Why do people need assault rifles?

Seems to me they have one purpose, killing people.

You don't need one for hunting, and you don't need one to defend yourself (in most cases in a home a handgun would be better for short range sort of combat anyway, right?)

My understanding is that assault rifles support higher calibre bullets, shoot at faster velocities, and are better for long range targeting. Why does Joe Sixpack need one, and with whatever reason you provide how can this not be fulfilled with handguns?

Handguns aren't particularly good for defense, with the exception being they're portable and that's better than nothing.

The general consensus is shotguns are best for defense. Intimidating, little skill required, easy to aim, and less likely to accidentally put a big hole in your neighbors.

Assault rifles actually fire smaller bullets than battle rifles or most hunting rifles. The upshot is you can carry more ammo, and don't get knocked on your ass when you're firing it. They're bigger and faster than pistol rounds though.

Would it be okay for me to have this for hunting:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...E315F6E169.jpg

Easier to aim if you just want to get out a quick shot at close proximity?

The shotgun? It depends.

Guns are ranged weapons, the closer you move in the less advantage it gives you.

Overall however, a legal shotgun is longer than you'd want for really close-up work. You still want something bigger than a pistol though.

Whether an assault rifle gives you a significant upper hand in your home or not, I find the whole point moot and frankly a little silly.

A handgun is plenty lethal, and certainly plenty deterrent. If somebody is not going to back off with a handgun there is going to be massive blood shed regardless.

Besides, this whole notion of the right to own an assault rifle based on a sense of freedom is a complete fantasy. We do not live in a free society, we live with relative freedom, but let us not forget that the same society that grants us assault rifles also prohibits us to buy alcohol on a Sunday (in some states), requires us to wear seat belts, and on and on.

The reasoning behind this is because for every responsible person out there that doesn't need to be forced to wear a seat belt when they should, or a motorcycle helmet, or would be good with a gun, or whatever, there are emotionally unhinged/mentally ill/mentally incapacitated/drunk/dumb/whatever people that are nowhere near fit to be deemed as responsible to enjoy these freedoms. It sucks, but that's just the way it is, and frankly, I'd rather keep those people away from assault rifles because I value my own safety.

We can go on about better background checks and such, but those are imperfect. I'm willing to allow handguns in society for self defense (with greater background checking and less accessibility), and I realize that those who fit my above profile are perfectly capable of the same sort of acts with a handgun, but maybe this will help a little. Reducing the number of lethal firearms out there probably can't hurt at this point. As has been said, if the guns exist they will be used.

An "assault rifle" is defined as "an automatic or select-fire weapon chambered in an "intermediate range" cartridge such as the Soviet 7.62X39mm or the 5.56mm NATO cartridges." The first was the German "Sturmgewher" of late WWII, and the most prolific is the AK47. An assault rifle is not something ANYONE can simply walk into a store and purchase. What one can purchase is a rifle that is similar in appearance to an assault rifle, such as a semi-automatic AK or AR-15. The thing most people latch onto about so-called "assault weapons" is a list of "scary" features including a bayonet attachment, a separate pistol grip, and a detachable magazine, while the M14 rifle pictured above has a very functional bayonet attachment and uses detachable magazines, and the relatively popular Ruger Mini-14 uses detachable magazines and can be had with a stock with a separate pistol grip - though it is essentially a smaller caliber version of the M14 rifle.

At a local shooting range, I have seen many, many people using assault-style rifles to put holes in paper. I do that myself; it's a nice personal challenge to see how small a circle I can keep those holes. For home defense, asking "what kind of gun is best" is akin to starting a religious debate between groups whose beliefs are very similar but also very different (I'm thinking "Church of God" and "Church of Christ" groups, but you can use any other such groups). The least expensive AR-15 type rifle I've seen in recent months has been priced at around $800, while they can go well over $4000 with certain features (which make no difference to a target shooter except for the "cool factor" of having a "billet receiver" or other fancy touches). And for comparison, a 12 gauge pump-action shotgun can be bought for less than $200.

I have never gone hunting. But how many rounds can you expect to fire at once when you hunt? I wouldn't expect any hunter to be successful with the rapid fire approach, nor find "strafing" a deer very satisfying. Am I wrong about that?

Well with just that logic, you could say the same about samurai swords. But of course, many people have them up for decoration. Hopefully I don't have to convince you that the "element of danger" is part of the appeal.

All firearms are lethal. Reducing the number of lethal motor vehicles out there will also reduce the number of deaths on the roadways, which are far more than the number of firearm deaths.

But only the minority of cars wind up killing people, and only the minority of legal guns wind up killing people. To try to address the minority by blindly slashing the majority is a silly knee-jerk reaction that will not be effective, not to mention throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This discussion is tiring. Guess what... a Bushmaster is not an assault rifle. It shares some parts and furniture with scary military weapons, but it's a watered down variant sold to people who want to look "cool".

