• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

Ranb said:
Well, since I've posted over and over about the details of the AWB of 1994 over the years, I thought that sum bitch would be old hat.

Here it is. No guns were actually banned by the AWB94. Existing guns were grandfathered. The only "ban" was on new manufacture and import for a short list of guns by names and those that had 2 of 6 features that Congress didn't like. Semi-auto firearms of the same capability continued to be legally sold and the number of guns increased from 94-04.
Click to expand...

Hrm. Now I'm wondering how much my "pre-ban" AK will be worth if AWB II gets passed. :D
 
Cleon said:
Hrm. Now I'm wondering how much my "pre-ban" AK will be worth if AWB II gets passed. :D
Click to expand...
If it is not grandfathered, it will be priceless; worthless (cut in half by the police) after you die. :)

is there another AWB bill in Congress? I have seen any that are passed out of committee yet.
 
Ranb said:
What about break open single shot, trapdoor, pump action, lever action rifles/handguns and so on? All of these types are much less fast than a semi-auto or machine gun.
Click to expand...

Sure. You don't see too many Henry rifles used in mass shootings.
 
bobdroege7 said:
How about a speed limit.

Ban high velocity rounds, rather than the weapons.
Click to expand...

Lots of long range target shooters and hunters need/want high velocity rounds. Except for the Las Vegas shooting, there would've been little to no difference in the casualties of any recent mass shooting had they been using pistol ammo.

I don't even believe any country in Europe bans such rounds completely.
 
varwoche said:
The degree to which I'm impressed by technical arguments as to what constitutes an assault rifle: nil
Click to expand...

It's simple: a rifle using rifle ammo that can fire either semi auto or full automatic.
Sub Machine Guns, which fire pistol ammo are often mislabeled as assult rifles.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Lots of long range target shooters and hunters need/want high velocity rounds. Except for the Las Vegas shooting, there would've been little to no difference in the casualties of any recent mass shooting had they been using pistol ammo.

I don't even believe any country in Europe bans such rounds completely.
Click to expand...

Issue is not rounds but rate of fire.Many bolt action hunting rifles us high velocity rounds for bigger game.
 
bobdroege7 said:
How about a speed limit.

Ban high velocity rounds, rather than the weapons.
Click to expand...

Not the worst idea. Self loading is a popular thing, but not THAT popular. Plus a lot of mass shooters just don't seem very competent.

This from a radiologist who has seen and scanned many gunshot wounds:

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to a trauma center to receive our care.
Click to expand...
 
Giz said:
Firstly, not a ban on research: "Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.”

Secondly, if you look at a number of studies in that era, they were very misleading (counting those up to agree 26 as children, saying owning a gun increased homicide risk without controlling for whether you were involved in criminal activity etc)

Thirdly, there has been more research, president Obama's 2013 study, which found:

Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker

Defensive uses of guns are common

Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths

Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime

Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#x
Click to expand...

That's quite the info-dump. Are we supposed to read the whole 110 page document to find where it supports your assertions? I cannot find the search term, "gun restrictions", "gun show" or any version of the word "defensive" in the paper though I did find right-to-carry in one paragraph so I assume this is where you are getting some of your information:
Unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns. Controlling access to guns through background checks or restrictions on particular types of firearms remains controversial, and the effectiveness of various types of control is inadequately researched. Research on the impact of imposing additional penalties for firearm use in illegal activities has also produced mixed results. Studies on the impact of right-to-carry laws on firearm violence also have inconsistent results and have been debated for a decade.
Click to expand...
That basically says their review of the literature failed to find the kind of information we need to draw the conclusions you assert the paper draws.

It's a no brainer that mass shooters are not the largest part of the gun violence problem.

This is the only paragraph where the word "stolen" appears:
It is ultimately important, of course, to understand the unique characteristics of all types and subtypes of violence. However, resources focused on three specific populations—(1) the general population, (2) the general youth population, and (3) the offender population—should yield actionable information over the short term. The exact number and distribution of guns and gun types in the United States are unknown, but for each of these populations it would be valuable to have counts of total guns owned, their attributes (i.e., general type, caliber, firing mechanism), how the guns were acquired (i.e., purchased, received as a gift, traded for, stolen, etc.), and information on the sources of the guns (i.e., licensed gun dealers, friends or relatives, gun traffickers, owners of stolen guns, and so on). It also would be valuable to better understand both the violent and relevant nonviolent and self-protective behaviors of individuals with firearms.
Click to expand...
Again it says we haven't collected the data.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I kind of disagree on "assault rifle" being a useless term, "assault weapon" certainly is. Its an easy way to describe a rifle that is:

1) At least semi-auto
2) Has a detachable box magizine
3) Fires an intermediate rifle cartidge

Its a rifle that can be reloaded quickly, has light recoil, and is capable of deadly and reasonably accurate fire to about 400 meters (or further). There really aren't any "hunting rifles" that satisfy all those conditions. Then again they are legal in some states for hunting, at least for varmint.
Click to expand...

There are a few. Winchester 1907. Chambered for the .351 WSL cartridge. Semi-auto, detachable box magazines of 5, 10, 15, or 20 round capacity.
 

Attachments

  • 317.jpg
    317.jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
Yes, thank you. I forgot about that bit :)

And a thank you to Giz as well, for additional detail on gun violence research. I simply took the statement as truth instead of checking (mea culpa). Frankly, it didn't surprise me because of the stupid mish-mash our gun laws have become from being decided by two extremes :)
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

See my above post (#70).
 
varwoche said:
Sure. I agree with you and Hellhound that terms should be properly defined, despite that I'm disinterested in the particulars (at least until there's actually proposed legislation). Unfortunately, the vague definition has been constantly foisted as a red herring in these debates, as if it's an insurmountable task to define the undesired characteristics.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why Rubio's arguments yesterday sounded so stupid.
 
I have EXTREME doubts as to the veracity of reporting on defensive use.

A woman in my neighborhood greeted the Kirby Vacuum cleaner salesman with a 44 to the face. She was quite proud of herself and the salesman apparently didn't call the police. She considers it a defensive use because, several days prior, the police had arrested one of the vacuum cleaner people (they roam in packs, centered around a van that has the actual vacuums in it) on an outstanding warrant.

I get the impression that a whole lot of "defensive use" is like that - people flashing or pointing guns in situations where it is totally unnecessary. It is very, very hard to determine if it actually helped in the least.
 
Last edited:
Pope130 said:
There are a few. Winchester 1907. Chambered for the .351 WSL cartridge. Semi-auto, detachable box magazines of 5, 10, 15, or 20 round capacity.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not sure it was ever marketed as a hunting rifle. I'll add a 4th condition to be an "assault rifle", needs to fire necked rounds (keeps an M1 Carbine from being an assault rifle as well). Now we're back to quickly and conveniently changing terminology though :boxedin:
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
Another strawman. The problem in the OP was a reporter that could not be bothered to report the actual facts and so made up some instead.

My solution would be to encourage CNN to vet their contributing writers more carefully. then they don't look so foolish.
Click to expand...
Well then, this whole thread is a red herring when it comes to the discussion of gun legislation. My apologies for being off-topic along with half or more of the posts in this thread. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
It's simple: a rifle using rifle ammo that can fire either semi auto or full automatic.
Sub Machine Guns, which fire pistol ammo are often mislabeled as assult rifles.
Click to expand...

And that means with out examining the trigger group you can never know if something is or is not an assault rifle.

Kind of like in a glock there is a little tiny add on piece that will turn it into select fire. Totally changes things having that there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom