NRR, you asserting that the AR-15, an Assault Weapon is a poor choice for home defense helps justify why it should be banned. The lack of power that you cite compared to "better" options just shows how unnecessary it is for civilians to own.

I am assuming that what you people are calling an Assault Weapon is anything that was banned from 94 to 04, correct? Which includes the AR-15.

So how was an Assault Weapon defined as?

Quote :

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 defined certain firearms as assault weapons based on the features they possessed. This included semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and at least two of these features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel, a bayonet mount, or a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher."

So correct me if I have misunderstood this. So, in order to be an AW, it has to be semi-automatic with a detachable magazine. So any semi-automatic gun without a detachable magazine isn't an AW? And if even if it has a detachable magazine, if it doesn't possess a pistol grip and a telescoping stock, it still isn't an AW, right?

Additionally, you misleadingly file an AR-15 as an AW. However, in truth, legally, not all AR-15's were not illegal. In fact, AR-15s were manufactured and sold in the US during the ban with the only change to them is the location of the pistol grip:

Quote :

"There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features, as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only". The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect."

So what the fuck are you getting up-tight about?

Honestly, if you continue to try and educate the population on guns, then the people for AW bans will realize that how they define an AW is not enough.

And while an AR-15 may not be a good home defense gun, or maybe not a great hunting gun either, it's rifled barrel, detachable magazine, semi-automatic design, and pistol grip makes it a great gun to shoot up a public place. The rifled barrel gives accuracy to take people out, the detachable magazine means that a person can quickly reload when they run empty, it's semi-automatic design allows people to shoot a lot of people in a short amount of time and that pistol grip helps provide better accuracy/ergonomics for taking out a mall.

2/3/2013 9:48:45 PM

lol

2/3/2013 9:51:46 PM

yep. it has LESS power, so it should be banned. Lower doses of medication should be prescription only, but higher doses should only be OTC.



oh, and hhahaha. dude wants to ban rifled barrels, hahahahahaha.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2013 9:54:02 PM

Quote :

"NRR, you asserting that the AR-15, an Assault Weapon is a poor choice for home defense helps justify why it should be banned"

where did you get that? the AR-15 is an excellent home defense weapon. much better than a handgun.

2/3/2013 9:54:04 PM

Bottom line is that if AW were as cute and cudly as neuse would argue, they would not be a go to weapon for mass shootings.

2/3/2013 9:54:34 PM

you still haven't answered his questions dude, so you might want to just shut up before you make yourself look even dumber

BTW, "go to weapon for mass shootings"? Do you just ignore evidence when it's given to you?


[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2013 9:55:39 PM

Quote :

"Bottom line is that if AW were as cute and cudly as neuse would argue, they would not be a go to weapon for mass shootings."

bottom line is you can't tell me what features of the AR-15 make it unfit for civilian ownership

2/3/2013 10:00:12 PM

By the way, in that graph, "assault weapons" is actually any rifle. Plus, that fucking graph is inaccurate as shit and has already been widely criticized. Mother Jones did a shitty, half assed job researching things.

2/3/2013 10:01:08 PM

k... got better researched stats? I'm seriously asking...

2/3/2013 10:02:26 PM

Describing an AR15 or AK-xx variant firearm as an Assault Rifle is no different from saying that a car with a spoiler, wide tires, and stickers make it a race car.

If the speedometer reads higher than 85mph, the highest legal limit in the USA, then it must be a race car. I mean, what business does a street car have for going faster than 85mph?

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/3/2013 10:02:36 PM

Quote :

"The rifled barrel gives accuracy"

Hey, this guy did sort of say something right.

2/3/2013 10:02:38 PM

Sure. And the gunpowder gives it more velocity than just the firing mechanism...

2/3/2013 10:03:53 PM

Sorry i have been occupied with other things.

2/3/2013 10:08:51 PM

meh, too harsh

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2013 10:09:34 PM

^ What? T-dub going soft in CC? You guys are getting



[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/3/2013 10:12:23 PM

I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler Burro. Part of that involves squashing my assholish tendencies :-/

2/3/2013 10:13:18 PM

Come over to the light side, burro...

2/3/2013 10:14:22 PM

watch it all or skip ahead to 5:55

2/3/2013 10:15:49 PM

,

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:16 PM. Reason : ,]

2/3/2013 10:15:52 PM

For the record I own a gun. And it is fucking badass. I would argue that is the coolest gun out of anyone here on this board.

