ban on assault weapons lifted
-
personal safety :~ Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
Who's safety?
-
Why would anyone need to utilize a 800 rounds per minute firing rate? Killing mice? ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Jeff Bogan wrote: 800 rounds per minute firing rate Impossible. You have to physically squeeze the trigger every time. Semi-Autos are actually quite fun for target practice. Especially if there is a small pond behind your house. :)
Found on Bash.org
[erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is. -
Why would anyone need to utilize a 800 rounds per minute firing rate? Killing mice? ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
You obviously have never fired one. Such numerical 'statistics' are pure fantasy. "My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: 1) Does a police officer have anything to fear from a law abiding citizen owning an assault rifle? No Yes, when that citizen decides to go postal one day. Gary Kirkham wrote: 2) Does a ban keep a criminal from obtaining one? No I disagree. Gary Kirkham wrote: Nearly all hunting rifle cartridges are more deadly than your typical assault rifle cartridge. Agreed. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Gary Kirkham wrote: 2) Does a ban keep a criminal from obtaining one? No Marc Clifton wrote: I disagree. While a ban does may it more difficult, a determined criminal can still obtain illegal weapons. Look at the UK where just about everything to do with owning guns became illegal after the Dunblane shooting in the mid-90s (where a nutter entered a primary school and shot dead several students and a teacher). Very few people are actually, legally, permitted to own a gun of any sort. However, the number of gun related crimes (other than simple possesion - which is of course a crime) has increased over the last 10 years despite the ban.
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
-
Who's safety?
I was being sarcastic. Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html[^] Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
pankajdaga wrote: Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! LOL!!! Thank God for that! This law accomplished nothing, other than to make law-abiding people into de facto criminals. The so-called assault weapons it banned are no more than hunting rifles that have clips which hold more ammunition than usual. Despite efforts by the media to deliberately confuse the public, they are not automatic weapons. They fire one shot per pull of the trigger, just like any other rifle allowed to the public, and they aren't all that accurate. They are, however, fun to shoot for practice, and potentially more useful for home defense than standard sporting guns, though I question that particular point of view. Personally, I think a well aimed 9mm pistol is far more practical for defense, but each to his own. The real issue here is that the ever more invidious government is losing one of its many tools to harrass good citizens, and that's a good thing. Of course police departments are against lifting the ban - they're police, and a police state is a good thing to them. Injuries caused by criminals to police officers are most often inflicted by the same weapon that the cops carry - a 9mm pistol. Reports of police being killed by assault weapons are mostly fictitious, and in those very few cases where it has happenned the media has jumped on the sensationalism that such events cause. I applaud Congress' decision not to renew an absurd, unnecessary ban on a non-issue. It's the first sign of intelligence I've seen come out of Washington, DC in my lifetime. "My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: 800 rounds per minute firing rate That is fairly ridiculous. Semi-Automatic weapons (which are the type of weapons covered by the ban) do not fire at that rate. You simply cannot squeeze and release a trigger that quickly. You are referring to automatic weapons. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
The article doesn't mention whether the ban was for semi-automatic or automatic weapons. When I hear "assault weapon", I think of semi-automatic as well as automatic weapons. If I were to assault anyone, I'd use a semi-automatic weapon for long range assaults, and an automatic weapon for short range/inhouse assaults. Ideally, the weapon should have a semi/full switch, allowing one to adjust to the situation. For extremely long ranges, I'd use a sniper rifle with manual loading. Anyway, I don't see how Jeff's post is in conflict with the article. In fact, the picture in the article shows at least 3 weapons which I know are capable of full automatic reloading. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: 800 rounds per minute firing rate That is fairly ridiculous. Semi-Automatic weapons (which are the type of weapons covered by the ban) do not fire at that rate. You simply cannot squeeze and release a trigger that quickly. You are referring to automatic weapons. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
The M-16 for example, the standard issue for the US army, which is certainly classified as an assault rifle, is automatic. I am referring to the cyclic firing rate which, yes, you would and could not sustain because the barrel starts to over-heat, and you quickly run out of ammo. You fire in short bursts anyways, even with an automatic. My point is what do we need it for? The only case that can really be made is that it lends fire-power to the people (the "militia") so that if the U.S. does in some improbable manner get taken over by hordes of criminals and barbarians, the average person can readily defend themselves. Is this what these people are thinking? I ask because I have searched high and low for arguments on both sides of the argument and they are extemely thin. No one seems to explain their position in the gun debate. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: 2) Does a ban keep a criminal from obtaining one? No Marc Clifton wrote: I disagree. While a ban does may it more difficult, a determined criminal can still obtain illegal weapons. Look at the UK where just about everything to do with owning guns became illegal after the Dunblane shooting in the mid-90s (where a nutter entered a primary school and shot dead several students and a teacher). Very few people are actually, legally, permitted to own a gun of any sort. However, the number of gun related crimes (other than simple possesion - which is of course a crime) has increased over the last 10 years despite the ban.
