First what is an assault weapon? A fire arm that has the following features
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Aside from the grenade launcher this is a completely cosmetic designation. There is little sense in banning a rifle with a folding stock, because you can kill someone just as dead if the gun had a fixed stock. Pistol grip? I don't know to many rifles that don't have a pistol grip, and the gun can still kill you just as dead if it had a wrist grip. A bayonet mount is just a tying on the end of the gun, manufacturers will just call it something else, but this doesn't matter because the times an "assault" weapon was used in murder they didn't use the bayonet. A flash suppressor is just a thing on the end of the barrel, it doesn't make the gun more accurate or deadly. The grenade launcher, you can't really get grenades for it.
So making it a crime to own a gun with the above features isn't about making things safe, just eroding liberty. My reasoning is this, a gun with a collapsible stock isn't more deadly, so removing that option as well as the others just means that or liberties to own such a fire arm are being taken away.
So an Assault rifle, pistol, or shot gun is just scary looking.
Second statistics on gun crimes should be considered, not just emotional back lash over a small number of isolated incidents.
In 2010 there were 358 deaths caused by rifle fire, remember an AR 15 is a rifle. 6009 were involving pistols. Keep in mind not all rifles are assault rifles, meaning they can be hunting rifles and shotguns.
Of the 30,470 fire arm related deaths in 2010 19,392 or 63.6% were suicide. 11,078 or 34.6% were homicide.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
So if this was about making things safer we would be talking about pistols, in the .380, .38, .357, .25, .22, and 9mm caliber being that they are the most often used in gun crime. The buzz word "assault weapon" is just sensationalist rhetoric to frighten uninformed or uneducated people. And the ban is really just to get a foot in the door in order to pursue a UK gun policy.
Third, high capacity magazines. One may ask, "why do you need more than # bullets?" The answer is simple, tactical advantage. I carry a fire arm to give me a tactical advantage over potential unarmed would be assailants. I load it with a17 round magazine, and two seventeen round magazines for reload. I have been in a fire fight, it isn't tactically wise to stand out in the open and properly aim. Some times you are shooting from behind cover and can't aim.
I personally prefer a shotgun in a fire fight because it is a short range firearm, with triple ought buck shot in a two and a half inch cartage its like firing 9 9mm at the target, further more the simple chunk chunk of the pump action is normally enough to take the fight right out of someone with out hurting or killing them, always a plus. However shot guns cannot be concealed our easily made ready.
As someone who has pointed a gun at someone, just that alone bothered me. I was just a finer twitch away from taking the life of a son, husband, father, uncle, cousin, even though my life was in as much risk as his, and that I would be justified in firing, I am so relieved I didn't have to. That being said I would like to know that I can do that again if I needed to.
I have spoken to officers, civilians, and service men that have killed people they all seem to not be unaffected by it.
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Aside from the grenade launcher this is a completely cosmetic designation. There is little sense in banning a rifle with a folding stock, because you can kill someone just as dead if the gun had a fixed stock. Pistol grip? I don't know to many rifles that don't have a pistol grip, and the gun can still kill you just as dead if it had a wrist grip. A bayonet mount is just a tying on the end of the gun, manufacturers will just call it something else, but this doesn't matter because the times an "assault" weapon was used in murder they didn't use the bayonet. A flash suppressor is just a thing on the end of the barrel, it doesn't make the gun more accurate or deadly. The grenade launcher, you can't really get grenades for it.
So making it a crime to own a gun with the above features isn't about making things safe, just eroding liberty. My reasoning is this, a gun with a collapsible stock isn't more deadly, so removing that option as well as the others just means that or liberties to own such a fire arm are being taken away.
So an Assault rifle, pistol, or shot gun is just scary looking.
Second statistics on gun crimes should be considered, not just emotional back lash over a small number of isolated incidents.
In 2010 there were 358 deaths caused by rifle fire, remember an AR 15 is a rifle. 6009 were involving pistols. Keep in mind not all rifles are assault rifles, meaning they can be hunting rifles and shotguns.
Of the 30,470 fire arm related deaths in 2010 19,392 or 63.6% were suicide. 11,078 or 34.6% were homicide.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
So if this was about making things safer we would be talking about pistols, in the .380, .38, .357, .25, .22, and 9mm caliber being that they are the most often used in gun crime. The buzz word "assault weapon" is just sensationalist rhetoric to frighten uninformed or uneducated people. And the ban is really just to get a foot in the door in order to pursue a UK gun policy.
Third, high capacity magazines. One may ask, "why do you need more than # bullets?" The answer is simple, tactical advantage. I carry a fire arm to give me a tactical advantage over potential unarmed would be assailants. I load it with a17 round magazine, and two seventeen round magazines for reload. I have been in a fire fight, it isn't tactically wise to stand out in the open and properly aim. Some times you are shooting from behind cover and can't aim.
I personally prefer a shotgun in a fire fight because it is a short range firearm, with triple ought buck shot in a two and a half inch cartage its like firing 9 9mm at the target, further more the simple chunk chunk of the pump action is normally enough to take the fight right out of someone with out hurting or killing them, always a plus. However shot guns cannot be concealed our easily made ready.
As someone who has pointed a gun at someone, just that alone bothered me. I was just a finer twitch away from taking the life of a son, husband, father, uncle, cousin, even though my life was in as much risk as his, and that I would be justified in firing, I am so relieved I didn't have to. That being said I would like to know that I can do that again if I needed to.
I have spoken to officers, civilians, and service men that have killed people they all seem to not be unaffected by it.
Last edited:
I just liked your choice of words because they could be taken either way.
