Which One Is The Assault Weapon?

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41

Just think, what if they start hospitalizing everyone that frequents ATS based on the idea that we're all delusional?

Wouldn't that include you?

Great point that i feel many would fail to see. And along with working it would be easy to Justify, As most people would agree that we are in fact crazy.
An example i have used to describe such thinking is as follows: If a genius and a person of average or below average intelligence debate lets say in an Arena of 30,000 people.. The dumber guy will always win, Because there are much more people who can understand what he is saying as opposed to the genius because they are simply unable to comprehend him.

Murder stats from the FBI for 2011.

Rifles=323
Shotguns=356

Knives=1694
Blunt objects=496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)=728


Link:
FBI Murder Statistics: 2011

reply to post by aztlan73

A ball peen hammer can be an "assault" (melee) weapon also. And a shotgun or rifle can be used a "defensive" weapon as well.

WORD!!!!

Finally someone with some common sense..... My son has a .22 that looks exactly like an M4 but if the media saw him they would label it an assualt rifle which is nothing more than a semi automatic .22.

Thank you for your post and I only hope more read it.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Weapon "A"

Weapon "B"

Which of these is an assault rifle?

Believe it or not mechanically they are the same. Both are Ruger 10/22s. One has the traditional wood stock and grip, while the other has a fiberglass grip and a polymer folding stock.

If Weapon "A" appeared on the evening news, it would probably be identified as a hunting rifle, while Weapon "B" would be called an assault weapon.

Several years ago, a man who was running for the State Senate came to the Hunting and Fishing club that I belong to, wanting to get a photo op to show his support for gun ownership. He asked if he could pose with a rifle, so somebody handed him one that looked somewhat like Weapon "B". He handed it back with the comment "No way am I going to be seen holding an assault rifle!". Another rifle that looked like Weapon "A" was handed to him and he said "That's better" and had his picture taken. As it turned out both rifles were owned by a local gunsmith, who pulled the guy aside and said that he had something to show him. The gunsmith disassembled both rifles and put the parts from the first rifle on the second and the parts from the second on to the first.

The term "assault rifle" is meaningless. It is just media and political hype. Just like the media's habit of calling semi-automatic weapons, automatic weapons.

Forget the guns, it is the mental health issue that should be addressed instead. Froggy on the Blackfive website has one of the best posts I have seen on this. Please give it a read.

Gun Control vs. Teh Crazy

edit on 19-12-2012 by JIMC5499 because: typo

Incorrect. The folding stock on Weapon B classifies it as an "assault weapon" and it has been illegal for a long time now, just as firearms which are designed to be "non-detectable" by x-ray and metal detectors have been banned since Reagan thought it was prudent to do so in 1988.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Anyone who is pushing assaut weapons is nonsense as a parting gift here:

That sure looks menacing

love it. The Hello Kitty version. My daughter would go nuts....

Originally posted by AllenBishop
Murder stats from the FBI for 2011.

Rifles=323
Shotguns=356

Knives=1694
Blunt objects=496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)=728


Link:
FBI Murder Statistics: 2011

edit on 20-12-2012 by AllenBishop because: Link missing

LOL.

Nice work conveniently excluding the 6,220 handgun deaths in 2011 referenced ON YOUR OWN LINK.

Nothing like cherry-picking the data, right?

Originally posted by AllenBishop
reply to post by muse7

 

Trolling? Hardly. I have plenty of experience on the subject.

There's a reason the military has been wanting to ditch 5.56 for a long time for a larger, more powerful cartridge.

The only reason the M4/M16 haven't been fully replaced is a logistical/financial issue, NOT a performance issue.

The US military would switch to the Mk17 Mod 0 in a heartbeat if it weren't cost prohibitive to do so. The 5.56 is a poorly performing round that was originally designed for varmint hunting. Again, it's a hopped-up .22 and nothing more.

I don't care how many episodes of ER you've watched, the facts are facts.

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.
This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants."

And this is on military spec ammunition. I would bet my paycheck that Adam Lanza was using .223 civvy ammo, which is of even poorer performance.

You need to familiarize yourself with terminal ballistics theory from Dr. Martin Fackler, before trying to whizz on my back and tell me it's raining.

Your statement is still ignorant.

It's like arguing that the 2,000lb smart bombs we drop are designed as "wounding bombs" because they aren't H-bombs.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by AllenBishop
Murder stats from the FBI for 2011.

Rifles=323
Shotguns=356

Knives=1694
Blunt objects=496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)=728


Link:
FBI Murder Statistics: 2011

edit on 20-12-2012 by AllenBishop because: Link missing

LOL.

Nice work conveniently excluding the 6,220 handgun deaths in 2011 referenced ON YOUR OWN LINK.

Nothing like cherry-picking the data, right?

Problem is, they ain't talking about banning handguns, Chuckles, they're are talking about banning "assault rifles", emphasis on the "rifles".

The data isn't there to support the inherent "danger" of these weapons.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by AllenBishop
reply to post by muse7

 

Trolling? Hardly. I have plenty of experience on the subject.

There's a reason the military has been wanting to ditch 5.56 for a long time for a larger, more powerful cartridge.

The only reason the M4/M16 haven't been fully replaced is a logistical/financial issue, NOT a performance issue.

The US military would switch to the Mk17 Mod 0 in a heartbeat if it weren't cost prohibitive to do so. The 5.56 is a poorly performing round that was originally designed for varmint hunting. Again, it's a hopped-up .22 and nothing more.

