Which One Is The Assault Weapon?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by geocom

 

I wasn't personally attacking you, i was just stating that its my opinion that higher cap mags can be life savers, i guess it also depends on the theater of operation too.

The obvious...the other side of that is that the higher capacity mags also allow for a higher death toll.

Why did these shooters choose the AR-15?

Adam Lanza used an AR-15 last Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Last week, a man used one to kill two people at a shopping mall in Portland, Ore. And in July, an AR-15 was used in the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., in which 12 people were killed and 58 injured.

Plus the DC shooters..

If we had warfare in the streets and there were regular instances of folks defending themselves successfully with the utility of high capacity magazines via the AR-15...then a case for thier neccessity would be more easily made.

The fist two killers on your list chose them because they were able to Steal them from someone who legally owned them. Ask why those guns were not better secured by their owners. Especially in the case of the most recent shooting.....

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
full auto on an m16 with a twenty or thirty round mag is wasteful and with the muzzle climb you may get only a few of those rounds to hit on target.

I believe that the M-4 only has single shot or three round burst for this very reason.

When I was learning how to shoot the M-60, the Gunny said "You're a big boy, do you want to try to Rambo this thing?" I said "Hell yeah!" He set me up with a short belt, after the 4th round I was an anti-aircraft gunner. I couldn't keep the muzzle down.

My point in using the Ruger 10/22 images is that Weapon "A" was legal under the Ban, while Weapon"B" was not. In this case nothing concerning the caliber or the rate of fire had anything to do with Weapon"B's" being banned. It was banned purely for cosmetic reasons, not because of anything having to do with the firing mechanism.

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by geocom

 

I wasn't personally attacking you, i was just stating that its my opinion that higher cap mags can be life savers, i guess it also depends on the theater of operation too.

The obvious...the other side of that is that the higher capacity mags also allow for a higher death toll.

Why did these shooters choose the AR-15?

Adam Lanza used an AR-15 last Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Last week, a man used one to kill two people at a shopping mall in Portland, Ore. And in July, an AR-15 was used in the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., in which 12 people were killed and 58 injured.

Plus the DC shooters..

If we had warfare in the streets and there were regular instances of folks defending themselves successfully with the utility of high capacity magazines via the AR-15...then a case for thier neccessity would be more easily made.

The fist two killers on your list chose them because they were able to Steal them from someone who legally owned them. Ask why those guns were not better secured by their owners. Especially in the case of the most recent shooting.....

Yep, goes back to my comment about people being more responsible with their fire arms.
If you own it lock it up and carry the key on you at all times.

My safe has only one key on purpose the other is located miles away with my parents

No need to have more than one on hand and there is NEVER a reason to not have your firearms locked in a safe or lock box if you can't afford the safe for the gun get a fun lock and lock the magazines and ammo away

My personal opinion why you don't see many shooting with full auto is because the owners are responsible and lock them up well. Also in full auto states you need special licensing that is hard to get and expensive.
If someone took my m-16 and shot up a place, it would come back on me as to why it wasn't secure.....so it comes down to avalibility....people will use anything they can get a hold of.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


Exactly. People will use anything that they can get a hold of. Just look at the UK and immediate rise in knife crimes after their big gun grab. Then they regulated knives so that all Legal folding knives can only be slip joint vs. locking blades. etc etc... billy clubs, bats, sticks, etc pipe bombs...

reply to post by shaneslaughta


I live near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A few years ago a gun store was broken into and several weapons were stolen. There were several local politicians who wanted the owner of the store brought up on charges, because he didn't do enough to secure the weapons.

The burglars, broke into a building that shared a common wall with the gun store.
Went through a double brick wall.
Cut through the steel bars of a cage where the gun safes were kept.
Broke into several gun safes and then broke into a separate safe where the firing pins were kept.
Each weapon had it's own trigger lock.
What more could the owner have done?

Before criticizing people who have had their weapons stolen, I would have to see the circumstances regarding the theft. I can't remember where I read this but over 75% of stolen weapons are stolen by a friend or relative of the owner.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by shaneslaughta

 

I live near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A few years ago a gun store was broken into and several weapons were stolen. There were several local politicians who wanted the owner of the store brought up on charges, because he didn't do enough to secure the weapons.

The burglars, broke into a building that shared a common wall with the gun store.
Went through a double brick wall.
Cut through the steel bars of a cage where the gun safes were kept.
Broke into several gun safes and then broke into a separate safe where the firing pins were kept.
Each weapon had it's own trigger lock.
What more could the owner have done?

Before criticizing people who have had their weapons stolen, I would have to see the circumstances regarding the theft. I can't remember where I read this but over 75% of stolen weapons are stolen by a friend or relative of the owner.

Very true, that's because the owners feel safe with the people that know of the location of their fire arms. As long as the people are responsible with them i have no problems at all with ownership of any gun even a belt fed 50.

there were several gun store robberies in my location in the last two weeks, which is rare in my area. in fact i haven't heard of one in a good 5 years or more.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


OK...This woman not only didn't "secure" her weapons...she brought her son to the shooting range and by early accounts he particpated at the range with his mother.

Questions...

Should there be more stringent screening for gun sales? Does any member of your household suffer from a mental handicap or condition?

Are there children under 21 present in your household?

If so...should gun owners be required to purchase a gun safe or demonstrate that they own one? Even pill bottles are childproof.

Should there be some form of vetting for people to shoot and/or train at gun ranges?

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Before criticizing people who have had their weapons stolen, I would have to see the circumstances regarding the theft. I can't remember where I read this but over 75% of stolen weapons are stolen by a friend or relative of the owner.

Only seven states legally require you to report if your gun is lost or stolen. I heard a cop discuss last week how a gun recovered at a murder was traced to a woman who died in 1982. I think there is a lot of work that can be done to make gun ownership more safe, not just for innocent civilians, but gun owners. Nancy Lanza was the first of Adam Lanza's victim's...with her own gun.

edited to clarify

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by shaneslaughta

 

OK...This woman not only didn't "secure" her weapons...she brought her son to the shooting range and by early accounts he particpated at the range with his mother.

Questions...

Should there be more stringent screening for gun sales? Does any member of your household suffer from a mental handicap or condition?

Are there children under 21 present in your household?

If so...should gun owners be required to purchase a gun safe or demonstrate that they own one? Even pill bottles are childproof.

Should there be some form of vetting for people to shoot and/or train at gun ranges?

Gun stores in my area wont sell you a gun without some sort of locking device on the trigger or in hang guns a through breach lock.

I don't believe that its anyone's responsibility but the owner to secure the weapons, with that yes i feel that they should check in to the mental health of all fire arm owners on purchase.

The biggest problems that you don't need to legally transfer ownership of rifles or shotguns only concealable hand guns.

I think that a federal register of all weapons should be mandated. I wouldn't mind having some paperwork on sale or trade of my rifles.

reply to post by Indigo5


Please show some proof that lanza was the first gun owner murdered by her own gun.
That is an outlandish statement, if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you.

reply to post by Indigo5


What is BS is someone defining a gun from what it looks like as in "assault weapon"

anyone who truly supports the second knows that.


I am starting to think the anti gun crowd is racist keep the black guns out of the peoples hands!!!!

I like A better, it has a much cleaner look. It will preform as good as B does for shooting deer. The people who desire B are those who like to look impressive I suppose. Join the Army if you want to use a gun that looks like that. Functionally for combat the B gun would be better because it can be controlled better at firing without looking through a scope. Just add a laser site and it can be used as a hip shooter. This B gun would be way better for killing people.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Please show some proof that lanza was the first gun owner murdered by her own gun.
That is an outlandish statement, if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you.

Whoa there confusion...She was the first that was murdered with HER gun. She was the first person Adam Lanza killed. The first victim was the one who purchased the gun for self-defense...there is Irony there.

reply to post by rickymouse


how about B for fast acquisition target shooting....moving targets ect. how about run and guns? they are great exercise and help you form good weapon control.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Please show some proof that lanza was the first gun owner murdered by her own gun.
That is an outlandish statement, if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you.

Whoa there confusion...She was the first that was murdered with HER gun. She was the first person Adam Lanza killed. The first victim was the one who purchased the gun for self-defense...there is Irony there.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Im sorry, i misunderstood what you were getting at.
The sad fact is that alot of gun owners are killed by their own guns.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

What is BS is someone defining a gun from what it looks like as in "assault weapon"

anyone who truly supports the second knows that.

You seem confused? We have been discussing functionality as a definition, so has the legal community and the previous AW Ban was based on functionality, not appearance. Not sure what you are talking about...but thanks for dropping by with a little race baiting in an otherwise informative discussion

Originally posted by neo96
I am starting to think the anti gun crowd is racist keep the black guns out of the peoples hands!!!!

reply to post by Indigo5


Politicians made the term "assault weapon" that is based on looks legal definitions are meaningless.

and politicians never know what the hell they are ever talking about.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Please show some proof that lanza was the first gun owner murdered by her own gun.
That is an outlandish statement, if you truly believe that then i feel sorry for you.

Whoa there confusion...She was the first that was murdered with HER gun. She was the first person Adam Lanza killed. The first victim was the one who purchased the gun for self-defense...there is Irony there.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Im sorry, i misunderstood what you were getting at.
The sad fact is that alot of gun owners are killed by their own guns.

Agreed. My botom line is that for the sake of gun owners (like myself), the NRA has to relent from the rhetorical position of constantly battling any and all regulations...and actually suggest some common sense reform to gun laws. Otherwise the debate is left to the absolutists...and we can end up with more restrictive legislation than neccessary or useful. New restrictions are going to be proposed...like it or hate it...and it would be better if the NRA was the one doing it rather than the "ban all guns" crowd.