Showing posts with label assault rifle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assault rifle. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
When you say "assault weapons ban"
... all I hear is: ban on robust entry level guns that are cheap and easy to maintain by people new to the shooting sports.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
shot placement is everything
This story dates back to the 29th of novermber 2006.
A man armed with a .45 caliber handgun ambushed and fought law enforcement personell who arrived oin their cruisers. One of his first shots woulded an officer in his cruiser, his injuries in combination ith him wearing a seatbelt prevented said officer from returning fire. Multiple of his colleagues did however. They ended up firing 107 rounds of .40 speer gold dot and .223 (from m4 rifles) at their attacker, and still he lived to fight back!
It was not for a lack of hitting him! his left arm was shattered by one round, he took multiple hits to the torso and abdomen, 17 hits in total. This does amount to less than 16% accuracy, which is a different can of worms. Point is, if you shoot an attacker 17 times, should you not be allowed to reasonably expect him to be inanimate?
Law enforcement personnel had to struggle with the man to get him in cuffs!
No, he was not under the influence of drugs, fact is, and it sais so in the end of this report:
A couple of points I'd like to push through here about magazine restrictions:
Now that you know this, go out and buy a FAL!
A man armed with a .45 caliber handgun ambushed and fought law enforcement personell who arrived oin their cruisers. One of his first shots woulded an officer in his cruiser, his injuries in combination ith him wearing a seatbelt prevented said officer from returning fire. Multiple of his colleagues did however. They ended up firing 107 rounds of .40 speer gold dot and .223 (from m4 rifles) at their attacker, and still he lived to fight back!
It was not for a lack of hitting him! his left arm was shattered by one round, he took multiple hits to the torso and abdomen, 17 hits in total. This does amount to less than 16% accuracy, which is a different can of worms. Point is, if you shoot an attacker 17 times, should you not be allowed to reasonably expect him to be inanimate?
Law enforcement personnel had to struggle with the man to get him in cuffs!
No, he was not under the influence of drugs, fact is, and it sais so in the end of this report:
- Determined individuals can sustain many gunshot wounds in areas that produce great pain and continue to fight a long time, even without the aid of drugs or alcohol.
- Shot placement is everything in a gunfight
and always the key to stopping a threat
effectively.
A couple of points I'd like to push through here about magazine restrictions:
- 17 shots is almost twice the rounds that you can have in a gun in California.
- the criminal reloaded his gun from a box of cartridges!
Now that you know this, go out and buy a FAL!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Home invasion: 100 shots fired.
A story like we've seen all to often before, but still impressive:
A drug house got knocked over by a gang of criminals dressed as police officers (helmets, body armor, the works) who ended up killing one man by fireing over 100 rounds of ammonution.
I'd be very interested in finding out what kind of guns were used here. This article mentions handguns, in this video, we can see a handgun holster recovered at the scene being bagged. I somehow doubt we're talking long guns that look like assault weapons, but a lot of articles mention "several weapons" without going into detail.
Still, even at 10 round per magazine, the six men would all just have to reload once to get these results.
A drug house got knocked over by a gang of criminals dressed as police officers (helmets, body armor, the works) who ended up killing one man by fireing over 100 rounds of ammonution.
I'd be very interested in finding out what kind of guns were used here. This article mentions handguns, in this video, we can see a handgun holster recovered at the scene being bagged. I somehow doubt we're talking long guns that look like assault weapons, but a lot of articles mention "several weapons" without going into detail.
Still, even at 10 round per magazine, the six men would all just have to reload once to get these results.
Friday, May 9, 2008
A universal standard for weapons?
So, me and that "awalk" character* have been arguing this over, over at Marilyns;
Should we treat all weapons the same? He sais that because I "push guns like a dealer pushing crack cocaine", while at the same time supporting arms controls, I am flip flopping.
Arms controls? I don't know for sure what he means, but I suppose he means nuclear arms and the like.
Is there anybody here that honestly thinks we should treat handguns and nukes the exact same way? ... anyone? nobody at all? Oh wait, there's one, "a walk along mingo creek" apparently does, and if you don't, he'll call you a flip-flopper.
Me, I treat different items differently, because, there's not the same, they're different.
A kitchen knife is not the same as handgun, is not the same as a nuke.
Demanding the very same cotrols on all of them would be rediculous!
Can you imagine being required to be 21 years of age before being able to buy some cutlery? Or how about anybody without any felonies/domestic abuse charges (and some other minor things) to be able to purchase a multi-megaton nuclear warhead?
There's a lot of good and effective laws out there that regulate dangerous items. A lot of people use explosives for their profession. they can be licenced to purchase and use these explosives, storing them requires a mandated, safe storage facility. It strikes me as common sense that explosives must be stored differently from your forks, spoons and knifes, which likely rest very close to your stove, do they not?
Would you store explosives in that same spot?
Common sense dictates that each dangerous item should be assessed in a fitting manner. And while one item may be freely available to the general public, others aren't.
Dinner knives are ok, gravity knifes and switchblades? Illegal in many places.
Lye based drain cleaner? No problem! Methamine and acetic anhydride? Heavely controlled due to their use in the production of illicit drugs.
Guns? Ai, there's a rub.
It is very difficult to define what makes one gun dangerous, and other guns very dangerous ... or rather, what guns have high abuse potential/incidence and which ones don't.
Barrel length, muzzle energy, caliber ... none of these are positive factors by which to say: this must be banned.
