|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 23, 2021 18:03:41 GMT -8
Here's a question retarding firearms. One hears the term "Assault weapon" used frequently in the media. It is used generally with respect to firearms, usually by people in favor of more restrictive gun control laws.
But what is an "assault weapon"? If I smash you in the face with a brick, the brick is an assault weapon. If I poke you in the eye with the sharp point of a pencil, the pencil is an assault weapon. And, of course, knives, hammers, bows and arrows, sling shots, even automobiles can be and have been used to injure or kill people. It would be good if everyone vowed never to again use the term "assault weapon" on the grounds of its vagueness.
What about the term "assault rifle"? That term, though not used as frequently in the media, is also problematic. I am not experienced with the use of firearms. (I don't count the time in 1951 when I fired a BB gun at a tree!) Still, I think an AR-14 is NOT an assault rifle. There are such weapons used by various armies, such as the M16 and the AK-47.
Yes, the AR-14 looks, especially to people who know nothing about such weapons, very scary. But the AR-14, if I am correct, can only fire one shot every time the trigger is pulled. In other words, they are not machine guns.
There are many rifles which are semi-automatic and can, depending the individual weapon's magazine, fire many shots in a short period of time. So, if you do not want anyone to be able to shoot more than one bullet without reloading, you are going to have to ban almost all pistols and rifles.
If we want to reduce gun violence, and we all do, we are going to have to do something other than trying to ban firearms used by law-abiding citizens. Anyone who might want to choose that option will be rewarded by a second U.S. civil war. And I mean that literally, with casualties running into the many hundreds of thousands. If not many more.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Obsidian Edge on Nov 23, 2021 19:17:30 GMT -8
As far as I'm aware, "assault rifle" is more of a colloquialism than anything. Meaning it's a term that enjoys popular use, but isn't really a technical category. That said, you could broadly define it as a small arm, with a high capacity magazine, that can fire fully automatic.
You reduce gun violence by healing a sick society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Nov 23, 2021 20:24:45 GMT -8
Actually it was a Smith & Wesson AR-15. The #14 you are referring to is probably the old M-14 which was the standard U.S. military rifle until it was replaced by the M-16 during the Vietnam War.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 23, 2021 23:18:19 GMT -8
Here's a question retarding firearms. One hears the term "Assault weapon" used frequently in the media. It is used generally with respect to firearms, usually by people in favor of more restrictive gun control laws. But what is an "assault weapon"? If I smash you in the face with a brick, the brick is an assault weapon. If I poke you in the eye with the sharp point of a pencil, the pencil is an assault weapon. And, of course, knives, hammers, bows and arrows, sling shots, even automobiles can be and have been used to injure or kill people. It would be good if everyone vowed never to again use the term "assault weapon" on the grounds of its vagueness. What about the term "assault rifle"? That term, though not used as frequently in the media, is also problematic. I am not experienced with the use of firearms. (I don't count the time in 1951 when I fired a BB gun at a tree!) Still, I think an AR-14 is NOT an assault rifle. There are such weapons used by various armies, such as the M16 and the AK-47. Yes, the AR-14 looks, especially to people who know nothing about such weapons, very scary. But the AR-14, if I am correct, can only fire one shot every time the trigger is pulled. In other words, they are not machine guns. There are many rifles which are semi-automatic and can, depending the individual weapon's magazine, fire many shots in a short period of time. So, if you do not want anyone to be able to shoot more than one bullet without reloading, you are going to have to ban almost all pistols and rifles. If we want to reduce gun violence, and we all do, we are going to have to do something other than trying to ban firearms used by law-abiding citizens. Anyone who might want to choose that option will be rewarded by a second U.S. civil war. And I mean that literally, with casualties running into the many hundreds of thousands. If not many more. AzWm I had this question in another thread. Is a Glock the same as an AR15, in terms of how many rounds it can fire at each trigger pull? Maybe I didn't word it exactly like that. If it has the same capacity, is the only difference in the look of it? Is it just the look of the weapons that make the difference? I know an AR15 is a much scarier looking weapon than a glock. Is that, when it comes down to it, the only main difference? |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Nov 24, 2021 1:57:33 GMT -8
Glock is usually a 9 mm pitol with a 12-15 round magszine. Glock 9mm fires an approximately 140 grain bullet @ 1000 fps. The S&W AR-15 II has 30 round mag. Fires a 62 grain bullet @ 3,000 fps. Apples and oranges. Anyone else want to help?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 24, 2021 13:25:35 GMT -8
Well, the point I am trying to make, or more correctly the question I am asking, is it not currently illegal for average citizens to own operational machine guns? Assault rifles such as the M-16 are definitely capable of operating as machine guns. Those are used by the military. The AR series, those for sale to the public, are not capable of automatic fire. (I think they can be modified, but that is a separate issue.)
If that last statement is true, then why are gun control advocates continually trying to ban what are, essentially, rifles that can only fire one bullet per trigger pull? If being able to fire a bullet with each trigger pull without reloading is the criterion, would not banning such weapons essentially leave only ancient weapons such as those used by the colonists as the only ones that would be left legal?
As I have said, I have no first hand knowledge of firearms. Those with more knowledge are free to correct me if I have made mistakes based on false knowledge.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 24, 2021 13:29:13 GMT -8
Glock is usually a 9 mm pitol with a 12-15 round magszine. Glock 9mm fires an approximately 140 grain bullet @ 1000 fps. The S&W AR-15 II has 30 round mag. Fires a 62 grain bullet @ 3,000 fps. Apples and oranges. Anyone else want to help? Apples and oranges? Nonsense. Both weapons can be fired semi-automatically. One trigger pull, one bullet. So can countless other firearms. If you ban every semi-automatic weapons, what's left? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Nov 24, 2021 14:26:08 GMT -8
An AR stands for ArmaLite. Assault rifles are full automatic, they have been banned for more than 2 decades. The first restriction on assault rifles was sometime in the early 30's, but it was in the early to mid 90's they have been completely banned. Today an AR is more design not all AR's are .223/5.56 I have a .22 long rifle that looks just like the AR-15, but it is just a .22 not even a varmint load. There are some models that the barrel can be swapped out. All AR's and AK's are semi-automatic. Recently bump-stocks have been banned, there's zero need for a bump. The shooter in Vegas used a bump-stock. In California there's additional restriction, for example: the mag release has a guard to prevent quick change.
|
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Nov 24, 2021 14:34:17 GMT -8
In California a 15 round mag is maximum allowed. AR-15’s .223/5.56 are typically 55 grain. For pistols the manufacture will state the mag can hold x rounds plus one chambered. However, it is near impossible to fully load a mag and not recommended because of jam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Nov 24, 2021 15:35:21 GMT -8
Smith and Wesson has a #10 model that fires Winchester.308 ammo pretty much the same round as the M-14. I would imagine that would be a chore to keep on target fired in full automatic mode.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 1, 2021 14:06:24 GMT -8
Weapons in the hands of those who don't deserve to carry them.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Dec 1, 2021 16:41:27 GMT -8
Weapons in the hands of those who don't deserve to carry them. What the eff!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Dec 1, 2021 18:44:12 GMT -8
Stupid is as stupid does!
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 1, 2021 22:36:38 GMT -8
I don't have the words to properly contextualize how I feel about the school shooting in Michigan, but I sincerely hope the parents of the shooter are prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Dec 2, 2021 0:48:08 GMT -8
Weapons in the hands of those who don't deserve to carry them. What the eff!!!! That's straight up murder. He was an old guy in a wheelchair. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Dec 2, 2021 1:02:01 GMT -8
Glock is usually a 9 mm pitol with a 12-15 round magszine. Glock 9mm fires an approximately 140 grain bullet @ 1000 fps. The S&W AR-15 II has 30 round mag. Fires a 62 grain bullet @ 3,000 fps. Apples and oranges. Anyone else want to help? Apples and oranges? Nonsense. Both weapons can be fired semi-automatically. One trigger pull, one bullet. So can countless other firearms. If you ban every semi-automatic weapons, what's left? AzWm Apples and oranges in the amount of recoil, velocity, and impact force of the bullet - as well as the mag size. One trigger pull, one bullet is definitely a good thing. However, a semi-automatic with a 30 bullet magazine can spray bullets more then a Glock, and with a 62 grain weight experiences less recoil per shot - so in theory this lends itself to shooting at crowds of people. The Glock has a higher recoil and smaller magazine, so it's very good at putting one (or two) people down (traditional self-defense type weapon), but it isn't going injure 5-10 people in a crowd with one magazine like an AR-15 could. An AR-15 has a longer effective range then a Glock as well. For self defense a Glock, or another semi automatic pistol, is a very good weapon. The Glock is also concealable, which is both good for defense, yet bad in that shooters can conceal their weapon before opening fire. Bump stocks are certainly scary, and shouldn't be allowed. I think that with the Rittenhouse shooting, the physical presence of the gun actually lead to violence and shooting. Random civilians around in public in a city with large rifles with 30 bullet capacities makes people uncomfortable to say the least. With concealed carry, there is nothing overtly threatening about that to others. So that's also something to consider beyond the one trigger pull/one bullet point. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Dec 2, 2021 1:13:33 GMT -8
That's straight up murder. He was an old guy in a wheelchair. Yep, no doubt. Even if he did have a knife, a person in a wheel chair could fairly easily be disarmed, especially by more than one person. It makes me sick to my stomach. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 2, 2021 11:36:10 GMT -8
That's straight up murder. He was an old guy in a wheelchair. Yep, no doubt. Even if he did have a knife, a person in a wheel chair could fairly easily be disarmed, especially by more than one person. It makes me sick to my stomach. This is a topic I know something about...and you're right. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Dec 2, 2021 14:14:55 GMT -8
Yep, no doubt. Even if he did have a knife, a person in a wheel chair could fairly easily be disarmed, especially by more than one person. It makes me sick to my stomach. This is a topic I know something about...and you're right. Wow. Do you care to expand? No pressure. Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Dec 2, 2021 16:08:59 GMT -8
This is a topic I know something about...and you're right. Wow. Do you care to expand? No pressure. Just curious. Ryan has been outfront in the past that he is disabled. |
|
