Another case of Gun Control -Backfiring.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

He was also wearing a ballistic helmet, wouldn't that also be kevlar?

Yeah or its competitor Twaron.

[rocks 494]

apparently far more research than you have - how about 20 years toting around it's cousin in the military? and no, it's not an assault rifle. it's just a semi auto rifle that shoots a bullet slightly larger than a .22 - nor has it assaulted anyone.

That's where those guns belong, in the military. You still haven't said why you need one in your home.

I'm not at all saying that we should take away all the guns, we have guns in our house. However, these assault weapons really aren't warranted and something needs to be done about the large volumes of ammunition that can be purchased. What are your suggestions?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That's where those guns belong, in the military. You still haven't said why you need one in your home.

I'm not at all saying that we should take away all the guns, we have guns in our house. However, these assault weapons really aren't warranted and something needs to be done about the large volumes of ammunition that can be purchased. What are your suggestions?

To be an assault weapon as per the government, a firearm has to have a certain amount of features. The thing is these features don't really make the thing any more or less lethal IMO they are labeled as such from an aesthetics perspective - i.e. does this look 'scary'.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Sousuke

[Harsh_77 718]

He was also wearing a ballistic helmet, wouldn't that also be kevlar?

If we can afford to pay for them to have their own car and pay for the gas they use to go to the store and on vacation, we can afford this.

Depending what class helmet he was wearing, face shield / without face sheild etc.

If there was no face shield helemt only protects one from being shot from back.

[natty bumppo 297]

That's where those guns belong, in the military. You still haven't said why you need one in your home.

I'm not at all saying that we should take away all the guns, we have guns in our house. However, these assault weapons really aren't warranted and something needs to be done about the large volumes of ammunition that can be purchased. What are your suggestions?

large volumes of ammo?

who or what gets to define this nebulous term?

my ammo purchases are in bulk quantities to keep costs down. it is far better buying in bulk than buying a whole lot of 50 round boxes or 500 round bricks

example: a simple .22 lr purchase for me is a case (5k rounds) ... we shoot a lot of .22 target stuff.

[DaveE 178]

Assault weapon is just a "gotcha" term that is not defined. If anyone knows anything about AR-15's they will know that there are "pre-ban", and "post-ban" versions. The Assault Weapons Ban that expired could not define the term so they said that an assault weapon had certain features:

"Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull."

Assault rifles are semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Bayonet mount

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally).

Since AR-15's did not normally have a grenade launcher, most "post-ban" versions removed the bayonet holder and flash suppressor. It did not affect functionality in any way.

As has been stated before, large ammuntion purchases are the only way to shoot economically. My wife and I shoot about 750 -1000 rounds of 5.56 per month. The price difference is significant. I got 1000 rounds of 5.56 (Federal XM193) for $297.00 delivered to the house. The same identical ammunition at the local fun store is $10.00 for a 20 round box, $500.00 per thousand plus $35.00 sales tax).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Assault weapon is just a "gotcha" term that is not defined. If anyone knows anything about AR-15's they will know that there are "pre-ban", and "post-ban" versions. The Assault Weapons Ban that expired could not define the term so they said that an assault weapon had certain features:

"Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull."

Assault rifles are semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Bayonet mount

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally).

Since AR-15's did not normally have a grenade launcher, most "post-ban" versions removed the bayonet holder and flash suppressor. It did not affect functionality in any way.

As has been stated before, large ammuntion purchases are the only way to shoot economically. My wife and I shoot about 750 -1000 rounds of 5.56 per month. The price difference is significant. I got 1000 rounds of 5.56 (Federal XM193) for $297.00 delivered to the house. The same identical ammunition at the local fun store is $10.00 for a 20 round box, $500.00 per thousand plus $35.00 sales tax).

Or still banned in the case of CA.

[Confused 2 94]

It is just as bizzare to me that he was able to obtain that and the gas mask as it is for an assault rifle. You bring up a good point though, why would anyone need that?

