Ways and means to prevent a future mass active shooter incident in the US

[ADMk2]

The HK417 is a selective fire (semi-automatic or full automatic controlled by the position of the safety lever) weapon. The MR762 is semi-automatic ONLY. They are not the same identical weapon.

There is a very small difference, the only one being whether or not it comes from the factory capable of cyclic automatic fire. It's accuracy, lethality and PRACTICAL rate of fire is exactly the same.

Here is an interesting demonstration of exactly how much more "lethal" a "military" automatic M4 is, compared to a "civilian" semi-automatic M4 (couldn't find a similar HK 417 video, but the principal is EXACTLY the same)...

Full Auto vs Semi-auto - YouTube

Assault rifle is a technical term describing a selective fire weapon using an intermediate cartridge, such as 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. The HK417 uses a full power 7.63x51mm cartridge and is therefore categorized as a battle rifle, not an assault rifle.

Funnily enough I can read wiki too...

The StG 44 was the first ever "assault rifle" and used a short 7.92mm round. The term most commonly denotes the "standard" rifle issued to infantry forces which for a LONG time and as it turns out, increasingly relevant to modern warfare, comprised mostly semi-automatic ONLY rifles such as your own M1 Garand and M-14 and the ridiculously popular FN-FAL in it's SLR variant. No-one besides marketers has ever heard of a "battle rifle" designation. Again, thanks wiki...

The HK 417 btw, uses the "full power" 7.62x51mm "NATO" round as does it's MR762 variant.

All that interesting stuff aside, there's a gold star in it for anyone who can point out to my technical satisfaction the lethality differences or the practical aimed firepower differences between the "military" HK 417 and the "civilian" MR-762, which is the point I think should be addressed, when we're discussing whether this type of weapon is suitable for sale to civilians...

The media’s abuse of the term “assault rifle” is a major problem, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They probably think it makes the story more ‘sexy’.

No doubt, but they wouldn't be using the term at all, if little Johnny had nothing but a bolt action 0.223 rifle with a 5 round tubular magazine, rather than a large detachable magazine capacity, semi-automatic 0.223 rifle, (which is easily convertable to a fully automatic "civilian" 0.223 if you know the right armourer) with which to smite his imagined demons.

And as a "plus", a lot more people would be alive today...

It may be possible to achieve, but you probably cannot even be sure they will all go over there, in the general direction of the target. You sure can’t aim it.

Indeed, so as you are saying, and as that video showed, perhaps semi-auto only is the wrong path? Maybe full auto ONLY should be allowed to civilians?

Afterall it's the cyclic rate of fire that's important isn't it? Not the 19,000 people a year being killed...

Assuming he is incapable of making pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, or obtaining matches or a cigarette lighter?

Or Ebola, don't forget that! Admittedly it would be a rather exotic and technically complex to deliver, method of killing someone but hey it's pretty lethal, so what's the dang Guvmint doing against THAT?

You know what? That and Wiki have convinced me. You're actually all completely correct.

The only possible way to protect MYSELF (or go hunting with, or sports shooting) is to hurry up and buy a HK 417 sorry, sorry, an MR-762 and chuck in a couple of 100 round drum magazines, a spare SPAZ 15 with a half a dozen 20 round drum magazines, carried slung over my back and a couple of fully automatic Glock 17 pistols with a couple of "extended" round magazines I can wear in a tactical thigh holster on each leg for hunting, home defence or in case the Guvmint tries to invade me or give me Ebola or something...

These seem fairly useful afterall. Just imagine how happy you, me and everyone else in the world would be, not to mention how safe if only EVERYONE had them...

http://youtu.be/TuHPqDJ32wE.be/6s1kstDbWO8

http://youtu.be/TuHPqDJ32wE

And finally, not a HK 417 I know, it's an AR-10 but it's close enough and demonstrates just how "non-lethal" a semi-automatic "civilian" rifle is...

http://youtu.be/5LHGS839Wr4

 

[Gremlin29]

The M14 and FN FAL are not and never were semi-automatic only weapons. Semi-auto "versions" do exist for the civilian market.

The last semi-auto only rifles issued by the US were the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. The M14 replaced both, it is select fire. The M16 "family" replaced the M14 and ALL of it's incarnations are/were select fire.

If you can accurately fire 90 rounds per minute you missed your calling the spec ops community, the thought that this is achievable by a casual shooter is comical. I have been a gun owner and hunter my entire adult life and a soldier for 23+ years so I have more than a casual acquaintance with civilian and military firearms and their use.