I don't care how many episodes of ER you've watched, the facts are facts.

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.
This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants."

And this is on military spec ammunition. I would bet my paycheck that Adam Lanza was using .223 civvy ammo, which is of even poorer performance.

You need to familiarize yourself with terminal ballistics theory from Dr. Martin Fackler, before trying to whizz on my back and tell me it's raining.

Your statement is still ignorant.

It's like arguing that the 2,000lb smart bombs we drop are designed as "wounding bombs" because they aren't H-bombs.

Don't play the semantics game with me. People are on here acting like the .223 is some wonder bullet that causes people to vaporize like Marvin The Martian's ray-gun. The data simply does not support this, especially when a buckshot is a far more devestating cartridge.

The 5.56 NATO round was designed to wound the enemy, overloading their medical support capacity. That, coupled with the smaller size allowing for greater number of rounds carried were the deciding factors for standardizing to this cartridge, DESPITE its under performance against other common calibres.

For you, not knowing my background, to infer that my statement is "ignorant" is pretty assumptive...

Any .22 short or long rifle caliber gun that isn't fully automatic shouldn't be considered an assault weapon IMO, no matter what attachments and features it has.



The .22 is left of the penny, and the AR-15 ammo is to the right, followed by the AK ammo.

reply to post by JIMC5499


The mental health issue is surely a reason not to have guns?

Originally posted by AllenBishop

Don't play the semantics game with me. People are on here acting like the .223 is some wonder bullet that causes people to vaporize like Marvin The Martian's ray-gun. The data simply does not support this, especially when a buckshot is a far more devestating cartridge.

All morning on NPR they were talking about "these modern weapons" and "modern capabilities" as if a firearm is a microprocessor and doubles in power every year or so.

The interviewing host even asked "you wouldnt want to take an old Bonnie and Clyde style Tommy Gun up against one of these modern assault weapons would you?" WTF is that question even trying to get at?

I kept yelling at the radio. What has changed about guns in the last 100 years!!!!!!! What!?!?!!?

I honestly believe that far too many people honestly believe that any gun manufactured this decade has heat-seeking exploding bullets or some such bull#.

I'm going to start acting like a complete moron yet one who has full authority to discuss a subject, any subject, and see how long it takes me to reach the oval office. I expect I'll be there in 2016 given how I have seen stupidity rewarded in this nation.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Exactly.

I mean, Stoner's design is almost 60 years old. We are talking about a "modern" weapon that's 60 years old!

GMAFB!!!

You wanna talk modern, lets talk the TDI Vector V, The FN SCAR, Hk 416, AA-12. Only then could they have a valid argument on "modern". And for what it's worth, Bonnie and Clyde were prior to the NFA passed in 1934, so, yes, their hardware was more deadly.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Exactly.

I mean, Stoner's design is almost 60 years old. We are talking about a "modern" weapon that's 60 years old!

GMAFB!!!

You wanna talk modern, lets talk the TDI Vector V, The FN SCAR, Hk 416, AA-12. Only then could they have a valid argument on "modern". And for what it's worth, Bonnie and Clyde were prior to the NFA passed in 1934, so, yes, their hardware was more deadly.

know whats funny, I had a ruger 10/22 that looked exactly like the top one. Now, after buying a new stock, extended mag, foregrip/bipod combo, and a scope, it looks more like the one on the bottom. Folding stock and all

WAY TO GO

Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

The mental health issue is surely a reason not to have guns?

Repeat after me. "It isn't the gun. It is the person who uses the gun. If guns were not available they would use some other method to try to get the same results."

Within the last few weeks a knife was used to slash 20+ children in China and a crossbow was used in another incident.

Originally posted by AllenBishop
Murder stats from the FBI for 2011.

Rifles=323
Shotguns=356

Knives=1694
Blunt objects=496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)=728


Link:
FBI Murder Statistics: 2011

edit on 20-12-2012 by AllenBishop because: Link missing

You left out some numbers...
Total homicides from firearms: 8,583

Total firearms: 8,583
Handguns 6,220
Rifles 323
Shotguns 356
Other guns 97
Firearms, type not stated 1,587

Same link

Originally posted by JIMC5499


Repeat after me. "It isn't the gun. It is the person who uses the gun.

That's right.

Guns don't kill people! People kill people. And so do Monkeys...if they have a gun.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Within the last few weeks a knife was used to slash 20+ children in China and a crossbow was used in another incident.

And if that wacko in China had been able to get his hands on a Semi-Automatic AR-15...you could swap the adjective "slashed" with "murdered" and likely even bump up the number. Adam Lanza KILLED (not wounded with a knife) 28 people in under 4 minutes...and THAT is exactly what guns are designed to do. Them being a better killing tool is exactly thier utility and value. It's what drives design and innovation in the gun industry. It is precisely how they are marketed and have been for centuries.

There is a debate worth having here and I am not for banning all guns, but I am for banning BS.

The argument that a knife is just as deadly as a gun is like arguing that people can still travel by horse, so cars don't matter.

Just retarded logic employed for NRA cheerleading...and it doesn't do the Pro-Gun contingent any favors in the national discourse.

IF knives are just as deadly as guns...then you shouldn't have an issue banning guns? Right? You can always buy a knife for self defense?

Dumb...Dumb...Dumb...position to take in the debate...and I am not singling out you, there is a whole lot of folks trying to make that idiotic argument.