It had no flash hider or collapsible stock. Other than that, it functioned exactly the same. During the ban you could not legally put things like flash hiders, bayonet lugs, or collapsible stocks onto a rifle. You also could not purchase new manufacture magazines of greater than 10 round capacity. I purchased 20 round magazines made prior to the ban to remain legally compliant.
Crime tends to largely be a function of socio-economics. The crazy guy shooting up a place is rare. And do you really want the government telling you what you do or do not need? I realize the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but when the fallacy proves true... :-/
I see we have very different opinions about this, which is fine, but I'll just respond with 2 points:
1) I wasn't referring to the *possibility* of a person carrying a gun to stop personal crime or something like a robbery. (incidentally, I don't think people should be shot for robbery, but that's neither here nor there) I was referring to the idea that gun-carrying citizens could stop a mass shooting similar to Aurora from happening.
2) I support the assault weapons ban; if it wasn't as effective as it could have been, it's not the fault of the idea of banning such weapons, but obviously with enforcement/interpretation.
http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=10A4CF&ReturnUrl=Categories.aspx?Category=f4bd4a13-55d1-41aa-aea0-49488ec48776
It had no flash hider or collapsible stock. Other than that, it functioned exactly the same. During the ban you could not legally put things like flash hiders, bayonet lugs, or collapsible stocks onto a rifle. You also could not purchase new manufacture magazines of greater than 10 round capacity. I purchased 20 round magazines made prior to the ban to remain legally compliant.
Crime tends to largely be a function of socio-economics. The crazy guy shooting up a place is rare. And do you really want the government telling you what you do or do not need? I realize the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but when the fallacy proves true... :-/
And as for armed citizens stopping crime:
http://www.gunandgame.com/guns/robbery-attempted-stopped-by-concealed-carry-holder/
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/05/concealed-carry-permit-holder-stops.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaQsbdXQuZI
http://www.rightwingnews.com/guns/concealed-carry-permitholder-stops-stabbing-rampage-in-utah/
http://www.infowars.com/video-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opens-fire-on-two-would-be-robbers/
There are lots more.
Reply
1) I wasn't referring to the *possibility* of a person carrying a gun to stop personal crime or something like a robbery. (incidentally, I don't think people should be shot for robbery, but that's neither here nor there) I was referring to the idea that gun-carrying citizens could stop a mass shooting similar to Aurora from happening.
2) I support the assault weapons ban; if it wasn't as effective as it could have been, it's not the fault of the idea of banning such weapons, but obviously with enforcement/interpretation.
Reply
Leave a comment