Mommentum regarding ban on assault rifles

[Skyman]

There is nothing wrong with having them either.Why do cars have top speeds of 150 km/hr plus when the speed limit is 80? Why aren't cars made to top out at the speed limit?

[Hammerhead]

Civilians do not need to have assault rifles.
Just what is the need for such a high rate of fire power??
Other weapons will suffice for hunting / self defense.
/S

I stole some one's statements from other forum. May be we should have a look.

So it is with our interests.

For years I tried to get those involved with firearms, when speaking to those outside of the firearms interests, to use the term 'firearms enthusiasts,' not 'gun owners.' Or, even better, 'lawful firearms owners,' or, 'lawful firearms enthusiasts.' I would prefer we recognized the fact that those with no knowledge and no interest whatever in firearms find certain words, to some degree offensive, or 'scary.' We should also remember that those outside the sport equate firearms (all firearms) as they have been educated by Hollywood, the mainstream media, politicians, the 'social vampires,' and on and on and on.

We should be most aware of our audience immediate or peripheral, when we start discussing firearms and the firearms interests in general.

Again, from the past.

I was discussing my dislike of the firearms legislation proposed back in the seventies with the then Minister of Justice and he asked me what my firearms interests were -- "Are you a hunter?" "No." "Are you a trap and skeet shooter?" "No." "Are you a collector?" "No." Are you a target shooter?" "No." -- and it went on. Finally, I said to him: "My interests in firearms, quite frankly, is none of your business. But, if you really want to categorize me, I am a firearms accumulator." That one floored him because he had no idea what I meant.

In simple terms and because I had always considered myself an accumulator of firearms, I really could not in all honesty apply any of the mentioned categories to myself, because I was a guy who simply liked firearms. On the other hand, why should I ? I still say it was none of his business. My concern was with what I considered bad firearms legislation being put before the House of Commons.

It appeared to me that those concerns were something he simply could not phathom.

Again, I run on, but I do feel we (as a group of lawful persons) must insist on, not only seeing correct terms used when others are commenting on our interests, but that we also use what I would feel to be more neutral but not arguable terms.

There will more or less same kind of discussions be heard if and when some ABC hunter tripped and fall and shot himself, "why would a hunter needs a high powered gun that can kill." .?

The bigger problem with gun ownership is if you ever give any thing up, it;s almost impossible to take it back and we seen it in case of Long Gun Registry.

Moin, not a personal attack .....

Being a hunter myself, remember your statement where you said " I look fearsome and can hunt with my bare hands". Well if I start hunting with my bare hands, anti's are going to cry foul that I should trim my nails. That is the problem with gun ownership, it's one way street and you are banging your head against majority of people, who get their gun knowledge from movies and media. I'm certified gunsmith too and given the right tools and technology of today, I can turn almost any gun into different category and more...... ! Then why I'm not doing all those stuffs, Because I'm law-abiding proud gun owner. I don't like many gun laws of today but I try not to break them instead I fight to change them and I'm proud that even the fight is always not fair but not to give up. At least not that easy - Haji

[winnie_the_pooh]

Civilians do not need to have assault rifles.
Just what is the need for such a high rate of fire power?? Other weapons will suffice for hunting / self defense.
/S

So you want to have the power to decide what some should or should not have? Would you be willing to have the same principle applied to you?

[xl_target]

Civilians do not need to have assault rifles.
Just what is the need for such a high rate of fire power?? Other weapons will suffice for hunting / self defense.
/S

I assume we are still talking about the USA here.
Can you be more specific? What high rate of fire are you talking about?
Civilians generally cannot own an assault rifle (regardless of what the media says). An AR15 is not an assault rifle. An M16 is. Tom, Dick and Harry cannot own an M16. Maybe Bill can but he has to spend a fortune to do it and he has to comply with host of regulations to do so.
Have you read the rest of the posts in this thread?





What is the difference between a semi automatic hunting rifle like a Browning BAR (top) and an AR15 rifle (bottom)?
Not very much except the shape and the materials used to make it. They function the same. One pull of the trigger=one shot fired.
They are both commonly used for hunting and for target practice in the US. Neither is an assault rifle.
People have been conditioned to think that the AR15 is evil and somehow is capable of killing large numbers of people but the BAR is not. In actuality, they function exactly the same way in that one pull of the trigger will fire one shot.
Calling an AR15 an Assault Rifle does not make it one. Just as calling a Premier Padmini a Lamborghini doesn't make it one.

