[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Self-defence is fine, but the only people that really NEED an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine are soldiers and a relative handful of cops (SWAT).

The average citizen in North America does not NEED an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. They just WANT one.

"Assault rifles" have always been illegal in Canada. 30 round mags are illegal in Canada. An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle".

I don't know why you are always repeating this Boots. You are smarter than that.

First off, only fully automatic assault rifles are illegal in Canada (and were merely prohibited weapons until 1976 IIRC). Semi-automatic variants of a variety of assault rifles are simply restricted, meaning average people can buy them if they can get the right paperwork.

Additionally, 30 round magazines were not illegal until AFTER the Ecole Polytechnique massacre.

Secondly, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic, civilian version of the M-16, which most definitely is an assault rifle.

Finally - and most importantly - this article is by the CDC discussing firearm usage in the USA, where there are literally lots of assault rifles (semi-auto versions, but assault rifles nonetheless) owned by citizens, not just AR-15s.

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

I'm a fan of pre-emptive strikes, myself.

"I don't like your looks and I don't trust you!"

BANG! ...BANG!

If that policy was acceptable in Canada I suspect you'd be dead by now.

Oh, you know my mom do you?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Secondly, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic, civilian version of the M-16, which most definitely is an assault rifle.

The select-fire M-16 with a bayonet lug is an assault rifle. The semi-automatic AR-15 (which does not have a bayonet lug) is not an assault rifle and, in fact, is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic and self-loading rifle.

FYI, the 18mm British Land Pattern Musket, a muzzle loading, flintlock, single-shot, and smooth-bore musket that featured a bayonet lug, is also an assault rifle.

I'm assuming that since you hate 'assault rifles' that you want this terrible military-standard weapon banned, right?

[Thanos]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Self-defence is fine, but the only people that really NEED an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine are soldiers and a relative handful of cops (SWAT).

The average citizen in North America does not NEED an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. They just WANT one.

They're like the Humvee or Escalade of firearms. No logical need 99.9% of the time but they make anyone who has one feel cool. Neato and bitchin', man.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Oh, you know my mom do you?

She seems a nice enough lady.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

They're like the Humvee or Escalade of firearms. No logical need 99.9% of the time but they make anyone who has one feel cool. Neato and bitchin', man.

The thing about stuff like this is if you ever really do need one then it's too late to get one.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Self-defence is fine, but the only people that really NEED an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine are soldiers and a relative handful of cops (SWAT).

If private citizens are prohibited from owning such arms then the police don't need them, either.

And if the police need them then private citizens who are confronted with the same situations as the police need them, too. Otherwise you've acknowledged a threat that validates the police being heavily armed and you're deliberately victimizing your fellow citizens by requiring that they remain vulnerable to those threats.

No, citizens don't really need them.

If they own them to 'create a militia' blah blah, then technically, they should have the right to own fully operational tanks, planes, warships and everything else the government has. Fortunately, most people aren't that crazy and don't think average joes should have a MBT in his driveway or a LCS docked at the marina.

The only reason SWAT should have them so that they can use shock and awe on criminals and convince them to surrender before they bring out the heavy artillery (so to speak). They are used to give them an edge over someone with a shotgun or rifle, and the intimidation-factor doesn't hurt either.

In a self-defence situation (say a home invasion), a shotgun (and maybe a back-up pistol) are far better weapons for close-in fighting than an assault rifle is. Most crimes against 'average joes' don't involve criminals using automatic and/or military weapons (unless you count pistols as military weapons, given their history), so there's no real need there either.

Hence, I don't believe that anyone really needs one. I get that people WANT them - they usually look cool and all the tough guys in Hollywood movies use them.

As I've said many times, I'm not against all gun control, I'm all for letting people have shotguns, bolt-action/pump-action hunting rifles and pistols (with some hoops to jump through), but everything else isn't necessary IMHO.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, citizens don't really need them.

Seems to me you have your doubts here as you didn't give me an affirmative answer, instead you gave a qualified answer.

bootlegga bootlegga:

If they own them to 'create a militia' blah blah, then technically, they should have the right to own fully operational tanks, planes, warships and everything else the government has. Fortunately, most people aren't that crazy and don't think average joes should have a MBT in his driveway or a LCS docked at the marina.

Yet in Switzerland it's not uncommon for a citizen's militia volunteer to have a MBT in his barn. Never heard of one of them going all crazy with it, either.

bootlegga bootlegga:

The only reason SWAT should have them so that they can use shock and awe on criminals and convince them to surrender before they bring out the heavy artillery (so to speak). They are used to give them an edge over someone with a shotgun or rifle, and the intimidation-factor doesn't hurt either.