And to further clear things up, guess what? Civilians can and DO own actual fully automatic machine guns. Suppressors (silencers for you noobs) too. Guess how many crimes have been committed with them?

For reference, this would go through 30 people (and a car or two) per shot. It's not scary looking so it usually escapes the ire of gun loathers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...pringfield.jpg

Focussing on "assault" weapons just makes me roll my eyes and demonstrates how distorted these discussions can get. Google "charles whitman" and see just how effective these scary gun bans would be.

You expect to shoot one bullet. Things always don't go as expected.

If you only hurt it, it's nice to get off another one quickly because the mother ****er runs away. Since he doesn't have insurance, they don't take him at the deer hospital, and he dies a long, agonizing death from sepsis.

Likewise, people hunt deer because they're all over, and are a ****ing menace to motor vehicles. People hunt more aggressive animals. You wing a moose, you betcha you want another shot. Make that a double.


Never hunted BTW. I don't like killing things. I sorta shot at a bird once when I was a teenager, and felt really guilty. My question to besson was rhetorical. That was a picture of an battle rifle, and it would put a whole hell of a lot more hurt on you than an M-16 variant, it just doesn't look like what people expect them to look like.

Why? Because it doesn't have selective fire?

It's exactly because of this discrepancy between "assault rifle" vs "assault weapon" that I say that the focus should be on magazine capacity. However imperfect a solution that may be. :err:

OAW

I'll be the voice of unreason again.

Large capacity magazines on combat rifles are so you can shoot for a bit on automatic and still have some ammo left to kill people. Full-auto isn't meant to kill people (though it can). It's meant to scare someone into not shooting back at you. If you want to kill someone you take single, aimed shots.

You can't have a fully automatic weapon without jumping through several dozen Federal hoops. So, most crazies aren't going to have a fully automatic weapon.

Lets say 10 is the maximum size magazine. That's less than most pistols.

Crazy person is all into military porn, so they know you tape one magazine upside-down to the other.

Compared to a normal 30 round magazine, you've only taken away 10 bullets and added a three second (or less) magazine change.


My opinion is banning them will do little to solve the crazy person issue..

Embrace your role.

I like to think of it as the pursuit of my role.

With a shotgun.

Agreed. But let's not make perfect the enemy of the good here. In a mass shooting situation every second counts. As I said in another thread, this fool massacred two entire classrooms of children with two shots each with just TWO 30 round magazines. He had more on him. Now imagine if he had had to RELOAD FIVE TIMES to get off that many shots b/c there was a 10 round max? Would there still be dead children? Absolutely! But my contention is that we would have less of them. Even if it only takes 2-3 seconds to unload one magazine, pop in another, and chamber the first round ..... the question is how many additional shots could a semi-automatic rifle fire in that same time frame? I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the average person could pull the trigger twice per second ... so we are looking at 4-6 more shots. Furthermore, swapping out a magazine isn't rocket science, but it's a more complicated task than pulling a trigger. In a chaotic environment there's more chance for a shooter to have some type of trouble doing that than simply squeezing a trigger.

Do I think that the sale and possession of assault weapons (i.e. semi-automatic rifles) should be banned? Indeed. But I don't think that's very feasible or realistic. Because there's do universally agreed upon definition of "assault weapon" the potential for loopholes is wide open. If you ban anything "semi-automatic" you get any non-revolver handgun caught up in that and that's just going too far. If you ban all semi-automatic RIFLES then what happens when some nut-job opens fire in a crowded mall with semi-automatic HANDGUNS armed with 30 round magazines? It just seems to me that implementing a 10 round magazine capacity is something that A) can be implemented without loopholes because 10 is 10 and not subject to interpretation, B) respects gun ownership rights and doesn't unduly burden law abiding citizens when it comes to self defense and hunting, and C) recognizes that "the crazy" can't be legislated away but we can at least TRY to limit the carnage when it erupts, Just my 2 cents ... :err:

OAW

I think you make good points, but the problem comes from handguns then.

If you ban high capacity rifle magazines, the weapon of choice for massacres will become high capacity pistols, which hold almost 20 shots. They work just as well on first-graders.

We're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here.

No what I'm saying is if there is any legislation passed it should ban high capacity magazines PERIOD. Handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc. Doesn't matter. 10 round max. That's something that already has a 62+% majority in the polls.

OAW

Ahh. Gotcha.

Uh, they already tried that. Stock dried up, new guns came with 10rnd mags. Didn't really *do* anything. If you think you're going to pass legislation to outlaw possession (seriously, there are millions of them out there... even full autos got grandfathered in) well, now you see why the gun nuts get all riled up about the gubment takin' their shit.

