Why Civilian variant assault rifles should not be banned.

[Spider]

Look at it this way. This is a Honda Civic:



We can call it whatever, a modded import, rice rocket, whatever...but no matter how many decals and wings and coffee can exhausts some idiot bolts onto it, it will always been one of these beneath the facade:



We can ban rice rockets, because some idiots think its a good idea to race a clown car light to light...but on what grounds? Presumption? What about the guy who just thinks it looks cool and drives it like a grandma because he can't stand the thought of scuffing his dragon decal somehow?

[PoS]

[Boris Johnson]

[Spider]

Rifle rounds are actually far less likely to tumble than pistol. The perception that rifle rounds tumble is due to the longer ranges that are being worked with, and bullets losing a lot of energy, or being very slightly diverted by wind or a tiny tree branch or whatever. And rifles aren't more dangerous because of tumbling...they are more dangerous because of the huge amount of energy involved. In the case of smaller rounds like a 5.56, there is a lot more tendancy to tumble, as rotational energy is able to overcome the forward vector of momentum to a small degree. The vast bulk of rifles are far too high powered for this to be a real issue.

If a bullet is tumbling out of a barrel, its an indication of the barrel/rifling being badly degraded, causing the bullet to not properly seat against the grooves when the bullet is struck. Or, it could be that the bullet is the wrong diameter, and so isn't sliding down the grooves and picking up proper rotation. Or, possibly the round is too hot (handload, too much/wrong powder), causing it to get stripped as it tears its way out of the barrel so violently it isn't picking up spin. Actually, I'm betting too heavy a bullet relative to charge would probably have the same problems. Winchester knows about 10 times as much as I about this stuff.

A long, rifled barrel with a lot bigger charge behind the bullet results in a far higher velocity and a lot more rotation on the bullet, causing to fly true. Hand guns don't have these advantages...which is why they are generally designed to have a bigger, slower bullet. Meant for short range work, and it doesn't matter much if they tumble...but they really shouldn't. If they do, something is wrong with the gun or the cartridge or both.

And ya, you can do more damage to a walking piece of meat with a more energetic chunk of lead. But the gun is too large to be practical for such uses to the common criminal.

[RoyBatty]

Ummm, not to split hairs or otherwise interrupt what looks an awful lot like a nasty bout of knuckleheaditus, but can anyone tell me... has 1 hair on 1 human beings chinny-chin-chin been harmed by a legally owned 'grenade' launcher in the U.S., either purposefully or by accident, in...say... the last 5 years?

And just for clarity, "grenade" launchers? Anyone else see that as a pretty serious grasp at straws? Otherwise, bringing such nonsense up serves only to prove the very point of this thread. From the ominous and Satanic 'grenade' launcher, one can legally fire the following: dummy rounds, smoke shells, parachute flares, and a chalk-dust training round. Actual "Grenades" are still quite illegal. If I'm wrong, please point me to the fish and tackle shop that sells incendiary/fragmentary/high explosive ammunition, cuz I'll be there with 5 Mastercards and a pocket full of greenbacks tomorrow.

So let me ask, if this little zinger was not brought up to flame the subject or be otherwise annoying and useless, what was the point of mentioning "grenade" launchers at all? Perhaps because they LOOK threatening attached to the underside of an AR15? hmmm... It's one or the other, so which is it? They do carry a certain military "look", no doubt about it. REALITY: the flare gun on my grandfathers boat (RIP) posed more actual danger in 1983 than the 'grenade' launcher attached to my AR does today, and that says quite a lot, I'd suggest. It says that banning such items is an absolute exercise in futility and, if such a ban ever achieved, amounts to legislative stupidity. 'Assault weapons' bans have markedly little use as a safety precaution. Assault weapons bans are capable of one thing only, which is to restrict/nullify the cosmetic and modern appeal, or "intimidation factor" (as it were) of a certain type of firearms. Such enormous attention given to the mere color and shape of a gun is patently ridiculous. Banning those guns appeases people who wouldn't know a gun from a child's toy in the first place.

Then again, there's always the question of "telescoping stocks".

[Boris Johnson]

[lnrw]

You can get grenade launchers in Canada, a gun control country.

They're no big deal whatsoever.

[Dylan]

Pistols are the problem re crime, which is too bad since pistols are also the most effective for self defense.

I think requiring extensive background checks and cracking down hard on unauthorized ownership and sales is a good middle ground. New York does the latter pretty well, and if you use a gun in commission of a felony you are always risking a home run sentence. I like this.

Obviously assault rifles--as defined by spider--are not the major issue, but I still think there should be limits to what people can own. You don't need those kind of weapons for anything besides fun, and I just don't think it's worth having them out there so people can get their jollies shooting a refrigerator or whatever.

[Spider]

[Spider]