HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 37 Next »

benEzra

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 11,973

Journal Archives

Because they were spec'ing it for use in automatic weapons.

They traded off per-round lethality to get usable select-fire capability, which was and is considered vital in CQB by the military; 3-round burst on the M4 is now acknowledged as a Fulda-Gap aberration that is now being rectified (the M4A1 is back to full auto, based on experience in Iraq and Afghanistan).

To my knowledge, the U.S. military, and all other militaries on this planet, have not procured a single .223/5.56mm semiauto for general issue, ever; all military semiautos ever issued were at least 7mm that I'm aware of (the Garand was originally prototyped as a 7x51mm). I believe some private security contractors have occasionally used a few 5.56mm DMR's as gap-filler precision rifles, and it's possible some of those have occasionally seen use with SOCOM for weight reasons as well, but nothing for general issue and especially CQB.

Would you prefer that all our rifles were rechambered in 6.8mm SPC, which was developed by/for SOCOM to offset the .223's lack of power? Or perhaps that we all switched to AR-10's in .243 Winchester? A 58gr varmint bullet at 3,925 ft/sec would be a pretty effective defensive round, would it not?

No, the MA AG didn't touch function at all.

"The AG in MA has foregone all the minutia about appearance and boiled it down to function. If it acts like an assault weapon it IS an assault weapon."

No, the MA AG didn't touch function at all. A Ruger Mini-14 functions just like an AR-15, but isn't banned.

What she did was redefine the phrase "copy or duplicate" to mean "somewhat similar to" or "sharing a couple of parts with", contrary to 18 years of legal precedent. It had nothing to do with function, and everything to do with stretching the original list of guns that were banned for their looks.

It also didn't have anything to do with misuse. Out of 1,301 murders in Massachusetts 2007-2014, all rifles combined accounted for 7 (yes, seven). This move was about sticking it to Massachusetts residents she---and you---hold in contempt, not about violence reduction.

"An assault weapon is a semi auto or burst fire weapon with a high cyclic rate of fire and removable magazine."

Pray tell, what is the "cyclic rate of fire" of a non-automatic Title I civilian AR-15, and how does it differ from the "cyclic rate of fire" of a Glock 17 or a Beretta 92 or a Ruger Mini-14 or a 10/22?

And nowhere, to my knowledge, has any legal definition of "assault weapon" ever encompassed Title II automatic weapons, just Title I civilian non-automatics. "Assault rifle," on the other hand, referred strictly to Title II select-fire rifles of intermediate caliber.



For short range, how about a Garand scaled down for a less powerful cartridge.



Not an "assault weapon", either, not even in Massachusetts or California.

"All the rest is rabid defense of a piece of equipment that is designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate."

This is exactly how gun control activists shot themselves in the foot in the 1990s. The fact that the guns you're talking about are both the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, and simultaneously among the least misused of *all* weapons (even less than shotguns), belies that argument. You're making lurid statements about guns that are considered suitable for civilian use in Canada and most of Europe.

Some actual numbers, that might mean something if the cognitive dissonance weren't so strong:



Yes, out of 1300 murders, all rifles put together accounted for only seven of them.

6mm Remington "worked OK" (in your words) at U Texas. 9mm "worked OK" (again your words) at VT.

.223 Remington is the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges, and is average as far as velocity goes. Making it out to be a mega-super-ultra-death-cartridge that causes more serious wounds than .243/.270/.30-06 with comparable bullets is ludicrous. And since you want to outlaw semiauto 9mm carbines too, and 7.62x39mm, and .243/7mm-08/.308, and even .22LR, if they have protruding handgrips, it's all obfuscation. I suspect that there are exactly zero rifle cartridges you are OK with if they are chambered in a modern-looking semiauto with a detachable magazine.

FWIW, H.R.1022 a few years ago would have also banned the M1 Garand, as I recall, and the Feinstein AWB banned the Beretta BM59 (M1 Garand in a modern stock) by name. There are also a few hundred thousand Garands sitting in warehouses overseas that gun prohibitionists have blocked the importation of for civilian sale. So the gun control lobby isn't OK with those, either.

155gr .30-06 is still trading velocity for long range and penetration. Try 110gr.

Most full-power rifle loads are optimized for range and deep penetration. But step down to even a 110-grain bullet, and .30-06 is pushing it at 3400-3500 ft/sec, if you want to compare apples to apples. Remington also used to make a 55gr .30-06 load above 4000 ft/sec (Remington Accelerator), but I think they've been discontinued.

.30-06, .270, or .243 with fragile loads will produce far more severe wounds than a .223 with varmint rounds at equivalent range, because the full-power rounds stomp the lowish-powered .223 in terms of both velocity and energy.

Dihydrogen monoxide hand-waving...

"re the term 'assault rifle': howsoever it evolved, somewhen it has become a political term used today to mainly define rifles with a high muzzle velocity which often have an automatic rifle equivalent in the military {AR15 to M16, AK47, 74}"

Ummm, no. The prohibitionists use the term "assault weapon" to include moderately-high-velocity rounds like .223 Remington, lowish-velocity rifle rounds like 7.62x39mm (civilian AK-47 lookalikes, SKS), and even carbines that fire very-low-velocity rounds like 9mm, .45 ACP, or even .22LR.

The definining characteristic of an "assault weapon" is looks (mainly the shape and styling of the stock), not muzzle velocity or mode of operation. A semiauto .30-06 or a semiauto 9mm with a protruding handgrip is an "assault weapon", whereas a Ruger Mini-14 (semiauto .223 Remington) or Mini Thirty (semiauto 7.62x39mm) are ostensibly not.

"which can often be converted back from civilian semi-auto to full automatic by use of a conversion kit or sometimes a simple tool such as a file (not that many assault rifle owners do this, it would be counter productive, just that the capability exists). "

Baloney. Title 1 civilian "assault weapons" are as hard to convert to full auto as Title 1 civilian non-"assault weapons" like the Mini-14, the 10/22, etc.; any gun that can be converted to full auto by filing the sear is already a machinegun under Federal law, even if not actually converted.

A skilled machinist well equipped with blueprints, machine tools, and time can manufacture parts to convert any smallish-caliber civilian repeating rifle to full auto, but such parts are themselves machineguns under Federal law, and even attempting to create such parts will land you 10 years in Federal prison.

She didn't ban "assault rifles". She banned rifles that *aren't* assault weapons

under Massachusetts law, in that they are neither banned by name, nor are *copies* or *duplicates* of guns banned by name, nor meet the features-list criteria used to define an "assault weapon". Instead, she unilaterally redefined "copies or duplicates of" to mean "somewhat similar to" or "shares a couple of parts with", contrary to 18 years of precedent, and turning hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents into criminals overnight.

Banning modern-looking rifles is particularly ludicrous because between 2007 and 2014, Massachusetts had 1,294 murders in the state. All rifles combined accounted for ]b]seven of them. That is fewer than one per year, on average, for all lever-action, bolt-action, pump-action, and autoloading rifles combined.

Tell me again how gun control fundamentalists "don't want to ban guns, just keep them out of the wrong hands." That's BS. Even the Brady Campaign is distancing themselves from this crap.

You were the one who proposed a ridiculous capacity limit

that would have no effect on gun deaths, but is especially ludicrous to float as a proposed solution to suicide.

I'll also point out that Japan has a higher murder + suicide rate than we do, if you want to use that metric. Prohibitionists don't give a shit about non-gun suicides, though.

FWIW, our suicide rate is *lower* than that of Canada, Germany, France, Iceland, Norway, and New Zealand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

Less than 200 murders/year involve "assault weapons". Not 30,000.

Most of those 30,000 are suicides, which even a ridiculous 3- or 6-round magazine limit wouldn't touch, and which rarely involve rifles anyway.

Of gun homicides, most are with small, lowish-capacity pistols and revolvers, wielded by career criminals who can't legally so much as touch a gun, and who can't legally carry them. All rifles and all shotguns combined barely reach 500 murders annually.

Less than 200 deaths a year nationwide isn't low enough for the fundamentalists.

Assuming so-called "assault weapons" account for half or even 2/3 of the ~270 rifle murders annually in this country (a fair assumption given that they are by far the most popular civilian rifles in the United States), yet the fundamentalists want nationwide bans, and many want mass confiscation---from 20-50 million people, depending on how defined---over that ~200/yr.

To put that into perspective, ~720/yr are killed riding bicycles.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 37 Next »