At 6/16/07 08:24 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
At 6/16/07 05:51 PM, TheMason wrote:
And if someone's just out on a killing spree? Or decides to pull "beltway sniper with a C-Mag?"
Not when we're looking at someone with a semi auto and, say, a 30 round magazine. Compare that to a semi-auto with a 10 round magazine...or, as it would have been under the ban, a bolt action with a 5 round magazine.
Spray and pray seemed to have worked in the Stockton tragedy. He killed 5 kids, wounded 29 others and a teacher...That's bad. And imagine if there'd been another gunman and the cops showed up? North Hollywood, anyone?
No. High-capacity magazines encourage spray and pray shooting...which highly ineffective and the sign of someone who does not know what they are doing. If say they had the limitations of a bolt action rifle they would have been forced to take more time with their shots and get a better aiming point. They would've been using a high power hunting round that would produce more kills and less wounded.
Now I know what you're thinking: police response. This could all be over in two-minutes even with a firearm with a bolt or lever action rifle and a 5 or 10 round mag. The result would be more dead people and a shooter who would've had more than enough time to kill himself.
Furthermore, high-capacity magazines may actually be better for shooting victims...
You've just adopted my point.
*sputter* How so? My point is that (as you saw above) that high-capacity magazines are safer than low-cap mags.
It is highly probable that if he used a more traditional hunting rifle or shotgun more kids would have been killed or seriously injured.
*sputter* How so?
Hunting rifles, hunting ammo and shotguns are more lethal than assault rifles...even those with high-capacity magazines. Also a nut with an AK-47 will be more likely to purchase military rounds which cause less damage than hunting rounds.
This combined with my statements above about taking more time between shots (and thus forcing him to aim) would have probably resulted in more deaths than what happened with the AK-47.
.223 rounds, what I would think is the most common size for an AR-fired round, aren't good for making clean kills on game much larger than a coyote. After all, the .222 remington, from which the .223 was based on, was designed for so-called "varmint hunting."
Actually I know several fellow hunters who use .223 for deer. At 100-200yds a .223 with the proper round (hunting projectile, not military/full metal jacket projectile) is effective. A common deer hunting combo is a Ruger Mini-14, scope & 5 round mag.
2) They are not a danger in the hands of a regular citizen.
Regular citizen, perhaps not. Easy to steal from a legal owner? Yeah, probably. That's one of the problems. It's not that I don't want good people to have guns, I just don't want good people to have guns that could get stolen, for one.
1) You will never be able to stop the bad people from getting whatever gun they want. Narcotics and Prohibition has taught us that.
2) Cops are only able to respond just in time to draw the chalk outline, so why take away the good guy's best chance.
It's also more cost prohibitive than a firearm, for one.
While you do not significantly defeat this argument I give you props for being the first person to offer a logical counterpoint.
3) Yes it is important that they are not used in crimes.
They are, though. And they kill...How can you deny that?
They are not used in significant numbers to warrent special treatment or banning. This type of legislation does nothing real to reduce crime or address the roots of it.
In fact, it is the firearm I go deer hunting with.
7.62 Soviet? Probably more powerful than a .223, as far as I can tell...
If you want a 7.62 soviet, you can have one. It's the fact that it's fired from a semi-automatic weapon that I have a problem with.
Why? Have you ever shot these weapons? It seems like you know more than the average person I debate this topic with...yet you are still stuck on this superficial logic that these weapons are the menace when statistically they play an exceptionally insignificant role in crime.
The argument is that AR rounds are actually not designed or intended for killing...while hunting rounds are more powerful and by design & intent are made SOLELY for killing.
And a hunting round is fired from...?
*ding, ding, ding*
A hunting or battle rifle, not an AR. Come on, don't be naiive. It's pretty easy to get your hands on a semi auto rifle. Easier than a pistol, most likely. Take that and add in thousands of dollars and terror cells. The IRA bought .50 cals, so why couldn't al qaeda buy SKSs?
Okay here is where you blow it...
The gun does not have a little computer or mind of its own that goes: "This is a hunting round and I am an AR...I will not fire it." It does not work that way, the gun will fire a round based upon its calibur...not the projectile of the individual rounds. There are hunting rounds made in the various AR caliburs...therefore *ding, ding, ding* they shoot hunting rounds!
I have told you that I go hunting with an AK-47. SKSs & Mini-14s are also popular for deer hunting. And if someone can find a five round mag for it, a M-16 or any other 5.56/.223 rifle is suitable and legal for deer hunting.
However, this nothing to disprove my statement (because this is scientific fact, not a hypothetical) that hunting rounds are intended to maximize lethality while military rounds are intended to minimize suffering.
As for al-Qaida buying SKSs...they would:
1) Buy an AK instead.
2) Buy it in a foreign country (China, Pakistan & Venezuala immediately come to mind) and smuggle it in from Canada (most likely) or Mexico.
Non al-Qaida cells (such as the Fort Dix Six) are often amatuerish and look to buy them legally thereby drawing attention to themselves. If we still had the AWB this group could have actually been more successful in pulling off the attack because they would have gone through illegal means from the beginning...and would not have set off the alarm bells that led to their apprehension.
