HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 03:09 PM
Number of posts: 11,639

Journal Archives

A ban on 10-to-30 round magazines would be even more politically toxic than an AWB...

since the magazine ban wouldn't just affect modern-looking rifles, but many popular pistols and traditional-looking rifles as well.

As to requiring magazine changes every 10 or 15 rounds, here's a regular dude shooting a local-to-me USPSA match with a hard-kicking, very-low-capacity pistol (M1911 .45 ACP, capacity 8+1):

Unless you are going to ban ownership of multiple magazines, even New York's wacky 7-round limit (less than half the capacity you could buy in NY in 1861) doesn't really limit rate of effective fire. Of course, that wasn't the intent.

So by your definition, this is an "assault weapon"?

Antique military-style lever action, capacity 16+1.

Or maybe this one? .22 squirrel rifle, capacity 18+1 or 14+1.

Is this an "assault weapon"? Capacity 15+1 or 17+1.

"Regardless of what happened in the past, it is obvious that today high capacity magazines and assault-type rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murders."

The worst mass shooting in U.S. history was carried out with a compact 9mm pistol, a .22 pistol, and a backpack full of non-extended, mostly low-capacity magazines. Banning rifles with handgrips and magazines that stick out wouldn't save *any* lives.

FWIW, magazine capacity is more important for defensive use than offensive use, given that someone planning an assault can carry all the magazines they want, whereas a defender may have only the magazine in the gun (if a long gun at home), or a couple spares if carrying with reloads.

Here in NC,

I had to take an 8-hour class on NC self-defense law, pass a Federal background check, state background check, FBI fingerprint check, mental health records check, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range, in order to obtain a carry license. Yet you would take away my own license just as readily as you'd take an Arizona resident's right to carry away from her, which shows that it's not really gun-owner training that is your goal here.

BTW, Arizona's law allowing concealed carry for lawful purposes without a license was passed in imitation of Vermont. Vermont has never required a license to CCW and has always had one of the lowest rates of violence in the nation.

It'd be cabernet, not heroin.

"I hear heroin is fun & helpful, too"

The simple fact is that the most popular civilian rifle in the United States is also among the least misused guns in the United States. Period. Even shotguns are used to commit more homicides than rifles are. So are knives, blunt objects, and bare hands.


"What good are assault rifles (sic) in deterring crime, safeguarding homes, or providing some positive benefit from usage which couldn't be accomplished with a more conventional & 'safer' rifle?"

Just how, perchance, does a rifle become "safer" by fitting it with an old fashioned stock, while retaining the same recoil, rate of fire, and magazine capacity?

By almost any measure, the AR is among the safest of all rifles on the market. Relatively low powered, hard to conceal on the person, a better safety than most long guns, highly accurate, less penetration than most guns, and ergonomics that encourage safer handling. Not to mention that they are less prone to misuse than either handguns or shotguns, based on FBI weapon-use statistics.

"The ar15/m16 have such little recoil they perforce become more accurate when shooting quickfire"

Ummm, what? My AR will shoot about 1" groups at 100 yards, slowfire. Are you saying that if you pull the trigger frenetically like an idiot in a Youtube video, the groups will shrink?

If it's the light-ish recoil of .223 that bothers you, then you're out to ban all box-fed .22 centerfires, then? And you'd be OK with me owning an an AR in harder-kicking .243 Winchester or .308, I take it?

There's also the pesky fact that a more powerful rifle can do more damage with one hit (such as penetrating a Level III AR500 plate) than an AR can do with multiple hits...

"There. is. no. beneficial. cogent. usage. for. ar15s. in. communities. To outweigh real & potential hazards."

Given that the AR is demonstrably *less* dangerous than almost any other class of centerfire firearm, I'd say that is baloney. If AR's---rarely-misused centerfire .22's, after all---are too "dangerous" for civilians to own, then *most* repeating firearms are too dangerous for civilians to own, which is why the gun control lobby popularized the "assault weapon" fraud in the first place (Sugarmann, 1988).

"Already had this discussion, switch to birdshot in the shotgun"

If you switch to 40gr JHP in the AR, you can probably penetrate less than birdshot at close range. Neither is recommended for defensive use, though, due to that same utter lack of penetration.

"It's an 'excellent choice' is it? If you have enough money (~$1,000?) to waste for home defense & you target shoot competitively & if you live really really rural & get annoyed with varmints a quarter mile away, yeah I guess so....That's actually a good thing they cost so much, inhibits propagation."

A basic Smith & Wesson or Ruger AR will set you back about $550 if you shop around, $600 if you don't, which is comparable to a bolt-action of similar quality (say a Savage Trophy Hunter). Obviously optics and features will add to that.

"But if you're a normal ar15 owner, I'll bet most of them wish they hadn't bought the damn thing. "

Actually, looking at NSSF surveys, it looks like AR owners are among the gun owners *most* likely to enjoy shooting their purchase at the range. There are good reasons for that, as I've certainly spelled out upthread.

"And I'm sure you meant to write " .. less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or SOME handgun rounds." Didn't you? "

No, I mean *all* handgun rounds. .223 JHP penetrates less in building materials than any effective centerfire handgun JHP or SP I am aware of. Any of them. Meaning a 9mm/.40/.45 is more likely to exit a lightly constructed exterior wall than a 52-55gr JHP/SP from an AR is. The only handgun round that *might* penetrate as little as a 55gr .223 is something like a Glaser.

"By default I assume you agree that ar15s rank very low regarding defensive gun uses. That is actual usage. You just cant' get a 'verbal dgu' if you bluff & say to burglar 'go away or I'll get my assault rifle'. Nah, no cigar."

Not sure what you're arguing here. They are probably more intimidating than handguns are, which is one reason the media like to sensationalize and ban them, but I'm not sure if that equates to them being actually fired in HD less often (it may, but AFAIK there is little to no data on DGU by gun make/model). And the typical scenario with a long gun would be sheltering in place, not some sort of Clint-Eastwood-esque standing on your porch and threatening thing.

Good point.

And using that analogy, restricting AR's would be a lot like restricting 4-cylinder sport compacts or maybe V6 sports sedans, not high-horsepower V8s and V12s or powerful trucks. I think a Civic Si with the factory aero package is a pretty decent car analogue of an AR, personally.

If you don't see the need for a group like Knife Rights,

then look at the situation in New York City.


There are those even now trying to justify the Freddie Gray shooting on the basis that he had an ordinary assisted-opening folding pocketknife clipped in his pocket, even though (1) he never attempted to draw it, (2) such knives are not illegal in Maryland, and (3) one-hand-opening pocketknives are as mundane as car keys, wallets, cell phones, and pocket change in most of the country.


Presumably a name change would do it...

since wouldn't be banned by the features list. Heck, you could alter the magwell so it takes AR magazines and call it the Mini 223, or upgrade the barrel profile, and then it couldn't be said to be a "copy or duplicate" either. Note that the 2003 Feinstein ban wouldn't have banned the exact same gun in 7.62x39mm (the Mini Thirty).

AR's would have needed a grip shape change to comply with the 2003 proposal, unlike the 1994 non-ban which allowed protruding handgrips as long as the rifle met the Evil Features Count rule. Ironically, the 1994 law didn't even require a name change for most AR's, since "Colt AR-15" was and is a registered trademark of Colt, so all the other AR manufacturers weren't using that name anyway.

Yup. And the factory stock is brown walnut, not black nylon.

That can be changed in 30 seconds, of course...yank the trigger guard, yank the trigger group, yank the action/barrel out of the stock, drop it in the other stock, pop in the trigger group, close the trigger guard. Of course, that assumes both stocks are fitted with the liners. I actually had three stocks for my mini-14; the standard wooden stock, a Choate fixed stock with a pistol grip, and a Butler Creek folder that I bought after the expiration of the Feinstein non-ban in 2004.

Interestingly, the gun-control lobby calls the wooden-stocked mini-14 both an evil "assault weapon" that should be banned, and a benign "sporting" rifle, depending on how much they think they can get away with at whatever given moment they are talking about it. Feinstein's original non-ban exempted all nonfolding mini-14's, but some of her later Senate bills (such as S.1431, 2003) would have banned all mini-14's by name, even the wooden-stocked ones.



This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003'.


(a) IN GENERAL- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:


`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

Yup. This gun is identical to an AR-15 in every functional way...


...just less accurate and somewhat less durable, but same ammunition, same rate of fire, same range of magazine capacities. I used to own one; Ram-Line used to make magazines that would fit and function in both an AR and a mini-14. I sold it because I wanted something more suitable for target shooting, but the mini-14 made an excellent HD carbine and was fun to shoot.

What good are they? Well, let's see...

They are by far the most used centerfire target rifles in the nation. Go to a typical rifle range on a typical Saturday, and half the centerfire rifles on the firing line will be AR-15 variants or other modern-looking rifles. .223 Remington/5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm easily outsell all other centerfire rifle calibers combined.

Go to any practical carbine competition (USPSA sanctioned, IDPA sanctioned, 3-gun) and the overwhelming majority of rifles you see will be AR-15 variants.

The only domains where AR-15's don't dominate are those that favor higher-powered rifles shooting heavier bullets, such as F-class benchrest or big-game hunting.

AR's dominate smaller game hunting (varmint hunting, predator hunting) down to the level at which .22 rimfires take over.

They are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds.

So, name a rifle that is *more* versatile than that. A Ruger No. 1 or a .300 Win. Mag are niche tools, whereas a 16-20" AR is a generalist. And that's not even getting into the fact that you can swap calibers by pulling two pins.

FWIW, a friend is trying to talk me into trying deer hunting, so one of these (.308 family) is on my short list.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »