Assault Weapons

[fatty]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Watching the news last night (a rarity for me), and some Sheriff guy is up there saying that we need to ban Assault Weapons again. Can someone tell me why? It is not like they are used in crime or anything, so I don't get it. I guess that's it, I just don't get it.

My reasoning as to why - What they describe as Assault Weapons (really just sporting rifles since the military have an almost near monopoly on real assault weapons) accounts for a massively huge 0.2% use in all violent gun crimes. Yes that's right, 1/5th of 1% of gun crimes are committed with Assault style weapons.

Hmm. Seems to me that if you banned Assault Style Military rifles, you would not have 1/5th of 1% of gun crime. What a dramatic decrease that is?! Wow! So that means we will only have 99.8% of all gun crimes left after you remove these ugly things from our houses. Hmm. That is making headway now isn't it?!! So instead of having 100 crimes, we would have uhh... 100 crimes! Since the 0.2% is of course rounded up. Big progress! Why is it only 0.2% - simple - it is not practical for a crime! No criminal wants to lug a rifle around so that it waves a big "hear! Look at me!" type sign.

My only question is, what is the prevailence of assault weapons? How many Americans own assault weapons? What is this expressed as a percentage of all gun-owning Americans?

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by Chock

Just to correct a minor omission on this topic, while it is true that the AK-74 has a comparable round to the NATO 5.56 (being 5.45), the AK-47 in it's original form is very much more deadly with its 7.62 round. These rounds (more by accident than design) tumble upon penetration and create a massive wound channel with horrendous shock damage, which can indeed be fatal simply from shock in many cases, let alone the trauma and blood loss.

However, since the purpose of an assault rifle is largely for fire and maneuever tactics, where you spray bullets up the street during house-to-house fighting purely with the intention of keeping your enemy's head down while your buddy moves up into grenade-throwing range to toss one in a bunker or something, they are hardly the ideal weapon for holding up a seven-eleven.

But even if that were not the case I would agree with you, it's not the gun that commits the crime, it's the person, and they could do that with a hammer, breadknife or whatever (and in the case of the AK, they'd be far less likely to miss with a breadknife), which is why the sweeping UK gun ban (largely a kneejerk reaction from the infamous Hungerford AK-47 shootings, from the land of preposterous kneejerk reactions), has done nothing to lower gun crime here, in fact it's gone up.

Many were quick to yell 'ban all guns' when that happened, but how many were asking, what can we do to prevent someone from considering such a course of action in the first place? All the ban did was hurt legitimate law-abiding gun enthusiasts, and as a result put a few more illegal guns into the community, which are now devoid of any sort of regulation or monitoring. What needs to be addressed (in every country) is the morality which would make anyone want to use a gun (or anything else for that matter) to commit a crime in the first place, and banning weapons does not address this issue one iota, it merely makes guns more desireable as a status symbol for criminals, since they are effectively, 'the forbidden fruit'.

I am personally an advocate of the idea that in the UK, children of age 14 or so should be taught to shoot responsibly as part of a curriculum, as I think it would serve to point out the very real difference between a gun on playstation and something which can cheerfully blow someone's head off with no possibility of pressing a reset button. If kids saw what gun can do to a few cinder blocks and targets, I suspect they might think twice about desiring one to settle an argument of some puberty-related incident, or anything in later life for that matter. but that's only half the story, what people also need is a moral compass, so that even if they had a gun, it would not enter their heads to commit a crime with it, or anything else for that matter.

Of course, guns are not everyone's cup of tea, and many will not see that you could be interested in them and still be a perfectly nice person who helps old ladies across the road and who wouldn't hurt a fly. I should know, behind me right now there are several field target rifles and pistols and numerous assualt rifles on the wall, such as an AK-47, AR-15 and a even a 1928 Thompson drum magazine sub machine gun (don't worry Mr UK Plod IP tracker dude, they are all either deactivated or perfectly legal, and yes I am in a recognised field target shooting club, so committing a crime with any of them would be like robbing a bank and using my own car for the getaway, and if you are waiting for me to hold up a petrol station with one, all I can say is, don't hold your breath).

Gun legislation is a childishly naive approach to what can of course be a problem, but it completely circumvents the real issue, sadly, it's always a vote-winner with those of a more left wing political bent, which is sort of ironic when you consider that AK-47's origins and it's iconic status with guerrillas. Tough on the causes of crime, rather than the (potential) tools of it should be the way to go.

Chock

That's the one I bought after seeing the dents on the roofline of my San Antonio Mountain site nine feet up from where the Griz tried to get in. I bought a Rumanian AK-47 semi-auto 7.62 mm with the folding stock. The same one bin-laden uses in the file footage. I also saw it was voted the number one combat rifle in the world by the military channel. Oh, yeah. Forty rounds of 7.62X39mm ammo at the Walmart is like 12 bucks or less. I wish I could have found a Czech made one but was unsuccessful. The way I figure it, I have two 37-round clips. That's enough to spatter 10-15 rounds near the poor dumb animal to scare him away. If that doesn't work, I still have 50 or so more rounds to put right in the middle of him to slow him down long enough to reach the shelter, bar the door and call the rangers to come get this bear off my posterior.

Assault weapons bans don't make sense unless you're prepared to outlaw all semi-automatic actions and only allow lever or bolt action rifles.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Assault weapons bans don't make sense unless you're prepared to outlaw all semi-automatic actions and only allow lever or bolt action rifles.

That's waht happened here in Australia. We had tougher gun laws than america, but each state had different regulations. It all changed after 28th of April 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Ar...28Australia%29

Makes your preposed / attempted guns laws look tame!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by fatty

My only question is, what is the prevailence of assault weapons? How many Americans own assault weapons? What is this expressed as a percentage of all gun-owning Americans?

For real Assault Weapons (Fully Automatic), only the rich own them. Unlike what you would think, as a civilian, you can have a fully auto weapon if you meet 3 criteria -

1. The Assault rifle were made prior to 1986's machine gun ban.
2. You register it with the ATF.
3. You don't live in one of two states (Kalifornia, and some other, forgot which)

They probably number in the 10's of thousands and you need to meet a 3rd requirement - You have to have the cash since an M-16A2 will run you $12K easy since it's a registerable receiver.

As far as military look-a-like sporting rifles like an AR-15, those are fairly common. If you walk into any gun shop, there are probably 10 to 20 of them in various forms hanging on the wall. You can buy a good AR-15, like a Bushmaster for about $1100 or so. These are kind of expensive for a plinker, so they would not be as common as say an AK-47 sporting rifle or an SKS sporting rifle. As far as going anywhere to plink, I have 'never' seen anyone head up to the mountains to shoot and not have at least 1 sporting rifle like this. THey are so cheap and cheap to buy ammo for. You can probably get an SKS for $200, to maybe $300. An OK AK-47 from maybe Romania or so will run you $300 to $400. Expensive AK's will run you maybe $500 to $550, but are largely a waste of money since all you may get is a forged instead of stamped reciever.

Basically, all plninkers have at least an SKS in their inventory, so I'd say extremely common if that answers your question.

-S

PS. By the way, a registered fully automatic Assault Rifle has never once been used in a crime by an owner - ever. Only one was used once to commit suicide.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Chock

Just to correct a minor omission on this topic, while it is true that the AK-74 has a comparable round to the NATO 5.56 (being 5.45), the AK-47 in it's original form is very much more deadly with its 7.62 round. These rounds (more by accident than design) tumble upon penetration and create a massive wound channel with horrendous shock damage, which can indeed be fatal simply from shock in many cases, let alone the trauma and blood loss...

This is also a myth in more ways than one.

1. The AK-47 round in ballistics data enters and exits with nothing more than a small pistol round exit wound. It will tumble, producing mostly a temporary cavity. It will almost always enter and exit, never lodging in the body. It has much less damage than it's NATO 5.56 counterpart. It however is better able to penetrate cynderblock commonly found in Iraq due to it's higher weight than it's NATO counterpart.

Here is it's ballistic profile:




If you notice, the tissue disruption is minimal. Temporary cavity does not cause permanent damage, so it is an excellent wounder, instead of being a killer. This makes it an excellent close range battlefield weapon in that regard since you take both the wounded soldier and a medic off the battlefield instead of only killing and removing the soldier in question.

The AK-47 does have some major drawbacks however. It was built to be relible in any environment, so it's tolerances were purposely designed loose. This translates into poor accuracy at any range, and an act in frustration at any range beyond 100 meters. The bullet is also heavy, suffering from major bullet drop at 100 meters and beyond as well. The sights are too close together, further hampering aiming at range.

The good news - The bullet is so likely to wound vs. kill, if some crazy criminal gets one and shoots up everyone in his path, you are very likely to survive. Last statistics showed a survival rate against an AK-47 at nearly 78%. Change that to a shotgun loaded with buckshot and your survival rate drops below 30%. But you can't ban the shotgun because its used for hunting - go figure.

2. No one dies from shock like this - ever. THat is a fallacy created by Sanow for GUns Magazine. Him and his BS to sell magazines. Complete fallacy on knock down power (Laws of physics says that if a bullet could knock down an assailent, it would also knock down the shooter who sent that bullet flying) and shock and other BS. Even after his database was proven a fake and didn't really exist, people still read his crap and beleived it. I guess there are people in this world that will believe anything. The FBI and how they tore into Sanow's BS is entertaining to read though. A simple math teacher can prove this guy wrong.

With your heart removed from your body, you can live for up to 20 seconds. A mortally wounded person can continue to fight unhindered for an exceptional amount of time as well. Sanow played on Hollywoods idea that if you get shot, you go down, so everyone beleived him. This is not real life and it's all a fake however. SOme people will stop at the idea that they have been shot according Fackler, since that is how they perceive in their minds that they should act, but this does not stop the determined assailent ever. It is not shock they are experiencing, it is their own mind telling them they should react this way because they've seen it in so many movies.

