Jump to content

The truth about assault weapons


CV32
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting point, but I would rather not have a guy in a spree shooting be able to fire twenty rounds before having to reload.

 

Not just interesting, but factual, something that is lost in the emotional, knee jerk reaction to offer up any solution to a problem that is much deeper than a simple inanimate object, even if that solution does nothing at all to actually solve the problem.

 

Most folks have no idea how long it takes to switch out a magazine. With practice, just a couple of seconds or less:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StPrXCHoXvU

 

So what does the madman do when faced with magazine limits?

 

Just carry more magazines/ammo.

 

NYC's previous move of reducing mag limits to 10 rounds, and now down to 7 rounds, are empty gestures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In those two seconds, that guy could be shot or tasered... there is a reason that military forces no longer use weapons like the Garand.

 

He could be shot or tasered (though I wouldn't recommend bringing a taser to a gunfight) at any point in the scenario, and waiting for a mag change is a good way for a lot of innocent folks to get killed.

 

I'm glad you mention the possibility of a real response, though, because most everyone on the left side of this debate seems to believe that victims should have no option for self-defense whatsoever.

 

I don't think pointing out the differences between an AR-15 and the Garand will get you very far. The difference between 8 rounds and 30 rounds certainly wasn't what led to the development of the M-16 over the Garand.

 

Both are semi-automatic, and I know some older guys who can get their Garand humming pretty well at a pace comparable to any AR-15

 

That big ole 0.30 cal bullet is still very much desirable in a firefight. Many soldiers have wished it were still available over .223.

 

There is no plausible, legitimate situation for a civilian to need a weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine.

 

Yeah, that's a fairly typical argument put forward by folks who don't engage in the shooting sports or who aren't strong defenders of the Second Amendment.

 

I happen to enjoy not having to switch out magazines while target shooting. My time is faster, and I don't have to change my grip so my accuracy tends to be better.

 

When I'm hunting predators or small game, magazine capacity can be the difference between success and going home empty handed.

 

During the height of the Cold War, why did we "need" more nukes than the Soviet Union? I think its because we refused to give up any advantage whatsoever to our potential adversary.

 

Why do we even now still strive for better and more arms and equipment than those who would seek to harm us?

 

Ya know, since we're on the topic, there's no need for alcohol or tobacco either.

 

But despite the fact that these things kill many, many times more the number of people than guns, we legitimatize their sale and use and even collect taxes from the enterprise.

 

I rather doubt you will find many gun control advocates lining up to surrender their booze or smokes if they partake in such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things - at a minimum - need to happen before folks will ever see a tangible reduction in crimes of this nature.

 

1. Accept that you cannot stop it from happening. Ever. There will always be - at some level - motive and opportunity for a madman to kill others.

 

2. Start tackling the root causes of crime instead of trying to apply 'band aid', 'feel good' solutions that ultimately do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I should not in a "free" society have to justify my lawful use and possession of any firearms. Because I have a gun collection I should not be labeled as the root cause of mass shootings by the popular media or anti-gun crackpots. It looks to me as a not so casual observer that these mass shootings are for the most part committed by caucasian males between 15 and 35 with a history of some level of mental health issues. The problem will NOT be solved until that we focus on that. Limiting magazine capacity or even banning possession of the the guns that shoot them may be politically correct but totally ineffective. If I go to the doctor to seek a remedy for the flu I would be very suspicious if he prescribed a bandaid on my big toe. Thats my take...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limiting magazine capacity or even banning possession of the the guns that shoot them may be politically correct but totally ineffective. If I go to the doctor to seek a remedy for the flu I would be very suspicious if he prescribed a bandaid on my big toe. Thats my take...

 

After a massacre in a school in Dunblane in 1997, we banned all handguns. We've only had one spree shooting since and that was with a shotgun, while our murder rate has stayed about the same (the data gets a bit skewed for certain years because of 7/7 and Harold Shipman).

 

Compare the murder rates of the United Kingdom with the US or South Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, statistics can be presented to justify most any position. My position is that I have never committed a crime with any of my guns and never will. I dont know anybody who has. Having said that I do not intend to be punished or my rights infringed upon because of the actions of someone I have no control over or responsiblity for. Getting back to your statistics, you are hundreds of times more likely to be killed or injured by a drunk driver than you are killed by a bullet and yet alcohol and automobiles continue to be widely available...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true in the UK - there were 280 drink driving related deaths in 2011 compared to 58 firearms ones. Then again, we are strict on this - getting caught over the limit is a guaranteed 12-month ban.

 

Not true in the United States either - the figures are about equal at 10-11,000 a year.

 

I'm sure most of us would never commit a crime with a gun. However, far too many people do. In fact, Senator Feinstein was herself an indirect victim of a firearms offence - she found the bodies of the Mayor of San Francisco and Harvey Milk.

 

I don't believe that the right to own a lethal weapon is a fundamental human right, but you are entitled to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can certainly argue that owning a lethal weapon may not be a fundamental human right, whatever those are. But it is currently a right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Diane Feinstein, an indirect victim of gun violence? That might be stretching logic to its extreme. But its certainly part of life in the US today. Everybody is a victim including the actor and no one is responsible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...