but the presence of a handgun doesn't have the same effect on you. You are aware that there are handguns with comparable capacity and caliber, right?

 

Correction, the M-16 isn't effective at killing the enemy, it injures them. It's a varmint round. If you kill an enemy soldier then you have reduced their force on the battlefield by 1. If you injure them and one or two of his buddies have to carry him to the AIDS station, then you have reduced the number of enemy troops on the battlefield by 2 or 3.

Name one thing that an AR can do that my 10/22 can't do. What makes an AR "more dangerous"?

View attachment 34490

 

Frankly, you're full of it. the AR can pierce soft body armor. The 22lr cannot. the 223, given a softpoint, almost always puts men on their knees or their backs with a single chest hit. the 22lr does nothing of the kind. the 223 will easily snipe effectively to 1/4 mile, 4x as far as can be managed with the /22lr. The 223 will pierce a steel or kevlar helmet, the .22lr cannot. The 223 was not designed to merely 'injure" the enemy. that's some bs wife's tale that only the ignorant keep believeing or spreading. the 223 is a very, very lethal rd, even in fmj format and with Nosler's deep-penetrating 60 gr Partition softpoint, it's every bit as good a deer caliber as the 30-30 ever was. this is proven every deer season.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

And there have been a multitude of attempts to take our guns, we just didn't let you do it is all. And if you will notice, the politicians responsible for those gun laws that did get passed have been promptly voted out of office. Don't lie, it makes you look bad.

 

I'm not being "full of it" I'm trying to understand your point. Stop being a door knob.

So it is a matter of velocity that determines whether a rifle is an "assault weapon"? How about this one? It's my Ranch Rifle Mini.



Or for even more punch, my Marlin 336.



And while I hit all of my 300yd targets with my M16 back in the 80's, it is by no means a sniper rifle, nor is it as lethal as the M-14 so it doesn't really count as "lethal lethal" as you put it.

I served in the 1/48th Mech Inf. 3rd Armored, where did you serve?

Let me know.

 

the reason nobody is coming for our guns is that they know that 1000's of them will get shot for trying it.

 

google for the 600 yd service rifle matches and see what WINS, dude. it aint the 308, it's the AR in 223. FAR beyond the range at which your 30-30 amounts to a hill of beans, much less the .22lr. When you use the 77 gr bthp VLD ammo in the 1 in 8" rifling twist, a 20" barrel still has 500ft lbs of power remaining at 600 yds, the same power as a 4" 357 has at 10 ft. Also, 26" barreled ARs in 223 are doing well in 1000 yd matches. You can't have it both ways. If a .22lr is "so effective" to 300 yds, then the 223 HAS to be effective at a mile, cause the 223 has so much more velocity, sectional density and ballistic coefficient. But you don't know anything about ballistics (obviously)

 

When I offered the 30-30 to be measured against these criteria you all had for determining whether or not a firearm should be considered an "assault weapon" it was merely a question of velocity, with the exception to the .22lr being that it lacked sufficient power to punch through a vest. The 30-30 certainly can. Why do you not consider the 30-30 an "assault weapon" since it meets the criteria in regards to power, unless there are more aspects than just velocity that makes a firearm an "assault weapon" in your mind.

600yds isn't sniper range.

Try 1,200yds. fast-forward to 2:11, if interested. My AR might be able reach out to 600yds, but not 1,200yds. And it's got a 20" Stainless Bull barrel 1:8.

[video=youtube;pwG-D0HjCBQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwG-D0HjCBQ[/video]

That ain't no .223 that that guy is using to pop cans at 1,236yds, Dude.

There's no need to be a turd, I'm trying to understand your point of view, stop being a jackass.

 

I appreciate the well thought out argument. I have pondered for years now why Canada is much less violent when we share by-in-large the same culture and have access to almost all the same weapons... even the oft demonized AR-15. I had not considered population density but it warrants further examination as on the face of it, it appears to have a correlation to violent crime.