Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellisonz

(27,776 posts)
52. Well riddle me this then...
Sat Dec 24, 2011, 11:15 PM
Dec 2011

1. How maneuverable would an AK or an AR-15 be in a narrow hallway. Should everyone just start buying MP5's and and Uzi's?

Also, nowhere in that article do I read that he ran out of ammunition. Could you please quote exactly where that is because I'm not seeing it. I think my source indicates quite well that "someone in your home is more likely to be shot and possibly killed than that the gun will be used to thwart a home invasion." The whole argument that more guns means more safety is ludicrous - where are all of these home invaders getting their guns and why is it a persistent sociological problem? They're illegally obtaining your guns and using them against you!

2. Home invasion resulting in gun theft:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7944582
http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/11/bay_city_man_gets_probation_in.html
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland-news/article/Police-Home-invasion-gun-theft-preceded-1650759.php
http://www.journal-news.com/news/crime/16-weapons-stolen-in-home-invasion-relative-arrested-512511.html
http://www.gazette.com/articles/three-128270-people-arrested.html

In many of these cases, the home is targeted precisely because the attackers want to steal weapons. Thus having a ludicrously large gun collection makes you a prime target. Home invasions are very rarely random attacks; these criminals are attacking with a purpose.

3. You're just making my point that these types of weapons are only common because they're legal for sale, without them, most people don't buy them - they still to my knowledge represent a small percentage of gun ownership with possession of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles being far more common historically. The Thompson sub-machine gun was not the weapon of choice before they were banned from sale in 1934: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".

Suppressors—this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:

Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

Any non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50", such as a 40mm grenade launcher often used in conjunction with military rifles. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

Any Other Weapons (AOWs)—this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:

1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip is categorized as an AOW rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…” 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


4. You just also made my point that not a single assault weapons ban has been ruled unconstitutional as a whole.

5. I'm sorry, I don't read libertarian magazines, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, and proud of it: http://www.thenation.com/blog/gun-insanity

Merry Christmas to you, may peace and goodwill prevail on Earth!







Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I was there last night to pick my mother up from last minute Christmas shopping. William769 Dec 2011 #1
"High-powered rifles" have been in private hands since about 1885. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #2
No gun ban can ever keep guns from criminals Deejai Dec 2011 #3
This is what the "Anti's" do not understand! Criminals will always have guns. Logical Dec 2011 #7
If that is true, then why do Japan, Australia, and Europe... ellisonz Dec 2011 #12
They had virtually the same gun homicide rate *before* substantive gun control X_Digger Dec 2011 #15
So Americans are just more violent? ellisonz Dec 2011 #17
no just less suicidal gejohnston Dec 2011 #19
"...Japanese reporting - but imagine it'd still be much lower than ours." And you'd be wrong. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #23
Most of them not using guns... ellisonz Dec 2011 #25
no kidding gejohnston Dec 2011 #26
I, personally, have never made such a "lump" ellisonz Dec 2011 #30
you would be the exception gejohnston Dec 2011 #31
Do we even what to talk about what your "allies' believe? ellisonz Dec 2011 #35
I think we are reality based gejohnston Dec 2011 #39
... ellisonz Dec 2011 #46
so Obama agrees with us gejohnston Dec 2011 #48
"I think the definition should be left to people who actually know what they are talking about" ellisonz Dec 2011 #59
this one is actually dishonest gejohnston Dec 2011 #77
Well, there goes your "militia clause" argument! LOL. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #162
Your allies, from your own lips... beevul Dec 2011 #176
OMG...I support the Brady Campaign. ellisonz Dec 2011 #177
No, really? beevul Dec 2011 #181
... ellisonz Dec 2011 #187
Apparently so. Our *non* gun homicide rate strips most european countries *total* homicide rates. nt X_Digger Dec 2011 #32
That comic makes no sense Pacafishmate Dec 2011 #53
"If you wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, you'd just use a common object" ellisonz Dec 2011 #60
Glad you got the chance rl6214 Dec 2011 #91
Yeah, no NRA royalty check for that one. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #163
Actually, yes, we are more violent. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #56
I don't understand harping the European angle. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #79
"There is no doubt that fewer firearms in circulation will mean fewer deaths." ellisonz Dec 2011 #120
limits on the numbers of guns you can own. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #134
"I'll live with the higher crime rate so that I can enjoy the right to own firearms as I will." ellisonz Dec 2011 #139
I would feel the same way if the situation were reversed. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #153
Preztel logic. ellisonz Dec 2011 #155
I do not understand your post. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #156
The statements don't merit a direct answer. ellisonz Dec 2011 #157
Then why bother posting at all? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #160
What you quote there... beevul Dec 2011 #178
Yeah... ellisonz Dec 2011 #179
Do you really think nobody can see what you're doing?" beevul Dec 2011 #180
Your *concern* for my doings is noted... ellisonz Dec 2011 #185
Intentional misrepresentation or lack of reading comprehension? X_Digger Dec 2011 #186
That's not the argument. ellisonz Dec 2011 #188
'general public safety', yes. X_Digger Dec 2011 #189
So I guess when the Constitution says "the people" they don't mean individuals... ellisonz Dec 2011 #191
You're not making sense now.. nobody said 'the people' in any of the previous replies.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #193
You missed the sarcasm... ellisonz Dec 2011 #195
When you misrepresent the words of other posters , thats what you get hereabouts, concerned people. beevul Dec 2011 #190
So basically you're conceeding that in actuality... ellisonz Dec 2011 #192
Only under the gun control reality distortion field... beevul Dec 2011 #194
Now, that one should get an NRA royalty check! SteveW Dec 2011 #164
in Europe gejohnston Dec 2011 #18
"the guns flow with the drugs." ellisonz Dec 2011 #22
your side is the one gejohnston Dec 2011 #28
Do you think the Russians kill more by other means? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #159
So many questions.... aikoaiko Dec 2011 #4
What would one need a 30 round magazine for realistically that's a legitimate use? ellisonz Dec 2011 #14
Unless one prefers that criminals be forced to reload, banning them is rather pointless. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #20
Being forced to reload stopped Jared Lee Loughner... ellisonz Dec 2011 #24
He wasn't reloading. His gun jammed. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #38
Big difference... ellisonz Dec 2011 #47
what are the odds gejohnston Dec 2011 #49
Reporters are routinely ignorant about guns. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #62
The reports aren't quite clear... ellisonz Dec 2011 #68
Your're wrong. The hi-cap mag caused the jam. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #69
The question is more did he clear the jam and load another magazine. ellisonz Dec 2011 #87
No. The slide was locked back. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #126
...another NRA royalty check... SteveW Dec 2011 #165
Sheer sophistry. ellisonz Dec 2011 #82
cool idea, I'll have to market those in more bike friendly places gejohnston Dec 2011 #97
...maybe an NRA royalty check, but... SteveW Dec 2011 #166
Answer me this: What do you think is an adequate mag capacity to repeal a dangerous person? aikoaiko Dec 2011 #27
No more than 12... ellisonz Dec 2011 #29
What if there were two or three dangerous intruders in your house? aikoaiko Dec 2011 #33
Hypothetically. ellisonz Dec 2011 #34
I see you don't like your own math. You are fine with 12 rounds for a single intruder, aikoaiko Dec 2011 #36
"They've got nothing to show for their efforts for the last ten years." ellisonz Dec 2011 #61
The facts do not bear out the conclusion you assert. beevul Dec 2011 #72
Dubya said he would sign the AWB... Straw Man Dec 2011 #78
He also said he wouldn't engage in "nation building." ellisonz Dec 2011 #84
What don't you understand about congress never even voted on it? rl6214 Dec 2011 #96
He didn't -- he engaged in "nation wrecking." Straw Man Dec 2011 #111
It wasn't GWB that did much for the RKBA. It was individual states and the SCOTUS who did the most. aikoaiko Dec 2011 #81
GWB said he would sign the AWB if it got to his desk rl6214 Dec 2011 #94
You take GWB at his word? ellisonz Dec 2011 #95
His opinion didn't mean shit.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #106
It really is a non issue because the party in control rl6214 Dec 2011 #197
That's quite a reply. X_Digger Dec 2011 #37
Indicative statistics... ellisonz Dec 2011 #44
the real question is gejohnston Dec 2011 #50
That's not at all the suggestion you made.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #51
Well riddle me this then... ellisonz Dec 2011 #52
Answers inline.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #54
"And the toothpaste is out of the tube for the guns & magazines previously covered by the so-called" ellisonz Dec 2011 #57
Flamethrowers are not illegal. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #64
You're right... ellisonz Dec 2011 #66
Grenade launchers are legal too. It is the grenades that are controlled. N/T GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #70
Strike two. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #173
