Moving a Twitter debate about "assault weapons" over here with a bit more room to stretch out...

My main point is that not even the government can define an "assault rifle". When you cannot define a an object to ban then the government can MAKE any object fit that ban. There are 1000s of people who own AR style weapons (it's actually a VERY popular deer hunting rifle) that use them w/o issue. You ban those and then you ban high powered rifles, then you ban medium powered rifles and it becomes a slippery slope.

Do I think 100 round magazines should be legal? Orf course not. I'm amazed that they are.

The CO shooter used 2 handguns and well as a shotgun (in addition to the rifle). The rifle was not the issue. He could have done the same damaged with a number of weapons. But the term "assault rifle" gets everyone all in a tizzy.

It's not about guns. It's about the person using the guns. Look at shootings in Germany & Finland where it's MUCH more difficult to get firearms.

_________________
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
Free 30 day trial of iPropWiz v5
Follow @seandotson & @mcadforums & @rndautomationon Twitter

Yes, the term is a PITA. Media hype.
Fastest accurate multiple shots from complete rest and concealment is with a revolver. Recorded and documented.

_________________
John Evans
Autodesk Certified Professional
http://designandmotion.net

As I stated before... it is pretty simple to me. Any firearm which fires a high velocity round AND has a magazine in excess of 5 rounds AND is capable of firing in semi automatic mode. You want to hunt with an AR style rifle? Fine... single shot only and a 5 round magazine.

This has NOTHING to do with hunting...

You are right Jay, it doesn't. It has to do with rights. Firearms are designed for a purpose.
The military trains everyone to recognize that a highly trained and highly motivated individual can overcome incredible odds/
It's not the style of weapon, but the dedication of the individual to a goal.

Limitations of firearms by category are simply methods of government to cut down slowly on it's citizens' liberties.

_________________
John Evans
Autodesk Certified Professional
http://designandmotion.net

But a 22LR (low velocity) with a 20 round magazine would have the potential to do as much damage as a high velocity round with a 5 round clip. Arbitrarily choosing these definitions does no good.

The M-16 was essentially a 22 round. They found it caused more damage by tumbling around in the body than a high powered round would do by simply doing a thru-and-thru.

_________________
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
Free 30 day trial of iPropWiz v5
Follow @seandotson & @mcadforums & @rndautomationon Twitter

It doesnt matter what you ban. If someone really wants to go out and kill then they will.

Look at Oklahoma City, 168 people killed by a man armed with little more than fuel and fertliser.

Norway has just marked the first anniversary of their mass shootings, I understand that their firearm laws are quite strict.

Some years back the UK banned handguns after a school shooting in Sotland, before that they banned semi-auto rifles after a shooting in England. In each case the fact that the murderers had prior form and the existing firearm laws if properly applied should have preventing them legally owning guns was ignored. Instead legitimate shooters (such as me!) were punished. Has gun crime gone away? No it has risen.

People are the problem, not a particular type of gun.

_________________
Nick

So long and thanks for all the fish

Exactly my point Nick...

_________________
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
Free 30 day trial of iPropWiz v5
Follow @seandotson & @mcadforums & @rndautomationon Twitter

Are you kidding me Sean? 300 m/s vs 1,140 m/s? That is the difference between the .22 Long Rifle and the .223.

So by all means, let's arm them with the most powerful weapons designed over the last 50 years... Really? That is fucked up gents.

I am pretty much done here, as I thought nothing is going to be resolved, just as this problem will not go away. We will keep witnessing the same thing over and over, and then have this same pointless discussion afterwards. You guys are all smart guys, all good guys, and all guys I respect, but we disagree fundamentally over this so I am going to bow out now as nothing will come of it.

Talk later.

So what's your point. You telling me a 22 cannot be lethal? Tell that to 10,000+ dead VC.

_________________
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
Free 30 day trial of iPropWiz v5
Follow @seandotson & @mcadforums & @rndautomationon Twitter

OK, I don't know much about guns. But I do know this.

A perfectly insane man was able to walk into a store and buy a rifle legally. Why would a society and it's laws allow that and then offer excuses like "but he would do it anyways". Do you let your kids do drugs because "they are going to do it anyways"? That's such a lame and pathetic argument.

Crime will always be there. However, if you make it easier to commit it there will be more of it. The numbers speak for themselves.

A society where anyone can go to a store and buy a gun to do mindless mass murder should have zero whackos. Since the latter isn't possible the former must be not be allowed. It's really that simple. Remember this isn't about regular crime where you don't like someone and go shoot him. That will happen anyways anywhere. This is about acts done my people who should be locked up somewhere and treated.

This is like having a drug vending machine in a rehab center and expect the inmates not to use the machine. You control and curb things that are in your power. In this instance you shut down the vending machine. Where I come from the whackos usually end up harming themselves, which is also sad. But the damage is limited and not huge like in the case of mass shootings.

We will never be able to fix the whacko problem. To think that we can is naive. Let alone whackos, a perfectly sane person can go nuts due to an incident that happens in his/her life. What we can do is when someone crosses over to the other side of sanity we can limit their ability to cause mass harm. This is my main point.

For your system of "everyone should have the right to bear arms" to work, everyone needs to be armed everywhere at all points of time. The way you guys have it now, where any whacko can legally go and buy a weapon of mass murder and use it against unarmed civilians gathered in a place where it is illegal to be armed, is only going to cause more of these incidents and aggravate the problem.

The flip side of doing that is then everyone becomes a potential whacko walking around ready to erupt. And that would be a horrible way to live a life.

_________________
Deelip Menezes
www.deelip.com

I can understand where everyone is coming from.
I disagree with certain limitations as the only thing they really accomplish is political.
People that want to kill, will do so by other means.

I have been to one place, where I became less concerned by threat or response. In fact, I rarely thought of security after a while.
It was truly peaceful (beer helped).
The place was Japan, but their government is not a people led government.
The USA is, and as such the power to ultimately do something about an abusive government should always lie in their hands.

Which weapons are reasonable to keep, and which are not. I don't know that any of us could ever agree.
We have a society of self-serving morons who have absolutely no self control, and no desire to develop any.
Honor is a word that is considered a joke.

It is becoming very difficult to continue to argue about the sanctity of a society that think that the truth is underrated, and that doing what you want is ok regardless of the consequences.

I an a certified weapons instructor. I have trained people for security forces, and for high performance schools such as Thunder Ranch.
I can argue the laws, ballistics, security, safety.... I just can't convey a reasonable argument faced with the lack of concern, respect, and honor among people today...

_________________
John Evans
Autodesk Certified Professional
http://designandmotion.net

If the NRA is so good at defining our rights and responsibilities with firearms, perhaps they should officially be put in charge of defining those rights and take responsibility for the results. Not that it would ever happen but if they were officially put in charge, is it possible that they would step up to the plate and become part of the solution instead of an impediment?

John,

IMHO, this is a very high price to pay for a very slim chance of waking up one fine day to an abusive government. I mean, your government is hopping around the world fixing other countries. Which American in their right mind actually believes that his President will become a dictator overnight.

The US constitutional provision to bear arms may have made a lot of sense when it was conceived. Those were very different times with very different kinds of weapons. Unfortunately, that provision has led to a culture. And culture is next to impossible to change.

The byproduct of that culture is this. Over and over again. Sad.

_________________
Deelip Menezes
www.deelip.com

Out of all reasonable, middle of the road thoughts, I have usually agreed with you the most.
The problem lies with a few concepts, one of which is:

Do we have peaceful government mindful of it's citizens' will because the people still bear the power to control it?
You cannot say what would be the case now had this and other liberties not been retained, nor can we say what will happen in either case.

Jefferson warned about the future, and needing to kick some ass occasionally. Nothing has changed about governmental power. People forget what the past has to teach until it is too late. It is a big cycle.

One thing is consistent however - Government and laws are always consistently more restrictive over time, never the other way around. This continues until the population can't take it any more. If the people of the USA allow their liberties to be restricted, they will disappear. there are always those opposed to certain liberties, and as long as left unchallenged, even when the idiots have a reasonable case, the liberties will be abolished. Who has the right to say what liberties I should or should not have? The entire voice of the USA.

Your balance argument between crazies and availability is a good one. We need beer to continue it I think. Stop in, I'll buy.

_________________
John Evans
Autodesk Certified Professional
http://designandmotion.net