Asssault weapons

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Asssault weapons
56
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:11pm
How do you feel about the Assault weapons ban being lifted? Do you think that our police are in danger?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 7:20am
I own a semi auto 308 I use for deer hunting. I don't know about you, but I sure am not able to pull a trigger 30 times in a second. (It has been years since I used it because when I moved I left it with my parents, but I don't even think I could fire the 8 - 10 rounds in it in a second. I think I would be lucky to get 2 rounds fired!)
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 9:41am
We better mark the date on a calender as it's such a rarity. nt
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:40am
Actually,

I saw an interview with LA police cheif who is in favor of the ban and said nearly 1/5th of the police deaths are as a result of assualt weapons being fired at them...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:54am
You may be right, but what I heard the ploice chief say that with soem sort of attachment/extension(illegal but it is done by criminals)it can be made to fire 30 rounds. I don't know anything about guns (I don't think I will ever need a gun in my life) and I am not contradicting you but I am just relaying what I heard.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 11:02am
Indeed. I have it marked. LOL
Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 11:41am
Well, the ban expiration will make terrorists happy:

<>

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%7E24781%7E2334862,00.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 1:16pm

Ah yes, here we go again. The gun lobby do love this issue.


Yes, the Constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms so that there can be proper defense of our nation should it be necessary. However, the intent of that amendment was so that individuals who were called to serve would provide their own weapons.


Therefore, if you wish to own a gun, you should be willing and ABLE to serve in the defense of our nation. In other words, if you ain't in the military, you're not on reserve, nor are you a police officer of some sort (and I'll even include the volunteer mounted posses that they have in some regions), then your right to bear arms is, well, non-existent.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 2:03pm
Well then the police chief doesnt understand the difference between the weapons that are still legal and those that are not under the ban......there is absolutely no difference in the funtioning of the weapons that are legal compared to the illegal ones, except unless you include the fully automatic weapons, which are still legal with a Federal Class 5 license.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 2:56pm
You just said the magic words yourself... "illegal but it is done by criminals". What difference in what is legally available for purchase and what is illegal worries criminals?

As for the attachment you're speaking of, I'm fairly into firearms but I have no knowledge of a simple attachment or extension which can be mounted on a firearm to allow 30 rounds per second to be fired. That's a cyclic rate of 1800 per minute, the low speed setting on 20mm Vulcan rotary cannons used on fighter and some other aircraft, and about 2 to 3 times the cyclic rate of the M-16 used by the military.

Could be wrong of course, but it sounds like that police chief was more interested in feeding the hype surrounding this subject than being accurate.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 3:01pm
Two things worth noting there... first of all, you're speaking of a police chief in California. Given California's draconian gun control laws, no police chief there could possibly say anything different, not and keep his or her job. Second, the "assault weapons" that chief was speaking of are functionally identical to non-assault weapons which are and have been available ever since the ban was enacted.

So, if there is no functional difference between banned and non-banned firearms, what is the significance of the distinction being made there? The caliber is exactly the same, the rate of fire exactly the same, the magazines they take exactly the same. The expiration of the ban changes nothing of consequence where those firearms are concerned.

~mark~