No. The specifically identified models singled out for prohibition are essentially identical to the military assault rifles, except they’re semiauto only. It’s not that that look like an assault rifle; it’s that they are an assault rifle, lacking only the capability for full auto fire–not that it’s all that terribly difficult to convert 'em to full auto in many instances.
The catch-all provision, with its list of five putatively “cosmetic” features, was also intended by Congress to bring other military-derived models under the scope of the ban, to prevent manufacturers from evading the law through slight design changes and redesignation of the enumerated models. This part of the act is rather less than fully effective, however, since it’s also easy enough to just drop the flash suppressors and bayonet mounts and still have an equally dangerous weapon. Like I said, I would happily redraw the line somehow to capture those weapons too.
Nonsense. By and large, they’re simply military models that have had the full auto option removed.
I’m still waiting for a cite or even an explanation as to why these weapons, stripped of their ability to fire in fully-automatic or burst modes, are any more dangerous than other semiautomatic weapons firing the same caliber of ammunition.
Just because a product started its life as military hardware does not mean the civilian version of that product is suitable for military use.
As DC&H stated, they are civilian weapons, made to look like military weapons. They do not have the capability for full automatic fire. In fact and in short, they are not especially different from a nonbanned weapon, except for certain, outstanding, trendy features, such as a barrel shroud or a bayonet lug.
Are these features that make it banned that dangerous in and of themselves?
Furthermore, it is not true that ‘they have had the full auto option removed’, but that the guns themselves have had a rebuilt action that does not have that feature. Sort of the difference between an automatic and manual transmission in a car.
I think Minty may want to consider banning all semi-automatic centerfire rifles, since the only difference may be magazine capacity, and I assume that isn’t enough to reduce the military/assault functions that they share with “assault weapons”. I say this because any semi-auto rifle that fires centerfire ammo isn’t much different than the Springfield rifle I linked to earlier, which Minty thanked me so he could include it in his list of banned rifles (that he hasn’t given us).
Quoted by tracer:
Carrying your weapon does not mean firing the weapon from the hip, and the “Underarm Assault position” that Chuck Taylor speaks of is a technique that is very close to a mounted shoulder position, and is for a submachine gun, not an assault rifle. Clearly you haven’t actually seen this position in use. I have. It is nowhere close to “firing from the hip”.
I’m sorry, but anyone that has been trained in the military or by qualified instructors or has been in competition knows that the only proper way to fire a rifle is aimed from the shoulder, whether standing, kneeling, sitting or prone.
Firing from the hip is fodder for the movies, nothing more.
The only reason you’re still waiting is because you’ve consistently refused to acknowledge the reasons I’ve already supplied, including large-capacity clips, accuracy of fire, effective rate of fire (note since you didn’t get it before, that is NOT just how fast you can pull the trigger), ease of illegal conversion to full auto, relative concealability, etc. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that you’ll still be registering the same complaint two pages from now. You’ll have to pardon me if I ignore you on this question from now on.
And btw, caliber isn’t everything–the rounds fired by assault weapons are high-velocity, which greatly increases their capacity to kill. Some hunting rifles use identical or similar ammo, but generally without any of the other objectionable features of assualt weapons.
Looks like the “plinker” features a folding stock and high-capacity clip, so yeah, I’ve got some potential problems with that. The same might be said of some of the models on the other page. On the whole though, those models wouldn’t be real high on my list of priorities, since they appear to only fire .22LR ammo, not the high velocity stuff normally fired by assault weapons.
Not much point in arguing with Minty then, since he’s either a liar or can’t even name one kind of gun he doesn’t “have problems with” (how’s that for a euphemism). :rolleyes:
My, that was thoroughly dishonest of you to omit the part where I said “On the whole though, those models wouldn’t be real high on my list of priorities, since they appear to only fire .22LR ammo, not the high velocity stuff normally fired by assault weapons.”
Not necessarily, but I suppose since you said so, you’d be happy to provide some kind of evidence that the legal ownership of what you call an ‘assault weapon’ increases the rate of crime committed with them, or the number of people murdered with them.
Yes, you’ve stated these things as items of concern. What you HAVEN’T done is present any kind of evidence that the weapons we’re talking about in fact have higher accuracy, effective rates of fire, ease of conversion or larger clips than other semiautomatic weapons.
IOW, all we have is your idle speculation that these guns might be more powerful than other semiautomatic weapons. You’ll pardon me if I find that a less than credible basis for concluding that these guns actually do outperform other semiautomatic weapons.**
I’m still registering the complaint because you haven’t bothered to respond in a meaningful fashion – all you’ve said is that these guns MIGHT (for example) have higher effective rates of fire than ordinary non-banned semiautomatic weapons. You haven’t said that these weapons DO IN FACT have such higher effective rates of fire, nor have you presented any evidence to that effect. **
Cite for the proposition that the listed assault weapons have a higher firing velocity than other non-banned civilian firearms?
There appear to be two possible interpretations of this question:
You are ignoring the fact that I already stated that “[s]ome hunting rifles use identical or similar ammo,” although such weapons generally do not have “any of the other objectionable features of assualt weapons.”
Hey, you’re the one who brought up the fact that “caliber isn’t everything.” You suggested that assault weapons, as defined in the law, are more dangerous than other semiautomatic weapons of the same caliber because they shoot at a higher velocity. All I’m asking for is proof for the assertion that assault weapons do in fact shoot at a higher velocity than their non-banned counterparts of the same caliber. **
Do you even read the websites you post? Nothing on that site indicates that assault weapons shoot at a higher velocity or have a higher effective rate of fire than non-banned semiautomatic weapons. It compares the effective rate of fire of exactly two military-grade weapons, the MM16A1 and AKM, for both full-auto and semiautomatic fire. It also notes that different assault rifles use different cartridges, some of which are higher-powered than others – but does not state that the higher-powered cartridges are the exclusive province of the weapons listed in the assault weapons ban. The rest of the page is descriptive, and irrelevant to the point I was making.
I also note, just in the interests of precision, that here we aren’t talking about “assault rifles” as that term is defined in the above URL. That site defines “assault rifle” as follows:
Oddly, your own cite subscribes to the distinction you earlier derided as the “Guns & Ammo” definition.
I also note that this side trip of your is a total red herring. Congress clearly wasn’t concerned about banning rifles exceeding some combined mass-velocity threshold – if they were, they would have made caliber plus velocity a premise upon which non-listed weapons could be banned.
Except that Cecil is incorrect on several points. Dr Martin Fackler did a lot of research on wound ballistics during the 80’s. His findings contradict Cecil’s statements. In short:
–You don’t need a fast-moving projectile to create a large temporary cavity
–Temporary cavities create damage by stretching tissues beyond their elastic limit
–Pressure waves generated by temporary cavities don’t move or injure tissue
–Presure waves generated by the sonic shock wave doesn’t move or injure tissue
–The M-16 does the damage it does because the round fragments at striking velocities over 2500fps
From what I understand, all available evidence suggests that ‘assault weapon’ bans, such as those of New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, have not had any appreciable impact on crime rates. (true or false?)
If this is the case, then by minty green’s own statements, he should not be against a repeal (or sunset).