2/3/2013 10:21:50 PM

i'm glad you like your firearm

can you tell me why it's fit for civilian ownership, but my AR variant is not?

2/3/2013 10:23:20 PM

Quote :

"where did you get that? the AR-15 is an excellent home defense weapon. much better than a handgun."

Did you not say that the AR-15's ammo is less powerful than that of ammo commonly used in pistols?

Quote :

"Describing an AR15 or AK-xx variant firearm as an Assault Rifle is no different from saying that a car with a spoiler, wide tires, and stickers make it a race car."

Not when the law (in the past) clearly defined what an Assault Weapon is.

Quote :

"Sure. And the gunpowder gives it more velocity than just the firing mechanism..."

And when you're looking for quantity, not quality, the firing mechanism is a bit more important than exactly what type of ammo you're using.

Quote :

"watch it all or skip ahead to 5:55"

Looks like he can shoot more with that magazine before needing to reload, and reload easier.

2/3/2013 10:28:32 PM

lol

2/3/2013 10:30:35 PM

Quote :

"Did you not say that the AR-15's ammo is less powerful than that of ammo commonly used in pistols?"

never said that. i said that it's better suited for home defense because it doesn't penetrate wall material as bad. .223 defense ammo fragments on impact. handgun defense ammo like 9mm or .45 ACP penetrate much worse. i can provide a lot of links if you'd like to read up on it.

Quote :

"Looks like he can shoot more with that magazine before needing to reload, and reload easier."

what specific part of the video are you referring to? the AK style rifles in that video all use the same style magazine, but he does have lower capacity magazines in the "hunting" version. have i pinpointed your issue with these rifles? is it that their standard magazine capacity is usually 20 or 30 rounds?

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:35 PM. Reason : dasf]

2/3/2013 10:31:43 PM

^^Mind contributing something?

^So why does it's wall penetration make it better when you take in consideration that a handgun is small, easier to handle and just as deadly at short range as an AR15?


[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:33 PM. Reason : .]

2/3/2013 10:32:10 PM

Nope, I don't have the energy to waste on this. I just drop in and read a little bit every now and then for the entertainment factor.

2/3/2013 10:35:20 PM

Well, you, as someone who has a bone to pick in this fight, may do the country/community a service of educating people such as myself if you feel as though I have gotten something technically wrong.

2/3/2013 10:37:09 PM

because you're still responsible for any projectiles that pass through the walls of your dwelling

an AR, or any long gun, for that matter, is easier to shoot accurately, even at close range. there's a reason that our soldiers don't sling up their ARs and pull out their sidearm (pistol) when they kick in doors. there's a saying that the only purpose of a handgun is to help you fight your way to your long gun.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:41 PM. Reason : you don't have to take my word for it. most any professional is going to agree.]

2/3/2013 10:38:13 PM

Quote :

"Not when the law (in the past) clearly defined what an Assault Weapon is."

The law at one time also said that blacks weren't people. Guess that is correct too, right?

Quote :

"And when you're looking for quantity, not quality, the firing mechanism is a bit more important than exactly what type of ammo you're using."

Not surprising that you missed the point

2/3/2013 10:41:41 PM

Quote :

"Guess that is correct too, right? "

Laws are always absolute, or they wouldn't get past being a bill. This is how our perfect system of checks and balances work.

This is High School level shit dawg.

2/3/2013 10:48:53 PM

here's my point...

if they want to limit magazine capacities, then present the bill. if they want to outlaw semi-automatics, then present the bill. but simply banning a rifle because it has a pistol grip or an adjustable stock is pointless.

2/3/2013 10:53:38 PM

^^^^^Ok. I was laughing at your comment that NRR [supposedly] said AR-15s use less powerful ammo than most handguns, which is about three times wrong and the misunderstanding of the firing mechanism comment.


I guess I'll share my thoughts on this subject. For the most part a gun is a gun. You won't stop mass shootings by banning flash hiders and 30 round magazines. You won't stop them by banning "assault weapons" however you want to define them. You won't stop mass shootings by banning all semiauto rifles or all semiauto anything for that matter. Just look at the damn chart.
Ban all semiauto firearms and some middle class white man will still go on a shooting rampage with a leveraction rifle. Instead of killing 30 people he'll only manage to kill 26. A gun is a gun. If you don't think someone can honestly swap 10 round mags fast or shoot a revolver like it's a machine gun then just check out some IDPA and Jerry Miculek videos.

