assault rifles

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your understanding is incorrect. It is on the current components on the rifle. If you take the pistol grip off, a collapsible stock can be put on. Replace the threaded barrel with one that doesn't have threads and you can put a grenade launcher on.

Take a look at the image I posted at 12:38 for more details.

Fair enough.

But for the sake of discussion, adding a flash suppressor or folding stock to a base AR 15 changes more than it's appearance, it change it's function.

There are plenty of things that while legal on their own are illegal when combined.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Fair enough.

But for the sake of discussion, adding a flash suppressor or folding stock to a base AR 15 changes more than it's appearance, it change it's function.

There are plenty of things that while legal on their own are illegal when combined.

-spence

Neither of them change the actual function of the firearm - pull trigger, a single round comes out the barrel, pull trigger again and another single round comes out. To quote one of your own comments "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?"

Neither make a rifle deadlier. Also, having only a flash suppressor or only a folding stock was perfectly legal even under the AWB.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Neither make a rifle deadlier. Also, having only a flash suppressor or only a folding stock was perfectly legal even under the AWB.

Yes, but not both. And I'd certainly argue that they do make the rifle deadlier.

I'd agree that legislation on the basis of degrees is tricky and it may not be the best method. But there is purpose to said modifications beyond just the visual.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, but not both. And I'd certainly argue that they do make the rifle deadlier.

I'd agree that legislation on the basis of degrees is tricky and it may not be the best method. But there is purpose to said modifications beyond just the visual.

-spence

If you'd argue that they make the rifle deadlier, how so exactly?

You're right not both. My point is that if individually they aren't dangerous and scary enough to completely outlaw, what is the *measurable* difference that makes them cumulatively dangerous enough to outlaw when utilized at the same time. Especially when you consider that a grenade launcher is allowed as long as it's not combined with a bayonet lug.

The people that try to regulate these guns, for the most part, have no idea what they're talking about. They create laws based on fear and image as opposed to actual data-backed metrics. Hell, the FBI's own data says that in 2009 handguns are used 18 times as often as rifles. Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I Hell, the FBI's own data says that in 2009 handguns are used 18 times as often as rifles. Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009

Does that mean there are 18 x more handguns that rifles? Or is the ratio higher?

[Raider Ronnie]

Gun Laws

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Gun Laws

Norway is a perfect example where guns are oppressively regulated yet still susceptible to an attack that killed 77 and injured 319.

[piemma]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Gun Laws

A F*&&^ing men
I may be missing something but are you guys saying that we should ban guns so only criminals have them?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Does that mean there are 18 x more handguns that rifles? Or is the ratio higher?

I'm sure the info is probably somewhere on the BATF website but, frankly, I can't be bothered to look because I don't think it's even relevant.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Does that mean there are 18 x more handguns that rifles? Or is the ratio higher?

you cant really conceal a rifle. So if your going to go into a 7-11 and hold up the cashier, a hand gun makes more sense.. trust me.... i have put a lot of thought into this..