The USDOJ's study "guns used in crime" lists a series of low-powered, small caliber handguns with tiny magazines as the weapons most often traced by the ATF (in 1995**), evil black "guns that look like assault weapons" aren't even mentioned in the top-10. While a third of the criminals question claims to have had a "military style, semi-automatic rifle in his poseesion at some time, no mention is made of anybody carrying one on a crime scene, or one being used to kill a policeman***.
I hardly think that mandating all guns have "12 or more rounds" magazines and increased power will cut down on firearms fatalities (nor am I inclined to see 10/22's get outlawed)
Dealing with violent crime is an important task that awaits, and while it is not the best way, regulating weapons in an effective way may be part of the solution. This may include new laws and restrictions, this may be the revocal of others. At any rate, the action taken must fit the situation we're dealing with.
In closing: when Walgreens cards you and records your name when buying a meth-precursor, but doesn't even blink when you pick up a bottle of aspirin ... are they flip-flopping, or just using some plain ole common sense?
* I don't know if he's a great troll, or if he acually believes/means the things he sais
**Anybody got recent figures?
***There is a listing for .22 rifles in the list of policemen getting killed, ranking sixth with 4.4% of the fatalities, no thoer mention is made of rifles in that line-up.
Should we treat all weapons the same? He sais that because I "push guns like a dealer pushing crack cocaine", while at the same time supporting arms controls, I am flip flopping.
Arms controls? I don't know for sure what he means, but I suppose he means nuclear arms and the like.
Is there anybody here that honestly thinks we should treat handguns and nukes the exact same way? ... anyone? nobody at all? Oh wait, there's one, "a walk along mingo creek" apparently does, and if you don't, he'll call you a flip-flopper.
Me, I treat different items differently, because, there's not the same, they're different.
A kitchen knife is not the same as handgun, is not the same as a nuke.
Demanding the very same cotrols on all of them would be rediculous!
Can you imagine being required to be 21 years of age before being able to buy some cutlery? Or how about anybody without any felonies/domestic abuse charges (and some other minor things) to be able to purchase a multi-megaton nuclear warhead?
There's a lot of good and effective laws out there that regulate dangerous items. A lot of people use explosives for their profession. they can be licenced to purchase and use these explosives, storing them requires a mandated, safe storage facility. It strikes me as common sense that explosives must be stored differently from your forks, spoons and knifes, which likely rest very close to your stove, do they not?
Would you store explosives in that same spot?
Common sense dictates that each dangerous item should be assessed in a fitting manner. And while one item may be freely available to the general public, others aren't.
Dinner knives are ok, gravity knifes and switchblades? Illegal in many places.
Lye based drain cleaner? No problem! Methamine and acetic anhydride? Heavely controlled due to their use in the production of illicit drugs.
Guns? Ai, there's a rub.
It is very difficult to define what makes one gun dangerous, and other guns very dangerous ... or rather, what guns have high abuse potential/incidence and which ones don't.
Barrel length, muzzle energy, caliber ... none of these are positive factors by which to say: this must be banned.
The USDOJ's study "guns used in crime" lists a series of low-powered, small caliber handguns with tiny magazines as the weapons most often traced by the ATF (in 1995**), evil black "guns that look like assault weapons" aren't even mentioned in the top-10. While a third of the criminals question claims to have had a "military style, semi-automatic rifle in his poseesion at some time, no mention is made of anybody carrying one on a crime scene, or one being used to kill a policeman***.
I hardly think that mandating all guns have "12 or more rounds" magazines and increased power will cut down on firearms fatalities (nor am I inclined to see 10/22's get outlawed)
Dealing with violent crime is an important task that awaits, and while it is not the best way, regulating weapons in an effective way may be part of the solution. This may include new laws and restrictions, this may be the revocal of others. At any rate, the action taken must fit the situation we're dealing with.
In closing: when Walgreens cards you and records your name when buying a meth-precursor, but doesn't even blink when you pick up a bottle of aspirin ... are they flip-flopping, or just using some plain ole common sense?
* I don't know if he's a great troll, or if he acually believes/means the things he sais
**Anybody got recent figures?
***There is a listing for .22 rifles in the list of policemen getting killed, ranking sixth with 4.4% of the fatalities, no thoer mention is made of rifles in that line-up.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
"This is what we use to defend ourselves"
The words of a Mexican policeman, who feels that even his M16 rifle which he is referring to, isn't adequte to take on the drug-gangs.
Some other prieces of his interview can be found in this CNN article, which deals with how Mexican criminals are importing firearms from the US into Mexico to kill police officials.
I find it odd that he believes to be outgunned with "only" an M16, maybe it's th scare of the 50 caliber rifles that are seeping into mexico that are being used to assasinate policemen. Maybe it's the "Fabrique National pistols" that have him scared.
Seriously, what?
Yes, a .50 bullet fired from a rifle will penetrate both car doors and a bulet resistant vest, so will most other rifle rounds. Then there's the "pistols by FN" bit. What is it about these pistols that scares people so badly? Yes, the 5.7x28 was designed to defeat body armor ... when tipped with a high desity round and fired from a P90 carbine.
Such armor piercing rounds are not available to the general public, and neiter are P90's. There's the civillian PS90, but the article mentions pistols, not rifles. A soft or jacketed round from a Five-seveN handgun will do barely any better than an olympic target pistol will do at penetrating a police issue bullet-resistant vest.
Stop yacking about guns, and deal with corruption will ya?
Some other prieces of his interview can be found in this CNN article, which deals with how Mexican criminals are importing firearms from the US into Mexico to kill police officials.
I find it odd that he believes to be outgunned with "only" an M16, maybe it's th scare of the 50 caliber rifles that are seeping into mexico that are being used to assasinate policemen. Maybe it's the "Fabrique National pistols" that have him scared.
