Comments on: Should semi-automatics be banned because they make revolvers and pistols useless?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:54:54 +0000

The very term “guns” and “gun violence” is a neat EngSoc trick to make people think the problem is the tool itself, and not that the tool requires a user to do evil. Perhaps because if they can deem guns evil, they can say that because the Democrats are “good” and “pure”, that they need “guns” to protect themselves, like a certain San Fran mayor now Defense Committee Senator.

Expose the hypocrisy. Don’t let them take a breather. Expose the corruption and the “rich” privileges these bastos have.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:36:00 +0000

Ron19 – a very good point!

I tend to be pretty cynical about inner city shootings. A Christian ministry outreach person who worked in the inner city explained to me that city/state/federal officials are pretty happy with the state of affairs, as the inner city drug trade is a de-facto transfer of wealth from wealthy suburbs to the inner city. The drug money, in turn, goes into the pockets of local businesses, politicians, churches, etc. So, the politicians wave their hands in horror, make speeches, attend funerals…and then let things get back to business.

Incidentally, a “semi-automatic” refers to one trigger pull, one shot and an automatic reload. This designation applies to virtually all handguns, including 1911 ACPs and revolvers.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:05:12 +0000

The Left knows how to fix the problem with guns. You see, because they are the primary cause of the gun violence and deaths.

See, not that hard to figure out, when you think about it.

By: Ron19

Ron19 — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:55:41 +0000

Danny Lemieux #21:

“Gun prosecutions are waaay down under the Obama Administration. Hmmm…perhaps because they want to create crises to exploit?”

Remember what was said about the Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia a few years ago? That this administration would not prosecute Blacks?

A few days ago there was a link here (or was it the Rush website or Mark Steyn?) that showed that in Baltimore and Chicago the vast majority of gun homicides were Black-on-Black in Black neighborhoods.

Prosecuting those at the federal level would most likely mean prosecuting Blacks, which is a non-starter, or reducing funding to local governments.

By: Mike W

Mike W — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:24:07 +0000

I haven’t read ALL of the posts but no one seems to be focusing on the actual ammunition the “assault” rifles fire. First off, ANY round can kill you – even a .22 caliber bullet. Having said that, I would much rather be shot by a .223 caliber bullet that the AR-15 type gun fires than a 9mm hollow point round that is found in many of the ACP type handguns. The main reason for this is that the .223 round is far more likely to pass right through you and not kill you whereas the 9mm JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) round is made to expand on impact and tear up your insides. As has been noted in many of the posts, your semi-automatic pistol shoots just as fast as the AR-15 (as fast as you can pull the trigger). True – the AR-15 is better at a longer range. As for magazine capacity, the standard AR-15 clip holds 30 rounds while semi-automatic pistols can range from as little as 7 rounds (smaller conceal carry style) up to as many as 30 rounds for the larger pistols so there may or may not be any advantage there.

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:58:26 +0000

weathd: Technically, you are correct – but as a practical matter, the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and its many amendments, plus restrictions on the movement across state lines of such weapons, mean that the market very limited and very tightly regulated. The average person cannot access such weapons, and indeed, they are so tightly regulated that you virtually never hear of one being used in crime.

