Yet the M-16 and the Mini 14 are nothing alike in either design or function or Interchangeable parts. Actually, design wise, the Mini 14 better resembles the M-1 carbine. The M16A2 remains one personal favorite, and as a platform, the M-16 & variants as the most versatile platform extant.
It comes with the territory. Just look at cars, with the invention of cars came the rise of car accidents. As more cars get put on the road more people die in car accidents. Sure we can have modern crash technology and all of that but the fact will always remain that obviously more people are going to die via car accidents since there are actually cars out there driving. A certain level of risk becomes acceptable with some things. We can save thousands of lives per year by banning automobiles but at what cost? Will people be willing to switch only to public transportation or ride a bike or something to work? No they won't. We could save thousands of lives per year by banning motorcycles because they are just flat out dangerous and are not necessary at all for transportation. Theres nothing you NEED a motorcycle for in America in 2016. They are luxury items that people WANT, and the increased risk of death on one of those things is accepted. The majority of automobile accidents are the result of human error. People being distracted and simply not paying attention to what they are doing. People drive while eating lunch, putting on makeup, talking on the phone, texting, yelling at kids in the backseat, holding a conversation not paying attention, driving recklessly, etc. So a vehicle, used for transportation, has become a death machine for thousands of people per year because of their own errors. But society is willing to accept that risk. We also make vehicles that are widely unnecessary for what a vehicle was designed to do which is transport you from point A to point B. Why can a standard cheap 4 cylinder economy production car go 100mph? Why can a production Chevy Corvette go 190mph? Where in the United States can you go 100mph on a public road? Let alone 190mph? Nowhere. So why do we even allow manufacturers to build cars to go that fast? What does anybody NEED a Chevy Corvette? A honda civic can get you anywhere a Corvette can get you and just as quickly because there are speed limits... Thats the entire point. Society is willing to accept a certain amount of risk to have certain things. Firearms are no exception. Yes there are accidents, yes there are stupid people who leave their guns on the coffee table with their kids running around, but as with cars its not the gun's fault somebody is an idiot, it's the persons fault. I have a 500hp Mustang GT that I built, I've never been in a car accident in my life. Meanwhile every single day somebody slams a high powered sports car into a tree or into another vehicle killing themselves and others because they are stupid and were street racing on the highway or something. Nobody is running around saying we should ban sports cars because some morons kill themselves and others in those things. There is no reason whatsoever for me to have a 500hp car that can outrun police cruisers. It serves me no purpose. Cars are for transportation purposes, you don't need 500hp to transport from point A to point B, but we allow them. Why?
We have a different opinion for a few reasons. Your culture is different than ours. I can't understand people that eat insects in Asia. Cultures often can't understand each others customs. You were not raised in a country that has a restriction on the government that says they can't take away the individual unalienable right to own firearms, so naturally, you don't get it. You seem to have a problem distinguishing between bad guys and good guys, so therefore you want us to put restrictions on everyone. We understand, and it appears you don't, that any restrictions will only affect the over 100 million honest law abiding firearm owners, and leave the criminals emboldened to perpetrate gun crimes uncontested. This will result in more victims. Like I stated earlier, over 1/3 of all homicides are not gun related. That means we have a cultural violence problem, not a gun problem. And also as as pointed out... we have been moving in the right direction for over 20 years. If our politicians would get serious about incarceration for gun crime offenders, it would stop the ridiculous recidivism rate, and gun crime would drop even faster than it already is.
It's quite simple, and its not based on any of those factors. It's common sense that the average citizen doesn't need a military-styled weapon for their own protection. A handgun, yes. A shotgun, yes. But not a gun that shoots 15-20 bullets in less than 10 seconds. The mass shootings back my argument, what type of guns are used in these shootings? The Aurora Theater shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, they all use assault-based weapons.
It is not an outright ban, a restriction is a limitation, as in and onerous monitary forfeiture in order to excercise a Constitutional right, remember poll taxes to prevent poor people ( minorities and fomer slaves ) from voting ? If you want a Short barreled rifle with a suppressor, you may have the talent to build one, but lack $400 in tax stamps. This is an example of an unfair financial burden placed on law abiding people, also the fact that a civilian legal M-16 suitable for National defense now costs over $ 30,000 directly contradicts the intent and spirit of the Second Amendment in respect to National defense.
Obviously you know nothing about firearms, your average pump shotgun loaded with buckshot can put many rounds of .36 caliber balls down range, pump shotguns are legitimate Military arms used in combat. FYI, current M-16s issued have a 3 round burst limit, and semiauto fire is more accurate called directed fire when servicing the enemy. Even so, full auto fire has some proper limited tactical use and avantages in skilled hands. Your ban the gun arguements are the unsound and incompetent babblings of a video game drone. "It's common sense that the average citizen doesn't need a military-styled weapon for their own protection." See ? incompetent, what relevance has "style" ? to do with function ? answer; none whatsoever.
Also, many handguns are of "Military style" so are a plethora of rifles and shotguns dating back to the matchlock and flintlock era.
Not sure how any of this is relevant to what I said in any way. Fact is, an impossibly tiny % of gun in the US are used for illegal purposes; this fact is ignored by those who seek further restrictions on gun rights.
its idiocy to say that the desire to ban "assault weapons" is based on a rational study of deaths given Assault weapons (no matter how you define them) are used in less murders than hammers, fists, sticks or knives
no firearm type should ever be banned since all types are in common use and none are unusually dangerous plus the federal government has no proper power to do so
Accidents are going to occur no matter what. It is an inescapable aspect of life. It is simply one of those things that you can do nothing about.
Pray tell why not? What does the style, essentially the appearance, of a firearm, have to do with anything? The united states military makes use of both handguns and shotguns that are commonly available on the civilian market. Any firearm can do such if the individual operating it is even remotely competent. Observe as it is demonstrated how eight shots can be fired from a revolver in exactly one second. Observe as it is demonstrate how a revolver can fire six rounds, be reloaded, and fire six more rounds in less than three seconds. [video=youtube;WzHG-ibZaKM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM[/video] Last year the state of California was subjected to twenty five mass shootings. Each one of them carried out with firearms that were legal under the strict laws of the state. All magazines are limited to no more than ten rounds. You also ignore the Virginia Tech massacre, where the responsible party used only two handguns, one of which used only ten round magazines.
Your hostility over being informed that you are incorrect has been noted. The supreme court does not rule on matters that are not raised in a specific case. Heller did not challenge the registration requirement, as it was not the issue that were preventing him from legally acquiring a firearm in the first place.
I am a slow shooter, and I still survived many encounters in other Countries too ! look it up in Government records if you can, I will sign a waiver if you have the balls ! A load of dingoes kidneys ! Takes me a full 15 - 20 minutes just to to get out of bed in the morning sometimes thanks to my injuries.
steel match last year 6 plates at 15 yards-one shot each, reload and shoot them again. Me 4 seconds. CZ Custom Shop CTZ 9mm My son with a 22 caliber revolver 5 seconds - - - Updated - - - Thank you for your service!
Thoughtful post, touching on quite a few different subjects. There is truth to the statement that I have a problem distinguishing between good guys and bad guys. I tend to take individuals for who they are and try not to box them. I find you can get a lot of joy and happiness from the relationship that way. for instance, yourself, I could box you as "insert name here for someone who likes gun freedoms" and you could box me as "insert name here for someone who likes gun restrictions", and with that broad stroke our only communication would be trying to sledge hammer each others opinions. - - - Updated - - - To be fair it would be difficult to ban fists or sticks.
Now you see ? I agree with you ! if we meet in real life we would have pints of ale and nice talk and tea and nary a harsh word be spoken !!! I am really a softy pacifist in real life, and have been pummeled often times not returning any evil, prefer rather to turn the other cheek whenever I could even though someone else had them arrested for DUI....... However, even though I am non violent as much as I can be, I have also been attacked many times by violent felons, I still enjoy my life and my guns.
The fact that there are a significant number of murders with hands, fists, and feet, according to the FBI, bolsters my point that we have a cultural violence problem and not a gun problem. Especially not an assault weapon problem. It's interesting that your first response to TDs post was that you can't BAN fists. Your first solution is about banning. Banning is not a solution to a cultural violence problem. It limits your ability to come up with creative answer to this problem if your only solution is banning things. The answer needs to start with seriously segregating from society, those that harm others no matter what the method of their violence is. We have a horrible criminal recidivist problem that our politicians ignore because to tackle the issue would disproportionally effect our minority population.
And again for the record, I know there are surly Austrailians somewhere, I still personally have not met even one ! the last bloke I met from Sydney gave me a fabulous hat and bought me a river of good Austrailian beer ! I forget the name, it was very good !
