Gunman Kills 3 cops, wounds 4th with assault rifle.

[TWiley]

OAKLAND, Calif. – A police officer was battling for his life and three more were dead after a parolee with an "extensive criminal history" opened fire at a routine traffic stop and hours later gunned down members of a SWAT team searching for him.

The gunman was also killed Saturday, capping a day of violence that the Oakland Police Department said was the worst in its history. Never before had three police officers died in the line of duty on the same day.

"It's in these moments that words are extraordinarily inadequate," said Mayor Ron Dellums at a somber news conference Saturday night.

The mayhem began that afternoon, when two motorcycle patrol officers stopped a 1995 Buick sedan in east Oakland, Oakland police spokesman Jeff Thomason said. The driver opened fire, killing Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, and gravely wounding Officer John Hege, 41.

The gunman then fled on foot, police said, leading to an intense manhunt by dozens of Oakland police, California Highway Patrol officers and Alameda County sheriff deputies. Streets were roped off and an entire area of east Oakland closed to traffic.

About two hours later, officers got an anonymous tip that the gunman was inside a nearby apartment building.

A SWAT team had entered an apartment to clear and search it when the gunman shot them with an assault rifle, police said.

Sgt. Ervin Romans, 43, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai, 35, were killed and a third officer was grazed by a bullet, police said.

SWAT team members returned fire, killing 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon of Oakland, Acting Oakland police Chief Howard Jordan said.

Officer Hege suffered brain damage and may not survive, his father, Dr. John S. Hege, said late Saturday.

"It is a stunning thing to face," he said.

Full Story Here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090322/ap_on_re_us/police_shot_ca

I thought Assault Weapons were supposed to make America a safer and more polite society.

[Callisto32]

1. You KNEW this was going to happen:

Just like cars make America a more mobile society, notwithstanding the people who are killed and maimed by the misuse, careless use and abuse thereof.

[TWiley]

2. Most people NEED a car. Who NEEDS an assault rifle?

Let me list them out.

Bank Robbers
Drug Dealers
Kidnappers
Gang Members
Armed Robbers
Paranoid Lunatics
Duck Hunters

Who else besides these people actually NEED an assault rifle?

[pipoman]

4. Need, need, need

you don't need anything but food, shelter, clothing and water. You 'need' people really 'need' to think before you site 'need' as a prerequisite of ownership...the 'need' argument is the lamest of all arguments on the grabber side of the gun issue.

Edit..BTW you did read that the first 2 officers were, in fact, not shot with an 'assault rifle' at all didn't you? (Though I doubt that the other officers were actually shot with an 'assault rifle' either.) Your choice to lie in your thread title is quite telling.

[TWiley]

10. Why is the distinction important?

they were shot and killed.

[pipoman]

12. You apparently thought it was

important enough to post it in your OP title (changing the title of the actual story) and in your comment, no?

[TWiley]

16. The story only says Assault Rifle. It does not state any other type of gun

I did not see any other reference to a different weapon. Did you?

[yay]

55. Actually...

In the video it doesn't mention what the initial firearm was. All they said was they were met with a "blanket of bullets". It wasn't until the end of the video they said he used a "new" weapon, an assault rifle. Which in and of itself is vague as news reporters like to report any semi auto rifle as an "assault rifle" or simply use the term "assault rifle" when no other info is available. Also last time I checked "assault rifles" were already banned in cali.

Until the actual type/make/model is officially released I don't think anyone can talk about what weapon(s) were used.

[TWiley]

20. Terrified of a cite cause argument are we?

What were the first two officers shot with then? The story did not say what type of gun it was.

[jeepnstein]

5. Armed Lawful Citizens?

That would be a nice start. It would seem the criminals are armed to the teeth already, at least in Oakland.

The guys had active warrants and were willing to kill cops. Anyone want to venture a guess on what kind of "social club" they belong to? Hint, it ain't the Rotarians.

[Tim01]

22. Everybody needs an *assault rifle*

The people who wrote the constitution already saw all over the world what happens when a government takes the arms away from the people. That is why they made it the #2 on the list of things we are guaranteed in this country.
Hunting is not protected, shooting sports are not protected, cars are not protected.

Why wasn't the guy still in jail? People don't want to spend the MONEY for enough prisons. People don't want to spend the MONEY for enough police officers. People don't want to spend the MONEY to fix the problems that allow areas like Okland to exist.
People don't want to give up their brand new Prius, or their daily $4 cup of coffee. But it makes them feel good to say the gun is the problem.

At the scene where the first 2 officers were gunned down a group of about 20 locals stood around and taunted police. The problem is not the gun.

[slackmaster]

28. We spend TOO MUCH money on prisons in California, and not enough on schools

The problem is that there are way too many non-violent offenders in prison, and too many violent ones out on parole.

[TWiley]

30. Now this is a great answer.

The underlying problems to violent crime need to be addressed. To simply arm the citizenry while ignoring the root causes is a recipe for disaster. It will most likely result in an increase in gun violence.

Every law abiding citizen (gun owner or not) is capable of commiting a violent crime under the right circumstances.

[benEzra]

60. The citizenry is already armed, and this guy was NOT a "law abiding citizen."

He was a known violent criminal who had been released into society in order to make room in California's prisons for NONVIOLENT offenders.

It is not a question of whether or not to "arm the citizenry." The citizens of this country already own close to a third of a billion guns, including tens of millions of guns the Bradyites dub "assault weapons," and we'll keep them.

I agree with you 100% that the underlying causes of crime need to be addressed. We had been doing a pretty good job until the economy tanked (police line of duty murders last year were the lowest since 1961, and the violent crime rate was historically low). Fix the economy, stop wasting police resources and prison space on nonviolent drug users, and it would go a long way toward keeping violence low.

[TheWraith]

131. That works both ways.

"The underlying problems to violent crime need to be addressed. To simply arm the citizenry while ignoring the root causes is a recipe for disaster."

And to simply try to disarm people while ignoring the root causes is ALSO a recipe for disaster. If you look at history, you'll recognize that simply banning something--whether it's guns, drugs, booze, etcetera--does nothing to address root problems, and usually only makes it worse.

Suppose that you could get around the Constitution, and some state--say California--managed to ban all guns. So what happens then is that with nothing changed about the conditions that create gun violence, you'll just have people slipping firearms into the state the same way they do drugs now, and did with booze during Prohibition. And in a condition where anyone with a gun is automatically a criminal, there'll be even less cause for restraint.

New York State had 800 homicides with guns in 2007. You know how many used rifles of any kind, not just scary looking rifles? 12. Almost all of the shootings were with handguns.

[Tim01]

56. I totally agree with you on this.

But somebody has to be willing to spend the money and the reality is that most Americans are just too selfish.
Educating people solves a whole LOT of problems.

[bossy22]

104. best example

NY rockafeller laws...we have drug users that are doing 20 years hard time just just doing a rock of crack....ridiculous waste of money

[TWiley]

29. How many assault rifles were on Wall Mart shelves in 1776?

[jody]

31. More than computers to exercise one's freedom of speech. n/t

[TWiley]

33. Bad reasoning .... no, absolutely poor reasoning.

A gun is not equal to your opinion. Nothing more needs to be said about that.

[jody]

35. Facts trump your unsupported assertion any day. Come on, make my day and try to prove me wrong. n/t

[TWiley]

38. Have you been smoking pot? What facts?

I dont have the slightest clue of what you are saying here.

[jody]

42. I accept your self description, "I don't have the slightest clue". Have a good day. n/t

[TWiley]

45. huh?

I hope you don't own any guns. If you do, then please give them to your neighbor for safe keepin until your episode is over.

[jody]

47. The OP expressed an opinion "I thought Assault Weapons were supposed to make America a safer and

more polite society."