Jut because people think that one rifle looks like the military M16 or M4, doesn't make it so.
There are large numbers of journalists in the US and elsewhere who when they don't understand something, just make stuff up.
(Yes, TC, I know I'm painting with a broad brush here but we all know that there are still many responsible journalists)
You can get 20 round magazines for both the Browning BAR and the AR15.

So lets get this straight. The general public cannot just own an Assault Rifle. You cannot just walk into any store and buy one.
The public can own a semi automatic look-alike version called the AR15, which is no different in function from any other hunting or target shooting rifle.

[ethikalajax]

Less Experienced People(LXP)- Solution is to ban the so called [assault rifles]. (Solution.)

Gurus- Assault rifles? Learn your facts, they just look like them and operate similar to semi-s. (That is not the solution.)

LXP- Why do civilians need something which look like assault rifles when they can do good with other shottys or rifles? (solution?)

Gurus- Shottys , rifles , handguns , semi-auto look alike rifles ( semi-assault rifles). Are all the same . So doesn't make sense to ban them from civilian use . (Nope.)

LXP- Give up.solution please? To curb such incidents from taking place in the future. (Gurus please give your insights. )

[ethikalajax]

Solution anybody? To curb such incidents from taking place in the future.

[kanwar76]

Moin,

Please be at home, i am coming to collect your knives. A man in China slashed 20 kids with a kitchen knive and you are having folders and what not, Imagine what you can do with a Khukri. Bad ... Bad ...Bad

You give assault or whatevet they call them and next will be your pistols and shotguns and then one day you willbe carrying your veggies to big bazar because you are not allowed to keep kitchen knives at home.

I suggest members should start reading old posts on RKBA to gain some more knowledge on the subject before pounding their keyboards.

-Inder

[YogiBear]

Aloha,

My knowledge of Khukris is that it is a rather wicked knife(?) used by Ghurka troops

in wartime to Kill their enemies.

Isn't it a Weapon of War?

So, what use is there for one in civilian hands? Can it be Legally openly carried?

Is there a Civilian use for one?

[Bhargav]

The solution to this would be:

Q: if you cannot control the ants (mad man, mass murderer)
A: then control the cookie jar (schools, kids, ... <- this could be a high priority list).

Q: How can you control the cookie jar when we do not have enough resources to guard it (police, trained guards) ?
A: Give training to those who work in the cookie jar e.g. Teachers and let them guard the cookie jar.

Q: if we train the teachers then will they not shoot the kids ?
A: No, do the police officers randomly shoot people ? no.

Q: will arming the teachers or guarding the schools eliminate this problem 100%?
A: I don't know but it will definitely increase the probability of eliminating the problem.

[TwoRivers]

Civilians do not need to have assault rifles.
Just what is the need for such a high rate of fire power?? Other weapons will suffice for hunting / self defense.
/S

There you go. Assault rifles are selective-fire rifles. What the press, and you, keep calling assault rifles are semi-automatics. To possess an assault rifle in the US requires a $200 federal tax, a thorough back ground check, and lots of money.

Whether you can carry all your ammo in a 75-round drum magazine, or eight ten-rounders really makes little difference when you are gunning down little children and unarmed adults. In a real battle you would just be out of ammo faster. How the guns look makes no difference to their deadliness, nor their influence over the owner's psyche.

Besides, if laws could prevent such an incident, all schools are already "Gun-free Zone" in the US. Which makes them safe. Even if you ban everything imaginable and confiscate (good luck!) all guns in the country, Molotov cocktails are easy to make. Walk down the hallway and throw one into every room.

And who, Comrade sniPer, is going to determine, what a person's "needs" are going to be? Do you really need guns?, we have confiscated all illegal guns, and the police now all carry true assault weapons. Do you really need to hunt, when you can get your meat quota at the supermarket (which involves no killing of animals)? Do you need to target shoot when there are video shooting games?

[Hammerhead]

Solution anybody? To curb such incidents from taking place in the future.