He was able to obtain it just like any psycho or criminal bent on killing or hurting people is able to obtain it - illegaly. In the meantime we can have stricter gun control laws and make sure that law-abiding citizens who want guns for protection and security are unable to do so.

[DaveE 178]

Actually, I think in California they got around it by making the magazine "non detachable". I am no expert on California stuff but friends there tell me that the rules says that the magazine must require a tool to remove. Thus the ingenious folks there modified the magazine release to require a tool to make it drop free. In this case the tool is a bullet tip. It is called the bullet button magazine release.

However, legislation was introduced last week in California to ban it.

See more here: bullet button legislaton

Edited July 24, 2012 by DaveE

[rocks 494]

He was able to obtain it just like any psycho or criminal bent on killing or hurting people is able to obtain it - illegaly. In the meantime we can have stricter gun control laws and make sure that law-abiding citizens who want guns for protection and security are unable to do so.

How would stricter laws on guns and ammunition prevent people from buying guns and ammunition?

[rocks 494]

large volumes of ammo?

who or what gets to define this nebulous term?

my ammo purchases are in bulk quantities to keep costs down. it is far better buying in bulk than buying a whole lot of 50 round boxes or 500 round bricks

example: a simple .22 lr purchase for me is a case (5k rounds) ... we shoot a lot of .22 target stuff.

Yes, and that is where being accountable for everything that you buy would come in. I wasn't really suggesting that it should cost $5000 a bullet, it was a comedy sketch. The issues that I see are the sale of extended magazines, assault weapons and being able to buy unlimited amounts of ammo and it not being monitored by anyone. If you go to a shooting range then it should be easy to explain why you need to buy all the ammo and you wouldn't mind showing proof that you go to a shooting range to do that. I don't at all think your right to go shooting should be restricted.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Actually, I think in California they got around it by making the magazine "non detachable". I am no expert on California stuff but friends there tell me that the rules says that the magazine must require a tool to remove. Thus the ingenious folks there modified the magazine release to require a tool to make it drop free. In this case the tool is a bullet tip. It is called the bullet button magazine release.

However, legislation was introduced last week in California to ban it.

See more here: bullet button legislaton

Yeah thats been a hot topic here lately. They pulled back bit on the bill to just the magnets that go over the button (that make it a true button again)

Edited July 24, 2012 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes, and that is where being accountable for everything that you buy would come in. I wasn't really suggesting that it should cost $5000 a bullet, it was a comedy sketch. The issues that I see are the sale of extended magazines, assault weapons and being able to buy unlimited amounts of ammo and it not being monitored by anyone. If you go to a shooting range then it should be easy to explain why you need to buy all the ammo and you wouldn't mind showing proof that you go to a shooting range to do that. I don't at all think your right to go shooting should be restricted.

So what features do you personally think make a firearm an assault weapon?

[PMartin37 161]

The cost would have to be absorbed by the purchaser.

It makes me think of this, can you guess who it is?

I love him! I know exactly who you're talking about.

Edited July 24, 2012 by PMartin37

[PMartin37 161]

I don't have alot of expert knowledge about firearms or weaponry in general. I think there should be some tracking processes that will trigger (pun intended) unusual purchases.

For example if someone buys enough assault rifles, magazines, clips, etc... for a small army in one afternoon, maybe that could be cause for concern.

And I'm not talking about government involvement. I'm talking about the industry itself. Much like the airline industry has protocols in place to protect fliers. They adapt and change their systems in response to different threats/situations. Do these protocols threaten anyone's right to fly? NO. Would protocols or safety procedures in sales of weaponry threaten anyone's right to bear arms? NO.

I really just believe for the safety of ALL citizens in the country, there needs to be some discussion on the table about this. I don't pretend to have answers for all of the problems at hand involving security for everyone but I don't think a discussion about solutions is unreasonable.