By: Danny1045

Danny1045 — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:42:48 +0000

“Handguns can’t go up against assault weapons.” Not so. This statement presumes the same skill level between those with concealed carry and the criminals we have seen in the past kill with a rifle. (I will not give the victim disarmament movement the courtesy of calling a rifle an assault weapon.) Handguns still have usefulness for many reasons. Primarily, they are small enough to carry everywhere—that’s their purpose, providing handy, easily carried defense. If I knew I was going to a rifle fight, I would carry one in. Handguns provide the edge one needs to survive. The writer of the question discounts the skill level of the average concealed carry permit holder. As we have seen criminals who have been confronted, even when carrying a rifle, have given up or committed suicide—denoting their lack of skill. Training, strategy, and tactics go into who wins. It goes back to what I read years ago: I would rather face a 45 in the hands of the untrained versus a 22 in the hands of the trained. Criminals that have resorted to school shooting since the federal government outlawed guns on school campuses have been quite untrained. Compare that with an avid hunter with a handgun or a person who takes the responsibility of carrying one seriously. When I received my ccp I made it my business to shoot 500 rounds per week for three years, take lessons from a accomplished shooter, and to educate myself about the skill. And to participate in any and all handgun competitions. At age 54 with waning eyesight and shaking hands can still put 8 rounds in a target as fast as I can pull the trigger that can be covered by a playing card. Mindset is another facet overlooked in this comparison between a rifle and a handgun. A person with a warrior mindset and a handgun is far more dangerous than a full auto assault rifle and a novice. A warrior mentality that will not quit wins hands down. Add to that mindset just a little knowledge in strategy and tactics and it’s a win over the rifle every time. Cover, concealment, and flanking maneuvers make the difference. A little known fact is that a shooter usually undergoes tunnel vision and tunnel hearing—making the aware handgunner even more deadly. While the rifle shooter is paying attention to what’s in front the handgunner can easily get behind and bring the attack to a halt. I say shoot the bastard in the back all you got in the gun. If a gun is not handy, use a baseball bat….If that’s not handy, use a knife and cut the spinal cord. If a knife is not handy, use your hands, but FIGHT! As Lt. Col Dave Grossman says, there are three types of people; wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. Sheep are overtaking these days, so it’s incumbent upon us sheepdogs to protect those who won’t protect themselves. The weapon is only dangerous as the man or woman holding it. Sheep are killed everyday pointing a gun at a wolf. The wolf usually takes the gun and does what he will.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:49:46 +0000

Gun prosecutions are waaay down under the Obama Administration. Hmmm…perhaps because they want to create crises to exploit?

These people are such hypocrites! My advice to anyone looking to possess fully automatic weapons, legal or not, is to simply to submit a “Fast and Furious” request to the Holder Administration.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-over-40-percent/article/2516175?custom_click=rss#.UM-M6ZWuUlE

By: weathtd

weathtd — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:38:58 +0000

There is alot of misinformation being posted so I’ll say it again: it IS NOT illegal to own or sell fully automatic weapons. NFA has a license for machine guns and destructive devices. Google Class 3 weapons. I know several individuals who own multiple machine guns. One of my fellow Army marksmanship team members privately owned a 20mm Bushmaster anti-tank cannon that we fired on several occasions. And none of those people has ever murdered anyone.

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:08:51 +0000

A lot of what I am about to write has been covered above. Your instincts are correct, Book. Virtually everything about that newsletter is problematic at best, ridiculous at worst.

They have now been rendered useless despite our right to carry as no handgun can go up against an assault weapon firing 100 rounds in seconds.

Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any standard definition of an “assault weapon,” it has been illegal to sell or own fully automatic weapons in the U.S. since about 1934 or so. Semi-automatic rifles and pistols fire at the same speed – 1 trigger pull = 1 round down range. The only difference between the two in terms of putting rounds down range is that you have to change the magazine about twice is often on a semi-automaic pistol – which takes all of a second or two. This was written by someone who has probably only seen a gun in a movie or video game.

The NRA’s insistence on arming criminals with assault weapons in the name of money has ruined any chances of my handgun being effective.
The NRA does not, as I recall, insist on arming anyone other than those who have a legal right to “bear arms.” Moreover, someone should ask the author why our military still issues semi-automatic pistols to many of its troops if they are now ineffective. Actually, its because some troops are tasked with killing at range, while others have the pistols for self defense at close range. Put another way, rifles are most effective at reaching out and touching someone at range. Pistols are only short range weapons (zero to 40 or so yards), but because of their small size and manuverability, are slightly superior for short range work, all other things being equal.
Hi-power rifles will generally do more damage than pistols simply because, for example, the AR15 fires hypersonic rounds that will cause cavitatation inside the body. But if all the shooting is up close, the damage done by a 9 mm or .45 will do is not so different.
As to “assault rifles,” virtually every rifle is an “assault rifle.” This call by the left to ban assault rifles is two parts pure ignorance, one part the desire to keep hands out of a civilian population they simply do not trust.