This is all rather moot because the discussion regarding gun ownership/banning in the US hinges on the Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights. Like it or not this is the basis of US government.

The 2nd Amendment states in part that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The framers intent is quite clear when the notes of the debates for the Bill of Rights are read, and they recorded the debates for this reason. Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others are on record that the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to provide "the people" the means to remove it's government if and when the time came that the government no longer represented the people or the principles of the constitution. In fact they further explained their purpose was that "the people" would always be more powerful than it's standing army. All of these things were considered to be the unalienable rights endowed by our creator, not endowed to us by men.

 

[alexsa]

The M14 and FN FAL are not and never were semi-automatic only weapons. Semi-auto "versions" do exist for the civilian market.

The last semi-auto only rifles issued by the US were the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. The M14 replaced both, it is select fire. The M16 "family" replaced the M14 and ALL of it's incarnations are/were select fire.

If you can accurately fire 90 rounds per minute you missed your calling the spec ops community, the thought that this is achievable by a casual shooter is comical. I have been a gun owner and hunter my entire adult life and a soldier for 23+ years so I have more than a casual acquaintance with civilian and military firearms and their use.

This is all rather moot because the discussion regarding gun ownership/banning in the US hinges on the Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights. Like it or not this is the basis of US government.

The 2nd Amendment states in part that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The framers intent is quite clear when the notes of the debates for the Bill of Rights are read, and they recorded the debates for this reason. Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others are on record that the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to provide "the people" the means to remove it's government if and when the time came that the government no longer represented the people or the principles of the constitution. In fact they further explained their purpose was that "the people" would always be more powerful than it's standing army. All of these things were considered to be the unalienable rights endowed by our creator, not endowed to us by men.

Written at a time where states rights were paramount and the guns were smooth bore single shot with a rate of fire of greater than one round per minute


The only way this argument makes sense in the current context is if you want the ability to rise up in revolt of the government of the day ( which you appear to suggest). Do you seriously believe this? If so I suspect that your laws against treason may get in the way so you really have no right to undertake such action.

 

[RobWilliams]

Personally, I believe there's a lot of good to be said for UK gun laws. I mean the paperwork needed to be done to own a firearm rather than the types of firearm available, considering that's a very iffy area for the US.

In a very oversimplified manner in order to apply for an FAC (firearms certificate) you've got to be able to suitibly satisfy 3 main criteria; do you have a legitimate reason? suitable background and storage.

The latter 2 are the ones that seem prudent, you've got to be able to have a clean criminal record, no record of drug/alcohol abuse or no record of depression or any mental illness. (I've no idea what the details are in regards to these being done years ago) Then your house has got to be checked by a firearms officer that your storage is secure, well positioned and suitable to the type of firearms you're looking to store.

I know this'll probably be seen as me taking the side of those who want to take guns away from honest people with maybe a rocky history in their youth, but the key points I take from it is that particularly the mentally unstable people can't get hold of firearms and more importantly mentally unstable family members aren't able to grab hold of a relatives firearm and do what they want with it.

Of course, this is all personal opinion, but those steps (especially the storage bit) would be good steps to take IMO.

There are 2 words that'll make all that pointless however; 2nd Amendment

*Puts on helmet and flak jacket and runs for the bunker . . . . *

 

[ltdanjuly10]

Written at a time where states rights were paramount and the guns were smooth bore single shot with a rate of fire of greater than one round per minute

The first amendment was written at a time when news traveled at the speed of sailing vessel or horseback, when books, criers, gossip and newspapers were the only source of information. Given how talk radio, cable news and social media distort and manipulate the political discourse in this country, I see no alternative but to totally ban all forms of electronic media. Why theoretically a rebel with a laptop and internet connection could spread seditious material to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

While new more effective checks to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally disturbed and convicted criminals is generally a good idea (assuming those in power don't abuse such powers) I have serious doubts that banning assault weapons is going to do much to stop mass killings, let alone that it would go over well with my fellow citizens. Reducing the liberty's of law abiding citizens for the acts of a few mentally disturbed individuals seems unjust and unamerican.

What we should be focusing on instead of rates of fire and magazine capacity is what makes an individual commit these acts. There is a culture of glorified violence in the US, a very inadequate mental health system and a growing number of single parent households. All of these affected the shooter. The tool he chose was an AR-15, it could have just as easily been chlorine gas, a relatively simple bomb or a bolt action rifle with bayonet from 1918 (who was there to stop him?)