In fact gun-grabbers claimed their Assault Weapons Ban would make America a safer and more polite society.

Of course their claim was proved wrong when the AWB elapsed and DoJ facts show a bloodbath in the streets did not occur.

[AVI8TR]

100. AWB DEFINITION

Lets at least get an understanding of the AWB. It DID NOT stop the sell of ANY assault weapons. It did do the following. You could have bought any type of AW as long as it did not have the following: 1) a flash suppressor on the end of the barrel (nighttime muzzle flash gives away position and makes the shooter a known target 2) high capacity (more than 10 rounds vs the 20-30 or even a hundred) magazines were not available to the gen public 3) the but stock could not be collapse able. The AWB was a joke. the ban expired and so the result is thousands of rifles, magazines and butt stocks are everywhere. The AWB dd nothing to control the weapon, and any proficient shooter can easily overcome the inconvenience of changing mags and purchasing flash suppressors is as easy as your college kid picking up a bag of pot. Please speak informed or get informed before you embarrass yourself further.

[jody]

102. Pardon me but your statement "It DID NOT stop the sell of ANY assault weapons" is wrong using the

definition of assault weapon in the now expired law.

The law stopped the legal sale of every assault weapon defined in the law. :shrug:

[benEzra]

115. I think the point he's getting at is that it did not restrict the sales of any type of firearm,

it just restricted combinations of features.

For example, this rifle is considered an "assault weapon" by the Bradyites, but its manufacture, importation, sale, and magazine capacity were not affected by the AWB.



So using the Bradyite definition, it didn't halt the sale of any "assault weapons," it just made minor alterations to their features.

[jody]

117. I understand. We've been over this so many times before and your posts are authoritative.

My recollection of AWB is that it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon".

If my recollection of the law is correct, the statement "It DID NOT stop the sell of ANY assault weapons" is indeed wrong, i.e. guns that could be manufactured and sold pre-AWB or post-AWB could not be manufactured and sold under AWB.

Is my conclusion right or wrong?

[benEzra]

119. It's semantics, really. If a civilian AK-47 lookalike like mine is an "assault weapon,"

then no, it did not stop the sale of any "assault weapons," but merely required minor cosmetic changes (no bayonet lug, smooth muzzle). But if you define an "assault weapon" solely as a detachable-magazine civilian firearm that has at least two listed features (protruding handgrip, threaded muzzle, bayonet lug), and define AR-15's and civilian AK's with smooth muzzles and no bayonet lugs as NOT "assault weapons," then yes, it stopped sales of "assault weapons" by converting them to "non-assault weapons" like my 2002 model AK in the photo above, or like ban-era Rock River LAR-15's or Bushmaster XM-15's or whatever. So even then, it didn't halt sales at all, it merely caused prohibited names and configurations to be changed to nonprohibited names and configurations.

To put it another way, the civilian AK that was legal to manufacture and sell prior to 1994 was still just as legal to manufacture and sell after 1994, as long as you did not machine the muzzle threads and the bayonet lug. You could still sell the newly manufactured rifle with standard 30-round milsurp magazines (my 2002 actually came with a 40-round RPK magazine, which is a bit of a rarity), and magazines could be new importation as long as date of manufacture was prior to 9/94. And of course you could configure pre-'94 rifles however you wanted, with adjustable stocks and flash suppressors, and there were no restrictions on the sale of those.

Civilian AK sales probably doubled or tripled during the non-ban, and it was probably during that time frame that the AR-15 platform became the top selling centerfire rifle in America. The only thing that changed in 2004 was that newly manufactured civilian AK's and AR-15 type rifles could have flash suppressors, threaded muzzles, bayonet lugs, and adjustable/folding stocks again.

[jody]

120. Thanks, I understand your reply to mean firearms that looked like "assault weapons" but lacked the

cosmetic features that AWB prohibited could be manufactured and sold.

OK but technically they were not "assault weapons" as defined in the ban.

The result was except for banning firearms with certain cosmetic features aka "assault weapons", AWB had little or no impact on the total sale of firearms.

Perhaps I'm quibbling so thanks for the information. :hi:

[benEzra]

121. That's an entirely valid way of looking at it, since the silly features list

was the only legal definition of an "assault weapon" in Federal law, ever.

The Brady Campaign does not use that definition, though (e.g., they consider my 2002 SAR-1, my wife's 1952 SKS, and 1994-2004 LAR-15's/XM-15's to be "assault weapons" also), so when they say that the 1994 Feinstein law "banned the manufacture and sale of assault weapons" as they define them, they are lying through their teeth.

[benEzra]

61. There weren't any Wal-Marts, but there WERE lots of military-style small arms in private hands.

And you will recall that the shooting started BEFORE 1776, in April 1775, when British law enforcement tried to confiscate some of those guns from some Massachusetts farmers, after instituting a gun ban in Boston.

How many color printing presses were there in Philadelphia in 1776, BTW?

[TWiley]

66. They were called Muzzle Loaders or Flint Locks right?

I wonder how many rounds an expert could fire in a minute?

[benEzra]

85. 3 to 4 aimed rounds/minute for a civilian, same as the military.

The rate of fire approached that of modern civilian guns in the 1860's and 1870's for rifles.

I wonder how many people a speaker in 1775 could speak to at once, or whether the Pennsylvania Gazette could print photos?

Of course, such arguments are moot; as the Supreme Court has noted, we don't limit the exercise of constitutional rights to modes available in 1791. Otherwise, you'd have no free speech except face to face, no free press unless published by hand-cranked movable-type machines, and no abortion except by methods available in 1791. Do you really want to go there?

[ManiacJoe]

87. Three rounds per minute.

These top of the line firearms were owned both by militaries and civilians. Up until 1900 or so, the USA civilians tended to have better arms than the USA military.

[gorfle]

94. Lots.

While there were no "Wall Marts" in 1776, there were plenty of stores selling military-grade munitions to civilians.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. Wal-mart didn't exist, but you could buy the top-of-the-line military arms at the time.

No 'civilian versions'. Hell, you could acquire cannons if you wanted, and had the means.

[gorfle]

93. You forgot one

Who else besides these people actually NEED an assault rifle?

People resisting military forces also armed with assault rifles?

You do realize this is what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the second amendment, right?

[AVI8TR]

97. who needs assault rifles

Duck hunters do not use assault rifles. I am ex military, ex law enforcement. Criminals like this man, legally cannot possess ANY kind of firearm. Ever hear the old cliche, outlaw guns and only outlaws will own guns? Assault weapons in and of themselves are no more and in some cases are LESS lethal than say Shotguns at close range, or Remington 700 series hunting rifles that in large caliber can kill at 600 meters or better. The US attitude of gun ownership has allowed as many firearms as there are people. IF the mexican government fails, IF this country's (world) financial system fails, or a pandemic or bio-hazard terrorist attack should occur, It can and will strain this country in ways I suspect you haven't ever considered. Study DOD and homeland defense govt articles and you'll find out there is approximately 6 weeks supply of food for 300 million people. Ask yourself if you're prepared to "survive" 6 months on the food, water etc you currently have on hand. If not, you're in fairly deep trouble. Katrina should demonstrate not to wait for the govt to come to you and your family's rescue. If you do, then people who do not WILL steal your food, lest they and their children suffer. I own several assault weapons. Owning a weapon no more makes you armed than owning a piano makes you a musician. Those who own any type of weapon without being an expert at their use and limitations will have them stolen/taken away by those that do. God forbid this should ever happen, but if does I suspect you'll be begging for a neighbor who does have one and knows how to use it. Think outside the box, how are you going to protect your family during martial law, when the national guard is basically a broken domestic protector and the vast majority of your military is overseas. Not knowing where you reside, but I suspect your demise will come quick but rape and torture shouldn't be ruled out. Shotguns are so destructive to humans, the Germans actually wanted them outlawed for combat use during WWI. So take away the assault weapons, the bad guys will probably start carrying 12 GA semi auto shotguns, which, as bad as being shot with a 5.56 M16 type rifle would obviously be very bad, it would PALE in comparison to being shot with a 12 GA 000 buckshot, quite literally cutting you in two pieces. Stop being a smart elick, educate yourself. The Govt can do NOTHING about the 300 million guns, it CAN control the ammunition. sorta like owning a car with no gas. Be smart, not a smart ass, you look ignorant and pathetic and thats just what the bad guys are looking for..

