Topic: Guns - page 16. (Read 22194 times)

I asked for a definition, not an example.  What about an AR-15 makes it into an assult weapon?  What about an assault weapon makes it a different kind of weapon than, for example, a hunting rifle?

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

He had a drum magazine with 200 rounds.

AR-15 is an assault weapon.

The key point here is that he didn't.  We can muse all day about what an armed citizen or two in that theater would have changed the outcomes, but the truth is that it would depend upon the citizens.  The vast majority of concealed carry licencees wouldn't have been able to stop this rampage early because it was so quick and the odds of the licencees being able to properly identify the orginally shooter from another CC, and without getting shot himself, are long.  But that's not the point.  Rampaging lone nutjobs are hard to prevent in any case, and guns are old tech, easily reproduced by one machinist.  Making them illegal is not going to prevent people who are motivated to possess them from aquiring them.  After all, most guns are illegal in Mexico & Britain, and in both cases the culture has changed enough that wise police keep firearms nearby, if only in their squad car.  The greatest factor in the use of firearms in violent crimes is not the legality of the firearms, but the culture in question.   Gun violence is very rare in Canada, but that still isn't an argument in faovr of doing the same in the United States.  Canada is a relatively uniform culture, while the US is a mix of amny cultures of varying degrees of conflict.  Feel free to do whatever you think that you can to change that culture, but if your plan involves using the force of government to restrict my ability to defend my own family from harm, by restricting my access to the best tools for the job or by any other method, you are already wrong.

Holmes had AR-15, armed in body armor and on drugs... He wasn't planning to rob anyone.  

The old guy shot like 6-7 times, missed most of them. No imagine if he killed someone else with a stray bullet. Whoops.

Is a Marlin Classic Model 1895 an assault weapon?

AR-15's need reloaded after 30 rounds (with your typical magazine). A witness reported that everything would go quiet when he was reloading. Sounds like a great time to return fire to me. Imagine 3 people with concealed weapons in that crowd and we might have a very different outcome.

Anyway, the argument is moot, I own guns, I carry guns, and nothing will change that. I won't force you to carry a gun, how about you don't attempt to force me to give up mine? Sound fair? Thanks!

Please define "assault weapon" for this conversation, because I'd wager that you don't really know what that means.

We don't ban food because it is useful for living. Assault weapons, not so much.

Did this lone old man prevent a massacre? The world, of course, will never know what might have happened had he not stopped the two thugs.

This is one old man carrying a concealed weapon, mind you.

http://youtu.be/KjH3ZMUks1o

Logically, he's wrong as well. Consider:

Sensible person: "Speeding kills. Thus a ban on speeding."

Wacko: "Food kills. Why don't we ban food?"

Sensible person: "You really don't know why we don't ban food?"

However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home." Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.

From your link:

However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home." Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.

No. Because it's not irrelevant. You can't build and defend a political ideology on memes which upon evaluation are misleading. But people try - witness the meme we just discussed and many others prevalent within this forum.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

No way. I shoot 3 times a week. I would have killed him.
I have been shot at by trained soldiers on three continents. Ask them.

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

That's silly. Smoke bombs, panic, cross fire - many more would die.