Zrehael
Suicidesoldier#1
Do YOU know what an assault weapons ban is?
Please explain to me how a pistol grip, an adjustable stock, or a barrel shroud make a gun more dangerous?
Because that's all it's really banning.
They make great self defense weapons, for practical, obvious purposes, we're not talking a military weapon here, because those were banned a long time ago, in 1934.
Even then, it's easy to see how a weapon designed for the military would have loads of other applications as well.
So that's a stupid argument.
Not to mention less than half a percent of weapons used in crimes would classify as an "assault weapon", the majority of civilian arms would, and criminals aren't even buying guns from stores.
Because they're traceable and have serial numbers and all kinds of things, and it's cheaper to get it off the black market. News flash, not many marijuana users get their drugs from licensed physicians. Why would you think criminals would be getting guns from licensed gun dealers?
I know what assault weapons are, yes. What I'm questioning is the need to own a weapon that has design choices that were made keeping in mind that the explicit intent was to kill other human beings. While it may lack the fully-automatic firing rate of military-grade assault weapons, the same design choices were kept.
I understand this is an argument used by anti-gun nuts that want to ban anything that goes "BANG", as they usually couple this with the argument of "These were designed to be bullet-hoses, to cover a large area with continuous fire, and that the civilian variants are still capable of doing this," which is a bullshit argument. These people still have the idea in their head that the people using these guns could walk in and spray bullets from the hip like in the movies. I'm not that stupid to think so.
However, the actual design of the gun is what it is for a reason. If those features truly had no discernible effect on the weapon, why would the designer have bothered to include them? Rarely, in engineering projects such as designing these weapons, are choices made for just sheer aesthetic purposes. You also neglected the fact that many assault weapons also feature the ability to accept a high-capacity magazine, which, when coupled with semi-automatic fire, make this still a rather effective firearm for its original intention.
Why would someone need this for defense? Do you really need 30 shots to scare away a burglar who broke into your home? No. After the fifth shot, unless the burglar returned fire, it's pretty clear you're trying to kill the b*****d. Even then, if you spend 30 shots trying to defend yourself, you're not on the defensive, you're on the offensive.
Oh, and please tell me what other purposes a weapon designed for the military would have in the hands of civilians were it still functioning? As I mentioned in my last post, if you're a collector with a disabled gun like this, it doesn't really matter because, as far as a weapon goes, that gun may as well just be a fancy club to bludgeon people with.
Your analogy doesn't really hold up here. Marijuana is a far cry from any of the weapons listed on the AWB. And as for the whole traceable thing? Tell me this, if you intend to shoot up a place and kill yourself afterwards, what part of anything being traceable are you going to be worried about?
But again, claiming banning assault weapons is absurd to the degree of banning pencils and cars is ridiculous. There are valid reasons.
A
pistol grip allows you to hold on the weapon better, with a more natural grip for a human hand. An
adjustable stock allows you to adjust it to your shoulder, so that it fits your shoulder correctly and you don't miss, lose control over recoil etc. A
barrel shroud keeps you from being burned.
Dianne Feinstein's
new bill would ban not 2/3 of these features, but 1/3, and also ban
thumb hole stocks and a host of other things.
Why does a person *need* this? They make a weapon easy to hold on to, and not accidentally shoot someone, and she wants to ban any kind of reasonable alternative as well, so it's literally banning logical, common sense weaponry. Where as criminals would rather have no stock, so the weapon would be under 24 inches and could fit in a jacket, so they could hide it, rather than a normal person who has no value in hiding their weapon, and would rather be more accurate and be able to control the weapon.
According to her definition? An "assault weapon" is "All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."
Since grenade launchers were banned in the 1934
National Firearms Act, and any potential loop holes were tied up in the
Gun Control Act of 1968, this is redundant. Since she wants to ban any 1 feature of the following "pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.", she is literally banning adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, and pistol grips. Forward grips are just extra grips to make the weapon easier to hold on to.
Tell me, why in God's name do you need to ban this? Why does this make it an "assault weapon"?
Since military weapons were banned in 1934 and 1968, there is no possible way civilians are letting "military" weapons on to the market, legally. So they'd already be banned. And considering that the illegal drug trade is smuggling guns into the country, banning them from stores wouldn't stop them in criminal hands. The concept that it would is down right insane.
So, the only thing left that the bill is banning is common sense features, like grips, ways to keep you from being burned, and lots of other things. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND wants a gun without a barrel shroud, or else you'll get burned by the gun; and since it usually covers part of the breech, possibly have hot gas blown into your eyes.
Except maybe a criminal, who doesn't use the iron sights to aim (so, they wouldn't get hot gas in their eyes) or who doesn't give a ******** since they're only shooting a few bullets, or essentially committing suicide.
So, please, YOU, explain to ME, why it needs to banned. Because military features, like full auto, explosives, excessively short length or light weight, have all been banned. Hand guns, easy to hide, are really hard to get ahold of, and yet they're used in well over 76% of crime, with rifles at 4% and shotguns at 5%. So you'd have to be insane to target "assault weapons", or just not read through what the bill ACTUALLY DEFINES an assault weapon as.
Basically? They've called it an "assault weapons" ban and then redefined what an "assault weapon" is to include the majority of guns self defense people use.
It's downright insane.
As far as more than 10 rounds? A self defense advocate only has what's in their gun at the time, when they get up out of bed, half asleep in the middle of the night, or if it's concealed, since all weapons most be concealed and out of sight (and therefore quickly out of reach) to be legally carried. So, they only have what's in their weapon, where as a criminal can easily duct tape magazines all over their body and rip on off quickly, or walk around in a tactical vest. I don't duct tape magazines all over my body BECAUSE I'M NOT ******** INSANE, so, I only have, really, what's in my gun at the time I draw it.
Number 2, The
NYPD (PDF) for instance had an average of a 15% hit rate and a 10.3 rounds fired per officer involved in a gunfight. To engage multiple assailants, or make sure you have extra rounds just in case, at the bare minimum, an extra 5 rounds are needed if you're the police. Why would a regular person need more? Gee, who could guess. Since the majority of rounds go on to scare your enemy more than anything else, in suppressive fire, and it's hard to hit a moving target who's shooting you without exposing yourself to fire, most of it's designed to scare them off, you correct when shooting etc. so, it's necessary. Having exactly the bare minimum for one person versus one person at extremely close ranges, when you could end up at even medium ranges, which would require more bullets, is really stupid. There's a reason police use 17+ round magazines. Maybe you can argue 40+ rounds are unnecessary, because they are, but there's no reason to ban it. It doesn't in any way make it so a person couldn't just reload in a fraction of a second. Against an unarmed person, fractions of a second don't matter, and since unless you're in the military you don't have quick access to a dozen magazines, you really don't have that as an option in self defense, meaning you're just effecting regular gun owners, not criminals.
100
100
100