 

[Gremlin29]

Written at a time where states rights were paramount and the guns were smooth bore single shot with a rate of fire of greater than one round per minute


The only way this argument makes sense in the current context is if you want the ability to rise up in revolt of the government of the day ( which you appear to suggest). Do you seriously believe this? If so I suspect that your laws against treason may get in the way so you really have no right to undertake such action.

I'm not suggesting anything, the fact is the 2nd ammendment was specifically written for this purpose.

 

[Waylander]

Well, in this day and age any uprising against the federal government is going to be decided by the active, reserve and national guard formations of the armed forces. The side the majority of them picks is going to come up on top and 300 million small arms won't change that an inch.

It is hard to understand for a european guy like me why such a huge number of people in the US think that owning a weapon makes them any safer. It's not like other 1st world countries with much less weapons in private hands and stricter gun laws are less safe. People over here are not getting slaughtered by the hundreds because they weren't able to defend themselves with their private guns.

And as has been said before. Killing people can be done with anything even bare hands but it is defenitely made easier by having access to alot of very potent semi-automatic small arms. The problem is that there are so many weapons in private hands in the US that reducing them in any meaningfull way might be impossible.

 

[webmaster]

Sorry guys, I am going to have to take sides on this and I agree with Gremlin29. Gun control is not going to solve the problem of mass shootings and criminals acquiring weapons to shoot unarmed, innocent civilians.

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/ar...1011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

From that map, who do you think the criminals and gang bangers are going to hit? Gun owners or those homes without gun permits/owners?

There is something else going on which is enticing our kids to go on killing rampage and in my opinion it has to do with violence in games, movies and lack of communication with their family, friends and breakdown of the family. Look at crime rates in areas which are gun free zones (NYC, Chicago, etc.) and those without those restrictions.

Texas teachers armed back in 2008, interesting discussion:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVvsiX-uOsA"]Texas Teachers Armed -- CNN - YouTube[/nomedia]

I live in Georgia, even here, I can't just go out and buy a gun. There is paperwork involved, background checks, etc. before the store can sell even a small revolver. So, doing more of the same is not going to help solve problem of individual acts of violence.

 

[shaun]

What ever rules the US brings in they must be prepered for human error and each tragedy must be seen as a learning curve in many incidents in the UK in the last two decades people have found themselves in possession of guns because rules and procedures already in place were not followed. Only recentley for example if there is an accusation of domestic violence in a home , and the accused is a gun owner, the guns are removed to a secure police storage unit until the matter is resolved. There have been incidents where who was responsible for what seemed unclear for example a patients right to privacy with their doctor etc Rob Williams lists the UK gun rules above but each one of those rules has come from learning and tweaking from each tragedy. The other thing the UK learnt from lockerbie in particular was the loss of innocence schools could be quite open places now their properties are secured by metal fences and varoius passive security measures not to mention cctv on top of this all schools now have a system of been buzzed in from behind strong doors and sometimes toughened glass in fact security is now one of the checklists for a government school inspection ( not the biggest but certainly an important check). At the end of the day if rules are brought in they will only be as good as the people enforcing them.

 

[old faithful]

Webmaster, why not? It has worked everywhere else.
How can you be so sure it won't work?
If you restrict violent games, or censor even more TV, pretty sure you can't even broadcast the word shit'or fcuk on US TV, isn't that an ifringment on freèdom of speech, what if I wanted to say Nigger on TV? Would that be allowed?
So freedom of speech is regulated, how about gun owneship?

 

[Volkodav]

The way I look at it is that Martin Bryant was of average height and weight with a very low I.Q. Had he attempted the Port Arthur massacre with a bolt action rifle and double barrel shotgun he would not have been able to kill as many people. Had he been armed with a knife or even an axe he would have been taken down by patrons in the cafe where he started his rampage. I’ve taken down a bigger stronger man than Bryant, if he had an assault rifle or even a shot gun or pistol, instead of a knife, I would almost definitely be dead.