If you want to make a difference the answer is to make people jump through more hoops to get a gun, not regulate what kind they can own. A gun is a gun after all.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2013 10:59:13 PM

NRR, to me, personally, I really don't care if an AW ban is in place or not. There are so many that are grandfathered in that it is unlikely to really make a difference in anything, especially on those 10 year ban deals they did last time. But to me, arguing that the AR15 shouldn't be banned (and other like guns) because it is as deadly as other non-banned guns that lack just a few aesthetic/ergonomic details isn't really in your best interests. The last thing you want people who want to stop mass shootings through the banning of guns is to realize that guns that are excluded by law of the previous AW ban is to realize that there are many more guns that they didn't ban that are just as capable of carrying out a mass shooting.

It's like trying to argue that full sticks of TNT should be legal for purchase because other forms of explosives are legal and just as deadly when the reason TNT is illegal is because it is considered a weapon based on the damage it can do...

Quote :

"The law at one time also said that blacks weren't people. Guess that is correct too, right?"

I'm not arguing that the definition is right or wrong, cunt nugget. I'm saying there is a fucking definition of what an Assault Weapon is. Thereby saying that the term Assault Rifle/Weapon is a vague term that is akin to calling any car with a spoiler, wide tires and stickers a race car... His comparison was inaccurate, as there is/was a clear cut definition of what is an assault rifle, when legally this isn't exactly true when it comes to race cars (that I am aware of).

Quote :

"Not surprising that you missed the point"

There was a point? I thought it was just your patented throw some shit on a message board with the intent of getting a response and then criticize anyone who gives you a response as "just not getting it." I don't think you understand half of what you write...

Quote :

"but simply banning a rifle because it has a pistol grip or an adjustable stock is pointless."

I agree 100%.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/3/2013 11:02:05 PM

Quote :

"I'm not arguing that the definition is right or wrong, cunt nugget. I'm saying there is a fucking definition of what an Assault Weapon is."

And what's that definition? The one the law gives? Right, that brings us back to my previous question: blacks not have been people when the law said they weren't, right?

Quote :

"There was a point?"

Yes, there was a point, and you still don't get it. Here's a hint: damned near all guns use gunpowder... Now, look at the comment I made that in reference to, and you might get it.

2/3/2013 11:05:33 PM

Quote :

"The last thing you want people who want to stop mass shootings through the banning of guns is to realize that guns that are excluded by law of the previous AW ban is to realize that there are many more guns that they didn't ban that are just as capable of carrying out a mass shooting."

We don't have to worry about that because the vast majority of AWB supporters won't bother to educate themselves.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 11:07 PM. Reason : Or don't bother to listen to anything a gun nut says whether it's good or bad]

2/3/2013 11:06:00 PM

^ merbig included

2/3/2013 11:06:33 PM

Quote :

"I'm not arguing that the definition is right or wrong, cunt nugget. I'm saying there is a fucking definition of what an Assault Weapon is. Thereby saying that the term Assault Rifle/Weapon is a vague term that is akin to calling any car with a spoiler, wide tires and stickers a race car... His comparison was inaccurate, as there is/was a clear cut definition of what is an assault rifle, when legally this isn't exactly true when it comes to race cars (that I am aware of)."

The reason pro-gunners say that "assault weapon" is vague is that the definition arose FROM gun-control groups, namely Josh Sugarman (not 100% sure on this individual, but I've heard his name alot with regards to "assault weapons") @ Violence Prevention Center (See 1988 VPC study "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America) with the SOLE purpose of leveraging the fact that most americans don't the difference between an assault rifle and the newly coined "assault weapons". In fact, the term "assault RIFLE" means any gun capable of fully automatic fire, which are practically illegal in this country and have been for a while.

Edit: the quote I was trying to recall:
"[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 11:14 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 11:15 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2013 11:10:16 PM

Quote :

"Ok. I was laughing at your comment that NRR [supposedly] said AR-15s use less powerful ammo than most handguns, which is about three times wrong and the misunderstanding of the firing mechanism comment."

Fair enough. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about guns and that it is easy for me to confused on something about guns due to my unfamiliarity with them. I have nothing personally against guns used for recreation/hunting. I know people with 60+ guns, and I have no problem with that. I don't feel threatened by them and get along great with them.

Quote :

"If you want to make a difference the answer is to make people jump through more hoops to get a gun, not regulate what kind they can own. A gun is a gun after all. "

Agreed.

