Conquer Club

What's wrong with Assault Weapons?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: What's wrong with Assaut Rifles?

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:51 pm

Thanks Koolbak. I've been preaching the contents of that link since a week after Sandy Hook. The important and relevant parts:

What counts as an “assault weapon”? The trouble all starts here. There’s no technical definition of an “assault weapon.” There are fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down. Those have been strictly regulated since 1934. Then there are semiautomatic weapons that reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed. Semiautomatic pistols and rifles come in all shapes and sizes and are extremely common in the United States.

Congress didn’t want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an “assault weapon.” But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade.


A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice explained why. For starters, only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn’t fall under the ban. One example: the Colt AR-15 that James Holmes used to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last summer would have been outlawed. Yet it would have been perfectly legal for Holmes to have purchased a very similar Colt Match Target rifle, which didn’t fall under the ban.


While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors [like abortions being legal...]. Here’s the UPenn study again: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: What's wrong with Assaut Rifles?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:22 pm

Maybe we can collect all the guns and magazines and then melt them down for their steel. This would definitely increase the steel production of this country, thus employing many Americans. GDP increases, unemployment decreases, what could be so wrong with that?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: What's wrong with Assaut Rifles?

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:29 pm

Doc_Brown's confusion here may stem from the fact that the "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for "assault rifle."
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: What's wrong with Assaut Rifles?

Postby KoolBak on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:06 pm

:lol:
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca

AND:
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
User avatar
Cadet KoolBak
 
Posts: 7406
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest

Re: What's wrong with Assaut Rifles?

Postby Doc_Brown on Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:02 pm

Neoteny wrote:US Army definition.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.


http://gunfax.com/aw.htm

I'm splitting hairs because this discussion, in the political and general context, is rife with misinformation. If we want to talk about these things, I'm always for being clear in our terms. I guess we can blame the retail market for blurring the lines here, but if we are talking about legislation we need to be as clear as possible. This is a serious issue that many people have very strong opinions on. If you want to talk about the semiautomatic weapons, use the appropriate terms. If you want to talk about military grade firearms, use "Assault Rifle."

EDIT: I think greek and I are talking past the same point here. He's just grumpy because he's a conservative and they are always grumped out by liberals.


Thanks for clarifying that Neoteny. I was not aware of the distinction before, and it is correct that the intended subject of my original post was assault weapons and not assault rifles. I have updated the OP accordingly. Sorry for the confusion.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Doc_Brown
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: What's wrong with Assault Weapons?

Postby Funkyterrance on Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:48 am

You fixed the title on account of BBS's spelling pet peeve? You should change it back. :lol:
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Previous

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users