The thing is Bryant didn’t use a knife he had an AR-15. He opened up at people at point blank range with a semi automatic variant of a military assault rifle (30 round magazines) at people seated at tables. Every time he squeezed the trigger a 5.56x45mm round left the barrel and struck a person no more than five or six metres away from him, most were closer, they had no chance. The report of the weapon discharging in the confines of the cafe would have created shock and confusion, people would not have known what was happening or even if they recognised the danger likely would not have known where the shots were coming from. In 15 seconds he fired 17 rounds from the hip, killing 12 and wounding 10 others. He fired 12 more shots inside killing another 8 people; you can’t do that with a bolt action rifle or even a semi auto pistol with a ten round magazine. The other victims were a mother and her two young children on foot and the occupants of two cars, none of his victims were even in a position to be aware of what was going on until it was too late; none were in a position to get away let alone defend themselves. Would one of the victims being armed with a concealed carry hand gun or even a security guard with a S&W .38 have made any difference at all, I seriously doubt it. Moot point these mongrels always go for soft targets.

In a training period, when I was much younger and in uniform, an instructor burst into the rear of the classroom, killed the lights and emptied a 20 round magazine of blanks from an SLR (the semi auto Australian service rifle of the time) with the muzzle pointed to the ceiling. A very telling demonstration, he emptied the magazine in seconds, not one person dove under a table, not one person attempted to tackle him, if it had been for real we would all be dead and we were soldiers in the middle of a lecture on combat fatigue who had some idea that they were going to do something to spice things up. What chance would civilians at a tourist destination, campers on an island, or school children in class rooms have had? Well we know the answer because real nut jobs with live ammo and semi auto high capacity magazine feed assault rifle style weapons have shown us, innocent people die, children die, old people die, people in the prime of life die.

 

[webmaster]

Webmaster, why not? It has worked everywhere else.
How can you be so sure it won't work?
If you restrict violent games, or censor even more TV, pretty sure you can't even broadcast the word shit'or fcuk on US TV, isn't that an ifringment on freèdom of speech, what if I wanted to say Nigger on TV? Would that be allowed?
So freedom of speech is regulated, how about gun owneship?

It doesn't work, that is the point:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

Look at what is happening in Mexico with their gun control laws... I don't know the number but last I heard some thing around 50,000 dead?

Guns are more regulated than free speech. Just like you can't use N word or F word on tv/radio, you can't buy guns without background checks and through proper channel. But if you decide to use N or F words on radio/tv, should the rest of the people in that production also lose their jobs because YOU used the words which you weren't suppose to?

I am glad you brought up freedom of speech regulation on tv/radio, drunk drivers kill a lot of people, so many families are dead because of alcohol, why don't you call for alcohol ban? Yea there are DUI laws, and very harsh punishment if you get caught but apparently, its not working.

 

[ADMk2]

The M14 and FN FAL are not and never were semi-automatic only weapons. Semi-auto "versions" do exist for the civilian market.

The last semi-auto only rifles issued by the US were the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. The M14 replaced both, it is select fire. The M16 "family" replaced the M14 and ALL of it's incarnations are/were select fire.

If you can accurately fire 90 rounds per minute you missed your calling the spec ops community, the thought that this is achievable by a casual shooter is comical. I have been a gun owner and hunter my entire adult life and a soldier for 23+ years so I have more than a casual acquaintance with civilian and military firearms and their use.

I said it's achievable with a semi-automatic weapon, I didn't say it was particularly accurate, the rate of fire issue, raised by many gun enthusiasts is a non-sequitor in the extreme.

It makes it sound like there's a rate of being able to kill people per minute you're actually happy with, as a nation...

This is all rather moot because the discussion regarding gun ownership/banning in the US hinges on the Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights. Like it or not this is the basis of US government.

The 2nd Amendment states in part that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The framers intent is quite clear when the notes of the debates for the Bill of Rights are read, and they recorded the debates for this reason. Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others are on record that the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to provide "the people" the means to remove it's government if and when the time came that the government no longer represented the people or the principles of the constitution. In fact they further explained their purpose was that "the people" would always be more powerful than it's standing army. All of these things were considered to be the unalienable rights endowed by our creator, not endowed to us by men.

Yep, nothing more than a piece of paper signed by the right group of people with the approval of a larger group. Laws were created by one group of people at a particular time for a particular reason and are now IMHO sadly outdated and used only to promote the interests of a relatively small minority.

Said laws effectively at the end of the day are only worth the paper they are written on. They can be changed or deleted by another group when necessary too.

 

[ADMk2]

Sorry guys, I am going to have to take sides on this and I agree with Gremlin29. Gun control is not going to solve the problem of mass shootings and criminals acquiring weapons to shoot unarmed, innocent civilians.

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/ar...1011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

From that map, who do you think the criminals and gang bangers are going to hit? Gun owners or those homes without gun permits/owners?

There is something else going on which is enticing our kids to go on killing rampage and in my opinion it has to do with violence in games, movies and lack of communication with their family, friends and breakdown of the family. Look at crime rates in areas which are gun free zones (NYC, Chicago, etc.) and those without those restrictions.

Texas teachers armed back in 2008, interesting discussion:
Texas Teachers Armed -- CNN - YouTube

I live in Georgia, even here, I can't just go out and buy a gun. There is paperwork involved, background checks, etc. before the store can sell even a small revolver. So, doing more of the same is not going to help solve problem of individual acts of violence.

My point is, you've got to start somewhere. All the handwringing, red herrings and strawman arguments in the world won't stop the bloodshed, but banning high capacity semi-auto rifles and concealble firearms and reducing as many of them as possible as being on the streets over decades long programs to do that, just MIGHT make a difference.

The link I put up earlier showing how high the rate of homicides committed by handguns really is, is a good example of where such a targetted firearm reduction program might just make a real difference.

The lunatic arming himself to the teeth and storming his workplace or a school is less easy when he finds it difficult to conceal his intent carry rifles and what not, not impossible certainly but everything to make these things harder is worth the effort.

Concealable handguns and high magazine capacity semi-auto rifles have been banned before by legislation in the USA so it can certainly be done, so long as politicians with a spine exist (thin on the ground though they may be)...

 

[ADMk2]

It doesn't work, that is the point:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

Look at what is happening in Mexico with their gun control laws... I don't know the number but last I heard some thing around 50,000 dead?

Guns are more regulated than free speech. Just like you can't use N word or F word on tv/radio, you can't buy guns without background checks and through proper channel. But if you decide to use N or F words on radio/tv, should the rest of the people in that production also lose their jobs because YOU used the words which you weren't suppose to?

I am glad you brought up freedom of speech regulation on tv/radio, drunk drivers kill a lot of people, so many families are dead because of alcohol, why don't you call for alcohol ban? Yea there are DUI laws, and very harsh punishment if you get caught but apparently, its not working.

Sorry webs, but you're doing exactly what Gremlin, My 2 Cents and others did below. You are cherry-picking facts to suit your argument.

We're not debating crime in general I thought, but rather rampant gun related homicides?

Check Britain's gun related homicide rate and overall homicide rate per 100,000 people compared to America's and you'll see the difference...

And Mexico, yes that's out of control, but where are they getting these weapons exactly?

The USA...

 

[Gremlin29]

There must be demonstrative proof that a nationwide gun ban has had a significant impact on violent crime? I'm not talking about comparing per capita rubbish either, but significant declines in violent crime departing from trends.

 

[alexsa]

I'm not suggesting anything, the fact is the 2nd ammendment was specifically written for this purpose.

Prehaps it is time for change. Hugh ask I know, however, I cannot see why the 2nd amendment cannot sit beside restrictions on the types of guns.

 

[ADMk2]

There must be demonstrative proof that a nationwide gun ban has had a significant impact on violent crime? I'm not talking about comparing per capita rubbish either, but significant declines in violent crime departing from trends.

It's not violent crime that's the significant issue, statistics show that the USA isn't really worse in that regard than other industrialised Western nations and when guns are removed from the equation, even the rate of non-firearm related homicides are comparable to most nations.

This shows that USA citizens aren't necessarily more murderous than anyone else, when employing all the other methods available, and to me that offers a fair amount of hope that IF the firearm problem could be seriously addressed, that the continuing sorts of tragedies we see on the nightly news could be seriously reduced. Reducing it totally is unlikely, it happens elsewhere unfortunately and will probably continue to happen in the USA. It has to be reduced however.

The issue unfortunately seems to be the rampant access to firearms and specifically IMHO easy access to firearms that have no other designed purpose than to kill people. We all know it's ridiculously easy to kill with a modern firearm and that piece-meal solutions don't work. The "gun free zones" can only ever apply to those who will act lawfully with their weapons.

As we're starting to go around in circles, I'll make my final points on this issue, this is what I think should happen:

1. Handguns and large capacity semi-auto rifles and shotguns should be banned from sale as a general rule for civilians. If your argument for possessing firearms is that you need to defend yourself against a police state, then a handgun is not necessary, being all but useless as a modern weapon of war. Sports shooting, and those who need a self defence firearm for their occupation (security, law enforcement and military) should be the only "legitimate" criteria for owning a handgun.

2. Pyschiatric assessments for all firearms owners should be mandatory.

3. Far more stringent regulation and administration of firearms, ammunition and major weapons components and licencing regimes need to be employed.

4. Major societal programs designed to bring about cultural change of the mindset in relation to the use of firearms needs to be udertaken. It will have to be long term, no "sunset clauses" on this for it to have any chance of working.

Many said that changing people's thinking on smoking and tobacco wouldn't work either, yet making smoking socially unacceptable has worked wonderfully well in reducing the incidence of people smoking in many societies.

5. Major action targetting the use of weapons, specifically guns by outlaw groups, whether they be gangs, drug runners, home grown "terror" organisations or whomever. Priorities may have to be changed around, gun violence has to stop first and then other problems, drugs, property crime can be worked on.

With all the resources available to the United States, focussing on this primarily cannot help but help solve the problem, it just needs a nation-wide focus that clearly isn't there at present, no matter how much it's talked about, but maybe events like Newtown can at least lead to that and help out in someway...

 

[webmaster]

Sorry webs, but you're doing exactly what Gremlin, My 2 Cents and others did below. You are cherry-picking facts to suit your argument.

We're not debating crime in general I thought, but rather rampant gun related homicides?

Check Britain's gun related homicide rate and overall homicide rate per 100,000 people compared to America's and you'll see the difference...

And Mexico, yes that's out of control, but where are they getting these weapons exactly?

The USA...

Law abiding, good citizens don't commit homicides, criminals do and criminals will always have guns to kill people despite of the laws. They happen because someone breaks into someones house, or its planned ahead of time. If people in those homicides are armed and have the means to protect themselves, would the killing still take place?

If someone wants to go on a killing spree then no amount of gun ban laws are going to help prevent that. What makes someone go on a killing spree?

The liberals in Obama administration (fast and furious scandal) who were supplying guns to the criminal Mexican cartels are the same people who want to ban guns in USA, the blatant hypocrisy of these people. Gun ban could very well turn into something like the anti-drug laws we have in here US. They have not and do not work... drugs are still being made, sold, and we continue to waste billions on enforcing those useless laws.

Lets say, for argument sake, guns are outlawed in USA. How should the citizens protect themselves and their families? Who is responsible if a criminal robs a house and kills (with a gun of course) someone during the process? I would rather have the means to defend myself stay alive than become a victim, I rather not see my wife, kids die in my arms while the criminal with a gun roams freely, I don't know about you.


Speaking of hypocrisy:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTZEVdhmAjo"]Demand A Plan HYPOCRITES - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Assault rifle is a technical term describing a selective fire weapon using an intermediate cartridge, such as 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. The HK417 uses a full power 7.63x51mm cartridge and is therefore categorized as a battle rifle, not an assault rifle.

The term “assault rifle” was coined (by Hitler, no less) to describe the new, in the 1940s and 50s, generation of weapons that could replace both a conventional long rifle and a SMG. It didn’t need to fire a certain class of calibre and it didn’t even need to fire fully automatically. But it did need to be able to put out rapid sustained fire and be rapidly reloaded requiring self-loading between shots and quick magazine reloading of at least 20 round per unit of fire. The term 'battle rifle' is AFAIK an invention of the American gun press in the 60s or 70s.

If you can accurately fire 90 rounds per minute you missed your calling the spec ops community, the thought that this is achievable by a casual shooter is comical.

At what range? A casual shooter could still fire 90 accurate rounds per minute at targets only 10-20m away. Even easier in a typical class room at ranges of under 5m.

Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others are on record that the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to provide "the people" the means to remove it's government if and when the time came that the government no longer represented the people or the principles of the constitution.

While this may be historically accurate it is also ridiculously stupid. What about the rule of law? Why have courts, democracy and a constitution when ultimate power is rested in an armed mob? It is also pretty vainglorious because since when has an armed populace ever overthrown a tyrannical government? Certainly not in American history. The American Revolutionary War was fought between armies raised by states.

But to the point at hand. While gun ownership restrictions are well proven in reducing violence in the community the opposite would be likely in America. Because any attempt to significantly restrict gun ownership there would likely result in comparative mass outbreaks of violent resistance (compared to current levels of gun violence). Guns are an integral part of personal and community identity in several of the nations that make up the cultural geography of America and that is unlikely to ever change no matter how many crazies casually kill innocent children.