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: While a ban does may it more difficult, a determined criminal can still obtain illegal weapons Agreed. But should we make it all that much easier? The key word there is "determined". Many criminals aren't necessarily that determined to seek out what isn't readily available. But give him an assault weapon, and of course he'll use it. With all the consciousness being put into terrorism, especially today, what's the justification for not continuing the ban on assault weapons? I think to some extent it IS effective. And I don't see how people can argue that their freedom is somehow curtailed by not being able to own an assault rifle. Is someone's freedom to have access to these things worth the price of someone else's child or loved one? I was living in CA when some idiot opened up on a playground full of children, which I believe is what led to this ban to begin with, and, IIRC, was one of two or three incidents that year. How soon we seem to forget. And I agree with Kerry--these weapons play right into the hands of terrorists. Come on, it was in the terrorist training manuals! You know, people talk about sacrifices that they have to make for our national security. How about the NRA and pro-gun people making a couple sacrifices in the interest of national security? Well, that's my 2c. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html[^] Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
Thank god, I can finally go pheasant shooting[^] again.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html[^] Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
Americans and their guns :-D You'd be a whole lot better off if you banned them all. Then at least if somebody is caught with one, you know they are a criminal and can take the approriate measures. Beyond their use for pest control and hunting - there is no other sane reason for a civilian to have one. You'd be better off fixing the problems that cause people to think they need a gun, rather than an out-right ban to start with. But I guess you'll need a few more Columbines before you get the message. Michael CP Blog [^]
-
You obviously have never fired one. Such numerical 'statistics' are pure fantasy. "My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
Progressive firing machine guns, often termed Gatling guns, have several barrels on a rotating carousel, and a system of cams that load, cock, and fire each barrel as it rotates into aim. The M61 Vulcan gatling cannon is of this type. This type of gun has the highest cyclic rate of fire, as high as 8,000 rounds per minute. Most modern progressive fire guns are operated by hydraulic or electric motors (chain gun). As well as a high fire rate, chain guns are less prone to jamming, as misfired rounds are simply ejected. This is not possible if the force needed to eject the round comes from the round itself. This makes them ideal for mounting on aircraft or vehicles.[1][^] POWAH! :-D -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Thank god, I can finally go pheasant shooting[^] again.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
Not peasant shooting? :-D -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
pankajdaga wrote: Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! LOL!!! Thank God for that! This law accomplished nothing, other than to make law-abiding people into de facto criminals. The so-called assault weapons it banned are no more than hunting rifles that have clips which hold more ammunition than usual. Despite efforts by the media to deliberately confuse the public, they are not automatic weapons. They fire one shot per pull of the trigger, just like any other rifle allowed to the public, and they aren't all that accurate. They are, however, fun to shoot for practice, and potentially more useful for home defense than standard sporting guns, though I question that particular point of view. Personally, I think a well aimed 9mm pistol is far more practical for defense, but each to his own. The real issue here is that the ever more invidious government is losing one of its many tools to harrass good citizens, and that's a good thing. Of course police departments are against lifting the ban - they're police, and a police state is a good thing to them. Injuries caused by criminals to police officers are most often inflicted by the same weapon that the cops carry - a 9mm pistol. Reports of police being killed by assault weapons are mostly fictitious, and in those very few cases where it has happenned the media has jumped on the sensationalism that such events cause. I applaud Congress' decision not to renew an absurd, unnecessary ban on a non-issue. It's the first sign of intelligence I've seen come out of Washington, DC in my lifetime. "My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
Roger Wright wrote: Personally, I think a well aimed 9mm pistol is far more practical for defense, but each to his own. I think it depends a little on how many you are defending yourself against. If 3 or more, I'd rather have an MP-5 or some other light weight fully automatic gun. Clips taped together in 2s for minimal reloading latency. That and a kevlar vest in case they shoot back. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
The article doesn't mention whether the ban was for semi-automatic or automatic weapons. When I hear "assault weapon", I think of semi-automatic as well as automatic weapons. If I were to assault anyone, I'd use a semi-automatic weapon for long range assaults, and an automatic weapon for short range/inhouse assaults. Ideally, the weapon should have a semi/full switch, allowing one to adjust to the situation. For extremely long ranges, I'd use a sniper rifle with manual loading. Anyway, I don't see how Jeff's post is in conflict with the article. In fact, the picture in the article shows at least 3 weapons which I know are capable of full automatic reloading. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
Thanks for information. And be careful out there - you may get a knock on your door from your local intelligence agency. :-D (Unless you belong to one then I guess it's ok.)
