posted
Everyone afraid of automatic rifle fire from an Assault rifle has honestly never fired one in the first place. Most people who get on a machine gun the first time are highly inaccurate, and they have bipod legs to assist them and they still fire in 3-6 rounds bursts for the M249 machine gun or 6-9 for the M240B machine gun. The real benefit an assault rifle gives you is a high capacity magazine. Basically you can shoot more between reloadings. You'd be amazed how hard it is for a beginner to reload a weapon under stress. We used to drill each other by blind folding ourselves ( you shouldn't be looking at your weapon when your reloading but scanning your sector for threats) and then screaming , throwing arti simulators, fire crackers, anything that makes a lot of noise to distract them. It can take some people minutes. When you have it down its a smooth drill completed in seconds through the most harrowing of words, anyhow back to the point.
There is no real set defintino of an assault rifle, but to my knowledge a assault rifle is an automatic ( Any semi-autmatic weapon is really autmatic in the sense) rifle ( centerfire rifle cartridge as a sub-machine gun uses pistol cartridges) with a high capacicty magazine using small caliber rounds. The idea is that most real fighting occurs at a rather close distance as far as infantry is concerned so it makes more sense to bring more smaller caliber rifle rounds to the fight that will be effective at short range. That and at least 5.56mm nato is highly effective in wounding people ( not so much in killing) due to the fact that it fragments so much inside the targets body ( loses around 60% of its mass inside the target body/ballistic gelatin). So I will ask you, why is it wrong to own an assault rifle. You fear it so much but for the most part major gun killings aren't conducted with assault rifles. For one they are WAY too expensive for the average crook, a cheap AR-15 is like 600 dollars while most good ones are far into the 1000 dollar range. Why buy that fancy looking rifle that has lots of bullets when you have to carry it in full view. Heck, even the killers in Columbine used shotguns for the most part, not asault rifles. That and sawing off a shotgun is a simple task anyone can do to a shotgun with a hacksaw, to be honest I've even done it before ( In Iraq ).
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will ask you one question, Why do you fear the impulse of the average American. Then I ask you why do you think Americans have the impulse to kill more than people in other nations. That is far more important than gun control.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
"are you saying that the Civil War might have gone a different way if the South had used urban terrorist tactics vs. meeting the enemy on the field of battle"
The South would have gained a high degree of autonomy (possibly even full independence) if the Confederate leadership hadn't been primarily composed of terrorists who assumed that murder and destruction would terrify the North into conceding. And when the North finally decided to strike back, the South did engage in "urban" terrorism. Sherman countered by turning "the urbs" into "field"s. Different times, different rules of engagement.
posted
Actually the Confederacy came dangerously close to defeating the north with simple attrition. Even with their ragtag group of fighters they consistently defeated the North in defensive engagements in Virginia and even managed to keep a superior force in Tennesse at bay for a considerable amount of time. If not for a Northern Victory at a few battles ( narrow victories even with the Norths numerical advantage) during southern offensives there very well could be two nations instead of one.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The point about handgun popularity before the Civil War also belies a lack of technical knowledge, FWIW. Before the modern revolver, pistols were pretty useless."
As you demonstrate. Before the War of 1812 -- when EliWhitney introduced mass-production to military arms, and the subsequent awarding of rifles to soldiers in lieu of cash -- the rifle was handmade, and therefore pretty unaffordable. In terms of disposable income -- ie money left over after the necessities of life are paid for -- the purchase of a safely usable rifle would have been as affordable for the pre1812 common man as the purchase of a new car is to the minimum-wage worker of today. Possible, but requiring extremely strict financial discipline over a long period of time.
"Plus, what part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?
And so whatever the Founders might have meant, there were no safely usable inexpensive rifles available to be purchased by the common man. And therefore the Founders' intent could not have been to allow everybody to run around with guns.
BTW - The first US restriction on arms wasn't about guns. It was about the knives which tended to be waved about at meals in taverns during heated preRevolutionary "discussion"s inre independence. And so the American etiquette -- of cutting with the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right hand, then laying down the knife, and placing the fork into the right hand before eating -- instead of the European etiquette of cutting&eating with the fork in the left hand while keeping the knife in the right hand.
posted
"Maybe gun control types feel comfortable with the idea that the only people who would have gun access if they had their way would be the police and the military."
On the contrary, I believe the "ballots for bullets" exchange to have been literally true. It wasn't coincidence that "UniversalSufferage" (for white men) became the norm only after rifle possession became more commonplace post1812. It's hard for wealthy property owners to argue that "Only we have the power to affect your&our future, so only we get to decide the laws." when a credible portion of the "you"s can point rifles in "our" direction.