So if an average Joe is confronted with a criminal who is so dangerous that your police have to send paramilitaries after them in pre-dawn surprise assaults you essentially want Joe to die. So noted.

bootlegga bootlegga:

In a self-defence situation (say a home invasion), a shotgun (and maybe a back-up pistol) are far better weapons for close-in fighting than an assault rifle is. Most crimes against 'average joes' don't involve criminals using automatic and/or military weapons (unless you count pistols as military weapons, given their history), so there's no real need there either.

Then here's the shotgun I'd recommend for home defense. It'd also be a hoot for pheasant hunting.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Hence, I don't believe that anyone really needs one. I get that people WANT them - they usually look cool and all the tough guys in Hollywood movies use them.

As I've said many times, I'm not against all gun control, I'm all for letting people have shotguns, bolt-action/pump-action hunting rifles and pistols (with some hoops to jump through), but everything else isn't necessary IMHO.

And what do you say to the people who think that 'letting' anyone own a firearm, any firearm, is just too much? Because their arguments against the weapons you approve of sound quite the same as your arguments against ugly black weapons that cosmetically resemble military weapons.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Secondly, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic, civilian version of the M-16, which most definitely is an assault rifle.

The select-fire M-16 with a bayonet lug is an assault rifle. The semi-automatic AR-15 (which does not have a bayonet lug) is not an assault rifle and, in fact, is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic and self-loading rifle.

FYI, the 18mm British Land Pattern Musket, a muzzle loading, flintlock, single-shot, and smooth-bore musket that featured a bayonet lug, is also an assault rifle.

I'm assuming that since you hate 'assault rifles' that you want this terrible military-standard weapon banned, right?

We can argue this all day and night, but given that Colt (the original manufacturer of the AR-15) admits the AR-15 was derived from the M-16, I'll stick by my assertion that it is, for all intents and purposes, an assault rifle.

The musket is NOT an assault rifle by any definition of the term. It is a FORMER military weapon, however its single shot capacity isn't much of a threat to average citizens, just like bolt-action/lever-action rifles aren't IMO.

[Zipperfish]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

I'm a fan of pre-emptive strikes, myself.

"I don't like your looks and I don't trust you!"

BANG! ...BANG!

If that policy was acceptable in Canada I suspect you'd be dead by now.

Oh, you know my mom do you?

Oh yeah, I know your mom.

[Hyack]

Yep, a 15-round (14+1 round) bullpup pump-action (12ga) combat shotgun, definitely want one of those for the pickup......

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Secondly, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic, civilian version of the M-16, which most definitely is an assault rifle.

The select-fire M-16 with a bayonet lug is an assault rifle. The semi-automatic AR-15 (which does not have a bayonet lug) is not an assault rifle and, in fact, is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic and self-loading rifle.

FYI, the 18mm British Land Pattern Musket, a muzzle loading, flintlock, single-shot, and smooth-bore musket that featured a bayonet lug, is also an assault rifle.

I'm assuming that since you hate 'assault rifles' that you want this terrible military-standard weapon banned, right?

We can argue this all day and night, but given that Colt (the original manufacturer of the AR-15) admits the AR-15 was derived from the M-16, I'll stick by my assertion that it is, for all intents and purposes, an assault rifle.

The "AR" in AR-15 stands for "Armalite Rifle" who were the first builders of the weapon for the US military. It was designed by Eugene Stoner, and the rights sold to Colt. edit: the M-16 is a variant of the AR-5, AR-7 and AR-10 then AR-15 that preced the M-16

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

We can argue this all day and night, but given that Colt (the original manufacturer of the AR-15) admits the AR-15 was derived from the M-16, I'll stick by my assertion that it is, for all intents and purposes, an assault rifle.

By that loose assessment then this is a military assault vehicle because it was derived from the M998:



Feel stupid yet?

bootlegga bootlegga:

The musket is NOT an assault rifle by any definition of the term.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that you had served in the military of a Commonwealth nation? I'm guessing you must've been a mall cop or some such because I'd expect a soldier in Her Majesty's service to know that the British Land Pattern Musket defined what it was to be an assault weapon.

bootlegga bootlegga:

It is a FORMER military weapon, however its single shot capacity isn't much of a threat to average citizens, just like bolt-action/lever-action rifles aren't IMO.

You're kidding, right? For most of my career in the USMC the weapon I most often relied upon was a bolt-action rifle and I assure you that it was far more lethal than any full automatic weapon carried by the people it was aimed at.

[AltaRick]

"The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research."

When the CDC says, "Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is �Important Crime Deterrent" they are not saying the use of firearms is the best deterrent.

[BartSimpson]

AltaRick AltaRick:

"The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research."

When the CDC says, "Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is �Important Crime Deterrent" they are not saying the use of firearms is the best deterrent.

True, the best deterrent to crime is a decent family led by responsible parents who raise kids who lead productive lives as opposed to ending up as criminals who need to get shot by citizens or the police.