It’s certainly true that crime is concentrated in particular areas, but that wasn’t my point. My post was about the method used in the homicide (and a little bit about the motive), not the location.
Here are some numbers (from UNODC, for what it’s worth)
Homicide rate (2012, last year data is available):
USA = 4.7
Canada = 1.6
Australia = 1.1
UK = 1.0
The same source says that ~60% of American homicides use a firearm. If you could eliminate guns and none of those murderers resorted to an alternative method, we’d still have a higher homicide rate than those other countries we’re so often compared to. It’s not just guns. Americans stab and beat each other to death at rates much higher than our British cousins.
As for your “20 zip codes” theory: USA’s homicide rate is triple Canada’s. If you wanted to bring us down to Canadian levels of homicide, you’re talking about eliminating more than 8,000 of 2014’s 13,472 homicides (FBI UCR reports). There’s no frickin’ way that there were 8,000 homicides in just 20 zip codes.
If you’re talking about guns which are designed as assault rifles: auto-load, have very little kick–and can fire low-caliber ammo at sufficient force to punch holes in a body large enough to drop a tangerine through? Yeah,* all *of those should be banned from sale to private individuals. Not available for a million dollars. Not available to private mercenary firms. Not available to police officers. Just plain off the market.
Funny how New York City and Washington DC have incredibly tight gun control. Apparently the ruling class types think that gun control works well enough to be desirable anywhere important people concentrate.
It’s the rest of us out in the provinces who are being suckered into trying to prepare for a possible Hollywood actioner shootout.
The MCX just hit shelves last year. Most folks don’t even know what an MCX is now, and two weeks ago the ones who did largely only did because they were keeping up with the leading edge of firearms tech.
Journalists compared it to an AR-15 because at first reports said it was an AR-15. There’s very little information about the Sig Sauer MCX online.
Regarding a Sig Sauer MCX and a typical AR-15, they are similar enough that you can run a mil spec upper on it. The Sig is a very cool rifle, but other than its unique piston system and lack of buffer assembly, its an AR. Its like arguing that a Sig 1911 is not a 1911 cause its not a Colt. Picking nits is only interesting to pro gun guys in this situation.
foolsguinea is right, the MXC isn’t a clone … if you want to argue is differences are only cosmetic, okay, but that’s not disingenuous. Pro gun guys are interested, and they’re fun to shoot.
It really shouldn’t matter, as the end result is the same, but on the other hand the media engages in magical thinking and believes that the AR-15 is something unique when it is not. I’m not sure which I prefer they do.
Similarly, this rifle and this rifle are completely different. Same caliber, same capacity, same basic function, and the second one was almost certainly inspired, but is a mechanically very different and fancier rifle. As are thesetwo “sniper” rifles (the former is more expensive, but a few years ago every person was selling the other one as a “Dragunov.”
We’ll let Australia in as a State … are you kidding … they’re only getting two senate seats … and they should count that as blessing, Canada isn’t getting any …
I’m willing to be precise just to avoid being accused of being ignorant. But I agree the whinging in certain quarters that it “wasn’t really an AR-15” is a bit of misdirection. It’s a gun which looks and acts like an AR-15. Different piston system, a little quieter, but to most observers they are the same thing.
And it belongs in unsupervised, private hands on the streets of Orlando to the same degree as any other auto-loading, “one shot one kill” rifle, which in my opinion is not at all.
Uzis were scary because they’re compact, full-auto, and–honestly, kind of hard to control. AR-15’s are scary because they fire with an absurd amount of force for most applications, and are for that reason usually not fired in an urban environment, even by SWAT officers who carry them into hostage situations. If you really need a sniper rifle that can go through a window, *and *you have cleared the neighborhood, *and *the negotiator fails to defuse a dangerous situation, then you might have a reason to fire one.
Why some random individual is allowed to carry one around as he pleases is a good question.
Actually, there are pistols more powerful than the AR. Pretty much any .30 caliber cartridge is 2-3 (or more) times as powerful.
And it’s no sniper rifle. At least in stock form.
You do realize that whenever you talk down a semi-auto rifle by claiming that there are other guns just as powerful, all you’re doing is making it clear we have to confiscate those other guns as well?
Wow, you wallow in your ignorance and roll your eyes at me? Wow!!!
You’re still wrong on the facts but just for argument’s sake, why are you focusing on assault weapons when it seems like you are talking about semiautomatic weapons? Its it because you are ignorant?
#/media/File:Psl_sniper_rifle.jpeg){kind=link}