[uwish]

My point was about posting this article is not really about 'what' firearm is used per say, just that evidently, regardless of what people may think, there IS a place for them.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

My point was about posting this article is not really about 'what' firearm is used per say, just that evidently, regardless of what people may think, there IS a place for them.

Just like my jointer plane or my garden shovel, they are a useful tool that nothing can substitute for.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

My point was about posting this article is not really about 'what' firearm is used per say, just that evidently, regardless of what people may think, there IS a place for them.

Just like my jointer plane or my garden shovel, they are a useful tool that nothing can substitute for.

This.

[Hyack]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

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.

Damn, I think I know her too...

[Jabberwalker]

... Makes we want to eat-a-puss, Rex.

[My real mom would be 91 if she were still around]

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

... Makes we want to eat-a-puss, Rex.

[My real mom would be 91 if she were still around]

She was pretty hot for her age!

[Xort]

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.

We don't need a lot of things that most people want.

The ultimate argument has to come done to harm done. Does having 100 TV channels do a lot of harm? No, not a lot.

Does a 30 round mag do a lot of harm? No, not a lot.

Does smoking do a lot of harm? Yes. Yet it's still legal and we even have people pushing for new smoking products to be legal.

[sandorski]

Population Demographics, specifically Birth Rate, Population Growth, and Aging. That is what is common between the US and Canada.

Declining Crime Rates have nothing to do with Gun Ownership.

[llama66]

I think improved forensic technology and imporved police models (ie. community policing) also are playing a role in the reduction in crime in North America as well.

[Freakinoldguy]

llama66 llama66:

I think improved forensic technology and imporved police models (ie. community policing) also are playing a role in the reduction in crime in North America as well.

Quite likely but the biggest reason for a reduction of crime in North America period is an aging population.

Can you see this committing a felony.

[stratos]

$1:

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.

Seeing as how you said that they are not used in most crimes why the need to ban them? If they are not a huge factor in crimes being commited then no need is there to have them banned.

A bit of a side not is that the M1616-A1, the last version of the M16 I used while in the military, was not a fully automatic weapon. Safety, single shot, 3 shot. First two are easy enough to understand the 3 shot setting was that a single pull of the trigger shot 3 rounds then stopped. You had to pull the trigger again to fire 3 more shots thus not a full auto weapon.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson 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?

You're being deliberately obtuse, but okay I'll play along.

What is the official US military designation of the M-998? HMMWV or High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. Funny, I don't see military or assault in there at all. It was originally developed to replace another utility vehicle, the ubiquitous Jeep.

Guess you're not nearly as smart as you think you are...

But I do agree with you that both civilian versions retain their primary function - one carries people and stuff and one fires a lot of rounds quickly. The biggest difference is that each one has moderately lesser capabilities than the military version it is modelled after.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

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.

First off, I said assault rifle, not weapon. If you're going to quote me, at least try and read my post, thank you very much.

However, given your thick-headedness today, I'll re-phrase it slightly.

BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, THAT MUSKET IS CONSIDERED NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

It may have been called a battle rifle or something similar, but I sincerely doubt the term assault rifle was in common usage in that era. However, if you find a copy of a 19th century field manual that calls that weapon an assault rifle and I'll give the point you.

Until then, I call BS on your spurious claim.

Again, that should be obvious to anyone who wasn't being deliberately obtuse, Warden Norton.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

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.

Just because your military specialty blinds to the obvious isn't my problem.

I don't recall of too many drive-by shootings happening with bolt action rifles. I don't know of too many home invasions with bolt-action rifles either. They probably have been used on the odd occasion, but they are not the weapon of choice for criminals.

As such, I'm not too worried about a gangbanger with a bolt action rifle, but I am worried if they have semi-auto/full auto assault rifles. I would suspect most people feel the same way.

[Lemmy]

I swear these morons must never have seen a Western. It doesn't matter whether everyone or no one is armed when a bad guy with a gun shows up. The only guy who gets to use their gun is the guy who pulls it first. Everyone else puts their arms in the air. The people at the CDCs need to grab some common sense, a long with a John Wayne movie or two.

[stratos]

$1:

I swear these morons must never have seen a Western. It doesn't matter whether everyone or no one is armed when a bad guy with a gun shows up. The only guy who gets to use their gun is the guy who pulls it first. Everyone else puts their arms in the air. The people at the CDCs need to grab some common sense, a long with a John Wayne movie or two.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I swear these morons must never have seen a Western.

Really! The nerve of these people to base their opinions on actual facts instead of what they see in the movies!