Jimmy Carter on gun control - I am ashamed...

[Evan Thomas]

And the Queen is better-looking.

She's probably a better hunter than Mr. Carter, as well; does anyone else remember the time, a few years back, when she got into all sorts of trouble with the animal-rights crowd for dispatching a wounded pheasant?

 

[USAFNoDak]

And the Queen is better-looking.

And smarter.

 

[freakintoguns]

30K people died in 2006 form gunshot wounds???? OMG what about all the other people that died from oh i dunno, heart attacks strokes cancer AIDS drug over doses ETC ETC? 30K is minor in a country with 300M people ( give our takea few). also, how many of those deaths were people shot by polie officers? i hate when people try to skew numbers for to gain favor amongst the sheep. we really need more sheep dogs. i think the media and the government truly fears smart people

 

[stilettosixshooter]

#1 - Thank you for taking me at my word that I am anti-ban.

#2 - Thank you for taking the time to explain things to me calmly and patiently.

I am a total gun novice, saw one of the "scary guns" in person for the first time a week or two ago at the gun shop. Was actually the first time I'd even been in a gun shop. But since joining the gun community (with the assistance and guidance of my family and a few friends who shoot regularly) I have been anxious to discuss the gun-related things I am learning with others. The "assault weapon" issue invariably comes up, and although my instinct is to shy away from any gun ban, my inexperience keeps me from saying much for-or-against. Thus, my question

Maestro:

You seem to have no bias against military style rifles, so the fact that your question quietly assumes there is a performance difference between what some people call an assault weapon, and any other semi-automatic firearm, is an indication of how deeply ingrained the so-called assault weapon myth is in the culture. And it IS a myth.

I did assume there was a performance difference - and am pleasantly surprised to find otherwise. That lends support to my anti-ban instinct.

I think the myth is VERY deeply ingrained - mostly because of image association. Terrorists always hoist the "scary guns" in their pictures, soldiers use them in violent war movies, crazy renegade military forces abroad fire them into the sky off rickety truck beds. Semi-automatic or otherwise, the "look" has negative associations for folks.

Is there a way to increase visibility of a semi-automatic rifle as owned by responsible, trustworthy citizens? How do we educate people who, like me, don't even realize there was a question I wasn't asking about the "assault weapon" category?

USA:

Already we can see some confusion by the person who posted the above quote. I'm not trying to denigrate that poster, but it's important to point out some errors or potential errors in his above statement. He did mention that he wants to be educated, so here goes.

She, she! And yes, I am glad you took the time to educate. Thank you.



Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

I am trying to wrap my head around my own misinformed-ness. I feel duped! 'Cause I have been! Kindof want one for HD now. Might as well put the negative image associate to good use - against the BGs!

 

[buzz_knox]

Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

There are many pistol caliber carbines, just as there are more than a few rifle caliber pistols. The increased barrel length typically found on the carbines provides some increased velocity but not as much as you'd expect because the powder has ceased burning (having been designed to be consumed within a pistol barrel's length). You do get increased accuracy over a pistol, ease of shooting, and cheap cross training.

 

[Tom Servo]

30K people died in 2006 form gunshot wounds???? OMG what about all the other people that died from oh i dunno, heart attacks strokes cancer AIDS drug over doses

More people die of bedsores in this country every year than from firearms. In fact, more people die from unnecessary medical procedures.

The WISQARS database can be very useful for this stuff. The VPC has been caught trying to massage statistics for awhile, and this was a way I once tripped them up.

Bear in mind, that ~30,000 figure includes all causes. That means homicide, suicide, and "accidents," a catch-all which often includes suicide. Actual gun violence hovers ~11,000.

It's not a pretty number, but I can produce statistics against which gun violence pales in comparison. A high-school age child is 9 times as likely to die playing football than from a bullet.

Oh, and one other thing I almost forgot about. Carter signed the law that legalized home brewing of beer.

Billy Beer! I still have a six-pack in the garage somewhere.

