What's an Assault Weapon?

[OrByte]

an assault weapon is any one of the massively popular weapons that gun manufacturers are currently making an enormous amount of money on

and people on the left want to cripple the gun industry by imposing bans on such money makers

personally, I'm all for trying to hit gun makers in the pocket book. I think they have waay too much influence over stupid people in this country (NRA gun nuts) and it would serve the country better if their platform was knocked down a few pegs.

unfortunately, the 2nd amendment is a part of the constitution...and I don't want anything happening to our constitution...

so imho that's all there is...

 

[irishScott]

I'm not necessarily advocating this but I think the following would address most people's issues, with the exception of those people who want no restrictions of any kind.

Three classes of firearms requiring 3 levels of training,commitment,background checks.

Class 1 - rifles, shotguns, and handguns that do not have removable magazines and can hold a max of 6-7 rounds. So revolvers, bolt-action rifles, most shotguns.

Class 2 - semi-auto rifles and pistols that fire one round per human finger pull. magazines limited to 30 rounds.

Class 3 - whatever weapons are currently in the category of automatics, and devices that enable class 2 weapons to fire without a human trigger pull.

Class 1 would require about the same thing as is currently required except background checks for all sales and limits on the number purchased which would probably require some sort of record keeping.

Class 2 additionally would require registration and some sort of renewable license that would include ongoing background checks and training. But Class 2 should not be as restrictive as class 3. The goal wouldn't be to restrict ownership but to require a higher level of commitment.

Class 3 restriction would remain the same.

I'd extend class 1 to 15 rounds (the standard for popular tube-fed .22s), but beyond that I'd be fine with the above.

Honestly if the politicians actually wanted gun control they should propose something like this. As it is a lot of otherwise moderate gun owners (including myself) are rightfully convinced that they're more interested in incrementally disarming citizens than solving gun violence.

 

[blankslate]

Also your earlier point about military designs is pointless as well. After all the Mosin Nagant is the most produced military rifle in history.

then perhaps you wouldn't mind having your choice of rifles available to civilians being limited to bolt action rifles. I perhaps should have said civilian versions of relatively modern weapons designed for the military... however only a troll would resort to bringing up a weapon designed over a 100 years ago. Technology advances, or maybe you missed that point.

 

[blankslate]

I'd extend class 1 to 15 rounds (the standard for popular tube-fed .22s), but beyond that I'd be fine with the above.

They could always footnote class I, such that tube fed .22 rifles are exempt from the round limit.

 

[Phanuel]

I'm not creating laws. I'm posting stuff on a forum.

Some people might want to have a discussion. Some people want to play gotcha.

And I'm glad you're not creating laws.

But if you're going to post stuff on a forum, at least have the decency to be properly informed if you're going to cast judgment on a topic.

 

[irishScott]

They could always footnote class I, such that tube fed .22 rifles are exempt from the round limit.

There are also a lot of other tube-fed/non-detachable magazine guns that hold more than 6-7 rounds. There are tons of 8 round revolvers and 8-10 round lever guns, for instance.

Any 6-7 round limit is over-reaching IMO. Besides, what's it really going to do better than a 15 round limit? the important bit is ensuring only people of a certain level of responsibility have access to detachable magazines.

 

[Tom]

And I'm glad you're not creating laws.

But if you're going to post stuff on a forum, at least have the decency to be properly informed if you're going to cast judgment on a topic.

What specifically is it that you think I don't know ?

And what does it have to do with anything I've posted ?

btw, would I have to be an alcoholic to be opposed to drunk driving ?

 

[blankslate]

There are also a lot of other tube-fed/non-detachable magazine guns that hold more than 6-7 rounds. There are tons of 8 round revolvers and 8-10 round lever guns, for instance.

Any 6-7 round limit is over-reaching IMO. Besides, what's it really going to do better than a 15 round limit? the important bit is ensuring only people of a certain level of responsibility have access to detachable magazines.

It's still an interesting proposition to me.

Yes the number of rounds would have to be reconsidered for class one to take into account revolvers and rifles that don't use magazines but have the capacity that approaches a magazine.

I agree that having a magazine fed weapon should require a bit more proof of responsibility and is the real important factor between class one and class two in Tom's post.

 

[Phanuel]

What specifically is it that you think I don't know ?

And what does it have to do with anything I've posted ?

btw, would I have to be an alcoholic to be opposed to drunk driving ?

Because registration of any firearms is idiotic when we're built upon the idea of the 2A.

If we got rid of the 2A and made gun ownership a privilege, then you can go ahead with registration. However at that point, you'd just ask and push to ban everything.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's still an interesting proposition to me.

Yes the number of rounds would have to be reconsidered for class one to take into account revolvers and rifles that don't use magazines but have the capacity that approaches a magazine.