Because it's a work of art.

You make them sound not so scary after all. You are right most of what can be done with an assault rifle can be done with a hand gun, even massacres.

This
http://forum-images.macnn.com/import/image_7820.jpg


which is the same as this
7821/[/IMG]

is the same as this
http://forum-images.macnn.com/import/image_7822.jpg

Only difference is the hand gun has a shorter barrel, which is an advantage if you want to massacre people within 60 or so feet of you and a disadantage if you want to snipe people from far away.

I don't know if you can say that it didn't do anything ....

http://forum-images.macnn.com/import/image_7823.jpg

Stats based upon the 62 mass shootings since 1982 compiled here ....

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | MotherJones.com

Except for a notable spike in 1999 .... a year which saw 5 mass shootings including the Columbine massacre ... the number of mass shootings plummeted during the years that the federal assault weapons ban was in effect. Which included a ban on high capacity magazines. Yet since that legislation expired the number of mass shootings has doubled.

OAW

Let me clarify. I can't argue with the stats. All I can argue with is that realistically speaking, it did NOTHING to stop the sale of "assault" rifles or high-capicity magazines. Please, do the research to see what was actually for sale, what was banned and please come back and detail to me the differences between pre and post ban firearms and magazines. I'll wait here. If you need assistance, I can post photographs.

edit: I'm not arguing some nonexistent, semantical bs with you. I've had to ensure compliance with several of my own rifles due to the most ridiculous and arbitrary of regulations due to the assault weapon ban. The correlation in your chart makes no sense because literally NOTHING changed. NOTHING. I mean, NOTHING.

Well, I take that back... Glock, Beretta and other hand gun manufacturers shipped their civilian model hand guns (Glock 17s, 92fs, etc) with 10rnd mags vs 17/15. Oh, but every store in the country had a BUCKET of "pre-ban" mags next to the counter when you checked out. Oh, and Colt exited the market with the AR rifles.... which a little company called BUSHMASTER quickly dominated with their "sporter" models.

I see where you are coming from. And the issue there is that after the gun lobby got done riddling the legislation with loopholes, grandfathering in existing stock, etc. .... well I certainly wouldn't dispute you that it did nothing to halt SALES. Especially in the private sales market and gun shows. Now if were up to me there would be a complete BAN on the sale and possession of magazines over a 10 round capacity. Indeed there are millions in circulation. And it's totally unrealistic to think that law enforcement is going to go around confiscating them all ... paranoid, right-wing delusions notwithstanding. Common sense ought to tell people who persist in such foolishness that the "gubment" doesn't have the financial nor personnel resources to even go there. But what they can do is take a "carrot and stick" approach to encourage people part with such magazines voluntarily.

Carrot: Compensate owners with a reasonable fee for the magazine with a voluntary, "no questions asked" buyback program. No need to take the bullets themselves. Maybe even setup a website for those who support these efforts to make contributions to help fund it.

Stick: No government agent is going to come busting down your door looking for high capacity magazines .... but if you get caught with one in your possession that's 5 years federal.

For the "black helicopter" crowd, all this will do is encourage them to stash their high capacity magazines even deeper ... which is a good thing in and of itself because that further lessens the likelihood that they are used in a crime. For the regular gun owner crowd, this encourages them to part with them ... thereby reducing the availability for burglars to steal and sell them on the black market . Alternatively, it seriously encourages them to secure whichever ones they decide to keep in defiance of the law. For the criminal element, they're now faced with an extra 5 on top of the 5 they'll get for illegal weapons possession.

"Win - Win" for everybody IMO. :err:

OAW

In an "ideal" world, perhaps. But I honestly don't see it happening. Like, have you ever interacted with some of the loonier NRA types? This is the slippery slope, slow boil of the frog kind of crap they're always raving about. Honestly, had Senator Hughes not pulled the bullshit he did back in 86, the NRA and their whacky pals would hardly have the traction they have today. Well meaning shit was proposed, one ******** "do-gooder" comes in and dicks it all up. Good luck getting 2nd amendment supporters on board with anything. I mean, come on, the end game (for some) is complete disarmament of civilians. Eventually that may come to pass. But due to irrational bullshit and hysterics form all sides, nothing will come easy. It never does.

Has the completely legal and widely popular to five in the pen maneuver ever worked?

Has it even been tried on a durable good?

The assault weapons ban that is going to be tossed around shortly is just a feel good measure, so that people will think their representatives are doing something. All guns are assault weapons, but some people think that, just because they look like military guns, they must be more dangerous, which of course is idiotic.

Do you have an opinion on the magazine capacity proposal made by OAW?

Why do I need them? In case civilization collapses.

Perfect timing.