He's a good human being and a great humanitarian. I'm not happy with his views, but as I said earlier, they hold no weight.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is a problem in using other causes of death in arguments. Now, students - here's the point. The intent in the causality of the death affects people more than the actual numbers.

More people die in accidents or from bedsores or doctors, etc. Your emotional mind may not care. Why - they view the firearm as an instrument designed to do harm (yes, it's just a tool - sings the choir unconvincingly to the nongun world). Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.

EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.

So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.

Simply saying they are not that dangerous, doctors kill more or it's the 2nd Amend. may not carry the debate.

 

[carguychris]

Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.

EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.

So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.

+1. IMHO the arguments in support of legal EBR ownership should emphasize the fact that thay have plenty of use in legitimate shooting sports, that they're useful for legal self-defense, that they lack full-auto capability like the guns you see on TV in the hands of BGs and terrorists, and that plenty of law-abiding citizens own them and never use them to commit any kind of crime.

It should also be emphasized that most criminals don't use EBRs, criminalizing them would merely prop up the black market and support the mafia, and that the Mexican drug cartels have plenty of sources of illegal weapons other than U.S. straw buyers who are already breaking multiple U.S. federal laws to supply them.

Most people lack the attention span to listen to us explain the difference between an "intermediate-power" and "full-power" cartridge, and may not care anyway. Most U.S. citizens do not have a strong and tangible fear of federal government tyranny, and trying to convince them otherwise will just cause them to tune us out, or worse yet, to write off all gun-rights supporters as potentially violent revolutionary nutcases.

To get back to the original topic, I deeply admire Jimmy Carter for his outspokenness and his human-rights work, but he's wrong on this one.

I also think that the gun-rights lobby needs to think of ways to generate positive PR on the EBR issue.

All IMHO of course.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns?

Generally, no. Some 'long guns' shoot pistol ammo like 9mm and 45, and are often referred to as carbines. Although a carbine may also be somewhat diminutive rifle that, in fact uses rifle ammo.

Few pistols shoot rifle ammo, but there are exceptions, AR pistols, for example. Pistols that use rifle ammo have limited usefulness in my opinion.

Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

Not so much with pistols that use pistol ammo, There is a difference, but since pistols all have relatively short barrels, it is not much.

With pistols that use rifle ammo, there is a significant loss in velocity that the round depends upon for its effectiveness, also a loss in sight radius (the distance between the front and rear sight that helps to place accurate fire), and the inability to 'shoulder' the gun (no buttstock), which is the integral part of rifle technique that enables accurate fire at distance.

Pistol ammo is usually short and fat, and is most useful for up close use, say, under 50 feet. Actual defensive situations are usually much closer than that, often just a few feet away.

Rifle ammo is also useful up close, but, depending on the caliber, may pose a safety hazard if used in, say, an apartment complex, where any stray rounds could penetrate walls and endanger innocents.

5.56 nato, aka .223 Remington (the AR15/M16 round) may be the most powerful rifle round that would be prudent in such confined living quarters, because it's a light round whose effectiveness is greatly diminished by walls, etc. Choosing an even lighter, hollow point round for home defense in this caliber can reduce overpenetration issues even further. (hollow points tend to stop in their targets better rather than punch right through, also true for handgun ammo)

Is there a way to increase visibility of a semi-automatic rifle as owned by responsible, trustworthy citizens? How do we educate people who, like me, don't even realize there was a question I wasn't asking about the "assault weapon" category?

If you can figure that one out, the NRA will host a parade for you. It is difficult, if not impossible at times, to get any fair play from the mainstream media outlets. There are a few exceptions, CNN's Lou Dobbs being one of them.

Hope this helps, Stilletto.

 

[carguychris]

Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

Yes and no. It depends on several variables. This is a slight sidetrack, but I'll try to keep this brief.

As powder burns, it creates a column of expanding hot gas that pushes the bullet down the barrel. Think of it as an expanding cylinder; as the bullet moves down the barrel, the cylinder gets taller.