[rq4a]

124. You don't need to be against assault rifles

Why are people against assault rifles? You don't need to be. Being agaist assault rifle is not a need. You should just stop.

[paulsby]

105. the need canard. comes up in most threads

part of the holy trio of illogical anti-civil rights arguments.

fwiw, no civil right requires a justification by a citizen of his NEED to exercise it.

[Tejas]

167. and THAT is what the antis just CANNOT wrap their heads around

the concept of a "right".

[rq4a]

123. Assault rifles are necessary.

I need assault rifles because of idiots of let violent criminals get out of prison.

[pipoman]

3. No

I thought Assault Weapons were supposed to make America a safer and more polite society.

No, that is what prisons are for.

parolee with an "extensive criminal history"

-snip-

Jordan said Mixon had an "extensive criminal history" and was wanted on a no-bail warrant.

"(Mixon) was on parole and he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. And he was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon," said Oakland police Deputy Chief Jeffery Israel.

People lingered at the scene of the first shooting. About 20 bystanders taunted police.

Nice neighborhood

[jody]

6. Lovelle Mixon was banned from possessing any firearm under current law. Obviously gun bans did not

work in this case but thankfully several law-abiding citizens had firearms and were able to kill Mixon before he murdered more people.

[bossy22]

7. they mentioned assault rifle

which is different than an "assault weapon"

its like saying race car=sports car

[yay]

57. reporters, police, and gun grabbers

use the terms interchangeably on a regular basis. Weather intentionally or not, the actual definition is meaningless to most of these people.

[TWiley]

74. You sure like that term "gun grabber." Try for some new material

It does have a nice ring to it, but after reading it several hundred times, it gets kinda old.

[paulsby]

106. more correctly

not police, but so called and designated police spokesmen ie cop-o-crats do.

they don't speak for us, any more than dana perino spoke for you.

[yay]

130. No offense

But there are some cops out there that don't know a thing.

[paulsby]

133. of course

but ceteris paribus, your average street cop knows more about firearms than your average reporter or cop-o-crat.

[bossy22]

8. extensive criminal record

something tells me that this guy didnt go into a gun shop and just by the weapon. IIRC he would have had alot of "yes's" on the 4473 which are a no no

[rq4a]

125. Someone F'ed up. It wasn't gun owners.

Someone F'ed up and 4 people are dead. Who f'ed up?

[slackmaster]

129. The parole board fucked up

The person who supplied Mixon with firearms didn't fuck up. That person was just a criminal.

[pipoman]

9. Nice distortion of the facts

Why did you feel it was necessary to retitle the article you are citing turning it into a fabrication? The original title wasn't imapctful enough for you to adequately base your false premise on?

[TWiley]

11. I retyped the title from memory. This was the quote I was thinking of at the time

About two hours later, officers got an anonymous tip that the gunman was inside a nearby apartment building.

A SWAT team had entered an apartment to clear and search it when the gunman shot them with an assault rifle, police said.

Sgt. Ervin Romans, 43, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai, 35, were killed and a third officer was grazed by a bullet, police said.

[remedy1]

13. "Assault rifles" are banned in CA.

How could this happen?

[TWiley]

19. If it had been detected, then it would have been confiscated

That is the reason for the ban. This particular one went unnoticed. Others have been confiscated and have made the streets safer.

[remedy1]

25. If they are banned...

...how did he get it?

And what exactly is an "assault rifle?"

[TWiley]

32. Who can tell how he got it?

If he had a choice between an assault rifle and a different type of small caliber single shot weapon, which do you suppose he would choose if anticipating a shoot-out with police?

If you do not know what an assault rifle is, then I will not debate technicalities with you. It is always a technical argument here.

[slackmaster]

36. Limiting citizens to small caliber single-shot weapons isn't going to fly politically

It's a technical argument because the subject is inherently technical. It is not possible to ban "assault style" weapons without also banning weapons that don't look as scary but function exactly the same way.

[TWiley]

39. so, which would you choose if in the same situation?

A small caliber single shot, or a semi-automatic "assault" rifle? Which would you choose if anticipating a shoot-out with the police?

[slackmaster]

52. Impertinent question

I would never be in that situation.

[TWiley]

67. smooth moove. I would bet you would not select a bolt single shot.

[gorfle]

95. Of course not!

I would bet you would not select a bolt single shot.

No one who could opt for better would go up against government forces with any less munitions than those forces possessed. This is the whole reason why we want to arm civilians similarly to our government forces - so that they can be kept in check.

This time it was a criminal, and that's tragic. But this is precisely how the system is supposed to work, and precisely what our founders intended. The citizenry should be able to defend itself against its government should that government turn tyrannical. Looks like the balance they intended is still in force.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. So TWiley prefers assault weapons when killing police officers, got it, thanks.

[TWiley]

140. Oh, my stalker chimes in.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. Sometimes comments are so ignorant I can't help myself.

Hope all is well with you.

David

[slackmaster]

126. I'll be candid with you, but with a more realistic scenario than the one you presented...

If I am ever beseiged by Zombies, of all the dozens of firearms I own which include several former "assault weapons" such as AR-15 rifles, my weapon of choice would be an M1 Garand military rifle. It's head-and-shoulders over any of the so-called "AWs" as an anti-personnel weapon (and people hunt deer with them too).



I would choose the .30-'06 M1 or even a bolt-action rifle such as a Model 98 Mauser, over an AR-15 because I prefer hitting targets at long range, and using a round that is inclined to do a whole lot more damage than the 5.56 mm.

For reliable head shots at 300+ yards, a full-sized cartridge (.30 caliber or over) is preferable to a small-bore weapon.

ETA just to be clear - the Garand was not affected by the expired AW ban.

[TWiley]

176. so, just totally change the scenario, and then answer?

Holy cow, you are rather slippery Agent Starling. Ok, now that you have successfully answered your own question, why not take a poke at mine. If you were in the same situation as the fella in the story, expecting a shoot out with police somewhere in a suburban neighborhood, would you choose a single-shot bolt action or would you reach for the semi-automatic assault rifle?

[dairydog91]

58. Errr...

Drain the powder from a number of bullets for the single shot, then make a pipe bomb with a ball bearing sheath. That'll do quite a number on anyone wearing anything less than an EOD suit.

[benEzra]

62. False dichotomy, since the alternative would be a semiautomatic NON-"assault rifle"...

or a pump-action rifle, or a lever-action rifle.

FWIW, most "assault weapons" are also small caliber, though you'd never know it from the gun-404 MSM.

[TWiley]

68. small caliber with a big ass on them.

[benEzra]

90. Nope. Small caliber, small case.

That's why a civilian AK is such a low-velocity, low-energy rifle compared to most .30 calibers, and why a deer rifle has over twice the KE of an AR-15 or civilian AK.

Kinetic energy figures:

AR-15 (.223 Remington/5.56x45mm)................1,275 ft-lb
AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm).....................1,495 ft-lb
.30-30 Winchester...............................1,902 ft-lb
.243 Winchester.................................1,946 ft-lb
.308 Winchester.................................2,670 ft-lb
.270 Winchester.................................2,702 ft-lb
.50 Beowulf.....................................2,878 ft-lb
.30-06 (most popular deer caliber in USA).......2,900 ft-lb
.444 Marlin.....................................2,942 ft-lb
.300 Remington Ultra Mag........................3,682 ft-lb
.375 Holland & Holland..........................4,230 ft-lb
.338 Lapua......................................4,830 ft-lb
.375 Remington Ultra Mag........................5,073 ft-lb
.416 Remington Magnum...........................5,115 ft-lb
.408 CheyTac....................................8,298 ft-lb
.416 Barrett....................................9,380 ft-lb
.585 Nyati.....................................10,130 ft-lb
.700 Nitro Express.............................11,150 ft-lb
.50 BMG........................................13,971 ft-lb

Bullet weight and velocity:

.223 Remington (AR-15, 16").............55 grain bullet at 3090 ft/sec
.223 Remington (AR-15, 16").............77 grain bullet at 2566 ft/sec
7.62x39mm (AK).........................122 grain bullet at 2350 ft/sec
7.62x39mm (AK).........................154 grain bullet at 2000 ft/sec
.30-30 Winchester......................150 grain bullet at 2390 ft/sec
.243 Winchester (deer rifle)...........100 grain bullet at 2960 ft/sec
.270 Winchester (deer rifle)...........130 grain bullet at 3060 ft/sec
.270 Winchester (deer rifle)...........150 grain bullet at 2850 ft/sec
.308 Winchester (deer/target rifle)....150 grain bullet at 2820 ft/sec
.308 Winchester (deer/target rifle)....180 grain bullet at 2620 ft/sec
.30-06 (deer/elk rifle)................125 grain bullet at 3140 ft/sec
.30-06 (deer/elk rifle)................180 grain bullet at 2700 ft/sec
.30-06 (deer/elk rifle).................55 grain bullet at 4080 ft/sec
.300 Remington Ultra Mag (deer/elk)....150 grain bullet at 3450 ft/sec
.300 Remington Ultra Mag (deer/elk)....180 grain bullet at 3250 ft/sec

But that won't stop the fearmongers from pretending how "high powered" 7.62x39mm is compared to .30-06...

[remedy1]

37. Nothing "technical" about it...

The term is used quite frequently. I am just wondering where it came from.

[TWiley]

43. The term probably came from the design criteria.

Assault is the purpose of the design. Probably like huntng was the design criteria of a "hunting rifle". Now that I have said this, I am certain that an expert will appear and pop off on the subject.

[remedy1]

53. Actually, the term "assault weapon" is a total fabrication.

Kinda like "partial birth abortion".

It stirs emotions, but has no basis in fact.

[slackmaster]

54. You don't know much about the history of firearms

What you think of a "hunting rifle" was originally designed as a military wepaon.

[benEzra]

63. No, the design criteria of most "hunting rifles" was the killing of human beings at extreme ranges.

Bolt-action deer rifles started out as military weapons, and still serve in that capacity. But the qualities that made them useful to the military also made them useful to hunters.

A Winchester Model 70 in .30-06, or a Remington Model 700 in .308 Winchester, are both civilianized military Mauser derivatives chambered for high-powered military calibers, and the Remington "deer rifle" is still used as the primary U.S. military sniper rifle.



That's a Remington above, currently used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 was the USMC scout/sniper rifle in Vietnam, and was the rifle used by Sgt. Carlos Hathcock.



Here's the most common deer rifle caliber in the United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield

It was also the primary U.S. combat cartridge in World Wars 1 and 2.

[Iktomiwicasa]

75. Did you really

have to post that picture with the scary looking cartridge carrier on the buttstock? :scared: :) :hi:

[spin]

112. To see what an 1941 Mauser 98K can still do watch this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8B4Me5HXNo

[yay]

64. Nope, not even close.

Did you know that the army's "sniper rifles" are all based on Remingtons 700 action. An action designed for "hunting". Isn't it funny how the army and police units use a "hunting rifle" as a precision killing machine?

I find your ignorance amusing.

[TWiley]

69. I told you the experts would start popping off ...... I am right again.

[yay]

76. ignorance is nothing to be proud of NT

[benEzra]

89. Staying silent would let the fearmongers have the only voice...

and would lead inevitably to another 1994. The repubs at the Brady Campaign don't care if Dems take the fall for another idiotic handgrip ban; they just want their precious bans.

And if one doesn't want those who actually know something about a topic to correct predatory fearmongering and egregious errors of fact, then perhaps one should actually apply oneself to understand the topic.

"Assault weapons" are less powerful than typical hunting firearms, fire no faster than most traditional-looking civilian firearms, are not commonly misused, and are the most popular civilian centerfire target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States. Those pushing the "assault weapon" fraud generally try to mislead on all four counts.

[TWiley]

145. Fearmonger? ARM YOURSELF, NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT YOUR GUN

9/11, BURGLERS, ROBBERS, RAPISTS, EVIL PEOPLE, UGLY PEOPLE, GROWLING DOGS, CARRY YOUR GUN TO CHURCH, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. SLEEP WITH A GUN IN YOUR CLOSET, UNDER THE BED, ONE IN THE NIGHT STAND, AND ONE UNDER THE PILLOW JUST TO BE SAFE.

Now, seriously ben, who is the fearmonger here?

[benEzra]

149. I don't see anyone here saying that, or claiming that people ought to be "skeered" of anything.

I am licensed to carry a firearm, and do so regularly, but not out of fear. However, I believe that is a deeply personal choice, and would not try to emotionally manipulate people into making that choice. I have put in the time to become qualified to do so, but do not think less of you or anyone else for choosing differently.

But you well know what I mean about fearmongering, to wit:

Claims that "assault weapon" homicides are endemic, when the FBI murder-weapon data consistently shows all rifles combined as accounting for 3% of U.S. murders;

Claims that "assault weapons" fire faster than most civilian firearms, when in fact they fire at precisely the same rate;

Claims that "assault weapons" are more powerful than "conventional" rifles (nope), that they fire projectiles at higher velocities than "conventional" rifles (nope), that they produce more severe wounds than "conventional" rifles (nope), and that they penetrate Kevlar and building materials more than "conventional" rifles (nope);

Claims that "assault weapons" are fringe "weapons of war," instead of the most popular lawfully owned centerfire target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation, or that they "have no other purpose than to kill human beings," even though the dominate competitive and recreational centerfire rifle shooting in the USA;

Claims that AR-15 type rifles and civilian AK's were "legalized" in 2004, when in fact they were just as legal to manufacture, market, sell, and possess 1994-2004 as they are now;

Claims that police are replacing the traditional patrol shotgun with AR-15 type carbines as part of a post-2004 "arms race," rather than as a process that began in the late 1990's over concerns about the liabilities and shortcomings of shotgun use in urban policing;

Claims that machineguns, rocket launchers, and hand grenades being used by Mexican drug cartels are coming from the U.S. civilian market, where they are not available;

and in general, the hysteria that OMG ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE GOING TO KILZ US ALL!!!!!!111111 when in fact rifle homicide is among the rarest class of all homicide and still near historic lows, and when murders of police officers are still near all time lows.

Fear sells, and a lot of the people selling it know full well what they're doing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Someone has to be intelligent about the issue and make up for your inadequacies.

[TWiley]

146. Oh it is my stalker again, will somebody please call the police?

[spin]

51. Where the terms assault rife and "assault weapon" came from...

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting fully automatic and semi automatic). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented battle rifles (which are similar to assault rifles but are larger and more powerful) such as the FN FAL and the H&K G3. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 and the Steyr AUG.The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". The name was coined by Adolf Hitler<1> to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:<2><3><4>

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The term assault weapon might be derived from confusion with the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle". There is no technical military definition of an assault weapon, but in a general sense, the term assault weapon can refer to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position (as referenced in multiple uses in military terminology below). Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[TWiley]

70. Exactly .... Named for the design criteria.

Designed for combat.

[Furyataurus]

77. No, used for combat

which means even those musket rifles are "assault" weapons. Since they did "assault" the british.

[yay]

78. So was

The bolt action, the lever action, the pump action the breech action, the musket, the bamboo canons, all firearms were designed for combat.

[gorfle]

96. Yes, they are designed for combat.

I am not one of those who continuously tries to disown the "assault weapon" monicker. That fight has been lost.

If you want to call my semi-automatic AK-47 an assault weapon along with a fully-automatic AK-47, that's fine by me.

In my book, semi-automatic versions of fully-automatic assault weapons are still assault weapons. They are tough, accurate rifles that make them suitable as military small arms. Civilians will never miss fully-automatic functionality as machine guns are primarily suppression devices to prevent infantry advancing on a position. In a revolution against a technologically-superior enemy, it is unlikely that holding a position with a machine gun will be very effective - all it will do is make the position the target of an air or artillery strike.

But the point here is, the civilian population does indeed have, and should have, access to military-grade small arms. And this is exactly what the founders intended when they wrote the second amendment. The entire point is to be able to stand up to a tyrannical military force.

[AVI8TR]

99. assault weapons

by definition they are just that, either to assault or just as impoartant to STOP an assault. Cops carry ARs, they aren't in the business of combat, they are in the business of stopping bad guys like this criminal,who legally cannot possess ANY kind of firearm. Ever hear the old cliche, outlaw guns and only outlaws will own guns? Assault weapons in and of themselves are no more and in some cases are LESS lethal than say Shotguns at close range, or Remington 700 series hunting rifles that in large caliber can kill at 600 meters or better. The US attitude of gun ownership has allowed as many firearms as there are people. IF the mexican government fails, IF this country's (world) financial system fails, or a pandemic or bio-hazard terrorist attack should occur, It can and will strain this country in ways I suspect you haven't ever considered. Study DOD and homeland defense govt articles and you'll find out there is approximately 6 weeks supply of food for 300 million people. Ask yourself if you're prepared to "survive" 6 months on the food, water etc you currently have on hand. If not, you're in fairly deep trouble. Katrina should demonstrate not to wait for the govt to come to you and your family's rescue. If you do, then people who do not WILL steal your food, lest they and their children suffer. I own several assault weapons. Owning a weapon no more makes you armed than owning a piano makes you a musician. Those who own any type of weapon without being an expert at their use and limitations will have them stolen/taken away by those that do. God forbid this should ever happen, but if does I suspect you'll be begging for a neighbor who does have one and knows how to use it. Think outside the box, how are you going to protect your family during martial law, when the national guard is basically a broken domestic protector and the vast majority of your military is overseas. Not knowing where you reside, but I suspect your demise will come quick but rape and torture shouldn't be ruled out. Shotguns are so destructive to humans, the Germans actually wanted them outlawed for combat use during WWI. So take away the assault weapons, the bad guys will probably start carrying 12 GA semi auto shotguns, which, as bad as being shot with a 5.56 M16 type rifle would obviously be very bad, it would PALE in comparison to being shot with a 12 GA 000 buckshot, quite literally cutting you in two pieces. Stop being a smart elick, educate yourself. The Govt can do NOTHING about the 300 million guns, it CAN control the ammunition. sorta like owning a car with no gas. Be smart, not a smart ass, you look ignorant and pathetic and thats just what the bad guys are looking for..

[russ1943]

83. "Assualt weapon" was a term used to sell more guns!

An "expert" whose opinion actually carries some weight on this matter, Joseph P. Tartaro
the Executive Editor of Gun Week Magazine and president of The Second Amendment Foundation, (a pioneer in defense of the right to keep and bear arms). A prominent leader of the right to bear arms movement, has acknowledged that the idea of calling semi-automatic versions of military small arms "'assault weapons" did not,
I repeat,
NOT
originate with either anti-gun activists, media or politicians. It was a marketing strategy by importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate and market sales of selected "exotica"--firearms which did not have a traditional appearance. The fact that even some of the semi-automatic versions of the military-style firearms retained their bayonet lugs, extended pistol grips, "banana-clip" magazines, folding stocks and even threading for silencers and muzzle brakes has been used to erroneously define "assault weapons." But these design features were part of the Walter Mittyesque "romance" of what some like to call "ugly guns."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

[spin]

98. So assault rifle is an established technical term...

and "assault weapon" is a marketing term used to promote the sales of military looking weapons and also promoted by gun control advocates to confuse those unfamiliar with firearms.

If the gun control groups were honest they would merely say that they are opposed to semiautomatic assault weapons (which they are). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms and Explosives does use this term.

Q: What was the semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) ban?

A: The SAW ban was enacted on September 13, 1994, by PL 103-322, Title IX, Subtitle A, section 110105. The ban made it unlawful to manufacture, transfer, or possess SAWs. The law defines SAWs as 19 named firearms, as well as semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that have certain named features. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(v). SAWs lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 were not covered by the ban. There also were certain exceptions, such as possession by law enforcement.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/saw-faqs.htm

And if both sides of this issue were to use correct terminology, we could spend a lot less time talking about definitions on DU.

[rq4a]

134. Banning Criminals is Better

Instead of confiscating guns, how about confiscating criminals? Heck we have thier names and addresses with the parole board. Mixon should have not been on the street. If he was confsicated, then 4 people would still be alive and the streets safer.

[pipoman]

14. A perfect example of the intentions of the people who coined the term in the first place

demonize a class of firearms to negatively impact the perception of the sheep.

[TWiley]

15. How many would be dead if a Daisy Red Ryder were used?

obviously, there is some bonus for lethality

[jody]

17. How many more would have been murdered if law-abiding citizens possessing guns had not killed Mixon?

[TWiley]

18. cops killed Mixon

Quote: SWAT team members returned fire, killing 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon of Oakland, Acting Oakland police Chief Howard Jordan said. End Quote

You make it sound like a bystander saved the day with his concealed bazooka.

[jody]

21. Why do you ignore the fact, LEO are law-abiding citizens. If you want to ban guns, try bans on LEO

guns first and then get back to me.

When a criminal attacks and seconds count, police are only minutes away.

[TWiley]

40. deceptive at best little one.

Now you equate police with all law-abiding citizens. Your lack of reasoning skill never sleeps.

[jody]

44. Please quote the passage wherein I equated police with ALL law-abiding citizens. n/t

[TWiley]

46. ok then .... what does this mean? "Why do you ignore the fact, LEO are law-abiding citizens"

[jody]

48. Again, Please quote the passage wherein I equated police with ALL law-abiding citizens. n/t

[TWiley]

71. again, read real slow and focus. Try to answer the question jody

Quote: Why do you ignore the fact, LEO are law-abiding citizens. If you want to ban guns, try bans on LEO? End quote

Please explain what you meant with this above quote. Define LEO.

[jody]

79. Sorry, if you don't understand that "LEO are law-abiding citizens" does not "equate police with all

law-abiding citizens" then what you have is a personal problem.

ON EDIT ADD:

Mea culpa for overestimating you by assuming you knew that LEO means "Law Enforcement Officer".

Darn it, did it again, mea culpa means "my fault".

[TWiley]

141. LEO = Law Enforcement Officer does it not? How does that not equate to police?

You gun enthusiasts sure have a skewed sense of reason.

