Assault rifles flow freely from Nevada to California

High-powered assault rifles aren't that hard to find - even for a convicted felon like Lovelle Mixon.

The kind of AK-47 that Mixon used to kill Oakland police officers Saturday can be had on the street for as little as $400.

Often they come from Nevada, where selling assault rifles is perfectly legal, unlike in California. Then they are brought to the Bay Area and resold.

If the buyer has a criminal past, "they have a friend - usually a girlfriend with no record - buy three or four," said one San Francisco narcotics cop who didn't want his name used because the department has not cleared him to speak publicly.

-----

Sometimes the crooks don't even bother with a middleman. Federal agents have a video from 2005 of a suspected West Sacramento gangbanger walking out of a Reno gun show with a newly purchased AK-47 strapped across his chest.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BAEO16M3TM.DTL&tsp=1

It does prove that gun control doesn't work, but that's beside the point. AK's are not $400 anymore, not since the recent panic set in. Ak's are not highly sought for their accuracy either - theyre typically not very accurate when compared to almost any other kind of rifle. And it is not a 'simple thing' to convert a legal, semi-automatic AK-47 into a fully automatic machine gun. Besides, doing so is against the law. How is another law going to stand in the way of it being done, if the current law isn't deterrent enough?

As for the old 'iron river' of guns flowing to Mexico, eliminating the drug war would be the best solution to that problem. But that would put the drug cartels out of business, and eliminate the drug war industry - our Congress would never let either of these things happen.

Most AKs throughout the world come already equiped with a selector switch and they are readily available, also it is no big deal if for some reason you are unable to come up with a selector switch to just file the sear, however doing that forever takes away the ability to fire semi-auto again. However all that being said there is not a lot of difference in fire power between a fully auto AK and a semi-auto AK. A person quick on the trigger can easily put out a burst of thirty rounds in less than five seconds. On fully auto this might get done in three seconds.

The full auto AK has a completely different sear.

I see this all the time about a "10 dollar kit" that can be gotten at gun shows and gun stores that in five minutes time can modify an AK into a hot lead spitting auto machine gun. I have been a collector (aka gun nut) for years and have owned 4 AK variants (2 from China, 1 from Yugoslavia, and 1 that I have no idea where it comes from). I have never seen one of these kits (and I even tried a few years ago). I know a little about guns and have smithed several m 1911's by doing trigger jobs, fluff and buffs, and complete breakdowns repairs and reassembles.

Not trying to start a fight, but until someone shows me one of these "mod kits" I will continue to write off the idea as ignorance of firearms. If you know about these kits, please enlighten me (seriously PM some links, directions, etc)

I have added them to the M-1 Carbine many times. I had a whole box of switches for the M-1 Carbine I got at an Army Surplus store in San Diego in 1970. It was a very simple chore. I have fired AKs and M-16 more times than I can count and I don't believe it to be much more difficult. Maybe the M-16 because of the location of the switch but on the AK , and I owned a Chicom version for many years (with the selector switch), I don't think it would be any big deal. However like you have said I have never seen one of those kits either. I am only talking about the mechanics of it.

The BATF has been specifically disallowing that for years now on new firearms

And I own an M1 Carbine.

You are misinformed. The differences between the semiautomatic and selective-fire versions of both weapons are far greater than those for the M1 Carbine vs. M2.

It takes a lot more than a selector switch. You need the correct trigger assembly and a special sear that enables full-auto fire, at least for AKs. Basically, you need a gunsmith - and gunsmiths in America know better.

The BATF disallowed any such easy conversions many years ago and forced manufacturers to change designs.

Ma Brady?

You're not going to hit anything, unless if you're very lucky.

Also, just because somebody can pump out bullets fast doesn't mean they're a good shot.

As for being simple to convert from single to automatic, I think criminals would rather just buy foreign-made AK's on the street. It costs too much money to convert a gun, and let's face it - criminals are as dumb as rocks anyways.

It is because of the amount of firepower they produce. What I said is, there really is not a hill of beans difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic when it comes to burning through a thirty round clip. A couple of seconds tops. Now if we were talking about a belt fed weapon there is a huge difference.

why is that this function is regulated, properly, since 1934?

Fix the problem, stop blowing smoke.

Safe-Semi-Burst

Not fully automatic.

The M4 is safe-semi-burst, the M4A1 is safe-semi-full.

Ak variants fire from a closed bolt. There is no drop in auto sear. Any attempt to make them auto is a 10 year felony.

Aimed shots matter. Not pray and spray.

The whole argument over massive firepower weapons is just that. When you can empty a thirty round magazine in five seconds do you think those on the receiving end care about how accurate you are. The difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic is about two seconds with a thirty round clip. It sort of scares the crap out of the police and probably anyone else on the receiving end. It keeps their heads down while you adjust, either get the heck out of there or coordinate you fire better. Firepower is the essential factor here and semi-auto weapons put it out.

Firepower is rounds on target, not rate of fire. People who lock on the trigger are often peeing their pants in fear. One of the reasons the Army went to the 3 round burst mode was to stop spray and pray.

and can say, without any shadow of a doubt, that you are absolutely full of shit.

"...do you think those on the receiving end care about how accurate you are."

That's why they choose to employ IEDs that they can detonate remotely instead of engage us in maneuver warfare. They *don't* care how accurate we are. :eyes:

Why do you think that the US military went away from fully automatic individual weapons? Because soldiers were ripping through their basic loads in a matter of minutes while not actually hitting anything. For the past bazillion years, the US military has been teaching individual marksmanship where a soldier utilizes the fundamentals of marksmanship to fire one bullet to hit one target.

Now, other weapons in small units are employed in a suppressive role; machine guns (M-240B, M-249, M-203) but even those weapons are extraordinarily accurate and are employed with short controlled bursts instead of long spray-and-pray fire.

What the military does and what criminals do are two completely different things. A trained soldier has to worry about how much ammo he can carry and being effective in what are usually sustained cover and concealment engagements. Rarely do criminals have to worry about such things and rarely are they trained as a soldier would be. Lovelle Mixon proved that "spray and pray" can be quite effective.

There was some aiming going on, I think, unless the bastard was preternaturally lucky.

Most criminals don't aim, but according to the FBI, most criminals who murder police officers do. From another discussion recently:

where it it labeled the ratio of rounds fired per combat kill for every major American war, and the numbers for rounds fired per kill were rising exponentially...I seem to remember that our current foray into the Middle East is like 4,000 rounds fired per kill? Does that sound about right??

You need more than a mere "selector switch," as I pointed out in the other thread.

A civilian AK has a switch, the manual safety (with "Safe" and "Fire" positions). What it does not have is the military bolt carrier, the military disconnector, the rate reducer, the auto sear (IIRC), or the cutouts in the receiver and bolt carrier rails necessary to mount them. Just like a post-1986 civilian AR-15 will physically not take full-auto fire control parts (unless they are custom fabricated by a skilled machinist), because it is designed not to.

The Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, amending the National Firearms Act of 1934, requires that U.S.-legal NFA Title 1 civilian guns be difficult to convert to full auto.


0.16 second splits thirty times in a row? No, not with an AK.

I shoot an 7.62x39mm AK competitively. Three shots in a row with sub-0.2s splits with a 7.62mm AK and you'll be off the target. A restricted full auto AK mechanically delivers 0.10-second splits and does so without requiring the user to frenetically jerk the trigger, allowing aimed bursts, smooth sweeps, and close round spacing that are simply not possible with a non-automatic civilian AK.

:patriot:

You don't know what you're talking about.

The NRA and other perpetrators are traitors to this country and to the world.

It's time to stop listening to their nonsense and enact sensible gun laws, AND ENFORCE THEM.

And what's not sensible about the gun laws we've already got? According to the article, this alleged 'flow of guns from Nevada to California' involves a number of existing Federal laws being broken (strawman purchases, illegal interstate transfers, possession of a firearm by prohibited persons). Let's enforce those laws first, before worrying about adding on more.

They aren't enthusiasts, proponents, hobbyists etc. If they are illegally selling/buying/transporting guns for other criminals, no "gun nut" is going to be against enforcing the existing laws they're breaking.

I think there are more than enough federal firearms laws to cover the complaints in the OP.

But I also think that while CA gun laws are ridiculous, that they have to be overturned rather than broken.

'Gun control in California doesn't work because you can buy guns in Nevada'. 'Gun control in Great Britain doesn't work because you can buy guns in Ireland'. 'Gun control in Mexico doesn't work because you can buy guns in the USA'.

There will ALWAYS be guns SOMEWHERE, so therefore gun control will never work.

A gun ban will do 2 things: 1) Ensure (R) domination for another generation, and 2) Ensure that the only people with guns are bad guys, since law abiding citizens won't want to break the law.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Oh and there's that Bill Of Rights thing, too.

...the state that goes against the grain or the other states that don't follow suit?


If California put in, say, a $20-per-gallon tax on 100-octane racing fuel and people began buying racing fuel in other states and shipping it in, who's the idiot, the California Assembly that put in the tax or the other states that didn't raise their taxes?



I used 100-octane racing fuel because that is to regular gasoline what "assault weapons" are to guns... a small minority.

Only here, they're not, taking the whole reason to have one away

The AK-47 was designed as a selective fire light rifle. It is easy and cheap to produce and maintain and has been copied all over the world. It has not been the primary weapon of the USSR/Russia in years.

What is found in this country is semi-automatic only rifles that look like the AK-47. They share magazine and ammunition and some parts. Imports into this country CANNOT be readily converted to fully automatic.

Another thing to consider is that not all selective fire weapons are machine guns. True machine guns fire from an open bolt for started.

make it legal to purchase them again and instead of worrying about what happens in another state they can keep track of what happens in their own state.

How about nationally outlawing the atrocious things, again?

by buying into the fear mongering about assault weapons and how ohhhhh so deadly they are. If I'm not mistaken, most deadly gun crimes are committed with handguns and not semi automatic rifles that look scary.

Are you under the false impression that the AWB banned AK clones?

You're wrong on both counts.

has no bearing on lethality; illegal because it is hard to imagine that the most popular centerfire rifles in the USA would not pass the "in common use for lawful purposes" test that the Supreme Court set down in U.S. v. Heller. "Assault weapons" dominate competitive and recreational target shooting in this country, are the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes, and more Americans own them than hunt.

But of course the original Feinstein non-ban didn't ban any guns; it just required that AR-15 type rifles manufactured after 9/94 had to have nonadjustable stocks and bare muzzles or integral brakes, and that civilian AK lookalikes manufactured after 9/94 had to have bare muzzles or pin-on brakes and a smooth-bottomed gas block.

Was that worth losing Congress for 12 years over? And what do you think the backlash over an actual ban (as opposed to petty harassment and finger-wagging a la 1994) would be?

Because what you're conveniently leaving out (as those on your side of the argument usually do), that the AWB included a ban on high capacity magazines. Furthermore it's pretty obvious that the AWB should have been modified (as many laws are) when manufacturers changed the weapons to take advantage of loopholes in the ban. Calling the AWB a failure because Republicans made it that way might go over well with the Rambo wannabe crowd, but not so much with people who can actually breathe with their mouths closed. It's kinda like saying the CAFE standards on automobiles were a failure because auto manufacturers simply started making SUVs. It wasn't a failure of the original law, it was a failure of congress and the president to close the loopholes.

As far as "losing Congress for 12 years", that's just as much bullshit. Americans support stricter gun control laws by overwhelming majorities. So you can save your well debunked "losing Congress" argument for someone who is actually stupid enough to believe it. And even if it were true, I would rather lose "Congress for 12 years", than kowtow to the wingnuts. If I have to bow to them in order to "win" then just exactly what have I won?

It's nonsensical to think that restrictions on stock shape and muzzle style would have ANY effect on the tiny percentage of U.S. murders that are committed with rifles, or the Oakland shootings. A 12-gauge pump shotgun or a Ruger Mini Thirty would have resulted in the same tragic outcome.

The problem here wasn't that law-abiding adults in all 50 states may purchase and lawfully own SKS's after passing a Federal background check; the SKS is the most common centerfire rifle in U.S. homes, after all. The problem was that a convicted carjacker, who had already committed aggravated assault with a firearm, was implicated by DNA in the rape of a 12-year-old girl, and who appears to have already murdered before was let out of prison REPEATEDLY to make room for nonviolent drug and tax offenders. If you don't see a problem with the U.S. approach to cannabis use and other nonviolent offenses, which rates them as more serious than actually attacking other people with guns, then I don't know what to say.


The AWB was a failure because it targeted some of the least misused guns with silly regulations based on cosmetic or ergonomic distinctions that had no bearing on lethality.

And FYI, the Feinstein law did not the magazine capacities of rifles using non-proprietary magazines, because it allowed free importation of all extant mags. As a result, AK, AR, and FAL magazines were more available 1994-2004 than now, at considerably lower prices than now. 30-round AK magazines were $9.99/ea during the late Feinstein era, and 20-round Hungarian magazines were $5.99/ea, with unlimited supplies, because importation of extant magazines was not restricted in any way. Prices are double or triple that now, and they are harder to find. The Feinstein law did drive of the price of replacement magazines for handguns (most are proprietary), but they were no less available, just more expensive.

The ONLY effects of the Feinstein law on civilian AK's were those shown below (my 2002 model SAR-1 shown):



And yes, that's a ban-era magazine (purchased in 2003).


Don't take my word for it. From President Clinton's autobiography My Lifej, on the 1994 debacle:

But I'm not surprised really. I never expected you to because you can't reconcile the answer with your twisted beliefs.

So I'll ask it again and you can avoid it again, and I will again point out how you are avoiding the question.

"Do you think it was nonsensical for Sgt Ervin Romans and Sgt Daniel Sakai?"

The entire point of the AWB was to reduce the firepower available to criminals, which at the time was very cheap and widely available and the problem was growing at an exponential rate. Lovelle Mixon proved such firepower can be extremely effective. Rather than address the real issues, you'd rather make this entire discussion about some "appearance" nonsense when that was never the intent of the original bill. It's a common tactic used by those who are completely bankrupt on any substantive arguments.



And that loophole was allowed by Republicans who also killed repeated attempts to close it. So now you want to blame the intent of the bill that the Repugs have sandbagged from day one and insured it would never be fully effective. So whose fault do you think that is? Or do you even dare ask yourself those types of questions that run counter to your gunnut mentality?



The key words here are "closely divided districts". The south had been turning red for decades and there was a catalog of issues that caused the tide to turn in 1994 and trying to pin those loses on any one issue alone is complete bullshit. The NRA might have had a powerful lobby, but they sure as hell didn't have the majority on their side.



Strawman bullshit.

"The entire point of the AWB was to reduce the firepower available to criminals, which at the time was very cheap and widely available and the problem was growing at an exponential rate"

For the 10 years it was law, did it significantly reduce the firepower available?

First answer mine, and then we'll move on to yours which I'll be glad to do.

Fair enough?

But that wasn't an answer to the question either.

now really - I looked it up! (it wasn't very)

Figure you might know as you appeared learned on the subject, sorry again - my mistake.

:shrug:

It is not nonsense that officers, or anyone else is murdered. Very serious and tragic.

What does makes little sense, though some people may wish otherwise, is that the AWB would have protected them. I have lived/worked in NY the entire time of the ban, and still do, and as a lawful civilian have had no real problem acquiring and disposing of numerous so-called "assault weapons" or their functional equivalents, and/or plenty of the regular large and restricted capacity mags to go with them. As a cop during some of that time, I/we certainly did not bet my life on the mis-guided hopes or wishes of others that ANY other person, and ESPECIALLY CRIMINALS, wouldn't have been able to do the same, or more. THAT would not make sense.

Without knowing more specifics, while it might make a little sense for some less-informed people to THINK the AWB could be effective, it wasn't, so it makes NO sense to me that highly trained officers would discount the possibility of a fleeing felon who just shot 2 cops being substantially armed. None. Such thinking is nonsense. Such thinking gets good people killed. Unfortunate. It has happened before, it happened recently, it will happen again. No ban will prevent it.

The tragic deaths of these four officers was NOT nonsensical.

What is nonsensical is thinking that a law that at best would have resulted in the substitution of a more traditional looking but equally lethal firearm in these murders would have prevented the murders.

The number of over-10-round magazines in private hands in the USA is likely close to a quarter-billion. They are not going away; even in California, the compliance rate with the overly restrictive Roberti-Roos law is estimated at around ten percent.

And what about the repub California administration who let a violent gun criminal out of prison---a predator who had carjacked, raped, and apparently murdered before---in order to make room for people growing unapproved plants in their basements? They get a free pass, because it's more satisfying to bash pro-gun Dems and indies?


Then what was the "intent of the original bill" with regard to the limitations on protruding handgrips and adjustable stocks? Or the Roberti-Roos obsession with thumbhole target stocks, or bayonet lugs, or flash suppressors?

The "assault weapon" fraud had little to do with "reducing the firepower available to criminals," because protruding handgrips, adjustable or folding stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs have nothing to do with "firepower" and everything to do with ergonomics and aesthetics.



Same firepower, dramatically different legal treatment under Roberti-Roos and the Feinstein law.


Ummm-hmmm. How was it growing at an exponential rate, if the murder rate with rifles stayed minuscule and flat for the next decade and a half even though the guns and magazines in question were NOT actually banned in 1994, and became both cheaper and MORE widely available after 1994 than before?

You do realize that last year, fewer officers were shot in the line of duty than at any time since 1961, the year the AR-15 first hit the civilian market? That the murder rate of officers using rifles is (thankfully) low, and steady, and that the vast majority of cop-killers use handguns? That rifle homicide continued to decrease after 2004?



The only thing "increasing exponentially" was MSM fearmongering about small- and intermediate-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling, and the resulting popularity of said rifles with law-abiding shooters (to the extent that they are now the most popular civilian rifles in America).


Ummm-hmmm. You realize that the bastard proved just as "effective" with an ordinary pistol, yes? And that the tactics he used in the apartment would have been just as effective with a straight-wooden-stocked shotgun shooting buckshot? If media reports are correct, he shot both officers in the head, from prone.


And the repubs at the Brady Campaign helped write the "assault weapon" fraud, and Congressional repubs goaded Dems into passing it and taking the fall for it. Newt Gingrich could have easily killed the bill in conference committee and didn't, probably because he counted on the backlash helping him into the Speaker's chair.


And most nonurban districts in the USA are...?

BTW, after the AWB bullshit expired, those "closely divided districts" turned the House and Senate blue in 2006, and helped elect our nation's first African-American president this year. A whole lot of Dems made it loud and clear that the AWB was NOT going to be a priority of this administration (from Congressional Dems to Ray Schoenke of the AHSA), and it helped take the gun issue off the table.


"The NRA" is 4 million people out of ~20+ million "assault weapon" owners, 40+ million handgun owners, and 80+ million total gun owners. Look beyond the NRA; failure to do so was a major mistake of the DLC in the 1990's and early 2000's.

BTW, "the south" is not more pro-gun-rights than the Southwest, Northwest, or Midwest? Here in NC, we have some of the harshest gun laws in the nation outside of California and the Northeast. Most people here in NC still have to get written permission from their usually-white sheriff in order to buy a handgun, a legacy of the Jim Crow era.

since more Americans lawfully and responsibly own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt.

Nationwide, only 3% of murders involve ANY type of rifle. You've been spun a little, I think.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

You might also compare the Texas "rifles" column to the handgun, shotgun, knives, and fists/feet columns. Don't take my word for it; download the table yourself and sum the columns. Excel version here.

Only ones with certain features, like having a bayonet lug or "AK-47" stamped on them.

Because the 2% of annual homicides committed with them would just... go away?

...for the NRA, allowing guns to flow freely into California, the NRA's talking point-bots will then turn around and predictably -- right on cue! -- start yowling about how gun control in California "doesn't work."

And the point of their clockwork yammering -- as calculated by those industry lobbyists in the NRA -- is to get more guns flowing in more places. "Move more product!"

Never mind the social consequences.

Something we should not be doing

Is that in the NRA constitution, next to the Gideon's, in the Motel nightstand?

And that has nothing to do with the NRA, but with the NFA.

n/t

Definitions matter. If it was a semi automatic AK look a like, it was not an assault weapon nor a military rifle.

Go yell at the reporters:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/22/BAV116KEU0.DTL

I have seen articles about dual engine Cessna 150s...truth and accuracy is not nearly as important as it once was with reporters

You'd never, ever launch into a pro-gun reactionary stance to an unfavorable news item about guns...

http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/ci_11978822

And no, most reporters don't seem to know an SKS or civilian AK from a military automatic weapon.

The unexpected aspect here was the murderer's tactics (shooting from prone behind effective concealment), and the fact that the officers' concussion grenade actually made it harder for them to pinpoint where the murderer's fire was coming from. The above article goes into that a bit. A shotgun would likely have had the same tragic outcome, in this case.

That assumes of course that the media idiots and the anti gun rights dolts here can figure out what that is.

It hasn't been confirmed yet if the weapon was a SKS or an AK-47, or the civilian version of the AK-47, but regardless the SKS can easily be modified to not only look like the AK-47, but to take either customized mags or the same mags as the AK-47 and be just as lethal. So perhaps you just didn't know this (which would make you a very poorly informed gunnut) or you conveniently left that fact out hoping to capitalize on the ignorance of the "anti gun rights dolts".

Many versions were made over the years, dating back to WWII.

While there are replacement stocks for the SKS, I have not seen one with the AK style front sight. Then again, appearance means nothing except to the anti gun pols and their supporters.

Appearance means everything here because someone obviously thought it was an AK-47. Now perhaps it was the police telling reporters that, or perhaps a reporter saw it as they were removing it, or perhaps it is an AK-47, or perhaps it's the civilian version of the AK-47. Which one of these is true you can't possibly know, but you assume you do even though your explanation makes no sense whatsoever. Do you really think a drug dealer is going to buy a rifle with a stripper clip?

Furthermore the AWB was never about appearances. It was about restricting certain types of weapons. The lawmakers would have not known at the time of the bill's authoring that manufacturers would change so quickly. The bill was also watered down by the Republican members of congress that it had even less chance of being effective, and as I said before it was never modified to close loopholes as it should have been. Even with all this the AWB did stop the importation of many weapons and it did drive up the price of the ones that made it through the loopholes.

Then again, reason and facts mean nothing to the gunnuts and their supporters. They would rather parrot out the debunked NRA talking points.

That the repuke view of the world. Progressives and liberals have to make things work. Also facts and rights matter to us.

Pointing out the the AWB was not effective against crime and shootings is not NRA doublespeak, its what the stats show. The various AWBs all had loopholes and were fundamentally flawed since they banned some guns and not others that were functionality identical. There is minimal difference on a practical level between a Mini-14 and the M-4.

Facts, statistics, and the right to effective self defense mean nothing to the Brady Bunches who are locked on their agenda. It will cost the Democratic party dearly should President Obama push for any additional gun control. Pelosi and Reid for now are stopping that. That is a good thing for the party and a good thing for the nation.

As I will continue to point out, and you will continue to pretend to ignore is that any reasons that the AWB were ineffective is because the Republicans inserted poison pills into the bill to insure it always would be.

The "stats" do show the AWB was effective, even given Republican attempts to kill it so long as you're not letting the NRA do the analysis of those stats. Furthermore putting the AWB in the context of what was going on at the time, it was tremendously effective. Prior to the 80's, all cops ever needed to carry was a revolver. Now they are routinely confronted with overwhelming firepower and at the time such firepower was pretty cheap and readily available. So how do you present "stats" on a problem that was growing with no end in sight? The answer is they don't. They measure what the situation was before 1994 and after, which is not a true measure of anything. Now perhaps you think such an arms escalation was a "good thing for the nation", but most people north of a room temperature IQ would disagree.

Even in CA, where the repukes were shut out from the writing of the AWB bills, the bans are/were ineffective and remain so.

I look at the stats provided by the FBI, not the NRA or Brady Bunch. Long guns are used in a small fraction of crimes, semi automatic ones even less.

Your historical analysis is nonsense. The firepower you decry has been readily available for years at low cost. The change is not with the weapons but with the people. That is where the problem needs to be addressed.

According to who? You? The Brady Campaign?

Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and
Gun Violence, 1994-2003

"It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime
• Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly
credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence..."

"There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs (assault weapon rifles), though assessments
are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of
post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models."

"The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But
Predictions are Tenuous
• Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading."

There is this though: "Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial
effects on gunshot victimizations."

IF only the ban did that.



The only thing the AWB was really effective in doing was 1)limit assault pistols and their associated crimes, and 2)make assault weapons (inlcuding hi-cap mags) the most wanted & most popular rifles in the US all in less then 10 years.

Got substance?

Show me where those rifle murders of police officers were "spiraling out of control" and "increasing exponentially" prior to 1994.

Given that the 1994 AWB:

(1) didn't ban any guns, including civilian AK's and AR-15's,
(2) didn't affect AR or AK magazine capacities whatsoever, and
(3) easily TRIPLED civilian sales of civilian AK's and AR-15's 1994-2004 compared to 1961-1993,

then I'm not sure how you think it decreased rifle crime; rifle crime was already very low, and it STAYED there. Most years, rifles (including "assault weapons") rank dead last in the FBI murder statistics, not only behind blunt objects, knives, and shotguns, but even behind SHOES AND BARE HANDS.

I see you're in Texas. From the FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2007, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon:

Texas
Total murders.............................1,419.....100.0%
Handguns....................................727......51.2%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)......203......14.3%
Edged weapons...............................177......12.5%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................93.......6.6%
Shotguns.....................................60.......4.2%
Rifles.......................................58.......4.1%

The national average for all rifles as a percentage of total murders is even lower (3.0%).

Other state breakdowns, 2007:

Alabama, 385 murders, 7 with rifles.
Colorado, 150 murders; 0 with rifles.
Louisiana, 577 murders; 31 with rifles.
Maryland, 553 murders; 9 with rifles.
Michigan, 672 murders; 29 with rifles.
New York, 800 murders, 12 with rifles.
North Carolina (my state), 555 murders, 17 with rifles.
Oregon, 72 murders, 2 with rifles.
South Carolina, 349 murders, 6 with rifles.
Washington, 170 murders, 5 with rifles.

See a pattern here? And the breakdowns were similar in 1980, 1990, and 2000. Rifles are not involved in many U.S. murders and never have been, and the net result of the AWB was to sharply increase civilian AR and AK availability 1994-2004 without increasing rifle crime.

...as the article you linked to states, BenEzra...

(by the way, I did see your thoughtful response -- even if I disagree with much of its intent! -- in our previous agree-to-disagree gun thread discussion...)

Its standard configuration has a fixed 10-round magazine.

Assuming definitions really do matter to you.

I also saw how Grey Davis as the CA AG lied through his teeth repeatedly to get it passed.

Try again. This time with more relevance, assuming you have that ability.

is a non-sequitor? The definitions the CA pols used are incorrect. Putting them into law does not change that. That the Davis lied openly and repeatedly was pointed out at the time.

As I recall, there was once a legislative attempt to redefine Pi. Some of the AWB language makes about as much sense.

Right.

It's quite common for laws to define terms. Try reading a few sometime rather than letting the NRA read them for you. The reporter used the term as accurately as any reasonable person would expect in accordance with CA law. That's all I have to say on the subject. Feel free to engage in some irrelevant tangential discussion on how the Wehrmacht defined the term in a field manual in 1943 or whatever other Rambo gunnut publication you're referencing so you can flaunt your vast knowledge on gunnut lore. Just don't expect too many people with more than a handful of synapses actively firing at the same time to play your childish games. Now you want to dive even farther into the realm of absurdity by bringing up Pi and your personal beef with Davis which anyone can really give a flying fuck about.

.

"when Mixon fired his automatic rifle through a closet door in the apartment"

and used terms like "assault rifle" numerous times:

"Mixon, had somehow gotten hold of an AK-47 assault rifle, police officials say" &
"Assault rifles flow freely from Nevada" &
"Often they come from Nevada, where selling assault rifles is perfectly legal"


Yeah - they are ones to use to judge accuracy in the use of terms when it comes to reporting. :crazy:

Now, of course IF he really DID use an automatic assault rifle, then the OP article is TOTAL bullshit, and not the multiple wrong or purposely(?) misleading usage of several terms in different articles in place of those that are legally defined (like "assault weapon", "semi-automatic", maybe even "AK-47" vs "SKS") - and accurate.

Heck, in this nation I think it's against the law to murder or attempt to murder anyone with anything.

