Ban Assault Weapons

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, ok, I finally clicked on a video and it had to be yours. His conclusion is a little off though. Cultural issues are the main driver of crime pockets, where it's cool to be tough and stupid to be smart. I speak from experience, having lived in several neighborhoods with exceptional crime rates.
 

True, but it would be a major help if these would be violent criminals received a good education and an open job market.
 


The "assault weapons ban" was actually from 1994-2004, not in the 1960s. All the 1994 ban did was to ban certain combinations of "military looking" features on weapons. I think you are confusing the 1994 law with the 1986 "Firearm Owners Protection Act" which banned the sale of new fully-automatic weapons and the Gun Control Act of 1968 which mostly set up the FBI background checks.

The features banned in 1994 were of no real use to anybody. Okay, you ban detachable magazines larger than 10 rounds. What's to stop me from having 20 10-round magazines? Nothing, and you can load a new magazine very, very quickly into a box magazine weapon. Banning flash hiders was stupid as well as these shooters aren't trying to snipe from afar in the dark. Folding stocks are similar- a long gun is long and a folding stock doesn't make a rifle as concealable as a handgun- especially since the 1934 National Firearms Act banned rifles with a barrel of less than 16". I think there were a few other equally dumb provisions of the 1994 law as well. Oh, and furthermore- most criminals using weapons to commit crimes use handguns, not rifles. Banning flash hiders on rifles had absolutely diddly effect on handguns. The only restrictions in the 1994 law that even applied to handguns was the magazine capacity limit. We also had no increase in crime with the 1994 law expired in 2004, either. So that ban was completely ineffective no matter how you look at it.

This is getting more horrific everyday we see and hear.
Click to expand...

What you hear is getting more horrific, sure. We now have 24/7 news media that broadcast anything and everything remotely interesting for weeks on end. (If I hear "Super Storm Sandy one more time, I swear I will puke!) Actual murder rates are going down, but you are just hearing more about each and every little thing that goes on now so it seems like there is more violence.

There is no reason for people to have these semi automatic weapons at all.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There are many reasons. Target shooting, hunting, and self defense are very good reasons. I take it you have not engaged in any of those pursuits if you are making that kind of comment. I do a good deal of target shooting and some hunting. For example, it would be a real pain to try to shoot a sporting clays triple with a break-open single-shot/SxS/OU shotgun. Semi-autos furthermore aren't that much faster to fire multiple shots compared to pump action and lever action weapons anyway. I use a pump shotgun and don't have any difficulty keeping up with the guys shooting semi-autos for sporting clays. The only difference is that mine just doesn't jam like theirs do 😀

Oh, and to sum this up: no amount of laws will not stop these goofballs. Homicide is pretty illegal the last time I checked (and probably the most harshly punished crime too) and the anti-homicide laws haven't stopped homicide. I am willing to bet that adding one more law isn't going to do much. I suppose you could ban firearms, but that won't work to stop mass homicides for a bunch of reasons. First, the cat is already out of the bag and there are 300+ million firearms in the country. You can be absolutely assured that not all of them would be turned in/confiscated and there will always be firearms out there. Secondly, we have banned other objects/substances like marijuana and crack and look at how well that has worked. Guns will be the exact same way- people who want them will be able to get them on the black market. Third, people will just use other methods which are far more destructive than shooting. The worst mass school killing in the U.S. involved arson. The worst public mass killing in the U.S. involved crashing airplanes into a building, and the second worst was done with a bomb. A guy with a gun ranks way down there on the list of ability to ramp up the body count compared to somebody using arson, biological/chemical agents, or explosives.
 


An AR-15 is actually very likely one of the worst close-range weapons due to its pretty small bullet. The .223 is a varmint round, designed to be able to kill animals the size of a gopher or woodchuck at 300 yards. The only way it will kill spectacularly at close range would be if you shot somebody in the head with it, where the high velocity will cause hydrostatic shock in an inelastic (closed) space. Otherwise, using a larger-caliber weapon like a 9 mm (.355 diameter) handgun or a shotgun shooting .30-.40 caliber buckshot will do much more damage. The most damaging close-range weapon would be a shotgun with something like #2 buckshot just because it punches a couple dozen good holes. #6 or #7 1/2 birdshot is too small to penetrate well at much beyond contact range and would make a very ugly but very likely non-lethal flesh wound.



You forgot one. All of these crimes are committed against people. If we banned people, there would be no crimes. Perfect!