Seriously, what?
Yes, a .50 bullet fired from a rifle will penetrate both car doors and a bulet resistant vest, so will most other rifle rounds. Then there's the "pistols by FN" bit. What is it about these pistols that scares people so badly? Yes, the 5.7x28 was designed to defeat body armor ... when tipped with a high desity round and fired from a P90 carbine.
Such armor piercing rounds are not available to the general public, and neiter are P90's. There's the civillian PS90, but the article mentions pistols, not rifles. A soft or jacketed round from a Five-seveN handgun will do barely any better than an olympic target pistol will do at penetrating a police issue bullet-resistant vest.
Stop yacking about guns, and deal with corruption will ya?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Gang members weapon of choice?
In a large operation, Phoenix policemen have arrested over 30 suspected gang members. They also laid hands on several pounds of drugs, Canabis and crack cocaine. They also seized a large amount of firearms.
If we can believe the VPC and the brady campain, assault weapons are gang members weapon of choice, but of the 19 guns confiscated, only one was a rifle. Granted, certain handguns and even shotguns were subject to the AWB, but "assault weapon" usually denotes AK-47 look alikes, AR-15 style rifles and other "Evil Black Rifles"
1 rifle out of 19 guns? Might not actually be an assault weapon too.
Oh well, great job in Phoenix, I always love to read about criminals getting what they've got coming.
If we can believe the VPC and the brady campain, assault weapons are gang members weapon of choice, but of the 19 guns confiscated, only one was a rifle. Granted, certain handguns and even shotguns were subject to the AWB, but "assault weapon" usually denotes AK-47 look alikes, AR-15 style rifles and other "Evil Black Rifles"
1 rifle out of 19 guns? Might not actually be an assault weapon too.
Oh well, great job in Phoenix, I always love to read about criminals getting what they've got coming.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Iraqis trade AK47 for M16
The AK is a fascinating piece of work. Very few images are so widely recognised as this "rifle of the people" whis is hailed as one of mankinds best/worst inventions -depending on who you're asking- .
Now, the kalashnikov may be a great rifle, but it's not perfect. While its loose tolerances allow for only the most basic of maintenance, they do wear out and break down. The Iraqi armi uses AK-47 rifles and alike, but those are starting to date back to the 70's now, and are due for replacement.
It shouldn't be a surprice to anybody that America will be supplying the Iraqi armi with M16A2 rilfes and M4 carbines.
This will provide the Iraqis with a weapons platform that is effectively a symbol of the west, as well as binding them to a greater degree to the American presence. I hope they fare well, I really do. I also hope that the fighting will die down one of these days.
Hat tip to the couch /k/ommando's
Now, the kalashnikov may be a great rifle, but it's not perfect. While its loose tolerances allow for only the most basic of maintenance, they do wear out and break down. The Iraqi armi uses AK-47 rifles and alike, but those are starting to date back to the 70's now, and are due for replacement.
It shouldn't be a surprice to anybody that America will be supplying the Iraqi armi with M16A2 rilfes and M4 carbines.
This will provide the Iraqis with a weapons platform that is effectively a symbol of the west, as well as binding them to a greater degree to the American presence. I hope they fare well, I really do. I also hope that the fighting will die down one of these days.
Hat tip to the couch /k/ommando's
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Miami Rallies against assault weapons
Citizens rallied against assault weapons in Miami Florida.
People could be seen having a small clash of children chant phrases, at leat a dozen of people can be seen on the video accompanying the miami Herald report.
One of things people called for, was hold somebody other than the criminal accountable for crimes commited with assault weapons.
While I'm not sure exactly how this will curb crime, I'm sure that the organisers would be all to happy to explain it to you, if you call them using the contact info that isn't available.
They also claim that crimes comitted with assault weapons have gone up from 4% to 16% despite the absense of assault weapon legislation, and thus a legal definition of assault weapon which would be instrumental in compiling statistics on the subject.
On another note: you may need to drop your defensive rifle off at a gunsmith asap because it's broken.
According to Gorley, they are nothing more than "killing machine"s. So unless they have killed anyone recently, or they can be played with a record/CD player to reproduce the vocals of Rob Halford, your rifle is broken. Forget about varminting or target practice, it's a killing machine.
Yes that is a heavy metal reference, because I learned to win when I was young, so I'm never ever gonna lose.
People could be seen having a small clash of children chant phrases, at leat a dozen of people can be seen on the video accompanying the miami Herald report.
One of things people called for, was hold somebody other than the criminal accountable for crimes commited with assault weapons.
While I'm not sure exactly how this will curb crime, I'm sure that the organisers would be all to happy to explain it to you, if you call them using the contact info that isn't available.
They also claim that crimes comitted with assault weapons have gone up from 4% to 16% despite the absense of assault weapon legislation, and thus a legal definition of assault weapon which would be instrumental in compiling statistics on the subject.
On another note: you may need to drop your defensive rifle off at a gunsmith asap because it's broken.
According to Gorley, they are nothing more than "killing machine"s. So unless they have killed anyone recently, or they can be played with a record/CD player to reproduce the vocals of Rob Halford, your rifle is broken. Forget about varminting or target practice, it's a killing machine.
Yes that is a heavy metal reference, because I learned to win when I was young, so I'm never ever gonna lose.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Closing the "felons who steal guns" loophole
One of the surviving victims of the Westroads mall shooting has stepped forward to support gun control measures. He ... well, several people believe that a couple of laws could have prevented the mall shooting which left eight dead.
The law he's supporting includes:
Mandatory reporting of a stolen firearm withing 48hours
Would have done nothing to stop Hawkins, who'd committed suicide before the 48th hour.
Mandatory sale of trigger locks along with guns.
If the owner didn't even store the gun behind a locked door, do you believe he'll put a trigger lock on each of the individual guns?
Mandatory five year sentences for gun crimes.
... would not have put hawkins behind bars any longer. Also: pushing for mandatory sentences means you have no faith in the penal system, it eliminates the human element as well as case-by-case evaluation. Also, 2, they didn't work for drug offences, why would there be any difference here?
These are typical feel-good measures endorsed by politicians who are playing on peoples fear, emotions and ignorance (AK-47 military assault rifle) concerning the issue.
The law he's supporting includes:
Mandatory reporting of a stolen firearm withing 48hours
Would have done nothing to stop Hawkins, who'd committed suicide before the 48th hour.
Mandatory sale of trigger locks along with guns.
If the owner didn't even store the gun behind a locked door, do you believe he'll put a trigger lock on each of the individual guns?
Mandatory five year sentences for gun crimes.
... would not have put hawkins behind bars any longer. Also: pushing for mandatory sentences means you have no faith in the penal system, it eliminates the human element as well as case-by-case evaluation. Also, 2, they didn't work for drug offences, why would there be any difference here?
These are typical feel-good measures endorsed by politicians who are playing on peoples fear, emotions and ignorance (AK-47 military assault rifle) concerning the issue.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Props to the Miami-Dade police departement
Three days ago, a convicted felon was posing on youtube with a pair of firearms, taunting the police to come and get him ... which they did!
Oh yeah, I was right! Just a glace at that now deleted video was enough for me to tell a shotgun apart from a rifle, and I haven't seen either in oh ... eight years now! Goes to show how well-informed the Miami Herald is when it comes to the subject they're reporting on.
Oh yeah, I was right! Just a glace at that now deleted video was enough for me to tell a shotgun apart from a rifle, and I haven't seen either in oh ... eight years now! Goes to show how well-informed the Miami Herald is when it comes to the subject they're reporting on.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
assault-style rifles
From the fine people over at the Miami Herald, tommorows buzzword?
Assault-style rifles ... that's what we're calling AK clones today?
also, those aren't two rifles, that's one rifle and a shotgun.
Oh well, hope the police will arest this convicted felon for being in posession of ... an assault-style rifle? Hope they recover one from his posession, or he just might claim they were airsofts ...
Assault-style rifles ... that's what we're calling AK clones today?
also, those aren't two rifles, that's one rifle and a shotgun.
Oh well, hope the police will arest this convicted felon for being in posession of ... an assault-style rifle? Hope they recover one from his posession, or he just might claim they were airsofts ...
Monday, January 14, 2008
Miami Herald polling about assault weapons
The Miami Herald has published yet another piece concerning the "rampant availability" of "assault weapons". I thought it was rather neutral, and it even started by saying than ony one (1!) of the 69 police officers killed last year was shot by somebody wielding an assault weapon.
We're winning the poll, but still, get out there!
We're winning the poll, but still, get out there!
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
the 7.62 is evil!
Or so Paul Helmke would have us believe.
Sear and hammer is currently sporting a great articke on this subject, has gotten some great comments as well.
Sear and hammer is currently sporting a great articke on this subject, has gotten some great comments as well.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Another felon with a gun
There's been over a dozen of armored car robberies in Miami, one of those will likely be solved in the near future. One of the criminals, 30 year old Robert James McCullough, was arrested after police recieved a tip on him.
This article quickly skims over two bits of information:
He was a carreer criminal
he used "what is believed to be an AK-47"
What does this teach us? For starters, the penal system needs to be reviewed, this man was obviously not fit for society outside of prison.
According to the Miami Herald, this man was a convicted felon! He was obviously not fully rehabilitated upon release from prison.
It should also be noted that being a convicted felon, this violent career criminal had no way of legally owning, never mind buying any type of modern firearm.
This article quickly skims over two bits of information:
He was a carreer criminal
he used "what is believed to be an AK-47"
What does this teach us? For starters, the penal system needs to be reviewed, this man was obviously not fit for society outside of prison.
According to the Miami Herald, this man was a convicted felon! He was obviously not fully rehabilitated upon release from prison.
It should also be noted that being a convicted felon, this violent career criminal had no way of legally owning, never mind buying any type of modern firearm.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
2007 bloodiest year for law enforcement
My attention as drawn by this article on the ABC news website: if we ignore the large number of fatalities in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, 2007 has been the bloodiest year yet for Law enforcement, with 186 fatalities.
Obviously, I went looking for the core data, found on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund website.
Most of these eaths are traffic incident related, shootings take the second place followed by health-related issues like heart attacks.
The guns used in the shotings were averagely documented:
Handguns: 51
Shotguns: 8
Rifles: 8
"Assault rifles": 1
(note, there is one gun missing somewhere, as this doesn't add up to the 79 gunshot fatalities)
Food for discussion the next time Carolyn McCarthy claims that her Assault weapon bill targets the guns used most often to kill police officers.
Obviously, I went looking for the core data, found on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund website.
Most of these eaths are traffic incident related, shootings take the second place followed by health-related issues like heart attacks.
The guns used in the shotings were averagely documented:
Handguns: 51
Shotguns: 8
Rifles: 8
"Assault rifles": 1
(note, there is one gun missing somewhere, as this doesn't add up to the 79 gunshot fatalities)
Food for discussion the next time Carolyn McCarthy claims that her Assault weapon bill targets the guns used most often to kill police officers.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
What is an assault weapon?
Few words are disputed as vigorously as the words: "assault weapon"
I was once reading an interview with a police officer, discussing the prevalence of assault weapons, to my surprise, the only firearms he specified were tec-9's (or clones I suppose). This isn't the image I have of assault weapons, but it was his I suppose.
During the federal assault weapons ban, there was a legal definition of an assault weapon. It distinguished between rifles, shotguns and pistols, and no mather how much gun-rights activists shouted that the name "assault weapon" was decieving, or plain wrong, there was a legal definition.
Gun control groups often weren't happy about the definition either. The violence policy center for one, released many documents full of complaints about the firearms industry easely complying with legislation, and removing the features which made their guns assault weapons. Why weren't they happy about that? The AWB didn't so much ban any frames or recievers (the parts legally defined as firearm), it simply prohibited certain confgurations of "furniture", leaving the actual action (internal mechanics) unaltered; while the use of different accesoiries circumvented the ban on specific accesoiries. The weapons were just as dangerous as before.
Now that the AWB has come and gone, there's no federal definition of an "assault weapon" anymore. How shall we define these? The following applies to rifles, short-barreled rifles and shotguns but not submachineguns or handguns. labeling AOW-classified firearms is obviously impossible. Rifle will be interchangeable with "long arm" for the duration of this text, meaning: a long barreled weapon with a stock.
Describing assault rifles on an intuitive level is simple, but this translates poorly into legal proze.
Assault rifles were introduced to allow soldiers to engage treats both at short and extended ranges. The rifle and its cartridge had to be accurate and powerfull enough to pose a lethal threat at up to 200m, but it also had to allow a soldier to engage enemy forces at short distances where cover was scarce, and fast target aquisition and repeated though accurate fire was necessairy.
This translated into weapons which were select fire: single shots for longer ranges, fully automatic or burst fire for shorter distances. Being heavier than the submachineguns used previously and being chambered in intermediary cartridges reduced recoil to the point where fast fire could still be accurate up to 50 yards (which is a lot further then you might think) under combat circumstances.
Let's sum up what we've got so far:
What defines a weapon that is so much more dangerous than say: a traditional hunting rifle?
The original definition included two structural components: Folding or telescoping stocks and pistol grips, do they make a difference?
Folding stocks make gun smaller for storage, but the Nebraska mall shooter had no trouble concealing a rifle with fixed stock, and telescoping stocks don't make a rifle really all that smaller. Simply removing the stock is an option as well, both for storage as for concealment. This isn't so much of an issue.
It's been repeated a lot of times that pistol grips make guns much more controllable, but the light loads used in typical "assault rifle" cartridges don't pose much of a challenge on that front. Keeping the rifle balanced and sights aligned (left hand, up!) is a bigger issue than the recoiling of an "assault rifle" during repeat fire. They do make rifles easier to carry in front of you with the muzzle pointed downwards, rather than lowering the entire rifle and placing the stock underneath the armpit. This may be an issue when hunting, but I do suppose a "spree killer" would keep the muzzle of the gun pointing forwards anyway, and whether he does so with the rifle shouldered, or both hands waist-high, a pistol grip doesn't help at all in that scenario.
Note: firing from the hip is easier without pistol grip, firing with the gun clenched between arm and torso is easier with a pistol grip, and a pistol grip is almost necessairy to fire a gun with a very short stock (like an SMG, not discussed) or no stock (removed or folded)
Pistol grips don't make rifles any more dangerous, or utile to a spree killer, they simply make it more versatile (which is why they are almost standard in military assault rifles)
What does make one rifle more dangerous than another? Impossible to say, almost all types and configuration of rifles have got at least one thing going for them.
Semi-automatic rifles have the advantage of reduced recoil and are eaier to aim during repeat fire. They aren't that fast really, bolt action rifles can have a round rechambered faster than the average person can take aim.
Example in point being the SMLE rifle (WWI). When first used by the Brittish, German soldiers tought they were taking fire from automatic weapons.
Those bolt action rifles tend to be very powerfull and accurate, if somebody with the intention to kill a lot of people would hone his skill with a rifle like this, he could cause some serious damage!
Lever action rifles are often fed by a tube magazine, which doesn't need to be removed to be reloaded, and as opposed to bolt action rifles, can still have a round chambered during the process.
Similar to lever action rifles are pump action shotguns. They can also be reloaded in between shots, and carry the same or greater destructive potential than semi-automatic rifles, especially at short distances. (most spree killing happen in close quarters)
What about the caliber? The intermediary round is one of the cornerstones of the military assault rifle. Light, small but still causes severe injuries due to it's impact dynamics (the 5.56 NATO is notorious for its tumbling upon impact for example)
People have beem killed with almost any caliber of bullet imaginable, any type as well. Low-powered .22's and .25's account for a large portion of all firearms fatalities today. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a fatality rate per caliber.
Gun control groups keep warning us about high power .50 rounds, and a lot of firearm fanatics praise the .338 lapua as being even "better".
I can't definitively determine which caliber is more dangerous than any other, so unfortunatelt, that's out as well.
So here I am, stuck.
What *is* an assault weapon?
Which guns are so much deadlier than others?
and, would there be any point in banning them?
Banning the machineguns that slaughtered people by the hundreds in WWI hasn't prevented todays violent crime, neither did the banning of WWII's SMG's, would it make a difference if we'd ban another piece of "military" equipment? Criminals aren't soldiers after all, they'll strike whenever they have the upper hand in function of the guns they use. Somebody armed with only a bolt action rifle is likely to simply occupy a rooftop across a square, mall or school for example.
This isn't really a valid discussion, so please: stop jacking on about "assault" this and "military" that. You can tacticool it all you want, give it pink furniture or strip it down to bare steel and two spots for holding it, but a gun by any other name can still be used to kill people, as can a knife or piece of plumbing pipe.
Get over it, and focus on the human element will you.
I was once reading an interview with a police officer, discussing the prevalence of assault weapons, to my surprise, the only firearms he specified were tec-9's (or clones I suppose). This isn't the image I have of assault weapons, but it was his I suppose.
During the federal assault weapons ban, there was a legal definition of an assault weapon. It distinguished between rifles, shotguns and pistols, and no mather how much gun-rights activists shouted that the name "assault weapon" was decieving, or plain wrong, there was a legal definition.
Gun control groups often weren't happy about the definition either. The violence policy center for one, released many documents full of complaints about the firearms industry easely complying with legislation, and removing the features which made their guns assault weapons. Why weren't they happy about that? The AWB didn't so much ban any frames or recievers (the parts legally defined as firearm), it simply prohibited certain confgurations of "furniture", leaving the actual action (internal mechanics) unaltered; while the use of different accesoiries circumvented the ban on specific accesoiries. The weapons were just as dangerous as before.
Now that the AWB has come and gone, there's no federal definition of an "assault weapon" anymore. How shall we define these? The following applies to rifles, short-barreled rifles and shotguns but not submachineguns or handguns. labeling AOW-classified firearms is obviously impossible. Rifle will be interchangeable with "long arm" for the duration of this text, meaning: a long barreled weapon with a stock.
Describing assault rifles on an intuitive level is simple, but this translates poorly into legal proze.
Assault rifles were introduced to allow soldiers to engage treats both at short and extended ranges. The rifle and its cartridge had to be accurate and powerfull enough to pose a lethal threat at up to 200m, but it also had to allow a soldier to engage enemy forces at short distances where cover was scarce, and fast target aquisition and repeated though accurate fire was necessairy.
This translated into weapons which were select fire: single shots for longer ranges, fully automatic or burst fire for shorter distances. Being heavier than the submachineguns used previously and being chambered in intermediary cartridges reduced recoil to the point where fast fire could still be accurate up to 50 yards (which is a lot further then you might think) under combat circumstances.
Let's sum up what we've got so far:
- accurate, but not match grade
- select fire
- controllable
- intermediary cartridge
What defines a weapon that is so much more dangerous than say: a traditional hunting rifle?
The original definition included two structural components: Folding or telescoping stocks and pistol grips, do they make a difference?
Folding stocks make gun smaller for storage, but the Nebraska mall shooter had no trouble concealing a rifle with fixed stock, and telescoping stocks don't make a rifle really all that smaller. Simply removing the stock is an option as well, both for storage as for concealment. This isn't so much of an issue.
It's been repeated a lot of times that pistol grips make guns much more controllable, but the light loads used in typical "assault rifle" cartridges don't pose much of a challenge on that front. Keeping the rifle balanced and sights aligned (left hand, up!) is a bigger issue than the recoiling of an "assault rifle" during repeat fire. They do make rifles easier to carry in front of you with the muzzle pointed downwards, rather than lowering the entire rifle and placing the stock underneath the armpit. This may be an issue when hunting, but I do suppose a "spree killer" would keep the muzzle of the gun pointing forwards anyway, and whether he does so with the rifle shouldered, or both hands waist-high, a pistol grip doesn't help at all in that scenario.
Note: firing from the hip is easier without pistol grip, firing with the gun clenched between arm and torso is easier with a pistol grip, and a pistol grip is almost necessairy to fire a gun with a very short stock (like an SMG, not discussed) or no stock (removed or folded)
Pistol grips don't make rifles any more dangerous, or utile to a spree killer, they simply make it more versatile (which is why they are almost standard in military assault rifles)
What does make one rifle more dangerous than another? Impossible to say, almost all types and configuration of rifles have got at least one thing going for them.
Semi-automatic rifles have the advantage of reduced recoil and are eaier to aim during repeat fire. They aren't that fast really, bolt action rifles can have a round rechambered faster than the average person can take aim.
Example in point being the SMLE rifle (WWI). When first used by the Brittish, German soldiers tought they were taking fire from automatic weapons.
Those bolt action rifles tend to be very powerfull and accurate, if somebody with the intention to kill a lot of people would hone his skill with a rifle like this, he could cause some serious damage!
Lever action rifles are often fed by a tube magazine, which doesn't need to be removed to be reloaded, and as opposed to bolt action rifles, can still have a round chambered during the process.
Similar to lever action rifles are pump action shotguns. They can also be reloaded in between shots, and carry the same or greater destructive potential than semi-automatic rifles, especially at short distances. (most spree killing happen in close quarters)
What about the caliber? The intermediary round is one of the cornerstones of the military assault rifle. Light, small but still causes severe injuries due to it's impact dynamics (the 5.56 NATO is notorious for its tumbling upon impact for example)
People have beem killed with almost any caliber of bullet imaginable, any type as well. Low-powered .22's and .25's account for a large portion of all firearms fatalities today. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a fatality rate per caliber.
Gun control groups keep warning us about high power .50 rounds, and a lot of firearm fanatics praise the .338 lapua as being even "better".
I can't definitively determine which caliber is more dangerous than any other, so unfortunatelt, that's out as well.
So here I am, stuck.
What *is* an assault weapon?
Which guns are so much deadlier than others?
and, would there be any point in banning them?
Banning the machineguns that slaughtered people by the hundreds in WWI hasn't prevented todays violent crime, neither did the banning of WWII's SMG's, would it make a difference if we'd ban another piece of "military" equipment? Criminals aren't soldiers after all, they'll strike whenever they have the upper hand in function of the guns they use. Somebody armed with only a bolt action rifle is likely to simply occupy a rooftop across a square, mall or school for example.
This isn't really a valid discussion, so please: stop jacking on about "assault" this and "military" that. You can tacticool it all you want, give it pink furniture or strip it down to bare steel and two spots for holding it, but a gun by any other name can still be used to kill people, as can a knife or piece of plumbing pipe.
Get over it, and focus on the human element will you.
Friday, December 14, 2007
On debating: common pitfalls for supporters of gun control
Jadegold has recently released a string of articles on how to debate with gunloons.
I too was on that side of the fence at a time. Oleg Volk changed that, but I can still build a case in favour of gun control, arbitrairy as that case might be. Today I will at least try tell you what NOT to do.
First of all you should get familliar with the issue. Failure to be familliar with the issue may result in a complete loss of credibility and talking around the issue will not convince anybody. Typical mistakes incorporate using hollywood slang for technical firearm terminology. The most common mistake is using the words magazine and clip as if they were interchangeable. They might be in real life, but not in legislation. Being able to distinguish a revolver from an automatic pistol, knowing the difference between a (semi)automatic or selfloading weapon, and a fully automatic one is the bare minimum.
Knowing what an "assault" weapon is, is another can of worms alltoghether. It's a risky endaveour calling any weapon an assault weapon, so it's best to refer to a a gun by its action (bolt action, semiautomatic, fully automatic, pump action, ...) The Brady campaign originally defined what an assault weapon was, but has over time they have labeled other weapons as assault weapons, even though they were not subject to the assault weapons ban, or would have been if the ban would still have been in effect. To make matters even worse, there are other definitions as well, such as military or corporate designations, as well as other names for the same weapons, and the police might call their own something entirely different still, like patrol rifle (and that is in turn a way of referring to one specific rifle, the FN patrol bolt rifle)
It's easy to get caught up in word games, and somebody who's in contact with firearms on a daily basis is likely to have the advantage over you on that front.
It's very important to realize that the gun rights activists have more statistics to support them that any gun control activist can ever dream up, primarely because gun control means change, and even when statistics only show irrelevance, it supports the arguement that gun control is not needed. Both the Brady campaign and the violence policy center provide a vast amount of statistical data, but like I said: The gun rights groups have more, much more. In the gunfacts file you're likely to find out what's wrong with those numbers. Gun rights activists know these texts all too well, and if you're sitting down on a debating table expecting to baffle your adversairy with numbers, you'll likely have all your arguements turned against you.
To illustrate that: The US is has the best armed civillian population in the entire world, and one of the highest homicide rates as well, there is however no absolute correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate, or violent crime rate. So, never say that guns cause crime, you cannot prove that, just like your adversary cannot prove that guns reduce crime. The only way to deal with this issue is to shift the burden of justification, demanding why people insist on keeping arms. This will land you in an arbitrary debate, your wishes versus theirs, a debate without end.
Clear pitfalls:
Never say that there wouldn't be any mass killings without guns, you'll be met by a mention of the Oklahoma city bombing or the mass school stabbing in Japan. Instead say that a lot of people might still be alive today if it weren't for guns. This puts you in the field of tealeaves, becaue we have no way of telling if a killer would have carried through with his plans if there had been no guns at his disposal.
Never blame a specific type of gun or call any gun "better than another". The recent shootings in Nebraska and Colorado have rekindeled the discussion on assault rifles. Cho, the gunman of the VTech massacre didn't use a rifle to be the bloodiest school killer in the history of the US, so don't put the blame for mass shootings with these weapons.
Avoid bringing up other countries that have succesfully implemented gun control legislation, anybody who debated seriously in favor of gun rights will be able to cite several government studies showing that such legislation hasn't made their population any safer.
Don't try to make a case in favor of less than lethal weapons, there has been a string of fatalities tied to such weapons recently. Furthermore, a lot of these weapons are already banned under state law in a lot of places in the US (PAVA capsules for example are illegal in six states). Also, a gun rights activist is likely to expose these as not a valid means of self defence, as well as bringing up the recreational use of guns which isn't replaced by these alternatives either.
Maybe I'll type some more later.
And before you say it, yes I know you see what I did here.
I too was on that side of the fence at a time. Oleg Volk changed that, but I can still build a case in favour of gun control, arbitrairy as that case might be. Today I will at least try tell you what NOT to do.
First of all you should get familliar with the issue. Failure to be familliar with the issue may result in a complete loss of credibility and talking around the issue will not convince anybody. Typical mistakes incorporate using hollywood slang for technical firearm terminology. The most common mistake is using the words magazine and clip as if they were interchangeable. They might be in real life, but not in legislation. Being able to distinguish a revolver from an automatic pistol, knowing the difference between a (semi)automatic or selfloading weapon, and a fully automatic one is the bare minimum.
Knowing what an "assault" weapon is, is another can of worms alltoghether. It's a risky endaveour calling any weapon an assault weapon, so it's best to refer to a a gun by its action (bolt action, semiautomatic, fully automatic, pump action, ...) The Brady campaign originally defined what an assault weapon was, but has over time they have labeled other weapons as assault weapons, even though they were not subject to the assault weapons ban, or would have been if the ban would still have been in effect. To make matters even worse, there are other definitions as well, such as military or corporate designations, as well as other names for the same weapons, and the police might call their own something entirely different still, like patrol rifle (and that is in turn a way of referring to one specific rifle, the FN patrol bolt rifle)
It's easy to get caught up in word games, and somebody who's in contact with firearms on a daily basis is likely to have the advantage over you on that front.
