Re:I think you're looking at the wrong thing
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding here, and perhaps I can clear it up.
There is a very important difference between a "machine gun," and an "assault weapon" such as those types of guns affected by the ban.
The difference is between "semi-auto" and what is sometimes called "full auto" or "select fire."
Machine guns and the rifles soldiers use are "full auto" or "select fire." With these guns, you pull the trigger and the gun keeps firing bullets until you either release the trigger or run out of ammunition.
"Assault weapons" such as those affecte by the recently expired ban, are called "semi-auto" and shoot differently. You pull the trigger, one bullet gets fired. To fire another, you have to release the trigger and then pull it again to fire one more bullet. Just about every handgun you can find shoots this way, and many hunting rifles do as well.
The only functional difference between an "assault rifle" such as this, and nearly all pistols and many hunting rifles, is that the "assault rifle" carries more ammunition in one magazine. But this can be compensated for by carrying additional magazines. With a bit of practice, you can drop an empty magazine and load a new one in less than two seconds.
These so-called "assault weapons" cannot "spray bullets" as many opponents have claimed. Also, the cartidges/bullets they shoot are generally smaller and less powerful than many hunting cartridges/bullets. (In fact, the.223 cartridge used by both the full-auto M-16 and the semi-auto AR-15 are designed to wound rather than kill the enemy, based on the theory that a wounded soldier also takes one or two others out of the action as they have to tend to the wounded one.)
The question has also been asked, what value is an "assault weapon" other than to kill a lot of people? The answer is, sometimes the ability to kill a lot of people is vital to defending one's own life, home and family.
I live in the Los Angeles area, which has been the scene of periodic race riots. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the only businesses in the riot area which survived were those guarded by owners and their relatives, carrying guns which can kill a lot of people.
Even aside from the threat of race riot, there is the threat of a major earthquake, which would induce a collapse of all social services. Before very long, those who had practiced proper earthquake preparedness would find themselves beseiged by those who had not. Law enforcement would be busy guarding city/county property and VIPs, the rest of us would be on our own.
Most of the US is not in an earthquake zone, but there are always tornados, hurricanes, and possible man-made calamities to consider.
One scenario involves a family living in a fairly isolated area. There's a prison 20-30 miles away, and some prisoners make their escape, stealing a van or small bus. This gang of 6-12 desperados knows they need to ditch the van, and a place to hide out, and provision themselves. Your isolated home looks like a good candidate. In such a situation, the best weapon to have would be a full-auto M-4, but the second-best would be a semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47.
Finally, there has been the insistence that banning "assault guns" is not the same as banning all guns. Well, if you look at just a moment in time, this is correct. But if you look at the history of gun control in virtually evey country that once had free private ownership, you will see the same story.
First, a ban was only applied to a few guns which few owned and especially frightened many. A few years later, the ban was expanded. Then, the class of people prohibited from owning guns was expanded. Then another expansion here, another expansion there, until ultimately, the only guns permitted in either England or Australia were single-barreled shotguns (and even those were tightly controlled) and maybe certain types of single-shot.22 target pistols used in Olympic Competition (actu
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding here, and perhaps I can clear it up.
.223 cartridge used by both the full-auto M-16 and the semi-auto AR-15 are designed to wound rather than kill the enemy, based on the theory that a wounded soldier also takes one or two others out of the action as they have to tend to the wounded one.)
.22 target pistols used in Olympic Competition (actu
There is a very important difference between a "machine gun," and an "assault weapon" such as those types of guns affected by the ban.
The difference is between "semi-auto" and what is sometimes called "full auto" or "select fire."
Machine guns and the rifles soldiers use are "full auto" or "select fire." With these guns, you pull the trigger and the gun keeps firing bullets until you either release the trigger or run out of ammunition.
"Assault weapons" such as those affecte by the recently expired ban, are called "semi-auto" and shoot differently. You pull the trigger, one bullet gets fired. To fire another, you have to release the trigger and then pull it again to fire one more bullet. Just about every handgun you can find shoots this way, and many hunting rifles do as well.
The only functional difference between an "assault rifle" such as this, and nearly all pistols and many hunting rifles, is that the "assault rifle" carries more ammunition in one magazine. But this can be compensated for by carrying additional magazines. With a bit of practice, you can drop an empty magazine and load a new one in less than two seconds.
These so-called "assault weapons" cannot "spray bullets" as many opponents have claimed. Also, the cartidges/bullets they shoot are generally smaller and less powerful than many hunting cartridges/bullets. (In fact, the
The question has also been asked, what value is an "assault weapon" other than to kill a lot of people? The answer is, sometimes the ability to kill a lot of people is vital to defending one's own life, home and family.
I live in the Los Angeles area, which has been the scene of periodic race riots. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the only businesses in the riot area which survived were those guarded by owners and their relatives, carrying guns which can kill a lot of people.
Even aside from the threat of race riot, there is the threat of a major earthquake, which would induce a collapse of all social services. Before very long, those who had practiced proper earthquake preparedness would find themselves beseiged by those who had not. Law enforcement would be busy guarding city/county property and VIPs, the rest of us would be on our own.
Most of the US is not in an earthquake zone, but there are always tornados, hurricanes, and possible man-made calamities to consider.
One scenario involves a family living in a fairly isolated area. There's a prison 20-30 miles away, and some prisoners make their escape, stealing a van or small bus. This gang of 6-12 desperados knows they need to ditch the van, and a place to hide out, and provision themselves. Your isolated home looks like a good candidate. In such a situation, the best weapon to have would be a full-auto M-4, but the second-best would be a semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47.
Finally, there has been the insistence that banning "assault guns" is not the same as banning all guns. Well, if you look at just a moment in time, this is correct. But if you look at the history of gun control in virtually evey country that once had free private ownership, you will see the same story.
First, a ban was only applied to a few guns which few owned and especially frightened many. A few years later, the ban was expanded. Then, the class of people prohibited from owning guns was expanded. Then another expansion here, another expansion there, until ultimately, the only guns permitted in either England or Australia were single-barreled shotguns (and even those were tightly controlled) and maybe certain types of single-shot