When the powder is completely burned, the pressure of the column of hot gas drops off sharply. From that point, the bullet is slowed down by friction between the surface of the bullet and the inside of the barrel. Therefore, there is an optimal barrel length for each cartridge, one that gives the gas enough room to expand, but no extra room to cause the bullet velocity to decline due to friction. This optimal length is determined by the type of powder, the shape of the bullet, and the capacity and shape of the cartridge case.

Pistol cartridges typically have small cases filled with fast-burning powder pushing a relatively large-diameter bullet. The diameter is important because greater diameter equals more surface area rubbing against the barrel, and therefore more friction. The small case and fast-burning powder will accelerate the bullet quickly, but the gas will be expended quickly, and velocity will drop off if the barrel is too long.

Conversely, most modern rifles use a large case filled with slow-burning powder and a relatively small-diameter bullet. This type of cartridge needs a longer barrel to give the gas enough room to expand, but yields a much higher ultimate velocity. If the barrel is too short, the excess hot gas will wastefully blow out the end of the barrel, creating lots of muzzle flash and contributing little to the velocity of the bullet. (Ask anyone who has ever fired a lightweight short-barreled carbine in a high-powered rifle caliber. Think "fireball". )

Most pistol-caliber carbines will fire bullets at somewhat higher velocities than the same load in a handgun, but the difference can be small, and such carbines are usually offered only in relatively high-powered, high-velocity pistol calibers (like .44 Magnum) with relatively short barrels by rifle standards (16"-18"). This minimizes the theoretical performance disadvantages.

OK, back on topic now.

 

[maestro pistolero]

This is a slight sidetrack

I just realized that myself. Hey Stilleto, if you still have questions, may I suggest starting another thread in the general discussion area. I will be happy to try to answer there.

Cheers

 

[USAFNoDak]

She, she! And yes, I am glad you took the time to educate. Thank you.

Oops, my mistake. I should have paid more attention to your moniker. The hints of gender are flowing from it like bullets from an AR-15 (just to keep it gun related).

I hope my post helped. Because "assault weapons" is a political term, made up to fool people who are not well versed in firearms and firearms technology, it can become very confusing as to what an assault weapon is. Is it a handgun? It could be. Is it a rifle? Possibly. It all depends upon the cosmetic features which it has.

As a previous poster mentioned, most handguns use bullets and cases designed for handguns, such as 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 magnum, .38 special, .45 ACP (auto colt pistol, which is really semiautomatic). Most rifles use bullets and cases which were designed for rifles, such as .223, 30-30, 30-06, .270, .308, etc. There are exceptions however. You can get some rifles chambered for handgun cartridges and vice versa, again, as a previous poster pointed out.

When it comes to "assault weapons", don't focus on the caliber, until you get a little further down the line on your education.

The main things to remember are, they must be semiautomics, not machine guns. Machine guns are formally called "assault rifles", not "assault weapons". They must have detachable magazine. And they cannot have more than two other cosmetic features. A folding stock, a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud would be some examples of cosmetic features. They are called cosmetic features because they don't change the performance of the gun.

Here's a good example. A Colt AR-15 was labeled an assault weapon under the now expired ban. It shot the .223 round, is a semiautomatic, has a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug and can have a folding stock or collapsable stock but not necessarily. It can also have a fixed stock. But, it looks "evil" to anti gunners. It looks just like the M-16, which is a full auto capable firearm. The M-16 is an "assault rifle".

The Ruger Mini-14, is also a semiautomatic rifle which has a detachable magazine and uses the .223 round. So, it should be an "assault weapon", shouldn't it? Its functionally the same as the AR-15, but it "looks" different. It has a traditional looking stock, not the pistol grip and barrel shroud stock style of the AR-15. It doesn't have a bayonet lug. It doesn't have flash suppressor.

When the assault weapons ban was put in place, companies who made AR-15's removed some cosmetic features such as the flash suppressor and bayonet mount, and they were then legal to sell. Even though these companies followed the law to a "tee", they were then accused of exploiting a "loophole" in the law which allowed them to continue to sell "assault weapons".

Are you getting the idea how crazy this ban was? Are you getting the gist of the situtation that this is about banning more guns, not about making anyone safer or reducing crime? It's politics, pure and simple.

I hope this too helps to get you educated so that you can start to dismiss some of the people who push for an assault weapons ban. The very first thing to do is play "dumb" and ask them, "what, specifically, defines an assault weapon?". Watch them go into contortions trying to define the term accurately. For some of them it's like pornography. They can't describe it but they know it when they see it.

Some of the folks who came up with the list of which firearms were banned sat down with a book of pictures of various firearms and picked out the ones they thought should be banned because those firearms "looked" too military in nature. Dianne Feinstein was amongst those lugnuts who did that.

Isn't it great when we are passing federal legislation which infringes on law abiding gun owners rights because some Senators selected some EBR's (evil black rifles) from pictures, which looked too dangerous, and banned them for sale. Great! Just friggen great!

I just thought I might also add this. Some of the guns which were banned were banned by their name, such as AR-15. Thus, when Colt removed the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, they called it a HBAR-15 so that it was not banned due to its name alone. This is one of the "loopholes" the gun banners complained about, when it was their own stupidity which banned guns by name alone, rather than certain functions.

 

[carguychris]

I greatly enjoyed USAFNoDak's post, but I'd like to add one more little example of absurdity.

One of the primary items banned was magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Not necessarily the firearms that used them... the magazines themselves. This essentially swept up a bunch of firearms into the ban that most average non-gun-owners wouldn't identify as an "assault weapon"- namely many semi-automatic pistols.

Here's where the absurdity comes in. Manfacturers were required to make magazines that couldn't possibly accept more than 10 rounds, but they didn't have to change the firearm itself. Hence, semi-auto pistol makers started making magazines with a couple of large bumps stamped into the sides to prevent the remaining 1-7 "evil" rounds from being able to fit. (These magazines are actually still made for states that extended the AWB by state law.) However, most of these pistols could still accept higher-capacity magazines made before the ban. Some of these pistols had been sold for decades with higher-capacity magazines, so they were readily available on the street. New high-cap magazines were also available to law enforcement personnel to replace those that they "lost".

So, were the pistols "assault weapons"... or not? This exercise in lawmaking accomplished... what, exactly?

 

[USAFNoDak]

CarguyChris, that's an excellent point and I am embarrassed that I forgot about the goofy 10 round magazine ban which was encapsulated in the now expired AWB94. I've kicked myself in the rear, solidy, one time.

As you have pointed out, this was another confusing piece of the AWB94. I own a Browining Hi Power which is a 9mm and has a 13 round magazine. I have several magazines that I've purchased over the years. After the AWB, you could only buy 10 round magazines, although there were still 13 rounders available. The 13 rounders just went up in price is all. But the pistol itself still fired and worked the same, whether you had 13 rounds or 10 rounds. With 13 rounds my pistol is considered an "assault weapon". With 10 rounds it's not an "assault weapon", it's just an ordinary handgun, I guess.

See how silly this became. Plus, I could just carry three 10 round magazines instead of two 13 round magazines and actually have 4 extra rounds. It doesn't take much time to change a magazine. I can do it in less than 2 seconds and closer to 1 second.

Think about this from a criminal perspective. If I want to go shoot up a school, I probably know at least two things for sure. There will be no one armed at the school, or if there is, it may be only one security guard. I will target him first. Once he's down, I can shoot people like fish in a barrel. Oh sure, they'll call 911. But when the cops show up, they'll take their time setting up a perimeter while trying to figure out just what the heck is going on inside. Are there multiple shooters, bombs, etc.? Meanwhile, I can casually walk around shooting whomever I feel like, and change magazines when I need to. When I have one round of ammo left, I take myself out. So tell me, how does limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds really do anything as far as preventing crime?

Also, keep in mind that the sniper in Washington, D.C. had Bushmaster variant of the AR-15 which can hold magazines of 5, 10, 20, 30, or even 40 rounds. He never fired more than twice, IIRC. So a 10 round limit would have done nothing to change his MO.

It was all a bunch of political horse hockey and it died like it should have. There are folks who want it back, but they know the political winds aren't blowing in the right direction right now. That's because many of the american people are smart enough to learn the facts and can see what a worthless attempt at banning guns the AWB94 really was.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Also, keep in mind that the sniper in Washington, D.C. had Bushmaster variant of the AR-15 . . . He never fired more than twice, IIRC.

Never thought of that, all we heard about was AR15!, AR15! He could have done as much damage with a good musket.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Never thought of that, all we heard about was AR15!, AR15! He could have done as much damage with a good musket.

You are right Maestro. It's all about marketing and spin when it comes to the anti gunners and their friends in the media. I think they wish and pray that criminals would use "assault weapons" so that they can write more exciting stories about it. Using the term "assault weapons" in a crime report sends a tingle up their legs. They think it will help them move the ball down the field in the game of gun bans.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There is a problem in using other causes of death in arguments. Now, students - here's the point.

Thanks Glenn. Good point to make and this one:

Why - they view the firearm as an instrument designed to do harm (yes, it's just a tool - sings the choir unconvincingly to the nongun world).

And that singing is inane. When I here those on our side trying to argue that a gun is no more dangerous than a baseball bat I just sadly shake my head. I really think we lose a lot of credibility in the public forum of ideas when we try those silly comparisons. Firearms are dangerous and they are designed to kill. We should acknowledge that up front and get to the real part of the debate, which is crime. Guns aren't evil but they aren't noble either.

Simply saying they are not that dangerous, doctors kill more or it's the 2nd Amend. may not carry the debate.

But will make us look silly.

BTW, you had said earlier I think that an AR-15 did not have as much efficacy as other hunting rifles and I was wondering what you based that on. Just curious since the military uses them I figured they were pretty good at killing lots of people.

 

[maestro pistolero]

BTW, you had said earlier I think that an AR-15 did not have as much efficacy as other hunting rifles and I was wondering what you based that on. Just curious since the military uses them I figured they were pretty good at killing lots of people.

Of course all guns are potentially lethal. You may be referring to a comment of mine. I was merely pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, the 5.56 rounds fired by an M16/AR15 are not more powerful than many, if not most common hunting cartridges.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

maestro pistolero,

No it was Glenn in post #11

There is really no difference in efficacy between sporting appearance brown guns (like a Mini-14) and an AR. One might argue about mag capacity but Minis can have higher cap mags also.

He is right but I think the next AWB attempt will include the Mini-14 and will be pointed more at capability and not looks. I have heard Carolyn McCarthy say that as well.

Even though I would be opposed to a AWB I think the antis will have a good emotional point with banning them. However, 2009 is not 1994 and the EBR is much more widespread than before so that might make a difference. I hope.

 

[USAFNoDak]

He is right but I think the next AWB attempt will include the Mini-14 and will be pointed more at capability and not looks. I have heard Carolyn McCarthy say that as well.

Then they will have to ban any semiautomatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine. That's all the mini-14 really is. It's a .223 rifle which accepts a detachable magazine. It has no other "cosmetic features" which would make it an assault weapon.

I agree with you that they will try to include the mini-14 to take away the arguement that banning AR-15's while not banning the mini-14 is pointless. But then they start trampling on the rights of the "sporting arms" gun owners. This could help to unify more gun owners.

I also think that they will eventually run up against some opposition at the USSC if they try to ban the mini-14, as it is no different from other semi automatic rifles out there. It has no flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. It's a common "sporting" rifle, at least in my opinion, whatever that's worth.

We will have to fight hard against a new assault weapons ban when they get ready to try and ram it through. They are biding their time for now, but they are also planning. The Mexican Drug cartel issue is just one piece of that plan. They will continue to lump any crime where a semiautomatic firearm is used into a call for a new assault weapons ban. The media will carry their water for them. They hope to eventually have the political winds blowing in the right direction to enable them to strike. I have no doubts as to if, but I don't know just when.