FEinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

[Pete Cortez]

Nonsense. You've posted one example of a crossover, but that's it. Most hunting rifles do not look like assault rifles. I'd like to know honestly how many people hunt with an M-16 copy. And in addition, you posted one very badly chosen example:

1. I don't think you can prove that most hunting rifles don't look like assault rifles; varmint hunting has a considerably lengthier season than big game.

2. AR-15 isn't a copy of an M16. M16, however, does derive from the AR-15.

Sniper rifles. Sniper rifles are intended for one-shot-one-kill use, much like hunting rifles. They are not the same as assault rifles and often aren't even semi-automatic, such as in your example of the Remmington 700.

Some are certainly semi-automatic.

1. M110
2. M82.


They wouldn't be classified as assault rifles even without the increasingly inconsequential select fire simply because they chamber cartridges lethal outside of the typical engagement range of modern infantry. In the old days, you'd call them battle rifles.

So in this case, you're arguing against your point: Since the rifle is a military-type, but specialized for accuracy and not high firing rate or portability or other infantry type functionality, it is not the type of weapon that needs to be banned for civilian use. Hence the need for another term to describe the type of weapon that is to be banned: assault weapons/rifles.

A point. For most of their history, civilian small firearms have been military type. Your stereotypical lever action breech loader is an evolved Henry rifle. Your standard bolt action finds its heritage in the Remington-Lee 1885 and the Krag-Jorgenson.

I'm not an expert, though, so you tell me: why is the Remmington 700 single-shot?

It's not, it has a five round magazine. You don't find much in the way of single-shots outside of the sporting and enthusiast community.

Why the lack of a carrying handle on top?

Most rifles throughout history have lacked such a handle, regardless of whether or not they were used by civilians.

Why no flash suppressor?

Same as above.

Why a solid stock?

Wood used to be cheaper than metal or plastic.

Could it be that all of these features affect accuracy?

No, but they do affect reliability (and in the case of the flash guard, improve visibility after firing).

 

[Pete Cortez]

You've confused two different polls, mine was "gun ownership", you're qouting "guns in households".

Not confusing the polls, simply providing more up to date information. And pointing out that 47 percent of Americans have access to said firearms, regardless of whether or not it is there name on the Form 4473. I'll also point out that this trend has been going up since the nadir in 1993, which is truly encouraging.

Guns in household would be like my friend that inherited his grandfather's shotgun, but he has never used it, it's buried in the back of a closet. I guess you could say technically he now owns it, but he would be more likely to say he just has a gun in his house. He's not even sure if it works.

Possibly. Or it means a parent who bought his kids' first rifles. A fifth of the population is under 18, remember? And again, neither this survey or the similar GSS one answers the question of "what do non-respondents own/have access to?"

 

[Evo]

I'll also point out that this trend has been going up since the nadir in 1993, which is truly encouraging.

I find the trend (primarily in the southern states) of stockpiling weapons very disturbing. And the reasons they're buying, fearing doomsday scenarios, believing their guns will be taken away, so need to buy as many as possible. How anyone can consider this "encouraging" is beyond me.

Anyway, we seem to have exhausted this topic and as was pointed out earlier, the thread is going in circles, so time to put another gun thread to rest.