I know, right?

Another thought... the original reason I got interest in them, and machine guns in general was.... One time when I was living in the ghetto, a gang of some 25 people came in and picked up one of the neighbor's cars, carried it outside the gates and stripped it over the course of an hour maybe more. We called the police and they only came once they knew it was good and safe, 2 hours later. Police don't service the ghetto you see because just like with anything government, you have to pay EXTRA to actually get the service you already paid for in taxes. Some people had their night stand pistol protection which is great if one man is coming to attack you, otherwise you need something that fires a bit faster. This is when times are supposedly good; now some of us wonder how much stuff like this will be happening if/when hyperinflation takes off making everyone even poorer.

For the record machine guns, silencers, granade lauchers, disarmed tanks (which are easy to re-arm) and old school fighter planes are legal with the right license in TX, and the license is pretty easy to get (for the guns, not sure about the rest). Yet we don't really have any accidents or social issues with these guns; most the crime is still done with the regular kind...

One of the first things taught in combat arms training courses is that you never use full auto as it is just a fast way to waste ammo. Semi or the three-round burst is the way to go.

A gun is a gun regardless of how mean it looks. The principles and its usage is the same. I have a .22 that looks like a mean assault rifle. Just looks it...

This is why.

http://youtu.be/j-q2zHIovOE

[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/j-q2zHIovOE[/VIDEO]

BTW, These are used to kill over 3000 children a day.




http://forum-images.macnn.com/import/image_7925.jpg

When did it become "The Bill of Needs" and NOT the Bill of Rights? You are arguing a strawman.

It could be argued that some of it is a 'Bill of wants'.

By mixing the things you need with the things you want, you risk devaluing one, or overvaluing the other. Guns seem very much to be a case of the latter these days.

Needs and wants are different than rights. Way, way different.

Honest, non snarky question from someone ignorant of your law (other than I hear it's age makes it ****ing complicated). What rights do you have over there?

Not directed at me, but I laid out the basic rights in Germany earlier.

Using guns for self-defense is strictly prohibited and will get you prosecuted for (attempted) manslaughter.

Getting a license is subject to background checks and proof of "reliability".

Guns are only sold by licensed dealers, and are individually registered.

Guns can be acquired for sports or hunting use or by collectors only, unless a specific need can be proven (security personnel etc.).

Guns must be kept securely locked away at all times when not in use, and must be transported in unloaded/disabled state. IIRC, ammo must be transported separately, but I'm not sure.

The police have the right to verify whether your guns are secured. This has only been the case since after the 2009 school shooting.

Well, I was asking about rights in general.

I have to say, what you describe above sounds like the opposite of rights.

You have the right to own a gun.

Gun ownership is highly regulated, though, so you may not WANT to. And you can't use it to kill people.

Forgot to add collectors up above. Edited for completion.

We seem to be working with vastly different definitions of "right".

For me, if you need to be licensed to do it, it's not a right.

Like driving.

I'm fine with that being the case for you.

You have the right to do stuff, but there are laws and regulations in place to try and keep you from doing extremely stupid things that harm others. I'm fine with that.

That is very similar to the laws in Canada too except the self-defense thing. It is not illegal to use a gun in self defense but proving that it was self defense and that it was a justifiable amount of force is hard and its not worth the risk of being prosecuted for manslaughter if you fail to prove it was justifiable self defense.

2 years ago Montreal Police stormed into a residence, unmarked plan cloth cops and they failed to identify themselves during entry which was legal they did have a search warrant. The occupant shot and killed one of them. He was found not guilty and it was considered justifiable force in self defense because the police made the failure to communicate properly. That is the exception. A case with a jewelry store robbery here in BC a few years back the store owner went to jail for discharging his weapon at the fleeing robbers. Some of his bullets ended up in the walls of buildings across the street. No one was hurt but he was convicted because it was deemed unjustifiable force since they where fleeing and he was no longer in danger when he fired. So under the defense side of things its really hit and miss here. Its a really chance to take. But the rest of it is dead on. And my friend in the Netherlands says is similar there too but a bit more restrictive with the checks.

Like driving? Driving isn't a right either.

The laws and regulations are the exceptions to the right. An exception which applies to all cases (such as needing a license to use it) isn't an exception anymore.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

That's correct, driving has always been recognized as a privilege in the US, not a right.

What about the rights to life, liberty and property (John Locke)? Is a birth certificate like your "license" to be alive? And a title or deed is a license to own (certain) property? Is it no longer a "right" to own real estate or vehicle property just because the state requires you to record a title or deed on the property? What is the difference between that and a license, assuming the granting of licenses remains free?

Even at our strictest, I don't think anyone here loses the "right" to own property (not since slavery). Or have they?

Eminent domain?