• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Judge overturns California assault weapons ban

casebro said:
Three homicides n Waller Texas? vs Baltimore, 150? Hahahaha
Click to expand...

Which would mean Waller Texas has close to 100 homicides per 100,000 population whereas Baltimore has a little under 25 per 100,000.

With those numbers, the murder rate in Waller is 4 times that in Baltimore (and around 100 times that of the UK).
 
casebro said:
Us gun rights advocates in California call him "Saint Benitez".

The reality is that "assault rifles" are used in an infinitesimal number of deaths. But fraidy-cat Democrats need to feel protected. And previous SCOTUS rulings allow civilians whatever arms are used by individual soldiers. Magazine fed semi-automatic weapons have been allowed for at least 100 years.
Click to expand...

Assault rifle: "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

"Selective" fire in this context means able to fire in single shot mode (you have to pull the trigger for each round that is discharged) and in fully automatic mode (you pull the trigger and the rifle continues to fire until you release the trigger or the magazine is empty).

This is distinct from "assault weapon" which has a much hazier definition and is harder to legislate against. As I understand it, it is hard for most Americans to obtain an assault rifle because it is legally defined as a machine gun and is thus highly regulated.

Assault rifles are used in an infinitesimal number of deaths because very few Americans have them. Well how about that? You limit the availability of a type of weapon and people don't use it to kill people. Maybe you should consider limiting the availability of other types of firearms too.
 
jeremyp said:
This is distinct from "assault weapon" which has a much hazier definition and is harder to legislate against.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that the definition is hazy, as that it is arbitrary. And it's purely a legislative definition, so it's actually very easy to legislate against. It's much harder to explain how the resulting legislation is coherent or rational.

For example, a Ruger Mini-14 is the same caliber and has the same core functional features as an AR-15. Any self-styled commando wishing to assault a bank or a police station or a meth house or their ex-girlfriend's boyfriend's Malibu beach compound would do just as well with either one. Any soldier needing an assault rifle could pick up either one and tick that box.

But the latter is banned as an "assault weapon" in California*. The former is not. Indeed, there are many light hunting rifles and "varmint" rifles, that are functionally identical to the AR-15, that are allowed in California. If the legislators behind this ban had a sincere concern for the threat to public safety posed by these weapons, they would have banned all the variations. Not just the one. If I were a judge, I'd be inclined to overturn the ban on that basis alone.

---
*Unless this new ruling is upheld.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's not so much that the definition is hazy, as that it is arbitrary. And it's purely a legislative definition, so it's actually very easy to legislate against. It's much harder to explain how the resulting legislation is coherent or rational.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
That's a better way of putting it.

For example, a Ruger Mini-14 is the same caliber and has the same core functional features as an AR-15. Any self-styled commando wishing to assault a bank or a police station or a meth house or their ex-girlfriend's boyfriend's Malibu beach compound would do just as well with either one. Any soldier needing an assault rifle could pick up either one and tick that box.
Click to expand...
Minor pedantic note. A soldier might want full auto capability which is not available with the Ruger or civilian AR-15's.
But the latter is banned as an "assault weapon" in California*. The former is not. Indeed, there are many light hunting rifles and "varmint" rifles, that are functionally identical to the AR-15, that are allowed in California. If the legislators behind this ban had a sincere concern for the threat to public safety posed by these weapons, they would have banned all the variations. Not just the one. If I were a judge, I'd be inclined to overturn the ban on that basis alone.

---
*Unless this new ruling is upheld.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, when I'm feeling mischievous, I claim that the reason the AR-15 style rifles are so popular is because it means their owners can pretend they are in 'Nam. I feel that there is a certain amount of this thinking involved in legislation that bans "assault weapons". While it's great for trolling gun aficionados, it's a terrible basis for controlling fire arms.
 
theprestige said:
It's not so much that the definition is hazy, as that it is arbitrary. And it's purely a legislative definition, so it's actually very easy to legislate against. It's much harder to explain how the resulting legislation is coherent or rational.

For example, a Ruger Mini-14 is the same caliber and has the same core functional features as an AR-15. Any self-styled commando wishing to assault a bank or a police station or a meth house or their ex-girlfriend's boyfriend's Malibu beach compound would do just as well with either one. Any soldier needing an assault rifle could pick up either one and tick that box.

But the latter is banned as an "assault weapon" in California*. The former is not. Indeed, there are many light hunting rifles and "varmint" rifles, that are functionally identical to the AR-15, that are allowed in California. If the legislators behind this ban had a sincere concern for the threat to public safety posed by these weapons, they would have banned all the variations. Not just the one. If I were a judge, I'd be inclined to overturn the ban on that basis alone.

---
*Unless this new ruling is upheld.
Click to expand...

But what do bad guys actually use? The AR, or AK. The whole paramilitary vibe is important to these guys, it would seem. A good psycho doesn't feel right with an elegant wood stock. Clunky black plastic is the bad ass look, and they show a clear preference for it.
 
Thermal said:
But what do bad guys actually use? The AR, or AK. The whole paramilitary vibe is important to these guys, it would seem. A good psycho doesn't feel right with an elegant wood stock. Clunky black plastic is the bad ass look, and they show a clear preference for it.
Click to expand...

depends on if they are right-wing or left-wing. Right-wing terrorists would go with the good old USA-made AR, while Left-wing terrorists clearly would prefer the Commie-made AK.
 
theprestige said:
It's not so much that the definition is hazy, as that it is arbitrary. And it's purely a legislative definition, so it's actually very easy to legislate against. It's much harder to explain how the resulting legislation is coherent or rational.

