Calderon urges Congress to reinstate ban on assault weapons
224 replies, posted
Assault weapons as in fully Automatic weapons?
[QUOTE=BCell;22095626]Assault weapons as in fully Automatic weapons?[/QUOTE]
That's what they *are*.
The amount of them in legal circulation is absurdly low, though, and they're almost never used in crimes.
[QUOTE=BCell;22095626]Assault weapons as in fully Automatic weapons?[/QUOTE]
Assault weapons as in semiautomatic weapons with pistol grips, heat shields, folding stocks, extended magazines, rail systems, a black finish, and other "scary" features.
[editline]10:55PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22095719]That's what they *are*.
The amount of them in legal circulation is absurdly low, though, and they're almost never used in crimes.[/QUOTE]
No, the assault weapon ban actually had nothing to do with selective fire weapons.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;22095731]No, the assault weapon ban actually had nothing to do with selective fire weapons.[/QUOTE]
I mean actual assault weapons, not the big media definition.
The term "assault weapon" was invented entirely for the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, and since he asked about what exactly banning "assault weapons" would mean, what I said was the correct answer as banning them would basically be a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;22095962]The term "assault weapon" was invented entirely for the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, and since he asked about what exactly banning "assault weapons" would mean, what I said was the correct answer as banning them would basically be a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.[/QUOTE]
It's actually a useful term.
My own definition of an 'assault weapon' is a firearm that can fire in a full-auto fashion.
Three-round burst does not constitute full-auto, in my opinion, but the dumbass lawmakers say otherwise. :|
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22093938]Completely untrue.
The .22 is actually more deadly than rounds of a higher caliber for one reason:
It bounces around once it hits a hard object.
Let's assume, for a moment, that I shot you between the ribs with a .22LR.
It would most likely go through one rib, or your sternum, hit an organ or two, strike the base of the ribs (the portion of the ribs that just out from the spine), and rebound back to penetrate more organs.
A headshot with a .22 is almost on par with that of a .50 BMG, just less messy. Once it penetrates the skull, it doesn't have the energy needed to break out of the other side. The result is normally a nice sludge where the brain once was, due to all the bouncing around it'll do in your head.
Here, let me link you to the story of a guy shot with a .22 (actually, it was a slightly higher caliber, but it has similar ballistics).
[URL]http://www.wanderings.net/notebook/Main/WhatItFeelsLikeToBeShot[/URL][/QUOTE]
You're confusing "lethality" with stopping power. if you shoot somebody with a .22lr, you'd be lucky if they even felt it. Sure, it might bounce around inside you (if it even penetrates your clothing beyond 100 meters) but on it's way through it'll destroy a lot of nerves. The damage it causes might cause death in half an hour or so, but a 12 gauge slug or a high velocity assault rifle cartridge will drop the target. It'll hit them with such a huge volume of force that it will send them into shock almost instantly, not to mention the bullet will tumble or shred on it's way through, ripping up your insides.
Also, frankly your idea that the bullet will bounce around is questionable The force that would be required to make it ricochet hard enough off your bones to further penetrate your insides would be enough to actually break or shatter the bone. It's not going to shoot around like a bouncy ball inside you. Your "google answers" source was obviously somebody who watched that episode of CSI where they went on a tangent about how the .22lr is a preferred round for shooting somebody in the head, because it bounces around through the extremely soft brain tissue (which is plausible, if not true, but the same thing won't apply to much harder tissues in your torso)
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22096170]It's actually a useful term.
My own definition of an 'assault weapon' is a firearm that can fire in a full-auto fashion.
Three-round burst does not constitute full-auto, in my opinion, but the dumbass lawmakers say otherwise. :|[/QUOTE]
so an m16a2 or m16a4 isn't an assault weapon since it can't fire full-auto?
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;22096364]so an m16a2 or m16a4 isn't an assault weapon since it can't fire full-auto?[/QUOTE]
Mhmm.
At least in my definition.