Quote :

"And what's that definition? The one the law gives? Right, that brings us back to my previous question: blacks not have been people when the law said they weren't, right?"

I'm sorry you are unable to distinguish between what the law defines and whether or not that definition is correct. I don't know what an assault rifle is when people speak about banning them without a definition of some sort. So if a senator decides to introduce a bill that defines an assault weapon as having x, y and z, then it is clear as to what an assault weapon is defined as.

If you disagree with x, y and z, then that is a separate topic of discussion. But his comparison was stupid as what constitutes an assault rifle is clearly defined. I don't give a shit if you agree or disagree with the definition. The fact is it is defined, otherwise we wouldn't be having the asinine discussion over a fucking definition.

Quote :

"Here's a hint: damned near all guns use gunpowder... Now, look at the comment I made that in reference to, and you might get it."

Not all guns have rifled barrels. For instance, under the previous AW ban, rifled hand guns (still a gun) was banned. Shot guns are typically smooth bored again.

So again, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. So sure, all bullets have gun powder or some explosive just as all rifled barrels are like that to increase accuracy... But not all guns have rifled barrels...

2/3/2013 11:16:22 PM

Quote :

"I have nothing personally against guns used for recreation/hunting."

do you have an issue with guns used for self defense?

Quote :

"I'm sorry you are unable to distinguish between what the law defines and whether or not that definition is correct. I don't know what an assault rifle is when people speak about banning them without a definition of some sort. So if a senator decides to introduce a bill that defines an assault weapon as having x, y and z, then it is clear as to what an assault weapon is defined as. If you disagree with x, y and z, then that is a separate topic of discussion. But his comparison was stupid as what constitutes an assault rifle is clearly defined. I don't give a shit if you agree or disagree with the definition. The fact is it is defined, otherwise we wouldn't be having the asinine discussion over a fucking definition."

do you at least agree that the previous definition of "assault weapon" was stupid and arbitrary?

Quote :

"Not all guns have rifled barrels. For instance, under the previous AW ban, rifled hand guns (still a gun) was banned. Shot guns are typically smooth bored again."

whoa man. you don't have any idea what you're talking about here. pretty much all handguns have rifled barrels. the '94 AWB did not ban handguns with rifled barrels.

with very few exceptions, shotguns are the only modern firearms without rifling in their barrels.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 11:21 PM. Reason : dsaf]

2/3/2013 11:20:36 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry you are unable to distinguish between what the law defines and whether or not that definition is correct."

Fine. Then tell us why the definition the law gave to "Assault Weapon" correct. Why does a pistol grip make a weapon an "Assault Weapon."

Quote :

"The fact is it is defined, otherwise we wouldn't be having the asinine discussion over a fucking definition."

His point was that the definition is dumb as shit, a point you STILL aren't comprehending. he was saying "IF you defined X as blah blah blah, it'd be stupid". What you are, in effect, saying, is "but it's not defined as that." Holy hell, batman!

Quote :

"Not all guns have rifled barrels."

Never said they did. But a large majority of them do (including ones you consider fine for self and home defense). Kind of like a large majority of guns use gunpowder. Are you getting the point yet?


At this point, you would have a more cogent argument if you tried to defend literal 7-day Creationism

2/3/2013 11:21:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry you are unable to distinguish between what the law defines and whether or not that definition is correct. I don't know what an assault rifle is when people speak about banning them without a definition of some sort. So if a senator decides to introduce a bill that defines an assault weapon as having x, y and z, then it is clear as to what an assault weapon is defined as. If you disagree with x, y and z, then that is a separate topic of discussion. But his comparison was stupid as what constitutes an assault rifle is clearly defined. I don't give a shit if you agree or disagree with the definition. The fact is it is defined, otherwise we wouldn't be having the asinine discussion over a fucking definition. "

It's because of the purpose of the definition and the groups that coined the term. See my post above. Pro-gunners don't want to agree to the current definition of "assault weapon", because those advocating gun-control use this term as leverage against the ignorant. It's still a semi-auto rifle. Some have taken to calling them "modern rifles".


Here's an example I recently found of a group demonizing AWs: http://www.cagv.org/wp/learn-more/gun-facts/gun-safety-faq/

There's just enough facts mixed into the text to make it sound 'legit' even though there's a lot of non-technical, invented terms in there: like "spray fire", but the text is rooted in the invented "assault weapon" definition ('94 ban version)

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2013 11:23:49 PM

"spray fire" aka not hitting shit

2/3/2013 11:30:51 PM

Quote :

"whoa man. you don't have any idea what you're talking about here. pretty much all handguns have rifled barrels. the '94 AWB did not ban handguns with rifled barrels."

I'm just going based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Quote :

"It also included semi-automatic pistols with a detachable magazine and at least two of these features: a magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip, a threaded barrel, a barrel shroud, or an unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more."

Quote :

"Fine. Then tell us why the definition the law gave to "Assault Weapon" correct. Why does a pistol grip make a weapon an "Assault Weapon.""

It's a coined term. If we're going to talk about an "assault weapon" and how they are banned, then you need that definition. Again, what is included in the definition and whether it is "correct" is a totally separate topic.

Quote :

"His point was that the definition is dumb as shit, a point you STILL aren't comprehending."

*sigh* The AWB specifically defined AK47s and AR15s as AW. So by definition, they are AWs. So saying that an AK47 and AR15 is an AW is like saying x, y and z is is in accurate as an AW is not a vague term. It is a clearly defined term. So clear that AR15 and AK47s are specifically mentioned. Now, if he wanted to say that including those guns in the AWB is stupid, then all he had to do is just say that it is stupid because other guns not on the list are just as capable of killing...

Quote :

"At this point, you would have a more cogent argument if you tried to defend literal 7-day Creationism"

What is my argument? Define it.

Quote :

" It's because of the purpose of the definition and the groups that coined the term. See my post above. Pro-gunners don't want to agree to the current definition of "assault weapon", because those advocating gun-control use this term as leverage against the ignorant. It's still a semi-auto rifle. Some have taken to calling them "modern rifles"."

Fair enough. I can see how that term can be prejudicial against some guns. I guess if we're going to talk about assault weapons, or if someone is going to use that term that the definition used by law is what an assault weapon is. Whether those guns should be banned or not, that's up for debate...

2/3/2013 11:35:45 PM

I would like to offer my nomination for NRR et al. to receive the Medal of Ideological Persistence in the Face of Unmitigated Ignorance for continuing to fight the good fight for so long in 3+ lengthy threads that no doubt are the same exact conversation over and over. Lesser men, myself included, would throw their hands up in exasperation far sooner.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 11:37 PM. Reason : and others]

2/3/2013 11:36:03 PM

ill listen. have mr. neuse educate me.

2/3/2013 11:38:19 PM

Quote :

"Fair enough. I can see how that term can be prejudicial against some guns. I guess if we're going to talk about assault weapons, or if someone is going to use that term that the definition used by law is what an assault weapon is. Whether those guns should be banned or not, that's up for debate..."

Yep. It is unfortunate us pro-gunners have to use the Feinstein definition of AWs, but this is only because there is SO much public ignorance on the firearms being discussed. And, honestly, the mainstream media does a HORRIBLE job at knowing the difference between AWs and ARs. I recall reading that CNN took a lot of flack for doing a segment on AWs where they showed a picture of an AR15 or something on the top half the screen with an interviewer while simultaneously showing a video of a weapon firing in fully automatic mode on the bottom half. Very deceptive, IMO

My take on gun-control, in terms of accessible hardware, is that the current "compromise" of: functional ban on fully-auto weapons to civilians, is the perfect place to "draw the line". In a way, fully auto weapons sort of regulate themselves: they're very expensive, ammo is expensive (just in sheer volume), accuracy sometimes difficult to attain. Similarly, I believe so called "high capacity" mags (like 100+ rds) sort of regulate themselves: they're alot more bulky and throw off the weight balance of the gun (which is not to say this couldn't be overcome with practice, I just think gun owners intentionally buy the "Standard cap" mags because so many people have found them quite applicable), and jam more frequently than lower cap mags.

2/3/2013 11:47:57 PM

You could make the same argument FOR automatic weapons that you can make for the AR15, regarding home defence

2/4/2013 12:04:56 AM

Nope, the only purpose of full auto is covering fire on a battlefield. The military teaches semi automatic mode, two in the chest and one in the head for close quarters combat.

There's a reason the military dumped full auto for three round bursts on the M16 and M4

[Edited on February 4, 2013 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ffg]

2/4/2013 12:51:25 AM

Merbig, the 94 awb included threaded barrels in its list of features for rifles and pistols. This means external threads on the end of the barrel, not the internal rifling.

2/4/2013 1:29:05 AM

So then, they are really good for killing people.

2/4/2013 1:29:18 AM