Nobody.

n/t

unsolicited AK-47s left on my doorstep. They really pile up when I leave town. And lately I've been coming out of Trader Joe's to find that some numbswede slipped an Uzi under my windshield wipers...I often don't really notice 'til I'm at speed (a Galil I'll soon enough notice, sure, but Uzis are harder to spot) and then you've got bits of Israeli gunsmithing scattered all over the freeway. It's gotten beyond a joke, really...

I'll take one of each, plus some extra magazines if you've got 'em. :evilgrin:

Assault rifles are federally regulated, they are NOT "perfectly legal" to sell anywhere in the U.S., not even Nevada.

There is really not all that much difference in fire power between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-auto weapon if you have a quick trigger finger. It is a fairly easy chore to get off a burst of thirty rounds in about five seconds with a semi-auto and you could probalby do it in three seconds with a fully auto weapon. Big Whoop...

The nomenclature is important because an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" are two completely different things and fall under completely different regulations.

That said, is this firearm an "assault weapon"?


It uses the same gas-operated semi-automatic action and is the same caliber as this firearm:


What's the practical difference between them?

I guess I was only carrying a rifle then. But when I pressed the switch up a notch I suddenly had an assault rifle in my hands.. :crazy:

...and assault rifles have been regulated under federal law for decades.

An assault weapon as defined by the old AWB is a completely different firearm.

used to describe the M16a2 or M4. Not once. Machine guns are regulated.

We are talking about semi-automatic rifles. Thats it, the rest is orwell speak.

My memory was the selector moved from safe 9(forward moving the mechanism clockwise) to semi 12, to 3 full or burst. Been a few years, have no idea what an AR15 does. Fire forward back safe. AK (the machine gun, not the replica) selector vertical motion safe, full, semi.

assault rifle is not used by US Army because it is redundant.

Virtually all rifles in army are select fire. It would be like calling cars "go cars".

Offical designation of M-16 is
Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16

Offical designation of the M-4 is
Carbine, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16

Assault Rifle when talking about modern militaries is redundant.
The days of one BAR per squad are long gone. Even the poorest countries equip their soldiers w/ select fire weapons.

Assault Weapon is just a made up word used to confuse public because true Assault Weapon = select fire capable rifles were already tightly regulated.

Calling it the "scary looking but functionally no more dangerous that non scary looking weapon ban" would likely not have generated as much support.

That said, "assault rifle" actually has a definition attached to it - it's any rifle or carbine that can easily be carried by a single person that is capable of full-automatic fire. Three-shot bursts count as full-auto in this regard.

"Assault weapon" is a term applied strictly to semi-automatic rifles, but after that, it gets murky. Sometimes a rifle is classified as an "assault weapon" because it can accept a muzzle brake, a pistol grip, and/or a bayonet lug. Sometimes all it takes is for the rifle in question to accept a detachable magazine that holds 11 or more rounds of ammo. And, in the case of Carolyn McCarthy's infamous HR1022 (introduced in 2007, never passed), an "assault weapon" is whatever the Attorney General says it is.

An assault rifle is strictly defined, an "assault weapon" isn't. When people who know nothing about firearms hear "assault weapon", many already think it's fully-automatic and saying that "assault rifles" are sold freely in Nevada (aside from being a completely incorrect statement) further clouds the issue.

That's easy: they're whatever the morning paper and national newscasts say they are. Or maybe just "Guns that psycho killers---and psycho killer wannabes---get hard-ons for."

That's what I adhere to, rather than buy into the Gun Nuts' narrow, self-serving definitions of those sorts of firearms. No way should they control the terminology....

I insist on the 'thing that goes up' being on all my assault weapons.

How could I have forgotten? :rofl:

That's part of the ACTUAL TECHNICAL DEFINITION.
If you don't know that, then you aren't fit to be debating this issue.
Your time would be better spent educating yourself.

look-alike guns that fire semi-auto are just semi-auto hunting rifles in an assault weapon costume.

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 Heckler & Koch G3. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 and the Steyr AUG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Assault weapon refers to a broad category of firearms, including military-style semiautomatic rifles derived from assault rifles, and also including some pistols and shotguns. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only one round each time the trigger is pulled.

There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapon in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the US was first codified by the language defining semi-automatic rifles with certain characteristics in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.<1> Very generally speaking, a firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Far weaker than your average large game hunting cartridge.

Also you seem to be indicating that all semi-autos should be banned.

From the article.
"Get out of jail free: In an effort to save money, California is exploring the idea of releasing thousands of offenders from prison without parole."

not honest people.

Gee, what a novel concept!

Keep the bad guys in jail.

Non-violent drug offenders, people imprisoned for financial crimes, geriatric convicts, etc.

we called them sheeple and made jokes about kool-aid.

what comes around... eh?

installing a "selector switch?" to make a semi-auto fully automatic?

:rofl:

"terra, terra, terra!" oh, wait. excuse me... "assault weapon, assault weapon, assault weapon!"

:rofl:

"Process for obtaining a Class 3, Title 2 or NFA Weapon
The transfer tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors is $200 payable to the BATFE. The transfer tax on AOWs is $5 and is also payable to the BATFE. This transfer tax is a one time only tax and not an annual tax. Each time an NFA weapon changes hands, the tax is charged except if the transfer is between class 3 dealers.
The paperwork required for the transfer of an NFA weapon consists of an application known as the Form 4. The Form 4 is completed and submitted with the applicant's photograph attached and a fingerprint card. These are submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in duplicate along with the respective transfer tax. The finger print cards are forwarded to the FBI for a background check. The background check and transfer process takes about 2 months or so depending on the examiners’ work load and if there are any errors on the preparers part.
Once the Form 4 application is approved, one copy of the approved application with a "stamp" is sent back to the dealer or seller of the weapon. The dealer or seller contacts the buyer and makes the physical transfer of the weapon at that time. The approved Form 4 application stays with the weapon and is proof that the buyer has paid the transfer tax. The original should be stored in a safe place and a photocopy carried with the weapon should the legality of the NFA weapon be questioned by law enforcement officers."

Not exactly walk into any gun shop in Nevada and pick out an AK-47 right off the shelf and walk out kind of stuff.

The importation of AK-47's has been illegal since 1968.

The domestic manufacture of AK-47's has been illegal since 1986.

AK-47's do not flow freely from Nevada to California.

couldn't we do something about California?

I mean, like disinherit, disown, sell off, boot from the union or whatever?

Allow them to secede or something?

It's not like the rest of the country would miss or even care about the loss.

*sigh*

If the alternative is sharing the nation with gun toting assholes like yourself. You'll be begging us to come back in no time anyway.

:wtf:

:)

"Mixon fired his automatic rifle through a closet door in the apartment" now say anyone can get an "assault rifle" just like his, just go to Nevada!.

They ought to shop around. Unless they are brand knew, they are getting reamed.

Last night, I spent considerable time looking at the websites of gun dealers licensed to sell assault rifles like the AK-47 (there are only about 50 such dealers in the entire country)and couldn't find a dealer in Nevada that had even just one AK-47 listed. I did find a dealer in Philadelphia that had one (and just one)but it didn't list the price (the site said to e-mail them for a quote).

At a gun message board, I found a post made by a person back in 2005 who said he found a dealer that had an AK-47 and the asking price was $6800.00

the article in the OP was speaking of AK-47 assault rifles.

the article uses "AK-47 assault rifle" terminology, but is actually talking about non-automatic civilian AK lookalikes. Although it's not yet clear if the murderer used a civilian AK or an SKS for the second two murders (and it does appear he used an ordinary pistol for the first two).

I remember you at the John Kerry forum when the debate on renewing the AWB was going on hot and heavy.

I assumed the article was actually referring to some semi-automatic version of the AK-47 and not an actual AK-47 assault rifle but I think it important that news reporters present the facts accurately.

I loved that site; the quality and civility of discussion were generally excellent, even when there was disagreement.

Do you notice that most of my pics are still hosted at Common Ground Common Sense? :)

Gratuitous CGCS-hosted pic --->

Any US-legal semiautomatic AK variant can be modified to California-legal status by fitting it with a fixed, 10-round magazine.

In practice the magazine does have to be removed to reload the rifle. If that requires a tool (i.e. cannot be done with bare hands alone), it satisfies the California DoJ's regulatory definition of fixed magazine.

I chased a burglar out of my bedroom with my finger and he went to jail. Anyone want to buy a finger?

:silly:

WTF? They are not accurate at all. "Powerful" could be debated as well.

The giveaway was the guy shooting the AK at the 200 yard target AND COMPLETELY MISSING the silhouette on all five shots; he slapped the trigger like he was either trying to miss, or didn't know WTF he was doing. Since he worked at the Picatinny Arsenal (U.S. Army), I suspect he did know what he was doing, and was trying to make the M16 look good by having the AK take a dive on the accuracy part.

An average AK with average ammunition in the hands of an average shooter should keep every shot from a 30-round magazine inside a 12-inch circle at that distance, slowfire, and even a worn out AK shooting the cheapest Norinco ammunition should have kept every shot on the target they were using, given that he was shooting from sandbags.

The AK's sights aren't as good as the M16's, but they're not that bad, and the primary problem is the short sight radius, not the notch-and-post design. Pretty much all Eastern European rifles made in the last 120 years use notch-and-post sights, including the extremely accurate Finnish Mosin-Nagants and the German Mauser bolt-action.

Finally, the AK selector is designed such that SEMIAUTO was the default position under stress. If you slam a selective-fire AK off safe in a hurry or under stress, it will go all the way down to semi; you have to be deliberate to select full auto. Which is pretty much backward compared to how the guy explained it, IMO.

Even the brick of 22lr I got from wally-world says 'hi-power'!

*snort*