It's very important to realize that the gun rights activists have more statistics to support them that any gun control activist can ever dream up, primarely because gun control means change, and even when statistics only show irrelevance, it supports the arguement that gun control is not needed. Both the Brady campaign and the violence policy center provide a vast amount of statistical data, but like I said: The gun rights groups have more, much more. In the gunfacts file you're likely to find out what's wrong with those numbers. Gun rights activists know these texts all too well, and if you're sitting down on a debating table expecting to baffle your adversairy with numbers, you'll likely have all your arguements turned against you.
To illustrate that: The US is has the best armed civillian population in the entire world, and one of the highest homicide rates as well, there is however no absolute correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate, or violent crime rate. So, never say that guns cause crime, you cannot prove that, just like your adversary cannot prove that guns reduce crime. The only way to deal with this issue is to shift the burden of justification, demanding why people insist on keeping arms. This will land you in an arbitrary debate, your wishes versus theirs, a debate without end.
Clear pitfalls:
Never say that there wouldn't be any mass killings without guns, you'll be met by a mention of the Oklahoma city bombing or the mass school stabbing in Japan. Instead say that a lot of people might still be alive today if it weren't for guns. This puts you in the field of tealeaves, becaue we have no way of telling if a killer would have carried through with his plans if there had been no guns at his disposal.
Never blame a specific type of gun or call any gun "better than another". The recent shootings in Nebraska and Colorado have rekindeled the discussion on assault rifles. Cho, the gunman of the VTech massacre didn't use a rifle to be the bloodiest school killer in the history of the US, so don't put the blame for mass shootings with these weapons.
Avoid bringing up other countries that have succesfully implemented gun control legislation, anybody who debated seriously in favor of gun rights will be able to cite several government studies showing that such legislation hasn't made their population any safer.
Don't try to make a case in favor of less than lethal weapons, there has been a string of fatalities tied to such weapons recently. Furthermore, a lot of these weapons are already banned under state law in a lot of places in the US (PAVA capsules for example are illegal in six states). Also, a gun rights activist is likely to expose these as not a valid means of self defence, as well as bringing up the recreational use of guns which isn't replaced by these alternatives either.
Maybe I'll type some more later.
And before you say it, yes I know you see what I did here.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Whoever said assault rifles aren't suited for home defence ...
... hasn't tried to break into this guys house:
¨Suspect Dies In Orlando Home Invasion
A victim grabs a rifle and shoots one of burglars¨
Once again, the media fails to report on the type of weapon, which also caused a great deal of confusion in the latest mall shooting.
A rifle? Could be anything from a bolt action hunting rifle, a lever action curiosum or one of those icky black assault killing machines which have no purpose other than mowing down a large amount of people (you know, the kind that police officers are buying to fight crime).
If anybody finds out, drop me a line will ya.
UPDATE:
The rifle used was indeed one of those horrible AK-47-style assault rifles, according to wftv9!
¨Suspect Dies In Orlando Home Invasion
A victim grabs a rifle and shoots one of burglars¨
Once again, the media fails to report on the type of weapon, which also caused a great deal of confusion in the latest mall shooting.
A rifle? Could be anything from a bolt action hunting rifle, a lever action curiosum or one of those icky black assault killing machines which have no purpose other than mowing down a large amount of people (you know, the kind that police officers are buying to fight crime).
If anybody finds out, drop me a line will ya.
UPDATE:
The rifle used was indeed one of those horrible AK-47-style assault rifles, according to wftv9!
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Turns out it was a WASR 10
The gun used by the murderer in the Nebraska mall this week has been identified as a GP-WASR-10, imported by century arms, according to MSNBC's video (the gunman's weapon)
Mind that this gun takes magazines, not clips, learn the lingo MSNBC.
During the video, they display the stock picture of century arms' rifle. Not a picture of the actual rifle used by the gunman.
Mind that this gun takes magazines, not clips, learn the lingo MSNBC.
During the video, they display the stock picture of century arms' rifle. Not a picture of the actual rifle used by the gunman.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Bradies ommitting the inconvenient
I knew it wouldn't be long ...
So, after the mall shooting in Nebraska, Helmke was quick to make a list of all the mass shootings recently.
All of them? I missed the one were that cop gunned down six defenseless kids at a party, conveniently left out I suppose?
What about the fact that most shootings listed took place in gun free zones, doesn't that deserve a mention? Well, that's not just the Bradies I guess ...
And what is this humbug?
In their press release they say that the gunman (a convicted felon, but no need to mention that)
was able to kill people because he had ¨high-capacity ammunition clips¨? He never reloaded his rifle! He fired twenty something shots, doesn't call for a reload with most SKS's.
(Update: there are conflicting stories detailing exactly how many rounds he fired, the ultinate number may be over 30)
Reminds me off:
So, after the mall shooting in Nebraska, Helmke was quick to make a list of all the mass shootings recently.
All of them? I missed the one were that cop gunned down six defenseless kids at a party, conveniently left out I suppose?
What about the fact that most shootings listed took place in gun free zones, doesn't that deserve a mention? Well, that's not just the Bradies I guess ...
And what is this humbug?
In their press release they say that the gunman (a convicted felon, but no need to mention that)
was able to kill people because he had ¨high-capacity ammunition clips¨? He never reloaded his rifle! He fired twenty something shots, doesn't call for a reload with most SKS's.
(Update: there are conflicting stories detailing exactly how many rounds he fired, the ultinate number may be over 30)
Reminds me off:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)