[jody]

150. Please read #79 again and understand what I said. n/t

[TWiley]

154. Read it? I have been quoting it.. It is not that complex

You equate Law Enforcement Officers with Law Abiding Citizens. They are two entirely different groups. Try to ticket a police officer for speeding while he is on his way to an accident scene sometime.

[jody]

155. Have a good day and good bye. n/t

[Tejas]

171. So, LEO's are NOT law-abiding citizens?

"Now you equate police with all law-abiding citizens. Your lack of reasoning skill never sleeps."



FYI: Leo's are citizens, they are not part of the military branch of this country.

[TWiley]

175. The police are a group who enjoy special priveleges due to their job

There are all kinds of special groups in society that do not correlate directly to each other. Now as a test, why not find a street corner somewere and start selling oxy-cotin. The pharmacist can sell it, so why can't you?

Give it a test, and report back here on how it goes. Make sure you put your foot down and insist that your rights should be the same as the pharmacist during your trial also. That way, we can all be assured that you will recieve the most accurate legal reading.

[Tejas]

178. so, being "priveledged", pharmacists can sell drugs on streetcorners?

Your concept of priveledged is confusing.

[TWiley]

181. well, they dont need a street corner because they have a store front

But if you care to invest that type of cabbage in your education, then by all means, please do buy a building and set up a pharmacy.

[Tim01]

26. Sure it's true that if he didn't

have that gun he probably wouldn't have been able to kill those cops. But the truth is that if there was an assault weapons ban he still would have been able to get one since he is a criminal. Criminals have been buying illegal guns which have been smuggled into this country for a long time now.
Kid rock even brags about in one of his songs "strapped with AKs straight from the Chinese"
which incidentaly is doubly illegal since we have a guns and ammo import ban on China. We import everything else under the sun from China, but Clinton banned all guns and all ammo.

[TWiley]

41. well, the consolation prize is this .....

If they are illegal, then they can be confiscated when found. If they are not, then they lay around waiting to be stolen, or for the owner to wig-out.

[X_Digger]

49. and gun grabbers call US paranoid?

"lay around waiting to be stolen, or for the owner to wig-out."

[yay]

59. lol wut?

Tell me, who's the paranoid one here? I'm pretty sure it's not me.

[TWiley]

73. Afraid to live in a world without your gun?

wanna carry your gun in the national forests, in airports, and in church? why?

Now take a deep breath and answer me this:

Who is terrified of the world and cannot face it without their gun? Someone who does not own one?

[remedy1]

80. No. Not at all...

What are YOU afraid of? Me?

I carry my gun most of the time. Does that frighten you?

[TWiley]

137. No, I am not afraid of people like you.

You sure as hell are the chicken shit though especially if you cannot leave your house with out a gun. You are one in a vast minority of individuals who feels as obsessively and fearful as you seem to.

[yay]

81. Afraid to live in a world where we have our guns?

I don't carry, I don't plan on carrying, and as of right now I can't carry anyhow. It would just be impractical for me.

Why? Because even if the event is statistically unlikely there is still a chance of something bad happening in those locations, just like everywhere else. Where do most mass shootings occur? Gun free zones like schools, churches, and what have you.

Firearms for me are simply a hobby just like paint balling, graphics design, and video games. Course I can't expect you to comprehend that.

You seem to be worried that no-one can handle weapons safely. You seem to think that one nutcase who shoots cops auto-maticly makes ALL gun owners(legal and otherwise) nutcases who shoot cops. You're paranoid about us getting our guns stolen on a regular basis and you would be the victim of an ill planed drive by shooting or that your children are going to get shot up by some 12 year old with a full auto AK that he took from under his dads bed.

You're as paranoid as I am.

[TWiley]

135. Not afraid, I just fee that giving semi-automatic weapons to paranoid individuals is a bad idea

Anyone who is afraid to leave their home without a gun is paranoid.

On edit, it is a bad idea to give any type of gun to someone who is paranoid.

[Furyataurus]

84. Why?

1. Animals in the forests get hungry, I don't want to be its next meal.
2. Do you think 9/11 would've happened if the passengers had been armed? and no, a plane won't decompress catastrophically like in the movies from one shot. It took mythbusters using EXPLOSIVES to recreate what we see in the movies.
3. I carry in church ALL the time. Our priest has even blessed my firearms, crazy people can strike at anytime, anywhere, best be prepared.


Its not about being terrified, its about being responsible. I wasn't afraid before I got my firearms and I'm still not afraid if I'm without them. Where do you people equate being "afarid", "terrorifed" with owning firearms? Seems you'd be "afraid", "terrified" if you had firearms. Why is that? There's nothing scary about firearms.


Can you tell me how are you going to defend yourself against a physically superior assailant? or multiple assailants without using a firearm? Remember, its just YOU by yourself.

[TWiley]

136. gebus chrisp. Did you even read what you wrote?

Insane. Totally insane. Maybe the world is not quite as hostile as you percieve it to be. Ever consider that?

[Furyataurus]

144. You don't watch the news do you??????

You still haven't answered my question........

[TWiley]

147. Yes, I watch the news, but forgot what your question was.

what was it?

[spin]

103. O.K. you're unafraid of bad people who want to do you harm...

Good for you.

I seriously hope that you and yours will travel through life without ever having an encounter with an individual who wants to do you serious bodily harm. Chances are that you will.

Some people have a different approach to life and are not willing to trust statistical probability as you are. While they are not afraid of the world without a firearm, they feel more prepared to face a violent incident with one.

My daughter attended a judo class conducted by Prof Ed Maley one of the best instructors in the country.

Ed Maley is a legend, not just in Tampa Bay but across the world. Prof. Maley introduced martial arts to south Tampa while still a member of the US Air Force stationed at MacDill AFB in the late 50s.

His dojo has produced Olympians such as Dewey Mitchell, and many of the top Judo stars in the country.

Ed Has over 50 years of experience teaching and coaching Judo, and is nationally recognized as a Master, holding his 8th degree Black belt in Judo.

http://www.teddwebb.com/legends/prof_ed_maley.html

Prof. Maley also taught a class in Jiu Jitsu which was basically a course on real life self defense. In this class he taught his students what to do if confronted by an attacker with a club, knife or gun.

When he taught techniques for disarming an armed man with a gun, he said. "I hold an eight degree belt, but a man with a .45 auto holds a ninth degree belt. I will teach you some techniques to use if you are convinced the man intends to shoot you, but remember that your chances of success are at the best 50/50."

Remember that some people chose to depend on God for protection, some people believe in luck, some statistics. Others take courses on self defense and some obtain weapons and hopefully the training and skill to use them.

I'm not calling you a fool for insinuating that because you chose to face life without a firearm that you're braver than a person who does. That's your choice. I doubt if you've known many people who regularly carry a weapon for self defense. I have, and I found none of them to be "terrified", fearful or even paranoid. Most are the type of people you wouldn't want to start a fight with even if they didn't have a weapon on them. A high percentage of those I've known have military or police backgrounds.

[TWiley]

138. and your point is?

I wrestled in h.s., studied judo and ju-jitsu for about 11 years, and I have never had to defend myself. Self-defense is not why I practiced the sport btw, it had nothing to do with it. I just enjoyed the competition, the people, and the work outs.

In most cases I feel there is something psychologically wrong with someone who feels the need to carry a gun in a church.

The irony is that you feel it necessary to carry a gun to protect yourself from other people who carry guns. Isn't that just a bit wierd?

[paulsby]

107. ah, the "fear canard"

# 2 in the holy trio of illogical anti-civil rights types.

the first is the ":need canard" btw.

fwiw, i carry a firearm (sometimes). it's not out of fear.

i carry fire insurance too. i don't fear my house burning down.

having to use my firearm (off duty) is very unlikely. so is my house burning down.

both are low frequency, high risk.