For example, a Ruger Mini-14 is the same caliber and has the same core functional features as an AR-15. Any self-styled commando wishing to assault a bank or a police station or a meth house or their ex-girlfriend's boyfriend's Malibu beach compound would do just as well with either one. Any soldier needing an assault rifle could pick up either one and tick that box.

But the latter is banned as an "assault weapon" in California*. The former is not. Indeed, there are many light hunting rifles and "varmint" rifles, that are functionally identical to the AR-15, that are allowed in California. If the legislators behind this ban had a sincere concern for the threat to public safety posed by these weapons, they would have banned all the variations. Not just the one. If I were a judge, I'd be inclined to overturn the ban on that basis alone.

---
*Unless this new ruling is upheld.
Click to expand...
So that might raise the question "why do you want *that* one, then?". (Not meaning you personally of course. ) When there are available models which are functionally equivalent, what is it about the tactical-black-playing-soldiers-intimidating-badass-fantasy model that particularly appeals?
 
To some extent? Spite. "Liberals hate this gun," they think. "I want it."
 
Thermal said:
But what do bad guys actually use? The AR, or AK. The whole paramilitary vibe is important to these guys, it would seem. A good psycho doesn't feel right with an elegant wood stock. Clunky black plastic is the bad ass look, and they show a clear preference for it.
Click to expand...

AR-15's are actually much cheaper these days than their their non-assault weapon counterparts, largely due to the intrinsic modern (and cheap) design of the weapon and the economies of scale that come with such a widely sold weapon. Foreign import AK-47s likewise were once very cheap, especially those from former Soviet states like Romania, though I believe changes in importation law has largely curtailed this.

Someone looking for a semiautomatic rifle in an intermediate caliber would find that the best types of rifles, like the AR-15, are often the cheapest.

IIRC Ruger mini-14's run like $900+ new, while budget AR-15's can be had for around $600 (before the pandemic buying spree started) and will be superior in pretty much every way. I recall Romanian WASR (AK-47s) could be had, before importation dried up, for like $400 some 10-15 years ago.

It's only in states that have assault weapons bans that featureless rifles like the Mini-14 are even close to cost competitive.
 
Last edited:
A good quality and well set up AR15 is very reliable and accurate.
It is also modular so it can be tailored to an individual user and for different use.

AKs are just a shade behind them but they are a much older design.

A Mini 14 is a good rifle but they aren't as versatile or as reliable. They are scaled down M14s which are basically a magazine fed version of an M1 Garand which is a 1930s design.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I believe changes in importation law has largely curtailed this.
Click to expand...

There are various import rules designed to make foreign made weapons more expensive to protect the domestic market.

There are some very good US built AKs but they are not cheap plus ammunition was always more expensive unless you have a 5.56 conversion (probably the best option anyway)
 
PhantomWolf said:
And yet when comparing the rates of violent crime, the gun-totting US has much higher rates of murder, rape, and robbery than the anti-gun countries such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. How does that work?
Click to expand...

Cultural differences. Obviously.
 
Warp12 said:
The US, overall, seems to have a more violent culture. That is what drives the types of crimes mentioned...not possession of a firearm.
Click to expand...
So somehow Americans are just inherently more violent than people from other countries? Do you have evidence for that? Or is this as it appears, just a gut feeling?

It turns out that people from other countries are plenty violent. It's just that in America, violence is more likely to be lethal.
 
arthwollipot said:
So somehow Americans are just inherently more violent than people from other countries? Do you have evidence for that? Or is this as it appears, just a gut feeling?

It turns out that people from other countries are plenty violent. It's just that in America, violence is more likely to be lethal.
Click to expand...

You are placing the focus of the violent crime on gun possession, not the motivations of the criminal. Nobody is waking up in the morning saying, "You know, I was going to rape today, but darn, no gun. Guess I'll do volunteer work instead".

But I accept your opinion, and will not debate it further.
 
Warp12 said:
You are placing the focus of the violent crime on gun possession, not the motivations of the criminal. Nobody is waking up in the morning saying, "You know, I was going to rape today, but darn, no gun. Guess I'll do volunteer work instead".

But I accept your opinion, and will not debate it further.
Click to expand...
That's fair. You're new, but I've been down this road before. A lot. It's a very bumpy road, and a lot of dust gets kicked up.
 
Warp12 said:
You are placing the focus of the violent crime on gun possession, not the motivations of the criminal. Nobody is waking up in the morning saying, "You know, I was going to rape today, but darn, no gun. Guess I'll do volunteer work instead".

But I accept your opinion, and will not debate it further.
Click to expand...

I think that you missed the point. The poster I was replying to was pretty much saying that without guns society would collapse as crime and criminals ran rampant, and thus Americans needed guns to prevent this from occurring. I was pointing out that in countries with strict gun control and where it is illegal to carry guns for self-defence, we aren't seeing this, and in fact, western countries that are similar to the US but have gun control tend to have lower violent crimes rates.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I think that you missed the point. The poster I was replying to was pretty much saying that without guns society would collapse as crime and criminals ran rampant, and thus Americans needed guns to prevent this from occurring. I was pointing out that in countries with strict gun control and where it is illegal to carry guns for self-defence, we aren't seeing this, and in fact, western countries that are similar to the US but have gun control tend to have lower violent crimes rates.
Click to expand...


Violent crime is not driven by guns, it is driven by a criminal mentality, and culture.

In the UK they are very concerned about knife regulation.

Next stop, rocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom