Err, that should be:
From what I understand, all available evidence suggests that ‘assault weapon’ bans, such as those of New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, and the United States 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).
Just for the heck of it, one of the highest velocity cartridges ever was made specifically for a bolt-action pistol.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/221fireball.htm
I’ve personally seen one of these rounds dent and puncture steel plate… looked like half-inch.
M-16 muzzle velocity is 3,250 feet per second.
Chart showing muzzle velocities of various other firearms. Note that 3,250 fps is higher than all but six of the rifle models listed (usually considerably higher), vastly higher than all of the handguns, and also vastly higher than the .22 long rifle, which is almost identical in caliber to the M-16.
lucwarm, one would not expect to see the assault weapon ban result in a decrease in crime overall. If someone wants to commit a firearms crime in this country, there is a vast array of firearms for that propsective criminal to choose from. By reducing the amount of firepower available to that prospective bad guy, we would expect to see a decrease not in the incidence of crime, but in its societal costs, e.g., the whacked-out loon only kills three people instead of five before shooting himself.
minty are you aware that the M-16 is not regulated under the ‘assault weapons ban’ that is about to sunset but under the 1934 act that regulates all fully automatic firearms?
The Colt AR-15, currently on your list of rifles that should be banned has a muzzle velocity of 2,950 fps which, by your own cite compares exactly with a 160 grain 7mm Remington magnum. It’s 50 fps slower than the muzzle velocity on my 165 grain .280 Remington loads for deer hunting.
Why are you citing fully automatic rifles as if the law you’re talking about has anything to do with full auto? It doesn’t, and the sunset of this law will have no effect on the 1934 Firearms Act.
Don’t be ridiculous, catsix. In all major functional respects except the ability to fire full auto, the AR-15 and M-16 are absolutely identical. If you take two identical rounds and fire one from each of the wepons, they will have the same muzzle velocity. I used the M-16 data because I couldn’t find it for the AR-15.
And in fact, the page you cite twice shows a muzzle velocity of 3,250 fps for the AR-15 loaded with 55 grain rounds–exactly what I said for the M-16.
You couldn’t find data for an AR-15?
And yeah, you’re right that the AR-15 is capable of a muzzle velocity of 3,250 fps. So are, according to your cite, various centerfire rifles depending upon the grain load and ammunition type used. A few are capable of muzzle velocities reaching 3,400 fps, but I suppose because they don’t look as evil as the AR-15 you fail to have a problem with them.
Among those is the Ruger Mini-14 with a muzzle velocity of 3,297 fps using the same caliber ammunition as the AR-15. Want to ban the varmint gun too?
As you may recall, muzzle velocity was only one of a half dozen or so features that I described as making assault weapons disproportionately dangerous. We only went off on this tangent because of the implication of Dewey’s posts that only caliber mattered for determining the power of the weapons.
And you still have not provided any cites as to why you think those features, mostly cosmetic, cause any kind of danger at all.
When are you going to do that?
What you’re saying makes no sense at all. If a “whacked out loon” kills three instead of five, that’s a decrease in the homicide rate. A decrease in crime.
About three pages ago.
Nope, you never posted any cites as to why those things are dangerous, as to how they increase crime rates, or as to how making them illegal has any benefit at all.
You just repeated over and over again ‘but they’re risky and dangerous and bad.’
Try again.
No.
So you don’t think you should have to provide any evidence at all of your claims that ‘risk’ and ‘danger’ exist because of semi-automatic rifles with cosmetic features that make them look scary to you?
-Except that muzzle velocity or muzzle energy were not listed anywhere on on the '94 AWB law, and it’s already been mentioned- and you’ve acknowledged- that many firearms with similar functional characteristics and that fire the same cartridge, were specifically exempted.
Caliber, muzzle energy, or your straw man “excessive deadliness”- whatever that is- though I commend you for sidetracking the whole argument, such terms are wholly irrelevant in the context of the sunset of the '94 Law.
The law was not concerned with the lethality or potential lethality of any of the guns. Despite your repeated declarations to the contrary, it concerned itself purely with mere cosmetic features.
There is essentially zero functional difference between a standard rifle-type grip and a pistol-type grip; the angle of your wrist is different, that’s it. A so-called “flash hider” is a cosmetic accoutrement; even the ones that ‘work’ only reduce the muzzle flash for the shooter. This too has zero- none- effect on the accuracy, rate of fire, power of the cartridge, or any factor that could conceivably be related to the “lethality” of the weapon.
Bayonets have already been dismissed- outside of wartime, there have been essentially zero bayonetings before the law, and there have been zero bayonetings after the law.
A bayonet is merely a knife with a clip to which you can attach it to a rifle muzzle. Knives can indeed be dangerous, but oddly enough the '94 Law said nothing about the bayonets themselves- it concerned itself merely with the method to attach it to the barrel.
A folding stock, no matter how arranged, cannot legally make a rifle any shorter than 26"- a Federal law in place for many decades prior to the '94 law. On the AR-15 or M-16, the telecoping stock in fact only moves about five inches. With the short CAR-15 barrel (still a legal 16.1") the overall gun is still some 32" long.
Ad nauseum.
If the AWB law mentioned anything about muzzle energy or muzzle velocity or whatever, you’d have a point Mints, but it doesn’t. Your argument is a straw man.
Already did. And I ain’t talkin’ about flas suppressors, either. Large capacity clips, effective rate of fire, ease of conversion to full auto, etc.
All you’ve done is reiterate time and again your belief that certain things are dangerous.
What you have never shown is any sort of causal relationship between the legal private ownership of firearms with those cosmetic features and an increase in crime or homicide rates.
Put up or shut up, minty.
Except that’s not my argument at all. I have never claimed that bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, etc. make the weapons more dangerous. I have merely pointed out that Congress regulated firerams with respect to those features because they closely correlated with the types of firearms that they wanted to regulate.
-Again with the “ease of conversion”. Please show me how a gun- any gun listed on the AWB law, is “easily” converted to full-auto.
Don’t be shy about listing some technical terms, I’m quite familiar with machine tools and metal fabrication techniques.
I’d be especially interested in hearing how the “Street Sweeper”, which has what’s essentially a large double-action revolver mechanism and is thus not actually a “semi auto”, would be “readily converted” to full auto.
More straw men, Mints.
Such a study will cost you. I think $250K and a full year’s access to the FBI crime database will suffice for at least a preliminary report. I eagerly await your check so that I may start on this terribly interesting project.
(sigh)
Except that several versions of functionally identical firearms were specifically exempted, the the only reason anyone can give for such exemptions is that they didn’t have the evil cosmetic features.