Here .......

(Gun) Fire Fighters
Posted 12/18/2012 1:11:00 AM

When word came of the Connecticut shootings, I expected the usual cry for more gun controls. With the millions of guns in the U-S, it might not be as easy as proclaiming a law. Only the honest people will turn in whatever they decide to ban, leaving themselves at the mercy of armed criminals. Remember the unarmed girl of Delhi@ the mercy of criminals

There are armed guards now patrolling schools in Pittsburgh, and suggestions for teachers in other schools to be armed and trained. Some believe that information alone would be enough to deter a shooter. It is worth noting that the gunman who opened fire in the Aurora theatre, chose the only movie house out of seven showing Batman, that banned carrying concealed weapons. In Pennsylvania, a gunman attacked a church with a gun and a thousand bullets. He killed 2 and wounded three before a woman pulled a pistol from her purse and killed him. The minister says she saved more than a hundred lives. Sadly, that and other defensive incidents makes it seem like fighting fire with fire, or, gunfire, may be more effective than a token measure banning guns to make politicians appear like they have done something. Let me know what you think.

hxxp://www.630ched.com/Blogs/BobLaytonsBlog/Bl ... D=10480662

[Mark]

And then there are also articles such as this one, which was about the shooting that happened a couple of days earlier:

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-b ... ed-citizen


Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen

While reports of Tuesday's shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon, dominated the national media, until Friday's horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one very important detail has been repeatedly (and intentionally) left out of the MSM's coverage.

The shooter, Jacob Tyler Roberts, was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. By the time police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead.

That armed man was 22-year-old Nick Meli, who was at the mall shopping with a young woman who was babysitting her friend's baby.

On Friday, KGW News Channel 8, the only media outlet to cover this part of the story, posted the following report on their website:

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

We now know that the assailant's gun had jammed, and when he cleared it, he quickly retreated and shot himself, as Meli continued to keep him in his sights.

Not only has the national media refused to acknowledge this aspect of the deadly event, but law enforcement has as well.

On Tuesday night, Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts held a press conference in which he credited local police officers and deputies with ending the rampage, never mentioning Meli's actions.
Sheriff Roberts said: "I'm really proud of all the different agencies that came together to really step up and put their lives on the line," to "basically hunt down this guy in the mall."

Now, remember, the shooter was already dead when police arrived on the scene.


Killed in the attack were Steven Mathew Forsyth, 45, and Cindy Ann Yuille, 54, A 15-year-old girl, identified as Kristina Shevchenko, was seriously wounded but was expected to survive.

Of course, the Obamamedia is in full support of even harsher gun control laws and it should come as no surprise that they would suppress any story which provides proof that lawfully armed citizens do prevent crimes and save lives.

Here are a few facts about armed Americans:

-In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance which required all heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than it was in 1981.

-Armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as the police do every year in this country (1,527 to 606).

-A 1996 University of Chicago study concluded that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rates by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent.

-According to the National Safety Council, with guns being used 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, firearms are actually used more than 80 times more often to protect lives, rather than to take lives.

-A 1979 Justice Department study entitled Rape Victimization in American Cities, concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed.

-Another Justice Department study found that 57 percent of felons agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running the police."

[Mark]

Civilians do not need to have assault rifles.
Just what is the need for such a high rate of fire power?? Other weapons will suffice for hunting / self defense.
/S

Here is another interchange that explains it rather well:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/3v5bm

Well darn the image won't link, sorry but you can still click on it.

[Mark]

Anyway, my personal opinion is that arguing about gun control is about as effective as arguing about religion so I try not to do it, alas sadly I can still get suckered on occasion, but I do take issue when either side has to resort to lies or deception.

[Baljit]

Civilians do not need to have assault rifles.
Just what is the need for such a high rate of fire power?? Other weapons will suffice for hunting / self defense.
/S

Sniper,we all know what ever happend in CT is very bad but it's not mean everybody own a assault rifles is a criminals.At this point with your comment I am totally agree with winnie_the_pooh.
Here, this is my M14 with 30 round mag.Keep in mind US army still using M14 rifle in Afghanstan.
Now what you think i am a criminals if i own this??Stop me if you can to own this.



Baljit