For God’s Sakes Do A Modicum Of Research
This is pathetic. Not only is it blatantly biased, it is severely factually incorrect. Paul Vitello is either an idiot or incapable of doing any research. Nevermind that assault weapons were only ever used in at most 1.4% of crime. And nevermind that the DOJ and CDC have concluded the ban has had zero effect on crime. Where to start:
Ask what you’ll need to purchase a semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle like the one used by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to kill 10 people during their 2002 Washington, D.C.-area murder spree.
They’re sniper rifles this week. Last week, they were assault weapons.
In the midst of a series of mass murders in workplaces, Congress in 1994 imposed a 10-year ban on the sale of military style weapons under production at that time.
No, there was a ban on which non-lethal, aesthetic features semiautomatics could have.
The Bushmaster, a version of the military’s standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away.
Idiot. It’s a civilian version of the AR15. By civilian, I mean that it is semi-automatic and lacks the non-lethal features mentioned above. Half a mile? That’s 880 yards. Yes, it will travel that far. But this weapon shoots the 5.56MM NATO round. The bullet is 0.001 inch larger in diameter than a 22 long rifle. Most states don’t allow people to hunt with 5.56 because they aren’t powerful enough to down game.
But with a few modifications – a change of barrel size, a different bolt – the maker was able to legalize its product and keep selling it, despite the ban.
Uhm, you’re an idiot. Barrel size and bolt have nothing to do with the weapons legality. Bushmaster removed threads on the barrel, the flash suppressor, and the bayonet lug to make it legal. None of these features affect the weapons lethality.
(Knowing this much helps to understand why, when Malvo and Muhammad were killing people from 500 yards during that summer and fall, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush saw the shootings not as a gun problem so much as a problem of “values.”)
I don’t think they shot anyone from a distance greater than across the street. I could be mistaken though. And the fact is they only took one shot per victim. The damage they did could have been done with a bolt action rifle.
Mr. Paul Vitello spews forth more tripe but I can’t read any more.
March 5th, 2004 at 9:57 am
At least it doesn’t fire the Evil Armor Piercing Cop-Killer .30-30 bullet that can shoot through 6-inch steel plate at a mile away.
March 5th, 2004 at 10:33 am
I gave up on watching any type of “news” reports about firearms about four years ago. I was watching a “report” on a “military weapon” that was a “sniper rifle deadly from a mile away” and could be purchased “with less restrictions than a handgun”.
What was Dan Blathering about?
The Barrett Light 50.
It’s a gun that measures 5 feet long, weighs 38 pounds, and costs $12,000. There was precisely one criminal action involving a Barrett Light 50 in all the time they’ve been available to the general public (IIRC), and that had something to do with a restraining order (i.e., the person owning the weapon was ineligible, not that the rifle was used in a crime).
But the report made it sound like gang bangers were running rampant with Barrett Light 50s a la Robocop…
I came about as close as I’ve ever come to “pulling an Elvis” and shooting my TV that night…
March 5th, 2004 at 12:34 pm
“the military’s standard AK-47 rifle”
Proof it was written by a Communist. Heh.
March 5th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
Zing!
March 5th, 2004 at 3:56 pm
Guy, speaking of the Barrett, you’ll probably like this.
March 5th, 2004 at 10:01 pm
Damn! You beat me to the punch!
March 12th, 2004 at 2:29 am
I am responding to a posting that you made on 12/19/03 @ 3:18 P.M. Sorry about the delay, but I just found this site looking or something else. I am a 28 year law enforcement professional and firearms instructor, and I have a lot of trouble with some of your assertions. #1- Range exercises are primarily recreational. Bullcrap. There is nothing recreational about range time for an officer. It is work and it is work done for a purpose. If the officer thinks that he is there to play then he needs to adjust his mindset (and maybe find a new profession before someone gets hurt. #2- Not shoot at more than 20′. Again, Bullcrap. Perhaps you’re thinking of 20′ drills, which show unequivocably that a person with a knife, 20′ feet away, can get to you before you can unholster and fire a weapon. If you don’t believe it, try it sometime. A holstered weapon is not useful at all in this situation. #3 Never draw unless fully prepared to shoot. I’m not sure what you are saying here, so I’m not sure that I fully disagree. If you are saying that an officer should not draw a weapon until he has identified a threat and a target, you are out of our mind. If his weapon is still in his holster at that point, it is too damned late. Again, a holstered weapon is no good at this point. #4 Police officers are split on concealed carry. I have been a police officer for a hell of a lot of years and a member of the Violent Crimes Unit for more than 13 years. Most officers support concealed carry. Anyone who is willing to check statistics, and be honest, knows that violent crime diminishes in jurisdictions that have CCW laws. If there is a split, it is between front line officers who actually do the work, and administrators who worry about liability. Addtionally, although it was in other postings during this exchange, anyone who is into the “shoot the gun (bat, etc.) out of their hand” has watched too damned much Gunsmoke, and has never been in a deadly force situation. Contact me after you have been there, maybe then we can talk. rdb393
March 12th, 2004 at 9:08 am
I have been trying to find the post that you’re referring to and cannot. I don’t know that I made any of those assertions:
Range exercises are not recreational IMO. But they are fun
I don’t know that i have ever addressed knives (and I am aware of the 21′ rule that police follow)
Drawing a weapon requires judgment that transcends the perception of a threat, so I agree with you.
Most police officers i know support concealed carry. I could care less. The fact is, it is a right of the people so regardless of police’s feelings on the issue, one can carry.
I don’t know that we’re disagreeing here. However, if you can send me a link to the original article you read, that would be great. I don’t think it was from my site though.
Thanks for the interest and the comment.
March 10th, 2004 at 10:43 pm
Thursday Gun Links #8
E-Gunparts has gun schematics for most popular guns. Printed schematics are 99¢ with an order, or you can download medium-resolution versions for free. Interesting discussion (with pictures) of which lubricant is best? I just bought a can of Corro…