On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to require that a tool-designed-to-kill be possessed only by sane, sober, mild-tempered, and responsible people.
One wouldn't want a person who hallucinates driving a car, why would one want that person to have control of a rifle? One wouldn't want a person who fantasizes about the "triumph of Good over Evil in the coming Apocalypse" to control the nukes, why would one want a person who fantasizes about becoming a "hero wiping out tyrants" to own arms?
One wouldn't want a habitual drunk to be allowed to drive, why would one want that person to be allowed to run around with a gun?
Do you really think that a "soccer hooligan", a "school bully", an "anarchist" who wants to turn every protest into a riot, a "racial war"rior, a wife/etc beater, a stalker, etc should be allowed to intimidate others through gun ownership?
Finally we come to responsibility. How many times do we have to hear about "adult"s leaving weapons laying around for children to discover and play with? Gun theft is the most often reported felony: I think ~40% of all reported property crimes in a city like Phoenix. Yet people who are so careless that they allow their guns to be "found" or stolen are allowed to just go out purchase another one.
Then there is the absurd total lack of control of the secondary sales market. Steal a bulky stereo or TV, and the burglar would be lucky to sell it for 10% of its replacement value. A stolen gun is sold for more than a new gun. And any non-felon jerk can purchase and resell four guns per day -- over 1400 guns per year -- and make a very good profit without even being registered as a gun dealer, with the government being legally forbidden to keep records that could be used to track an unusual volume of gun purchases.
If requiring car insurance is a reasonable restriction on drivers, then gun insurance is a reasonable requirement for gun owners. And if car registration and licenses are reasonable for owners and drivers, then gun registration and licenses are reasonable for gun users.
posted
"see the hassle a few thousand ragtag Iraqis with hand-me-down AK-47's are giving America's finest"
Only a tiny fraction of the serious injuries -- ie those which require medical evacuation out of the theater of operations -- to the Coalition are due to rifle fire. The overwhelming majority are due to rocket-propelled grenade attacks and improvised explosives using artillery shells. Which were looted out of Iraqi armories cuz the USpolitical decision-makers insisted upon a small occupation force against the best advice of USmilitary planners, and upon the USpolitical insistence that the Iraqi army and police be disbanded rather than put in a stand-down mode as guards.
Coulda hired the entire Iraqi army and all Iraqi civil personnel for a year for less than the additional cost of a month of combat operations by UStroops. As it was, the DubyaAdministration told a few million Iraqis and their families to go off and starve for an indefinite amount of time while USpoliticos figured out what they wanted to do.
With a Coalition occupation force too small and no Iraqi support to secure&protect the Iraqi armories, it was unsurprising that some of the suddenly incomeless turned to looting&resale of arms. Within days of the collapse of Saddam's regime, normally unarmed Iraqis could purchase military armament for pennies on the dollar: grenades were being openly hawked in the street markets for the equivalent of a quarter, etc.
posted
I have to admit that the Iraqis with some ragtag AK-47s weren't giving us a hard time. To be honest even the ones with RPGS weren't something close to accurate, believe me. Many a time have I had tracer fire go a good 4-5 meters over my head.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would prefer it if only people currently serving in the military and police officers had guns.
However, I fully realize that is NEVER going to happen in this country. So, I support waiting times and background checks; restrictions on automatic weapons; and crackdowns on illegal weapons.
I also will not allow my children to visit any home where there are guns (exceptions may be made if I am with them). I don't care how secure you think your guns are.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in Texas. I own various pistols and rifles, including what could be considered assault rifles if they weren't semi auto. I have two children, ages 8 and 9.
That said- I support waiting periods and background checks for people wanting to purchase a gun. I am not a member of the NRA. I don't have a concealed carry license. I don't want a concealed carry license. I don't take the guns out of the case except for cleaning and when I go out to the range. The ammo is kept separate from the guns, in another part of the house. The guns all have trigger locks, the keys to which are kept in another part of the house.
Most of the crimes in my area that involve guns do not involve a concealed carry license, and in most cases the gun was purchased illegally. Most legal gun owners I know are like myself, responsible people who enjoy going out for target shooting once in a while.
People who want to use guns to commit crimes don't care if the gun they have is legal or not. People who want to do violence to others don't need a gun to commit that violence. People will continue to rob, injure and murder other people regardless of how strict the control laws get.
The problem isn't the guns. The problem is us.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: they believe that the officers were shot by SKS automatic rifles as they approached a house to serve the warrant.
According to officials, an SKS rifle would be powerful enough to penetrate the bulletproof vests that are a standard item issued to each Birmingham officer.
Tell me again why the right to keep/bear arms should cover such weapons as these?
posted
Disclaimer: I may be thinking of the wrong rifle here, but the SKS, IIRC, is a chinese variant of the AK-47. If I have the right gun, then:
First off, if the bulletproof vests can get penetrated by a 7.62x39 round they are somewhat out of date.
Second, ANY hunting round is more powerful than that round, with the possible exception of the 30-30. Should we ban all those guns, too?
Third, if they were, indeed, fully automatic, they were almost certainly owned illegally already.
Fourth, exactly how are the guns responsible for this again?
Fifth, as I pointed out earlier, these would be precisely the weapons protected by the second amendment. Though the extent of that protection to "joe citizen" is, as evidenced by the arguments on this thread, in dispute.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fourth, exactly how are the guns responsible for this again?
I never said at any point that guns were responsible for the crime.
I simply said I do not understand why the right to bear arms should have to include ALL kinds arms -- where is the cutoff? Why support cop-killer bullets and guns?
I did not know that most hunting rounds are more powerful that this round -- IF what you say is true. If those vest can't stop normal hunting rounds, then what good are they?
Jim-Me, if you have followed any of my previous posts in other threads, you know that I'm not anti-gun-ownership. I just think you need to draw the line at some point as to what kind of "arms" are covered by that amendment. Nuclear arms? Anti-aircraft shoulder rockets? semi-automatics such as these SKS and AK-47's? Bullets designed specifically to pierce armor? Just were is that line in our expansive types of different guns?
posted
I'm not trying to antagonize you Farmgirl... sorry if I came off that way.
The "where do you draw the line?" is a very good question that I haven't worked out an answer to... all I know is that I don't like the *way* the current line is drawn (you can have certain types of weapons if you pay the government enough).
The hunting round thing is a fairly simple one once you think of it: most game animals are significantly bigger and stronger than humans. Taking them down in one shot requires a more powerful round... and believe me, you want to take them down in one shot-- the last thing you want to deal with is a large, wounded beast.
Military rifles like the SKS and the AR-15 only have to kill people, and so are much less potent.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The SKS is the precursor to the AK-47 I believe. Mine is Chinese manufacture but my friend owns one that was made in Russia. The only difference between mine and his is that his is heavier (the stock is made out of mahogany or something). The NATO 7.62x39 rounds it fires are waaaay smaller than the 30-06 round we use in our hunting rifle. I'm holding them both in my hand and the hunting round is longer than my index finger. The .223 rounds that my AR-15 fires are actually smaller than both.
Also if I am not mistaken, the ballistic vests that police officers wear is only made to stop handgun ammo, it couldn't stop any rifle bullet- assault or hunting. And as Jim-Me said, if they were fully auto they were illegally modified. Mine is a semi-auto.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not necessarily illegally modified, but considering they opened fire on police coming to serve a warrant, I think it's likely that they didn't have the stamps to do it.
I'm not up on my body armor, but when I first became really aware of it, the *top of the line* body armor would stop a 7.62 NATO round (known to sportsmen as the .308) which is significantly more powerful than the 7.62x39 in the SKS/AK-47 (note to Misha, these are two different rounds-- the 7.62 NATO is Western and the smaller 7.62x39 is Eastern Bloc). If they could only stop pistol rounds, they were designed that way.
<gamer mode> Much to my chagrin, Counterstrike continues to make the Scout (7.62 NATO) one of the weakest weapons in the game and the AK-47 (7.62x39) one of the most potent. </gamer mode>
The .223 (5.56mm) from the AR-15/M-16 is pretty much a varmint round and generally considered too weak to use on anything much bigger than a small dog (like a coyote) in terms of hunting, though it's fairly standard throughout the Army, used in all the M-16 variants(M-4, CAR-15, etc.) as well as the M-249 SAW.
posted
I certainly have felt the draw of guns, how they must be aesthetically pleasing and all. But I can't help thinking it is a lot like finding pharmaceuticals pleasing. I have no doubt there are ways to trip or get high safely. But just as there is not rational reason not to, there is no rational reason for it.
I guess they are equally like cars, which of course kill far more people than guns in the U.S. I'm assuming.
One argument my brothers use against tighter registration is that registration is always followed by confiscation. They give Australia as an example. Anyone know more about this?
P.S. Is there in fiber in the logic that we have a right to bear arms, not necessarily to collect dozens or even hundreds of arms?
posted
D'oh, you're right, my brain was elsewhere when I typed in NATO 7.62 - the 7.62x39 is the leetle one.
Top of the line body armor yeah, but I was under the impression that the police were issued stuff that couldn't stop anything bigger than a .45 pistol (slow moving rounds). I always thought that the armor which could stop a high powered round was only issued to military personnel, but I could be wrong.
Are there circumstances where you can legally mod a semi-auto to full auto in the US? As a civilian? Not that I'd want to... I like having a lot of control over where each bullet goes.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rational reasons for me are very similar to the reason I study Kung Fu... it is the mastery of a physical skill and the more I know how to defend myself against attack, the less likely it is that someone can force me to do something I don't want to do. A foundation of freedom is to avoid being coercable.
Cars do kill more people than guns, yes.
I don't know about the idea of limiting the number of guns, but, per the supreme court decision referenced herein, it wouldn't seem to dircetly contravene the second amendment.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Misha, all it takes is a background check and a hefty tax stamp. If you look further back in the thread, I have a friend here in Dallas who owns (or owned-- I haven't seen him in a few years) a fully automatic, silenced MP5. Two stamps, one for the full auto selector switch, one for the silencer.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Its less philosophical for me really... I enjoy collecting them and I enjoy firing them. If the gun is too big/unpleasant to fire I get rid of it. The SK1 we had was like firing a small cannon and uncomfortable for my shoulder. The .44 Ruger Blackhawk I wouldn't even touch, too much gun for me.
Jim-Me
Huh, I learn something new every day. Silencer too! That's pretty neat. The only full auto I would want is a vintage BAR to add to my collection, so maybe now I can really start looking. Then if I can just find an affordable M1 Garand...... *drools*
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this really underscores the point I wanted to make about Switzerland, which is that they eat more chocolate per capita than Americans do. That's why they have less violence. It's not the guns. Chocolate releases the same biochemistry as love, supposedly. And it sounds like wicked sexy guns do as well.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw, its not the vest in the Militarys body armor that stops 7.62x39, its the ceramic/kevlar plates that you can insert in the pouches that do that. A buddy of mine was killed when a round richoted off an M1A1 and through the thinner layer of kevlar right above the plate.
That and most kevlar vests can only stop 9mm hand gun ammunition. That and if you get hit in the chest vest or no you are going down, thats alot of kinetic energy and would most likely break the person's ribs.
That and in reality most body armor is really more about stopping shrapnel from explosions, even with the plates you are still highly vunerable to rifle fire. Though I've seen the snipers in our scout section put 6 rounds onto one of those ceramic/kevlar plates and they didn't crack it at all.
That and though I dislike to say this, but the idea is that a person who owns a weapon CAN own a weapon which can penetrate through body armor etc. See if the military and the police were the only ones to own and operate weapon systems it would be a poor day for civilians in the United States. I'll tell you right now that there are many soldiers who detest civilians for a number of reasons. Its not "All" civilians now, simply the way that we get treated at times. Remember that the average soldier is pretty much poor. We aren't officers, we don't become generals, at the very most we might become a sergeant major one day or if we are really lucky somehow have the chance to get college credits ( that doesn't happen in the infantry) and go to OCS etc.
I just.. ::thinks a moment:: take a look at the newest homicide reports that come out. Now murder has been on the downfall for a long time now, but look at who conducts it. African Americans participate in slightly over 50% of homicides while making up around.. 15-20% of the population. Now believe me I have nothing against African Americans, but here is the thing do you think it should be legal to arrest African Americans easier? Do you think its African Americans fault that we have so much murder in the USA? To say that, well in my opinion is the same as blaming guns for the killing in America.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Garands are still going for about $500, I am just having a hard time parting with that much cash (not that the Garand isn't worth it).Plus I have to argue with my husband-
"ooooh a Garand..." "But you already have a M1 carbine!" "yes but I want the Garand toooooo...." "now, do you want the Garand or the Colt .45 1911A1 I'm getting you for Christmas?" "whimper"
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most of the Garands are overpriced to be honest, especially the new new ones, but its honestly a good design, especially the new ones. I have a buddy that has a brand new one in a carbon fiber stock, cost him well over 1000 dollars if I remember correctly. Its nice though, match barrel and everything.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Fox, I guess the answer is we have to examine ourselves and all the ways we have oppressed, objectified, and enslaved guns over the centuries.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tonic will never rise back to the level of their first big album, Lemon Parade
Misha, you might try pointing out that the M1 Carbine is a notoriously weak round, while the .30-06 in the Garand is generally superior in all respects to the current 7.62 NATO round...
Also, unless you are just going for Vintage, I'd go with the H&K USP .45's over the Colt 1911. .45ACP's are just cool in general, though.
Pooka, I hope you meant that comment to be wryly funny, because I, too, laughed at it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slightly OT, but this looks like the thread to ask : Are there any restrictions on civilian ownership of body armor ?
I seem to recall California making a stink about it about ten years ago when the bank robbers with the full armor were standing up to the police. Did CA pass any laws ? Any other states ?
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't know... there are restrictions, yes, but I really don't know what they are...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
