Facts On So Called Assault Weapons

[toreskha]

Try telling the antis that.

Have you also seen why they don't want guns to have folding or collapsible stocks? According to them, folding and collapsible stocks make assault weapons more concealable. I don't know about you, but I would have a hard time concealing any AR-15, with or without a collapsible stock. Same with a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500 fitted with one. And let's not forget that being concealable, by itself, has never contributed to a weapon's lethality.

Concealability is a relative thing, and yet it's pointless because most common criminals use handguns. With a long enough coat, anyone who's at least 5 ft tall can "conceal" an M1 for a short period of time, but attacks with rifles or even shotguns are fairly rare. Criminals are usually not firearms experts, and they know it - so they prefer to steal something they can easily figure out. An AR-15 is not that.

There was a situation in Jacksonville recently where a LEO shot an armed suspect at an apartment complex. The guy was a common gang foot soldier and his gun had failed to fire. They showed the gun he used on the news, and I immediately noticed it was a Hi-Point C9. He was clearly an idiot and probably hadn't done the work necessary to make it reliable. Lifetime achievers like that are probably better off using blunt objects or sticks.

And as for your comment that madmen are imprecise, do you remember Cho Seung Hui, the guy who killed 32 people in the shootings at Virginia Tech? He didn't appear all that inaccurate to me. Same with the D.C. area snipers, Lee Boyd Malvo and John Muhammad.

Sarcasm. Bayonets are also practically useless, even though they somehow made it onto the anti agenda.

[tattedupboy]

Concealability is a relative thing, and yet it's pointless because most common criminals use handguns. With a long enough coat, anyone who's at least 5 ft tall can "conceal" an M1 for a short period of time, but attacks with rifles or even shotguns are fairly rare. Criminals are usually not firearms experts, and they know it - so they prefer to steal something they can easily figure out. An AR-15 is not that.

There was a situation in Jacksonville recently where a LEO shot an armed suspect at an apartment complex. The guy was a common gang foot soldier and his gun had failed to fire. They showed the gun he used on the news, and I immediately noticed it was a Hi-Point C9. He was clearly an idiot and probably hadn't done the work necessary to make it reliable. Lifetime achievers like that are probably better off using blunt objects or sticks.


Sarcasm. Bayonets are also practically useless, even though they somehow made it onto the anti agenda.

True, but I'm pretty sure that a folding or collapsible stock doesn't enhance the gun's concealability.

BTW, I own a Hi Point. Even when properly cleaned and maintained, I have put about 500 rounds through it, and have yet to go through an entire 8-round magazine without a malfunction of some kind. They're junk.

[toreskha]

True, but I'm pretty sure that a folding or collapsible stock doesn't enhance the gun's concealability.

It depends on the clothing and the gun. If I hold my Moss 500 by the foregrip and the pistol grip (imagine there were a collapsible stock instead) under my arm, the end of the barrel comes to just above my knee. There's holsters available that will accommodate several positions for carry. That's a lot more concealable than you'd get with a big cumbersome stock sticking out behind it.

Really though, how concealable it is shouldn't be the issue. What's wrong with a concealable shotgun? Nothing. There's no logical reason I shouldn't be able to carry a concealable shotgun, AR-15 or whatever I want, short of an actual HE shell, around with me. If I feel I need a small .50 machine gun for personal defense, then that should be my prerogative.

Rather than fighting the antis by denying irrelevant points that they make, IMO it should be more like...well, what's wrong with having an aggressive-looking rifle? Who put them in charge of saying whether we should be able to conceal a shotgun? What difference should it make if a particular gun is imported rather than made here in the US, so long as it's not a hazardous piece of crap?

BTW, I own a Hi Point. Even when properly cleaned and maintained, I have put about 500 rounds through it, and have yet to go through an entire 8-round magazine without a malfunction of some kind. They're junk.

I have a C9. I got some jams early on, but if you polish the feed ramp and gently set the end of the first round in the magazine slightly pointed upwards, it should feed smoothly. Sometimes the magazine lips also need tweaking a bit.

My main problems with it are that it really doesn't fit my hands well (which can be solved with new grips) and it's tricky to take apart. Most of the weight is also concentrated along the slide, which makes it severely unbalanced and uncomfortable to carry effectively.

It's definitely not my preferred firearm, and it's no monument to quality workmanship, but it would make a good "better than nothing" gun for someone. Since I have other options, though, it's mostly just gathering dust. I'm eventually going to send it back to fix the sights (which I managed to break) before selling it.

[tattedupboy]

It depends on the clothing and the gun. If I hold my Moss 500 by the foregrip and the pistol grip (imagine there were a collapsible stock instead) under my arm, the end of the barrel comes to just above my knee. There's holsters available that will accommodate several positions for carry. That's a lot more concealable than you'd get with a big cumbersome stock sticking out behind it.

Really though, how concealable it is shouldn't be the issue. What's wrong with a concealable shotgun? Nothing. There's no logical reason I shouldn't be able to carry a concealable shotgun, AR-15 or whatever I want, short of an actual HE shell, around with me. If I feel I need a small .50 machine gun for personal defense, then that should be my prerogative.

Rather than fighting the antis by denying irrelevant points that they make, IMO it should be more like...well, what's wrong with having an aggressive-looking rifle? Who put them in charge of saying whether we should be able to conceal a shotgun? What difference should it make if a particular gun is imported rather than made here in the US, so long as it's not a hazardous piece of crap?


I have a C9. I got some jams early on, but if you polish the feed ramp and gently set the end of the first round in the magazine slightly pointed upwards, it should feed smoothly. Sometimes the magazine lips also need tweaking a bit.

My main problems with it are that it really doesn't fit my hands well (which can be solved with new grips) and it's tricky to take apart. Most of the weight is also concentrated along the slide, which makes it severely unbalanced and uncomfortable to carry effectively.

It's definitely not my preferred firearm, and it's no monument to quality workmanship, but it would make a good "better than nothing" gun for someone. Since I have other options, though, it's mostly just gathering dust. I'm eventually going to send it back to fix the sights (which I managed to break) before selling it.

The point I was making about folding and collapsible stocks is that they don't make the guns easily concealable like the antis would have you believe. And, as I said before, even if the feature did make the guns easily concealable, how does enhanced concealability make them more lethal? It doesn't.

[toreskha]

The point I was making about folding and collapsible stocks is that they don't make the guns easily concealable like the antis would have you believe.

Well, sure - the antis seem to be pushing the message that folding stocks turn these into pistols, and of course that's impossible. If it did, that would be awfully cool. I'd get one tomorrow if it turned my Moss into a pistol.

And, as I said before, even if the feature did make the guns easily concealable, how does enhanced concealability make them more lethal? It doesn't.

I have no idea why it would. In a purely theoretical sense, (and an anti might say this) it might allow a crazed mass shooter to more easily bring the weapon into an area full of crowded people. However, that doesn't mesh with reality, because unless it's a belt-fed machine gun, the number of people who would see a perp early on carrying a full-size long gun (who could be shot) would be about the same number of people who could realistically be killed in a crowded area. In any case, the people on the way would probably be ineffective at stopping that person, unless they had their own concealed weapons. Conversely, the percentage of people in the crowded area who had concealed weapons would probably be very similar.

That all sounds like gobbledygook, but a real-life example was Columbine. Lots of people saw the two shooters carrying huge bags full of guns and ammo in. No one really did anything to stop them; although they looked suspicious, they weren't waving guns around either. Some people did report them to the police, who of course did not get there in time to do anything. Even if their weapons had all folded down to the size of large toothbrushes, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.

Some of their weapons were sawed-off or compact, but they also had a Hi-Point carbine, and even if they had all been full-size, it wouldn't have at all reduced the death toll. Not to mention that, as Wikipedia points out...

The two perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.

For some reason, all of those laws that we try so hard to scrupulously follow were completely lost on the mental cases who they were actually intended for, and in that sense, were utterly ineffective.

[gogriz91]

Kind of makes you wonder what the landscape would be like if the existing laws were enforced instead of trying to pass new ones?