[editline]02:05AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;22096319]You're confusing "lethality" with stopping power. if you shoot somebody with a .22lr, you'd be lucky if they even felt it. Sure, it might bounce around inside you (if it even penetrates your clothing beyond 100 meters) but on it's way through it'll destroy a lot of nerves.[/QUOTE]
Uh, you're going to feel a fifth-of-an-inch puncture in you. If it doesn't hit bone, it can go right through you.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;22096364]so an m16a2 or m16a4 isn't an assault weapon since it can't fire full-auto?[/QUOTE]
The M16A2 and the M16A4 both fire in a three-round burst, which is
still technically an automatic action except for the fact that it stops after a a designated number of rounds.
But that's not the point of the AWB, weapons like the M16, M4, and fully automatic AK variants were already banned, the AWB just wants to ban anything that looks scary or intimidating, which is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=lorden;22096864]The M16A2 and the M16A4 both fire in a three-round burst, which is
still technically an automatic action except for the fact that it stops after a a designated number of rounds.
[/QUOTE]
i was responding to kmm
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22096170]It's actually a useful term.
[B]My own definition of an 'assault weapon' is a firearm that can fire in a full-auto fashion.
Three-round burst does not constitute full-auto, in my opinion, but the dumbass lawmakers say otherwise. :|[/b][/QUOTE]
he's wrong
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22093227]why do you people need assault rifles anyway?[/QUOTE]
SL:DKJF:LSKDJF:LKSDJF:LKSDJFK:LJ DO I HAVE TO FUCKING SAY THIS IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD
ASSAULT WEAPON =/= ASSAULT RIFLE
God FUCKING dammit.
[editline]12:36AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;22063864]Federal ban was from 1994-2004. Some states such as California don't allow them. But most states do.[/QUOTE]
Sadly California's definition is stricter than the federal definition.
Instead of being able to have one naughty feature, you can't have any of them.
[editline]12:38AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22096408]
Uh, you're going to feel a fifth-of-an-inch puncture in you. If it doesn't hit bone, it can go right through you.[/QUOTE]
Actually it won't go through you. Most .22s are subsonic and that will just stay in the muscle (assuming it hits muscle).
[editline]12:40AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;22094630]it's a storage device as well as a communication device. I use it for research for my job, I communicate on it regarding my job, i use it for many things. Including entertainment.
I don't use an AK-47 as a phone, a research device, or entertainment. Unless I count shooting at rabbits fun.
why do you need an selective fire infantry weapon?
[editline]03:14AM[/editline]
lol, mastermaul, and his fallacious terrible arguments, at it again.
[editline]03:15AM[/editline]
Are you sure about that?[/QUOTE]
God you're fucking retarded. An assault rifle is not an assault weapon.
Assault rifles are [B]EXTREMELY [/B]hard to get, and insanely expensive.
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22096408]
Uh, you're going to feel a fifth-of-an-inch puncture in you. If it doesn't hit bone, it can go right through you.[/QUOTE]
Way to not read anything I said. When bullet passes through you, it often destroys the nerves that it passes through. when nerves get destroyed they no longer transmit pain.
here, read this.
[url]http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/soldiers/george-orwell-shot.html[/url]
Because you totally need an assault weapon to protect your house.
[QUOTE=Paravin;22097572]Because you totally need an assault weapon to protect your house.[/QUOTE]
You are NOT reading the thread. Just look at the past few posts.
[QUOTE=BlueSaint;22094124]Too bad a lot of people out west here hunt, just because you idiots out east or where ever such a dumbass community is that you live in doesn't like guns becuase they COULD be used to hurt someone doesn't mean they well, you know England banned firearms and look at knife crime rates: SKY ROCKETED!.
Plus criminals will always have a way to get what they want, black market or whatever, all you are doing is punishing the law abiding citizen who would use their gun for hunting or self defense. Learn to think before being such a dumbass please.[/QUOTE]
But wait.
Don't you guys always argue that criminals can get hold of guns whether their banned or not?
So why did our knife crime go up rather than our gun crime? Infact our violent crime rate has been going down for the last couple of years.
[QUOTE=A.C.I.D;22097912]But wait.
Don't you guys always argue that criminals can get hold of guns whether their banned or not?
So why did our knife crime go up rather than our gun crime? Infact our violent crime rate has been going down for the last couple of years.[/QUOTE]
Are there 250 million guns in the UK? Didn't think so. Point is moot.
I never disputed that. I'm disputing that guy using British laws as an example that gun control doesn't work.
[QUOTE=A.C.I.D;22097942]I never disputed that. I'm disputing that guy using British laws as an example that gun control doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
It works when there's no guns to control. Think about it, how do you control 250 million guns? How do you outright ban 250 million guns? How do you take them away? How do you keep them away? You can't. Gun control works under the scenario that gun culture doesn't exist, that guns are in low supply anyways, and that illegal trade is incredibly limited. The UK exists under 100% different scenarios then the US. Gun control doesn't work in an area like the US.
I know- I said this in the other thread.
Whilst I am anti-gun I can understand that no gun ban would ever work in the US thanks to the huge amount of guns that citizens already have.
[QUOTE=Paravin;22097572]Because you totally need an assault weapon to protect your house.[/QUOTE]
Way to completely ignore my post.
[QUOTE=Paravin;22097572]Because you totally need an assault weapon to protect your house.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.rk-neckarzimmern.de/Wissenswertes/Bilder/Remington-870/rem870mcs_18.jpg[/img]
This is an assault weapon.
On a related note,
[img]http://astorarms.ca/images/non-restricted/remington%20870%20%2012ga%20aaaaa.jpg[/img]
this isn't.
(They're the same gun.)
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;22105722]Way to completely ignore my post.[/QUOTE]
It's how anti-gunners work. Any argument that forces them to really look at the issue will be ignored.
america trust me im idi amin, us "criminals" don't buy weapons legally.
[editline]08:33PM[/editline]
Give me 300 dollars and some sun glasses and I can find you a fully auto AK in south Miami with 200 rounds of ammo.
The black market is huge, nobody wastes time at gunstores to buy weapons for crimes, they go where they can get them fast and not show up on the radar.
[editline]08:35PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22093227]why do you people need assault rifles anyway?[/QUOTE]
to rise up against a corrupt government as granted to all US citizens by the 2nd amendment.
I don't get it, He's right...
[editline]01:39AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22114169]to rise up against a corrupt government as granted to all US citizens by the 2nd amendment.[/QUOTE]
Yea, but back then it wasn't convenient to rob a store with a musket.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22068144]unless I buy a legal ak at a gun show and the 5$ NOVELTY fully automatic kit.
that's like the brass knuckle BELT BUCKLE they sell at liquor stores here held on with 1 flimsy screw.[/QUOTE]
rofl you have no idea how guns work AT ALL
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22114260]I don't get it, He's right...
[editline]01:39AM[/editline]
Yea, but back then it wasn't convenient to rob a store with a musket.[/QUOTE]
and back then just about everybody had a musket so no one tried to really rob one another.
are you seeing the correlation?
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22114260]I don't get it, He's right...
[editline]01:39AM[/editline]
Yea, but back then it wasn't convenient to rob a store with a musket.[/QUOTE]
do you think tom jeff was a moron?
"The tree of liberty must be saturated with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
He knew damn well what he was saying. They designed the US to be a libertarian nation free of rule by aristocracy and title.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;22114300]and back then just about everybody had a musket so no one tried to really rob one another.
are you seeing the correlation?[/QUOTE]
yea, but back then they didn't have a way to call the cops if someone robbed you.
[editline]01:42AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22114317]do you think tom jeff was a moron?
"The tree of liberty must be saturated with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
He knew damn well what he was saying. They designed the US to be a libertarian nation free of rule by aristocracy and title.[/QUOTE]
You're retarded, they designed the US to be a republic
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22114329]yea, but back then they didn't have a way to call the cops if someone robbed you.
[editline]01:42AM[/editline]
You're retarded, they designed the US to be a republic[/QUOTE]
geeze louise guy you have no idea what I'm talking about do you
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.