I agree that having a magazine fed weapon should require a bit more proof of responsibility and is the real important factor between class one and class two in Tom's post.

As long as we can have intelligence test, and levels of responsibility for voting. For instance level one would be local/county elections, level 2 would be state, and level three would be National elections. We could have different issues knowledgeably test for each level as each increasing level impacts more people.

 

[Zargon]

It's still an interesting proposition to me.

Yes the number of rounds would have to be reconsidered for class one to take into account revolvers and rifles that don't use magazines but have the capacity that approaches a magazine.

I agree that having a magazine fed weapon should require a bit more proof of responsibility and is the real important factor between class one and class two in Tom's post.

why?

a revolver is MORE DANGEROUS than most semi auto magizine fed

people hate on glocks because of 'no safety' (including alot of older gun owners) and the same asshates promote revolvers, which news flash, most dont have safetys!

 

[blankslate]

As long as we can have intelligence test, and levels of responsibility for voting. For instance level one would be local/county elections, level 2 would be state, and level three would be National elections. We could have different issues knowledgeably test for each level as each increasing level impacts more people.

Stick to the topic at hand... nice attempt at deflection I suppose. Next time I vote I'll safety check my ballot so as to not negligently shoot someone in the head...

 

[Tom]

As long as we can have intelligence test, and levels of responsibility for voting. For instance level one would be local/county elections, level 2 would be state, and level three would be National elections. We could have different issues knowledgeably test for each level as each increasing level impacts more people.

be careful what you wish for.

 

[blankslate]

why? a revolver is MORE DANGEROUS than most semi auto magizine fed people hate on glocks because of 'no safety' (including alot of older gun owners) and the same asshates promote revolvers, which news flash, most dont have safetys!

Any firearm is dangerous to an idiot holding it (as well as the people around him).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjKkDQhGGQ

It's easier to be deadly to other people with magazine fed weapons if your goal is to perpetrate a mass shooting. Yeah there are speedloaders for revolvers but it takes more practice than just learning to drop a magazine and insert a new one and charge the weapon.

 

[xj0hnx]

Stick to the topic at hand... nice attempt at deflection I suppose. Next time I vote I'll safety check my ballot so as to not negligently shoot someone in the head...

You support limiting one right, but not another? fact is that how people vote effects a LOT more people than firearms, if there's going to be limits on who can own what level of firearm, then it makes perfect sense to have limits on who can effect what level of other people lives.

Any firearm is dangerous to an idiot holding it (as well as the people around him).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjKkDQhGGQ

It's easier to be deadly to other people with magazine fed weapons if your goal is to perpetrate a mass shooting. Yeah there are speedloaders for revolvers but it takes more practice than just learning to drop a magazine and insert a new one and charge the weapon.

It's no easier to be any more deadly just because the rounds are being fired from a magazine as opposed to a cylinder. That's pure ignorance.

 

[Tom]

why?

a revolver is MORE DANGEROUS than most semi auto magizine fed

people hate on glocks because of 'no safety' (including alot of older gun owners) and the same asshates promote revolvers, which news flash, most dont have safetys!

That's more of a gun safety issue whereas my 3 categories are designed to put firearms with the capacity to fire very high numbers of rounds in a very short time, which requires removable mags, into a category that requires somewhat more commitment without being as onerous as class 3.

Of course that level of commitment could be required for any firearm but I was trying to keep gun ownership as close to the way it is now for guns that aren't as well suited for mass mayhem but are great for hunting and self-defense.

My understanding about revolvers is some are very safe, eg. ones that use a transfer bar. If there are revolvers that aren't considered safe they wouldn't be in class 1 of my proposal.

 

[blankslate]

You support limiting one right, but not another? fact is that how people vote effects a LOT more people than firearms, if there's going to be limits on who can own what level of firearm, then it makes perfect sense to have limits on who can effect what level of other people lives.

Voting has limits too. In some places being a felon makes you ineligible to vote. Everyone owning a firearm is nowhere near as important as everyone being allowed to vote to a functioning government with democratic ideals. If you are trying to make that point it is one of your most idiotic and ignorant statements I have seen on this forum.

It's no easier to be any more deadly just because the rounds are being fired from a magazine as opposed to a cylinder. That's pure ignorance.

The round leaving colt .45 ACP is just as deadly as one leaving a .45 revolver, however, it's easier to become proficient at changing magazines than reloading a revolver with a speedloader and it's also possible to get extended magazines for the semi-auto pistol.
So while against one person or a couple yes they pretty much equally deadly...

It's more more problematic to increase the capacity of a revolver, before having to reload.
So if someone is planning a mass murder that becomes a point at which the magazine fed weapon pulls ahead.

From the nature of your posts in these threads about weapons, you must look like this when you are typing...