"in common use for lawful purposes" -- both Heller and Miller X_Digger Dec 2011 #73
I'd rather have my ignorance showing... ellisonz Dec 2011 #86
'militarism'?!? Weak sauce. X_Digger Dec 2011 #93
Look who benefits... ellisonz Dec 2011 #98
Militarism, though? I think you lost the train of your thought. X_Digger Dec 2011 #105
Armed Civilians are now "overgrown military establishments"? PavePusher Dec 2011 #112
And you talk about snark? rl6214 Dec 2011 #100
My snark isn't malicious. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #102
You have succeeded DissedByBush Dec 2011 #184
Very interesting link you used there. burf Dec 2011 #118
"How does the dissenting opinion have any bearing?" ellisonz Dec 2011 #119
Mind answering the question? n/t burf Dec 2011 #125
I did answer, you just don't like my reply. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #137
No, you did not. burf Dec 2011 #144
That's your opinion. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #149
even before the NFA gejohnston Dec 2011 #55
"That is why my ideology is like my religion, undefined." ellisonz Dec 2011 #58
Wiki has an error in that article. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #65
Huh? PavePusher Dec 2011 #74
Not precisely. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #127
unusual weapons gejohnston Dec 2011 #40
And Empirically, you are wrong. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #41
No, I'm not just as likely to shoot my own family. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #63
Ok. ellisonz Dec 2011 #67
The U.S. does not have a Department of Needs. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #71
But it does have a Constitution... ellisonz Dec 2011 #83
That was the point sailing over your head.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #107
Even the Republicans on the Supreme Court disagree with you on this point... ellisonz Dec 2011 #123
No dear, that's a fundamental principle of our government. Duh. X_Digger Dec 2011 #132
Rubbish, Sophistry, and more Rubbish. ellisonz Dec 2011 #138
So no substantive reply? X_Digger Dec 2011 #141
You didn't merit a substantitive reply. ellisonz Dec 2011 #142
You seem to have lost the thread of conversation.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #145
Wrong. ellisonz Dec 2011 #147
Riiiiight.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #148
Is that really correct on how Loughner went down? krispos42 Dec 2011 #117
I admit that there is a lot of confusion on the issue. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #128
Hmmm... krispos42 Dec 2011 #135
I don't know.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #76
I scored 249 out of 250 when I took my Texas CHL class. rl6214 Dec 2011 #101
So you like THAT part of Fat Tony's ruling, eh?... SteveW Dec 2011 #167
When the right-wing Roberts Court thinks you're nuts... ellisonz Dec 2011 #174
So you DID quote Scalia in the Heller decision... SteveW Dec 2011 #175
Cho fired 170 rounds from his pistol, reloading 17 times with 10 round mags rl6214 Dec 2011 #92
You say Cho...I say Loughner. ellisonz Dec 2011 #99
Loughner's gun wouldn't likely have jammed with a 10 round mag. n/t X_Digger Dec 2011 #108
So if these magazines are so unreliable... ellisonz Dec 2011 #122
Some people are stupid. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #129
Mostly for range use. X_Digger Dec 2011 #131
A better question would be, why does only one special weapons element of a single miltiary AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #172
Dodge. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #113
Ah, check-mate again. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #168
Civilians own them for the same reason the military owns them. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #80
The need isn't likely to arise any time soon. ellisonz Dec 2011 #89
The military starts you with a full auto M-16a1 or a2. n/t oneshooter Dec 2011 #103
that was true during gejohnston Dec 2011 #104
I think you need to do more research.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #109
So you're telling me you can walk around town with a flamethrower? ellisonz Dec 2011 #121
the question was NFA gejohnston Dec 2011 #124
They're agricultural implements, regulated by burn codes. Not the NFA or firearms law. X_Digger Dec 2011 #130
Absolutely. I've seen them at gun shows. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #133
You know what the A2 and A4 variants of the M-16 are, don't you? AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #171
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #114
"militia... trained up to military standard quickly?" That means full-auto, right? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #170
Speaking from my experience as a USMC veteran... Marengo Dec 2011 #196
Cho at VT had no use for 30-round mags. He used easily-concealed short mags. SteveW Dec 2011 #161
No, the percentage of rifles used in homicides hasn't changed appreciably. X_Digger Dec 2011 #5
Obviously the defunct federal "AWB" does not make any difference slackmaster Dec 2011 #6
People need to have more respect for their 2A rights. ileus Dec 2011 #8
I'll bet $10 it was neither an "assault rifle", nor "high powered". n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #9
Never mind the fact that the two phrases are mutually exclusive. ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #10
Shhhh! This is my action, damnit! 8>P PavePusher Dec 2011 #11
And in other news... Glassunion Dec 2011 #13
"But the 20-year-old victim...was expected to recover from his injuries" ellisonz Dec 2011 #16
Perhaps. Crooks aren't known for their combat shooting skills. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #21
Getting shot has a mortality rate of, IIRC, less than 20%. PavePusher Dec 2011 #42
Are you the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail reincarnated? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #43
And everytime I read posts such as the ones that profligate around here I think of... ellisonz Dec 2011 #45
Carlin predicts something that had already occured? PavePusher Dec 2011 #75
Color you...reading comprehension impaired. ellisonz Dec 2011 #85
Color you (and Carlin) uninformed.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #110
No, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history and the ability to spell "Google".... PavePusher Dec 2011 #115
Profligate doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you intended "propagate"? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #136
It's an acceptable use. ellisonz Dec 2011 #140
An adjective is an acceptable use as a verb? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #143
insert "are" and it's even more of a plainly acceptable use. ellisonz Dec 2011 #146
Insert "are" and it's no longer a verb. Straw Man Dec 2011 #150
Well... ellisonz Dec 2011 #151
"Eat my shorts"????? jebusfukinchrist, are you like 12? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #152
I'm a Simpsons fan. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #154
It's pretty funny you posted the definition of the word AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #169
That's fine. Straw Man Dec 2011 #183
This message was self-deleted by its author rl6214 Dec 2011 #88
Answers rl6214 Dec 2011 #90
No. krispos42 Dec 2011 #116
A: Not likely, Fact not in evidence, NA, who knows? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #158
By definition, assault rifles are not high-powered DissedByBush Dec 2011 #182
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Florida: Man shot dead at...»Reply #52