[TWiley]

139. You carry fire insurance because your mortgage requires it.

ah, the illogical argument canard.

#2 in the gun enthusiasts arsenal is the false comparison. Lets compare guns to automobiles. Lets compare semi-automatic weapons to fried chicken.

#1 tactic is to spiral any discussion into an impossible maze of ever changing technical definations.
#3 tactic is the strawman argument constructed from incoherent pieces of their victims position.

[slackmaster]

156. I plan to keep my fire insurance policy after my mortgage is paid off

Wouldn't you?

[TWiley]

161. There is no correlation between owning a gun and buying "fire insurance"

good grief.

[slackmaster]

164. I didn't say there was a correlation between owning a gun and buying fire insurance

I was responding to your reply.

[Scout]

157. carrying fire insurance is to REPLACE your house if it burns down

it does nothing to PREVENT a fire

i think iverglas already kicked your ass on your stupid seat belt and fire insurance "canards"

[yay]

158. I do however

have a fire extinguisher in my house and car. Always have sense my house burned down. Does this make me a paranoid loony or someone taking precautions?

[Scout]

159. the two are not mutually exclusive n/t

[yay]

172. how so?

You say carrying a gun for self defense is being "paranoid" so on the same note wouldn't having a fire extinguisher in your house or car make you equally paranoid?

What about the people who carry tazers and other "less than lethal" devices with them? Are they paranoid too? Or are they exempt because it's not a gun?

I could go on.

[Tim01]

108. Welcom to reality.

Have people been murdered in churches?
Have people been murdered in national forests?
Have people been murdered in airports?

How many? If it is me, then one too many. If it is you, I guess you find it an acceptably small number.
Don't like guns? Don't have one. The criminals have a label for you. "easier"

[Tejas]

168. Welcome to the Gungeon

where antis claim they don't even have to lock their doors, much less "need" a gun.

[benEzra]

65. Given that there are in excess of 20 million lawfully owned "assault weapons"

If they are not, then they lay around waiting to be stolen, or for the owner to wig-out.

Given that there are in excess of 20 million lawfully owned "assault weapons" in U.S. homes and fewer than 500 rifle homicides annually, it appears that most of them sit in the safe waiting to the range, and most of the remainder sit around waiting to go hunting.

[TWiley]

72. 500 rifle homocides ben? How many gun homocides? 10,000?

[bossy22]

82. about 14,000

give or take a few hundred

mostly committed with handguns- i think .38 spl is still the most common calibre

which makes rifle murders at about 3-5% of total firearm homicide.

[benEzra]

88. Ah, but you're demonizing "assault weapons," which are involved in considerably less than 500.

The 500-ish figure is for all rifles combined, not just those with modern styling, protruding handgrips, or polymer furniture.

Most gun homicides are committed with ordinary pistols and revolvers, not "assault weapons". About twice as many murders are committed using shoes and bare hands as are committed using any type of rifle, including "assault weapons."

[TWiley]

142. Not really Ben, "assault weapons" are only one piece of the puzzle

It just happens to be the case that the shooter used an "assault rifle" so the discussion focused on that. If he had used a semi-automatic hand gun, then we would probably be talking about those.

Take your collegue fire-hydrant-steve for example. For every "justified shooting" that he posts, there are probably 100 people killed by firearms. The irony is that most gun folks feel that adding more guns to the mix will solve all the problems. "Guns make america safer, guns make a polite society" Insane logic.

The specific firearm used is an incidental componet to the discussion. At least that is how I think about it.

[benEzra]

148. One of the smallest pieces, actually.

And he did use a handgun for the first two murders, it appears; an SKS is a very slow weapon to deploy from a vehicle. My wife owns one, and it is 40 inches long.

The thing is, the capabilities of, risks posed by, and misuse of "assault weapons" in civilian hands are vastly exaggerated by the media, with a specific agenda in mind. That exaggeration does the whole gun violence debate a great disservice, wherever you stand on the desirability of gun ownership by lawful non-LEO civilians.

[Tejas]

169. Yeah, and PORN causes RAPE

Ban it before some law-abiding citizen sees some and loses it.



ps: for the children and all the usual BS

[Howzit]

116. How many would be dead if the perp was still in prison?

[TWiley]

143. How many would be dead if he did not have any kind of gun?

That question is more relevent to the conversation.

[X_Digger]

151. And what magic would accomplish that, hrmm?

I can see a logical means to keep him in prison.

What logical means can _you_ see to make guns just slip out of his hands?

Now, which is more realistic?

[TWiley]

162. So, you want to play "What If " butt only "If " your "What If's " count?

If If's and Butt's were Candy and Nuts, we would have a Dandy Christmas.

[X_Digger]

165. So no response? (at least one based on reality.) n/t

[TWiley]

173. Reality? What if a monkey flew out of his ass and he found Jesus?

How is "what if he were hypothetically in prison" different than "hypothetically, how many would he have killed if he had no access to a gun?"

Now to address your question. Do you think it is hypothetically possible that he may have killed a guard or someone else in prison?

[X_Digger]

179. It's different because..

I can think of a reality that encompasses him still being in prison. Your hypothetical? Not so much.

When's the last time you heard of 10 prison guards being killed with a gun (in prison)?

Reality, it's what's for breakfast.

[TWiley]

182. Lets give your hypothetical prisoner an assault rifle and lets see how many he can kill

I would bet he could kill more with a fully loaded assault rifle than he could without any kind of fire arm.
Now, put this fucker on the street with the same gun, and guess what .... he could kill just about the same amount.
Next, put this asshole in a church with a fully loaded assault rifle and lets see how many he could kill.

Now, remove the assault rifle from the mix, and voiloa' he is less lethal across the board. Expressed with arithmetic, it would look like this:

Asshole + Loaded Assault Rifle + Desire to Kill = Catastrophe.

If you remove any one of the elements from the formua, then the outcome is changed dramatically.

[X_Digger]

183. Look up tautology / truism

If you magically make all guns disappear, gun crimes disappear. In other news, water is wet.

Simplistic glib answers don't actually address the issue, regardless of how fun they are to posit.

[Howzit]

153. And you would have disarmed him by force of law?

This felon was prohibited by federal law from possessing any kind of gun; by virtue of California's assault weapons ban he was prohibited from possessing an "assault weapon", yet he apparently had an "assault rifle". To top this off, he flouted the law against murdering people, and peace officers at that.

So yes, if a government somewhere had not developed guns to use against its enemies, guns would never have existed and this scumbag would not have shot these people. Since guns exist, no law you can dream up will make them go away; just look south of the border to see how effective strict gun laws are when you have drug running gangs and a corrupt government.

If you want to stop the killing, take away the motivation and replace it with a value for life. This cannot be done by means of the law maker's pen, but has to be learn from childhood and taught by example. By disarming the law abiding, you give all the power to gangs and government at the expense of the people.

[TWiley]

163. X-box wanted to play "What If " ..... Thats All

So, if we are going to get all dreamy here, then we can invent all sorts of hypotetical scenario's now can't we.

I do agree with your position on addressing the underlying issues, but the stock response that always adding more guns to the mix will somehow make America "safer" is nuts. You want to own a gun to defend yourself against someone else who has a gun. Using this reasoning, then the world would be totally safe if everyone had one dozen guns and an unlimited supply of ammo.

Lets put your idea to the acid test. Give every school child a loaded 9 mm glock to cary in their lunch pail to school. By your standards, this should make schools safer and less dangerous.