 

[Tom]

You support limiting one right, but not another? fact is that how people vote effects a LOT more people than firearms, if there's going to be limits on who can own what level of firearm, then it makes perfect sense to have limits on who can effect what level of other people lives.



It's no easier to be any more deadly just because the rounds are being fired from a magazine as opposed to a cylinder. That's pure ignorance.

I thought about the issue of revolvers and replaceable cylinders after my original post and it could be an issue. I think they're more expensive, take a bit more time to change out, and they definitely require more frequent changes than 30 round mags.

But your right its something to think about.

 

[klinc]

Gun free advocates, criminals love you and fully support your opinion, your are responsible for disarming the public which removes the threat to criminals, which result in thousands of people that become victims of violent crime

 

[OrByte]

There aren't many people that are advocating a gun free society....duuh.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The first assault weapon was a Club from there we devolved all the way to nukes. Yes our ancesters were bigger stronger and smarter than we . Why the men of power destroyed our true history is soon to be understood by all . Thus the reason for so much calamity in the world . Canada just had an assualt on a few with a knife . Should knives be banned . I rather take a bullet than a blade. Strange man is today . Thinking himself so smart and yet so low on an evolutionary scale not to care for the planet in which allowed this great evolution of the apes . I have RH neg. blood so sorry I didn't evolve from the same apes as did some races like the negroes . asians and others.

In other words 85% of the population has a common anciestor The Rhesus monkey. I do not have that bloodline . Which makes 100% perfect sense. Sense I would never think of creating weapons to kill other humans . Its not in MY blood.

 

[xj0hnx]

Voting has limits too. In some places being a felon makes you ineligible to vote. Everyone owning a firearm is nowhere near as important as everyone being allowed to vote to a functioning government with democratic ideals. If you are trying to make that point it is one of your most idiotic and ignorant statements I have seen on this forum.

I see the point soared clear over you head, oh well.

The round leaving colt .45 ACP is just as deadly as one leaving a .45 revolver, however, it's easier to become proficient at changing magazines than reloading a revolver with a speedloader and it's also possible to get extended magazines for the semi-auto pistol.
So while against one person or a couple yes they pretty much equally deadly...

It's more more problematic to increase the capacity of a revolver, before having to reload.
So if someone is planning a mass murder that becomes a point at which the magazine fed weapon pulls ahead.

Simply ignorant.

From the nature of your posts in these threads about weapons, you must look like this when you are typing...

Yip, except nothing less from you and your ilk.

 

[blankslate]

I see the point soared clear over you head, oh well.

Sorry but your point was ignorant....

Simply ignorant.

So you're going to tell me that a person doesn't take more practice to use a revolver with speedloaders to reload as quickly as a person using a magazine?

On a revolver you release the cylinder then dump the casings then make sure the cylinder doesn't spin as you put the new ammo in to the cylinder and release it from the speed loader then close the revolver.

In a semi auto you dump the magazine, no need to worry about casings because semi auto firearms eject spent casings, then you insert a loaded magazine and charge the weapon.

It's relatively easy to get magazines with larger capacities for semi-auto firearms. No need to modify the weapon or change out any parts.

Tell me how you increase the capacity of large caliber revolver to a similar degree as a new 20 or 33 round magazine for a semi-auto pistol without running out of space in the cylinder for the revolver? At some point you'd have to actually modify the frame of the revolver to keep up.

Yip, except nothing less from you and your ilk.

You need to look in a mirror.

 

[Fenixgoon]

^^how many homicides involve an extended magazine? And even if it were involved, did it really matter? By the first I mean one that is an aftermarket magazine with capacity beyond the standard factory magazine. by the second, I mean 10 shots from a 30rd mag vs 30 shots from a 30rd mag.

Additionally, you can simply have more weapons already loaded rather than changing magazines. The whole reason so many people die in mass shootings isn't because the person doesn't have to reload. It's because there is no one who is able to challenge the shooter. Doesn't matter if you have a 10rd mag or a 30rd mag.

 

[AnyMal]

^^how many homicides involve an extended magazine? And even if it were involved, did it really matter? By the first I mean one that is an aftermarket magazine with capacity beyond the standard factory magazine. by the second, I mean 10 shots from a 30rd mag vs 30 shots from a 30rd mag.

Additionally, you can simply have more weapons already loaded rather than changing magazines. The whole reason so many people die in mass shootings isn't because the person doesn't have to reload. It's because there is no one who is able to challenge the shooter. Doesn't matter if you have a 10rd mag or a 30rd mag.

Problem is that you're assuming that all these nitwits who insist on limiting magazine capacity know anything about guns, let alone ever used one. Sure, I can discharge a weapon using three 10 round magazines almost as fast as I can discharge one loaded with a single 30 round magazine, but logic is not a virtue that can increase popularity ratings and raise advertisement revenues.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon", plain and simple.