-
Americans and their guns :-D You'd be a whole lot better off if you banned them all. Then at least if somebody is caught with one, you know they are a criminal and can take the approriate measures. Beyond their use for pest control and hunting - there is no other sane reason for a civilian to have one. You'd be better off fixing the problems that cause people to think they need a gun, rather than an out-right ban to start with. But I guess you'll need a few more Columbines before you get the message. Michael CP Blog [^]
A 100% ban is ridiculous. Why remove social liberties of the common man? If a bunch of guys like hanging out in the desert, shooting at beer cans, let them to that. If people like hunting deer, or whatever, let them do that. If they want to do it, they should be accountable. To be accountable, you should have a license permit per gun/person, be of a certain age or older, no prior criminal convictions. To acquire a license should take enough time to cool down the angriest person. To fire a gun for which you do not have a license for (other than test firing it before purchase) should be fineable. To fire a gun in an area which isn't safe, should also be fineable, and possibly a criminal act. Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Thanks for information. And be careful out there - you may get a knock on your door from your local intelligence agency. :-D (Unless you belong to one then I guess it's ok.)
Jeff Bogan wrote: you may get a knock on your door from your local intelligence agency Naaah. I'm not a commie, nor have I ever uttered death threats to politicians or other officials, so I'm safe. But if they want to knock on the door, they'll better have a warrant. I have a license for my .22 S&W, and it's in a safe, just as required. If it hadn't been for me saving for a new car, I would've been the owner of a Glock 35 and a S&W .44 mag revolver right now. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
A 100% ban is ridiculous. Why remove social liberties of the common man? If a bunch of guys like hanging out in the desert, shooting at beer cans, let them to that. If people like hunting deer, or whatever, let them do that. If they want to do it, they should be accountable. To be accountable, you should have a license permit per gun/person, be of a certain age or older, no prior criminal convictions. To acquire a license should take enough time to cool down the angriest person. To fire a gun for which you do not have a license for (other than test firing it before purchase) should be fineable. To fire a gun in an area which isn't safe, should also be fineable, and possibly a criminal act. Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). -- Arigato gozaimashita!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). Hmm. A gun has one purpose. To hurt, damage or kill something or someone. A car has a purpose, to get from a-b, so your example is a little suspect... but I guess it all depends on your point of view. To me, guns serve no useful purpose. I can't understand why so many people get off on them. I guess it is something in the genetic code somewhere. I understand why an army needs a gun, I can see why modern day police forces need a gun, I can see why the farmer finds them useful but for everybody else - surely there are more fun and safer ways to pass the time. I'd have no problem in having licenced establishments where you can go and shoot a few rounds off, but to me there is no good reason why a person needs to *own* a gun. I'll argue about banning car-ownership and introducing a proper public transport system another day :-D Michael CP Blog [^]
-
pankajdaga wrote: ban on assault weapons lifted :jig: Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Yes, dance! And if your son or your daughter is slaughtered with an AK47, I'll make sure to post a happy :jig: on CP for ya. :jig: More insanely easy ways to kill people!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
The M-16 for example, the standard issue for the US army, which is certainly classified as an assault rifle, is automatic. I am referring to the cyclic firing rate which, yes, you would and could not sustain because the barrel starts to over-heat, and you quickly run out of ammo. You fire in short bursts anyways, even with an automatic. My point is what do we need it for? The only case that can really be made is that it lends fire-power to the people (the "militia") so that if the U.S. does in some improbable manner get taken over by hordes of criminals and barbarians, the average person can readily defend themselves. Is this what these people are thinking? I ask because I have searched high and low for arguments on both sides of the argument and they are extemely thin. No one seems to explain their position in the gun debate. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
What in the world are you talking about? It is obvious that you don't know which ban has been lifted. The M-16 is a Class 3 firearm, which means that it is capable of fully automatic fire. The ban in question dealt with semi-automatic weapons, which only fire one round per each pull of the trigger. If you can manage to fire a semi-automatic weapon at 800 rounds per minute then I will personally make the submission to the Guiness Book of records for you. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