[X_Digger]

166. TWiggy started the 'what-if's

In #143, you started the 'what-if's. Don't be shy, go right ahead and tell us how your magic sauce causes criminals hands to be too slippery to hold a gun.. or maybe you twitch your nose and all the guns magically disappear? Hrmm?

'What-if' is a way to brainstorm ideas, sure. But then you have to take those ideas and see which ones are feasible and can actually be applied in a timely, legal manner.

My 'what-if' idea is to increase the deterrence of using a gun to commit a crime by making penalties harsher- no concurrent sentences for gun crimes. In this instance this nut wouldn't have been out on parole. (This particular) problem solved.

[TWiley]

174. The problem with your plan is that EVERYONE tends to get longer sentances

Not just violent criminals. Michigan has a three strikes rule, and our prison if filled to the brim with drunk drivers, and drug addicts. Some drunk drivers who accidentally kill a stranger serve longer sentences than someone who kills a specific person on purpose.

You are opposed to gun legislation because more innocent, (or less guilty) individuals will also be affected by the legislation which targets the criminal. Next, you will tell me that "gun legislation" does not work because assault rifles are already banned, and he had one, and also that he was not supposed to have any weapon because he was a convicted felon.

[X_Digger]

180. Notice I specified 'crimes with a gun'

I didn't say that _all_ crime sentences should run consecutively. And I agree that we have way too many non-violent drug offenders in jail.

[Hoopla Phil]

23. Does anyone know what this guy was actually armed with?

I'm assuming that at the traffic stop he had a handgun of some sort. Were the cops not wearing body armor? Did the bad guy get lucky and hit the officers in places not covered by the body armor? Did the bad guy have an unusually powerful handgun (38 super comes to mind) that defeated the body armor. Or did the body armor just not do it's intended job?

Then at the apartment what actually was this "assault rifle"? I've seen too many times the "assault rifle" moniker mis-applied here. Let's assume that the "assault rifle" was a semi-auto version of an AK type rifle. This was SWAT that were killed. They should have been up armored to a level that would stop the 7.62 X 39 cartridge of the AK type rifles. So all the above questions again apply.

Also, who made the decision for SWAT to go into the apartment? Why was that decision made? Is it not policy to wait out an barricaded suspect where the situation inside is unknown?

There are LOTS of unanswered questions here.

[remedy1]

24. News reports say that both motorcycle officers were shot in the head.

I am assuming a semi auto handgun?

Unknown re the SWAT officers...

[TWiley]

34. I dont know either. I do suspect a semi-auto hand gun though.

But,this is only a guess. His first order of business would be to ditch the gun used in the first crime, and then find another one in case he got surrounded. Now, what type of gun would be best to have in that situation? If a fully automatic weapon was not available, then my second choice would be a semi-automatic "assault" rifle.

what would your choice be?

[wartrace]

50. They should have hit the apartment with gas- or sent in the dogs.

As much as I love dogs they are there to save the lives of officers. I have heard reports there were five K-9's outside when swat went in. If they had sent in those dogs it would have saved the lives of some officers.

[slackmaster]

27. Someone with an extensive criminal history belongs in prison

I thought Assault Weapons were supposed to make America a safer and more polite society.

Only gun grabbers make such foolish claims.

[blehbleh]

86. Assault Rifle was illegal

The shooter was a convicted felon.  By law, he is forbidden
from owning ANY firearm, much less an assault rifle.  Passing
more laws against firearms would not have saved the lives of
the slain officers.

Instead of focusing on the fact that the guy had a gun, I
would question the logic of the parole board that let him
free.  

[AVI8TR]

101. AW ILLEGAL

parole board has a bunch of things to account for. especially when the origional conviction was for an assault with a weapon to begin with...

[benEzra]

91. It is not clear that the rifle used in the last two murders was an "assault weapon" at all.

Word on calguns is that the murderer used an SKS for the last 2 murders, which in stock form is a low-capacity, fixed-magazine carbine (although higher capacity magazines are available outside California as long as you are careful to abide by Bill Bennett's arcane 18 USC 922(r) rules). My wife owns one:



It remains to be seen if that's what was used. I'm assuming that the first two murders involved a handgun, but that's not clear yet either.

Not that it matters to the families of the slain officers---or to the judge who let this clown out of prison to make room for nonviolent offenders---but if it turns out to have been a 10-round carbine with a traditional stock, it may at least quiet the opportunistic scaremongering.

BTW, the fourth officer has died. :(

[RamboLiberal]

113. According to this Oakland Tribune Report he used a handgun

for the first 2 shootings.

The first shooting happened in the 7400 block of MacArthur Boulevard about 1:16 p.m. when Dunakin and Hege were shot with a handgun during a traffic stop. What led to the shooting was not known.

A man, who did not want be identified, said he heard gunshots and saw the officers lying on the road.

"I went over to one officer and saw he was bleeding from his helmet pretty bad," he said. "The other officer was lying motionless."

He said the officer lying near a car was shot twice in the face. One bullet was lodged in his jaw and the other in his neck. The man said he performed CPR until other officers arrived.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11967257

[benEzra]

114. That makes sense that it would be a handgun. An SKS would be hard to deploy quickly from a vehicle.

My wife's SKS is 40 inches long with the bayonet folded and 49.5 inches long with it extended. That is not something that's easy to quickly exit a car with and bring to bear, even if it were fitted with a folding stock and were lying on the seat in plain sight.

[gorfle]

92. You thought wrong.

I thought Assault Weapons were supposed to make America a safer and more polite society.

Assault weapons are supposed to enable the citizens to stand up to oppression from without and from within.. Obviously, as this incident shows, they are quite effective.

Government Forces: 1
Criminal: 4

[spin]

109. To me the truly amazing thing is that the bad guy was proficient with a gun...

Most criminals are lousy shots.

[benEzra]

118. Most criminals are, but most criminals who kill police officers are not.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1243754-New-findings-from-FBI-about-cop-attackers-and-their-weapons/

New findings from FBI about cop attackers and their weapons

New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, 5-year study by the FBI.

Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:

--show signs of being armed that officers miss;

--have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;

--practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;

...

Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing “most of the time.” Gang members especially started young.

Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% “regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year,” the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and “street corners in known drug-trafficking areas.”

One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers “go to the range two, three times a week practice arms so they can hit anything.”

In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this “may have helped increase marksmanship skills,” the study says.

The offender quoted above about his practice motivation, for example, fired 12 rounds at an officer, striking him 3 times. The officer fired 7 rounds, all misses.

More than 40% of the offenders had been involved in actual shooting confrontations before they feloniously assaulted an officer. Ten of these “street combat veterans,” all from “inner-city, drug-trafficking environments,” had taken part in 5 or more “criminal firefight experiences” in their lifetime.

More at link, including weapon choice (handguns, with few exceptions), mode of carry (front waistband, no holster), etc.

[spin]

128. Fascinating article, well worth reading. (n/t)

[rq4a]

122. Who let this criminal out of prison?

WTF? He was supposed to be in prison. 4 people are dead because someone let him out.

[slackmaster]

127. Tom Hoffman is the chairman of the Division of Adult Parole Operations

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/index.html

[jmg257]

160. Safer? Depends which side of the barrel you are on. Assault "rifle" OR "weapon" aside.

[Tejas]

170. and the answer is

plea bargains + loose parole practices = the current mess



Sorry there TWiley, maybe you can click your heels 3 times and all of your BS about ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens will ring true (and a flying pig will hit the Empire State Building).

[TWiley]

177. click, click, click. oh, that did not work.

Plea Bargains + Loose Parole Practices + one "assault rifle" + one "un-named firearm" + plenty of ammo = the current mess.

Will the flying pig hit the empire state building now that we got your formula right?

click, click, click. Oh, maybe I am out of ammo ....