And it it precisely the tactic opponents of privatizing Pennsylvania liquor stores used to block such a move. "If they sell in the grocery stores, our children will DIE!!!!1!!11ELEBENTY!!"
I'm already convinced that the assault weapons ban is a bad idea. Tying a weapon to a person's name is a very obvious way to supposedly only inconvenience criminals. If this raises issues with the police abusing power then obviously the police are a bigger problem than mass shootings and should be addressed first.
Gun ownership in 1st world countries has a NEGATIVE correlation with crime/violence, not positive, EXCEPT for the USA. You guys are just screwed up:
Maybe so. People who don't live in the US can tell me--is there as much vengeful posturing after a tragedy in other countries? If I had a quarter for every time I heard, "Give me five minutes with him and he'll be sorry for what he did/he'll confess" after a violent crime occurred, I could quit my job.
And all of those things are arbitrary.
This is part of the reasoning behind a lot of gun control arguments I have problems with. There doesn't NEED to be a reason for a civilian weapon to have something, rather there needs to be a really really good reason to violate the 2nd amendment rights of someone who wants one.
Okay, I'm gonna need that one explained to me.
Especially when knives aren't illegal, and you can duct-tape a bowie knife to the end of a shotgun if you really want to.
All of those components that transform a gun from a weapon to an 'assault weapon' are entirely arbitrary. You can have the exact same model rifle, and if one has a folding stock attached to it and the other doesn't, then suddenly one becomes scarier and needs to be banned.
Both of those also match your above definition of an assault weapon. Not helping your case there.It isn't a matter of scary, it's a matter of being easier to conceal under clothing and handle in close quarters, like a crowd or inside a building.
Which one of these would be easier to walk into a bank or school or office building with?
or
These are both Ruger AC556 rifles, but the lower one, the F variant, is optimized for compactness. With a folding stock and pistol grip, it's much faster to put on target, especially in a cramped or crowded environment.
This is pretty much my take on it. The Constitution is ether absolute until changed by vote or it isn't. We can sort of dance around the issue (such as in licensing things) but the only reason a lot of what is currently going on is Status Que is because no one has taken it to the Supreme Court.
None of those things drastically change the weapon except the under slung launcher. Changing the grips and stock are more of a personal comfort thing than an effectiveness thing... I know many a tacticool gun owner that spend thousands on their ARs that can't hit the broadside of the barn and are looking for the right "accessory" to turn them into the gods of the range they think they should be. Silencers don't work like in the movies... they can quiet the gun shot to "not going deaf" or "can't hear it behind a thick door if the walls were made right" level but the mechanical sound of the gun working is still quite loud... civilians use them at gun ranges to prevent hearing damage. A bayonet mount basically just limits the government from selling surplus guns in the States, as there is a reason we don't use them much anymore.
What @Covar said. Both would be assault weapons, despite being drastically different. Which just proves how completely arbitrary the entire thing is.
Aw man@Cajungal - a friend of mine on a hockey-related message board apparently knew one of the individuals who was shot. She was a student in one of her classes when she was still a teacher.
Just responding to this one part, you can still buy them, with a Federal License, costs around $10k for all the paperwork and checks and fees and such. Basically it's one of the most traceable firearms around, but it can be done. Have been lucky enough to have friends that have gone through the process and been able to fire some of the firearms that they had. You can still do more intentional damage with just single-shot trigger pull than burst (usually 3 rounds) or full-auto. The recoil on full-auto is a pain in more ways that one.
Generally with full-auto, the current tactical idea is suppressing fire - laying enough fire on the enemy that they can't move and have to keep their heads down instead of being able to take a clear shot. Ideally while your DPM goes for an aimed shot that will do some good. In modern combat, it's estimated that we expend 200-400 rounds of ammunition for each enemy casualty.
The laws in the UK are entirely too slanted. You're not even allowed to defend yourself or your property as long as escape is possible. You can literally get sent to prison for longer than your assailant if you're assaulted in your home and try to fight back.
It don't matter really, Ruger Mini-14's can not hit shit anyways. Might as well fire a musket if you have a target.It isn't a matter of scary, it's a matter of being easier to conceal under clothing and handle in close quarters, like a crowd or inside a building.
Which one of these would be easier to walk into a bank or school or office building with?
or
These are both Ruger AC556 rifles, but the lower one, the F variant, is optimized for compactness. With a folding stock and pistol grip, it's much faster to put on target, especially in a cramped or crowded environment.
A lot of info on this live-updated post, along with a livestream from the local news http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2015/10/active_shooting_reported_at_um.html
Really? Looks like the usual mixture of edgy edgelords, teen keyboard heroes, and trolls to me.
