guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
A word about "high powered assault weapons"
None of the weapons used in the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora or Sandy Hook massacres were in fact "assault weapons", nor were any of them "high powered" in the conventional ballistic sense.
"Assault weapons" are by definition select-fire (meaning you can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic with a selector switch) short-barrel carbines that generally fire pistol-caliber ammunition in order to reduce recoil when fired in fully automatic mode. Such weapons that are capable of fully automatic fire are already illegal.
As far as "high powered" goes....none of the weapons used in these massacres (with the exception of the 12 gauge shotguns used in Columbine) are considered "high powered" enough to even be legal to hunt deer with in the state of Oregon, or most others. Thats right...not only the 9mm pistol round but even the "high powered" .223 rifle round that so many wish to blame isnt powerful enough to meet Oregon regulations for the legal taking of deer.
Obviously, and tragically, these weapons were certainly "powerful" enough to take innocent human lives. But when the gun banners start talking about banning "high powered" weapons, what they would in reality be banning would be 100+ year old conventional hunting cartridges which are in fact far more "powerful" than the weapons used in the massacres. And when they talk of banning "assault weapons" they are talking about banning something that is already illegal in the first place. The reality...is that most of the politicians who are crying out for these bans dont know anything about guns in the first place, except what they "learned" by watching "A-Team" on TV back in the early 80's. They want to "ban" guns that look scary to them. They want to ban stereotypes of guns for purely emotional reasons and not factual ones.
None of the weapons used in the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora or Sandy Hook massacres were in fact "assault weapons", nor were any of them "high powered" in the conventional ballistic sense.
"Assault weapons" are by definition select-fire (meaning you can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic with a selector switch) short-barrel carbines that generally fire pistol-caliber ammunition in order to reduce recoil when fired in fully automatic mode. Such weapons that are capable of fully automatic fire are already illegal.
As far as "high powered" goes....none of the weapons used in these massacres (with the exception of the 12 gauge shotguns used in Columbine) are considered "high powered" enough to even be legal to hunt deer with in the state of Oregon, or most others. Thats right...not only the 9mm pistol round but even the "high powered" .223 rifle round that so many wish to blame isnt powerful enough to meet Oregon regulations for the legal taking of deer.
Obviously, and tragically, these weapons were certainly "powerful" enough to take innocent human lives. But when the gun banners start talking about banning "high powered" weapons, what they would in reality be banning would be 100+ year old conventional hunting cartridges which are in fact far more "powerful" than the weapons used in the massacres. And when they talk of banning "assault weapons" they are talking about banning something that is already illegal in the first place. The reality...is that most of the politicians who are crying out for these bans dont know anything about guns in the first place, except what they "learned" by watching "A-Team" on TV back in the early 80's. They want to "ban" guns that look scary to them. They want to ban stereotypes of guns for purely emotional reasons and not factual ones.
The term "Assault Rifle" is misused all the time by people that have no knowledge of weapons. The first modern true assault rifle was probably the Sturmgewehr 44 that entered service with the German Army in 1944. It was a rifle with a high capacity magazine that was a full automatic. This was followed three years later by the famous Russian made AK-47 in 1947. My father carried a Browning Automatic Rifle in WW2, it looked like a regular rifle , but it was a full automatic with a 20 round magazine that was usually called a "light machine gun".What finally developed as the AR-15 was from the AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner of the Fairchild ArmaLite Corporation in the late 1950's. The "AR" in the name refers to the semi-automatic rifle developed by the Armalite Corp, it doesn't stand for "assault rifle", this idea was made up in the media. Colt bought the patent from Armalite in 1959 and developed the M-16 full automatic version for the US Army.
brett636
Well-Known Member
I maintain that no such ban exists or could ever exist that would "fix" this problem.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Oh, such a ban exists, and it would be quite effective. But, like Jones posits, it will never be proposed in this country, much less stand a chance of passing.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Try me, elaborate on this "effective" ban. Please do so by keeping in mind any ban will only effect those who follow the laws already. It will have no effect on the lawless.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
What would this ban ban from existence?
tourists24
Well-Known Member
please elaborate
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Check out Australia's gun laws.
After their last mass-shooting, they rallied as a country (with 90% public support) and instituted major changes to existing gun laws.
They haven't had a mass-shooting since.
Of course, the US isn't Australia, and what worked for them likely won't work for us here in the States.
(It wouldn't even be proposed here in the States, much less stand a chance of passing...)
After their last mass-shooting, they rallied as a country (with 90% public support) and instituted major changes to existing gun laws.
They haven't had a mass-shooting since.
Of course, the US isn't Australia, and what worked for them likely won't work for us here in the States.
(It wouldn't even be proposed here in the States, much less stand a chance of passing...)
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Well this is the very first site I came across after searching Australia gun laws... is this what you were speaking of?
snopes.com: Australian Guns Stats
To be effective it would would have to be a real weapons ban (not just "assault weapons"), retroactive, with no loopholes, and rigorous (draconian) enforcement. Even with that it would take years to get the majority of weapons off the street and while realistically you would never get all the weapons and there would always would be incidents of gun related violence and/or mass shootings, there is no question it would reduce the overall levels of gun related violence significantly. It's not realistic at all though, like I said no one would ever propose something like this and even if they did it wouldn't go anywhere. I'm certainly not in favor of it.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I'm somewhat familiar.
They cracked down on civil liberties and starting profiling "foreigners" and invading mosques and the Prime Minister told the Muslims they could leave the country if they did not like it.
Is that what you are referring to?
tourists24
Well-Known Member
tourists24
Well-Known Member
funny how people can make things show what they want....so far on my search I havent found any real evidence that confiscating guns from law abiding citizens has led to less gun crimes....
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Does it seem like that's what I'm referring to?
I'm talking about gun laws.
Stay on topic.
Did you read the study? Because that's exactly what happened.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Would that include fertilizer, diesel fuel, knives and aluminum baseball bats?
Reference at ~2:40
Primus - My Name Is Mud - YouTube
Similar threads