Bascially - don't believe one word that Sanow says - more cops have been killed over his data than one could count. His recommendation of 115 gr 9mm for example - a pathetic round that can't even kill some people when cops are trying to save their own life.

If you want to read up on how this BS is a fake, let me know.

-S

[Chock]

I think you might have misunderstood what I was referring to here, and you'll certainly get an argument from anyone in the medical profession if you suggest that 'no one dies from shock like this -ever'. Shock is a recognised medical condition (not to be confused with the mental condition of shock, or the impact power of a bullet hit). Medical shock most certainly can, and indeed is, fatal if not treated.

Typically, it proceeds like this: The blood flow is disrupted, leading to a lack of oxygen and nutrients getting to vital organs, and this leads to localised cell damage as metabollic acidosis takes place from cellular 'leakage'. When this happens the body tries to compensate, and this kicks in things such as hyperventilating, with the body trying to get rid of excessive CO2 levels, so adrenaline is released and the heart rate increases to allow this to circulate to vital organs (which is why a shock victim will often have skin which feels cold and clammy), in a few cases this can bring on a heart attack, but what is more likely, is that the overworked systems of the body will begin to fail and this can (and does) lead to very serious damage, such as permanent irreversible damage at a cellular level, and that includes brain damage. And you can get all this from things much less severe than a bullet wound.

If you think shock cannot kill, then you'd better inform every medical facility around the world, as it will be news to them.

Chock

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Chock

I think you might have misunderstood what I was referring to here, and you'll certainly get an argument from anyone in the medical profession if you suggest that 'no one dies from shock like this -ever'. Shock is a recognised medical condition (not to be confused with the mental condition of shock, or the impact power of a bullet hit). Medical shock most certainly can, and indeed is, fatal if not treated.

Typically, it proceeds like this: The blood flow is disrupted, leading to a lack of oxygen and nutrients getting to vital organs, and this leads to localised cell damage as metabollic acidosis takes place from cellular 'leakage'. When this happens the body tries to compensate, and this kicks in things such as hyperventilating, with the body trying to get rid of excessive CO2 levels, so adrenaline is released and the heart rate increases to allow this to circulate to vital organs (which is why a shock victim will often have skin which feels cold and clammy), in a few cases this can bring on a heart attack, but what is more likely, is that the overworked systems of the body will begin to fail and this can (and does) lead to very serious damage, such as permanent irreversible damage at a cellular level, and that includes brain damage. And you can get all this from things much less severe than a bullet wound.

If you think shock cannot kill, then you'd better inform every medical facility around the world, as it will be news to them.

Chock

Excuse me. I thought you were referring to Sanow's version of it in which it incapacitates the victim that has been shot. Shock as you describe can take a very long time to onset with non vital hit . Much longer than any gun battle or immediate threat to ones self. You can deal at a hospital with what you describe later on. The only 'Surefire' way to stop a fight is to hit a vital or the nervous system. This will result in incapacitation due to loss of blood in about 20 seconds, or instant incapacitation from a shot to the nervous system. No other way to reliably bring down an attacker because you cannot rely on his mental capacity of simply being shot to do the job for you as the human body is amazingly resilient to damage. That is what I was describing.

Sorry for the lack of communication.

-S

[Chock]

Yup, if you mean that someone hit by a bullet is guaranteed to stay down, then you are correct in saying that this is nonsense.

That's probably largely the fault of Hollywood more than any one person in particular, a fantasy land where people are either dropped instantly, or say something along the lines of 'It's just a flesh wound' and are perfectly fine ten minutes later!

Of course real life is a bit different and somewhere between those two is likely to be the more common occurrence, and it's also quite likely that a good number of people who get shot will just become 'fighting mad' initally, from the increased adrenaline, there are plenty of clips from all those police footage TV shows that confirm this too.

My dad actually told me a bizarre one once when he was in the Army, someone was shot just near the pelvis and they dropped dead 'instantly' with barely a trickle of blood. The guy's friend had to be physically pulled off him as he simply refused to believe his buddy was dead from such a wound. Much later it was revealed that the bullet had ricocheted off his pelvis and gone up into his ribcage where it hit a bone and shattered causing massive damage to his heart and lungs, thus killing him pretty much instantaneously.

Conversely, my mum worked with a guy years ago, who was literally shot in the head, the bullet went in his eye socket, ricocheted around the eye socket, taking his eye out, and then came back out. Needless to say, he was then blind on one side, but apart from that, suffered no other injury.

Both pretty grim tales, but they do show that all the Hollywood b*ll****, is exactly that.

Chock

[antikristuseke]

Yeah, loads of adrenaline is dumped when being shot and as it was siad earlyer it desnt actualy hurt at first, will suck pretty bad after the adrenaline wears off though. This i know because i have been shot once, nothing serious, just some birdshot from a .410 shotgun from about 50 meters, 32 pellets in my face and shoulders, fun fun. Was out snaching a few appled from an orchard near my country house when 13 and aparently the owner didnt take too kindly to that, cant say that i blame him.