A firearm is also a weapon that requires somebody be individually targeted to be killed. You can't pull the trigger and have 100 people all die at once. It's just potentially a little faster than if you came in and whacked at a room full of people with a machete. The real things to be worried about in mass homicides are indiscriminate methods- fire, explosives, structure collapse, toxins, biological agents, radiation, etc. Even vehicles can be used to kill multiple people at once. If you read my post above the worst mass homicides in the U.S. involved vehicles and explosives, not firearms.



We have a big cultural problem in the inner cities which leads to lots of crime and gang activity. Crime and gangs are not unique to the U.S. but what is unique is that it is politically incorrect to acknowledge this problem because the population in those areas is largely black and Hispanic. Calling them out on the problem would make those special protected "minority" groups look bad instead of allowing them to pretend they are victims like the current PC climate allows for. The inner city gang and crime culture is only getting worse the longer it is ignored.



The latter is the firearms equivalent of somebody doing a world record suicide shot using a liquid helium pot. It's ridiculously impractical and SSK Industries only came out with it as a "hey, look what we did!" thing. That rifle weighs over 100 pounds, cartridges cost around $50 each, and it makes about 15 times the recoil of the AR-15 everybody here is talking about. Nobody is going to use it in any crime, it's far too impractical. The .50 BMG is the largest cartridge that does not need an exemption from the BATFE Destructive Device rules. It's a large cartridge too and not really suitable for hunting, although it's much smaller than the .950 JDJ and can with difficulty be fired from a shoulder-mounted rifle whereas the .950 JDJ cannot. There are quite a few people with a rifle chambered for the Big Fifty out there but as far as I can find it has been used exactly once in a crime, and then by a police sniper who fell off the wagon rather than a civilian.



They are not, and governed under BATFE regs as either Destructive Devices or Any Other Weapons. A civilian can potentially possess them after going through a LOT of paperwork and living in an area where state law and/or the local law enforcement doesn't automatically say no. However it's much easier and destructive just to blow up a 100 pound propane tank so a real mass murderer doesn't really care that much about getting mines.
 
You can't force these kids to get an education, they need to want it. And you're not going to get companies to move to these places unless you have an educated, responsible workforce nearby. So tell me, how will you make education cool?
Especially when wielded by a VP, right? 😛
 
All those wanting moar bans/restrictions,
remember the greatest tragedy in recent times.
It required no guns whatsoever, but because of the zealousness of what was used, we now have changed our way of life.
Now, having your liberties curtailed is in no doubt whatsoever after what happened, and severe "inconvenience" with loss of liberty as well.
Just see TSA
 


Yup, progressives hate guns because it makes it harder to put a bullet in the brain of people who hold different perspectives. Well written article from a credible author! How was this not in every newspaper in America?

/sarcasm


 


Do you not find it ironic that the political people who want to ban guns also carry their own guns? What's his face in Chicago who is pushing for stricter gun control was recently caught trying to board a flight with a gun. The SCOTUS all carry guns, aka "The Judge."

Ironic.. those who want to ban them are the ones carrying them. I suppose the ban wouldn't apply to those elected officials much like ObamaCare doesn't apply to them either.
 
Which of the SCOTUS carries an AR15? Or a semi-auto rifle of any kind with extended mags? I think you are getting gun control advocate confused with people who want no guns in the hands of private citizens.
 


Actually the Chicago guy was all for a city wide handgun ban, yet he himself had one. The SCOTUS judges don't have to carry AR-15s with Extended mags because the Secret Service guards carry M4s with multiple extended mags for them.
 
No supreme court judge carries hidden weapons with them at all . i never heard this absurdity period.This is crazy thinking.
 

He owns a weapon Marv. It was a joke that he could hide it in his robe.
 


The SCOTUS have handguns on them at all times. The handgun they carry was specifically designed for them. It is the Taurus Judge. It is chambered in the small .410 shotgun shell and holds 5 rounds in a revovler style for simplicity. The firearm was designed to instantly protect the SCOTUS because a single shot for a .410 close range will end you. The range on the firearm isn't that great, it was specifically designed for a 'judge' to use should someone penetrate their secret service protection. The SCOTUS as you know is a lifetime position and every right and ability is used by the US Gov't to protect these individuals because they are the ones who interpret and decide what the US Constitution means.
 
I dont know about that riser.... I find it hard to believe that some SCOTUS members could even fire a gun like that without getting knocked over. Also the naming convention was adopted in 2006 (Thanks wikipedia) after Florida judges had been buying them for defense.


I call BS on that.
 



From former General McChrystal:

“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” he said. “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

Said McChrystal, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that…

“I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough,” he said.
Click to expand...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom