Check my work - assault weapons presentation

I've been thinking of this and wanted to have something I could show to an intelligent, logical person to help them understand the fallacies of the proposed Assault Weapon Ban and general issues related to "assault weapons".

Take a look at this and share your thoughts. There's a lot of slides, but it's easy to flip through quickly.

If you have specific feedback, please tell me the slide number and comment. E.g. "slide 41, you spelled 'Fucktard' wrong".

http://www.2shared.com/document/xU7-...eapons_v2.html

I know you won't all agree with the Conclusions/Solutions, but that's okay - I didn't make it for you. After taking comments, I will publish a revised version that you may use freely.

Your first, and biggest mistake is using the false term of "ASSAULT WEAPON" or any of the media's inflammatory catch phrases.

Looks good to me from a grammar/spelling standpoint. I have to agree though that the use of "assault weapon" is a little frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SideShow Bob

Your first, and biggest mistake is using the false term of "ASSAULT WEAPON" or any of the media's inflammatory catch phrases.

---

Considering the whole point is to illustrate the idiocy of the term using their own definitions, I respectfully disagree.

Slide 29 was about the Mini 14...but you fell back to referring to it as a 10/22...3 times.

The Ruger Mini 14 is based on the popular and successful
military M14 and M1 rifles.
 It is chambered for the least deadly rifle cartridge in modern military
history, the 5.56 NATO/.223.
 Like the Ruger 10/22 and AR-15, it is customizable.
 On the previous slide, the 10/22 on the left has a
telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash hider, and 30-round
magazine. (No bayonet lug or grenade launcher.)
 The 10/22 on the right is fitted with a traditional wood
stock, and only has a 5-round magazine in this picture.
 Note that even the wood-stock version accepts 30-round magazines
 There is no functional difference between these rifles.
The only differences are cosmetic.

Slide 49 "Inffringed" misspelled.

Personally, I don't believe the universal background checks are a solution. They're another level of control. Firearms are property protected by the 2nd Amendment, therefore outlawing private sale of property without government approval is an infringement.

I also don't buy into the safe storage requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Slide 29 was about the Mini 14...but you fell back to referring to it as a 10/22...3 times.

The Ruger Mini 14 is based on the popular and successful
military M14 and M1 rifles.
 It is chambered for the least deadly rifle cartridge in modern military
history, the 5.56 NATO/.223.
 Like the Ruger 10/22 and AR-15, it is customizable.
 On the previous slide, the 10/22 on the left has a
telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash hider, and 30-round
magazine. (No bayonet lug or grenade launcher.)
 The 10/22 on the right is fitted with a traditional wood
stock, and only has a 5-round magazine in this picture.
 Note that even the wood-stock version accepts 30-round magazines
 There is no functional difference between these rifles.
The only differences are cosmetic.

---

Thanks. Actually only the third/fourth bullets incorrectly reference the 10/22. Changed that one to Mini 14.

-----

On the "inffringed", I didn't create that graphic. Ugh. I like it, but don't want to leave in the misspelling. Guess I'll have to make my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Slide 49 "Inffringed" misspelled.

Personally, I don't believe the universal background checks are a solution. They're another level of control. Firearms are property protected by the 2nd Amendment, therefore outlawing private sale of property without government approval is an infringement.

I also don't buy into the safe storage requirement.

---

Created my own graphic with the correct spelling of infringed.

I understand that many don't agree with universal background checks. I certainly don't feel they're a panacea, especially considering that most of the mass shooters passed background checks (though they might not under new mental health regulations). However, I think it demonstrates that the responsible firearm owner community actually does care about keeping firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It's hard to say that now when many FTF transactions occur with no exchange of anything but cash, and a "peek" at a driver's license is as far as most people will go.

Safe storage is also a challenge. That's why I put it on the possibles. We don't know the facts around Adam Lanza (and may never), but it's reasonable to believe his mother knew he had problems and that he had access to the firearms. If a thief stole a firearm, would a trigger lock be a deterrent to its use? I doubt it. It seems like something that's fair to discuss, but I don't have all the answers worked out in my head on that one.

Sorry, I wrote "twice" on the Mini 14 response and then my brain said "I remember seeing it more than twice" and when I went back looking for the number of times it appeared I saw 3. Whooops.

We care. We also have repeatedly been bending on what "shall not be infringed" means. How many other of our "rights" have this level of restrictions and caveats? It's a slippery slope and we've been sliding for quite some time. I don't think it's time to lubricate the slope. We need to be following the first rule of holes; when you find yourself in one, put down the shovel. [dig]

Instead, we seem to be getting focused on what color, the shape and length of the handle, or the size of the blade on the shovel.

My AR-15 is my defensive rifle; chosen for home and personal defense. Defense is a three front issue; Personal and Family Protection, Defense of Property, and Protection from Over-reaching Government and Alien Invaders. I am guaranteed the right to own weapons for this purpose by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to the arguements of the Federalist Papers; The weapons I own should be equivilent to the threats I face. This is why I own a Defensive Rifle. Thanks for listening. If you disagree, move to Great Britain.

One thing I don't see presented is the effectiveness of the AR style rifle for home defense. A 9mm FMJ will damn near shoot through a home of modern drywall construction. The .223/5.56x45 will fragment and not keep penetrating through multiple interior walls. It's also a compact platform that's easier to navigate interior structures as well as being a platform for lighting and other accessories. My wife is also able to use the same rifle since it has the collapsible stock and is able to accommodate her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

One thing I don't see presented is the effectiveness of the AR style rifle for home defense. A 9mm FMJ will damn near shoot through a home of modern drywall construction. The .223/5.56x45 will fragment and not keep penetrating through multiple interior walls. It's also a compact platform that's easier to navigate interior structures as well as being a platform for lighting and other accessories. My wife is also able to use the same rifle since it has the collapsible stock and is able to accommodate her.

---

I was under the impression that penetration depends entirely on bullet type and energy. Your statement would be correct if you are not using FMJ .223. It would certainly fragment if you are using frangible ammo, but I would never recommend frangible ammo for a gun fight unless it's the only thing you've got. I will say though: my AR is my wife's favorite gun to shoot. She can handle it well, and can shoot accurately with it. If we had 1 AR and 1 pistol between the 2 of us for a defensive situation, I would gladly let her have the AR.

In any case, if I think the AR (or the AK) platform offers me the best capability to defend my home and my family, why would I not be allowed to use it? Cars are allowed to have additional airbags and bumpers for your protection, are they not? Argument concluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

One thing I don't see presented is the effectiveness of the AR style rifle for home defense. A 9mm FMJ will damn near shoot through a home of modern drywall construction. The .223/5.56x45 will fragment and not keep penetrating through multiple interior walls. It's also a compact platform that's easier to navigate interior structures as well as being a platform for lighting and other accessories. My wife is also able to use the same rifle since it has the collapsible stock and is able to accommodate her.

---

This is objectively true.

However, if you shoot (at) an intruder, and face a civil suit either from the intruder or his family or some innocent bystander, do you want the opposing attorney to stand in front of the jury waving around your AR and saying you were obviously jonesing to shoot somebody? Heaven forbid you shoot two of them... now it's another AR-involved mass shooting!

I have thought about setting up an AR for HD, but have concerns about the aftermath. Not to digress - I actually already cut several slides already that seemed to be divergent from the point. I don't have an interest in trying to defend the uses of the AR platform (or other "assault weapons"), but to point out that it's a stupid plan to try to prevent crime/mass shootings by regulating them, or even defining them, according to cosmetic characteristics.

I think the "assault weapon" quiz slides were the most effective. It really helps point out the idiocracy of labeling something an "assault weapon".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wreave

This is objectively true.

However, if you shoot (at) an intruder, and face a civil suit either from the intruder or his family or some innocent bystander, do you want the opposing attorney to stand in front of the jury waving around your AR and saying you were obviously jonesing to shoot somebody? Heaven forbid you shoot two of them... now it's another AR-involved mass shooting!

---

If they're intruders into my home? What the hell are you smoking? Are you just trolling these forums?

It appears that the data I previously had for fragmentation doesn't play out. Not sure what changed since the earlier tests. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

If they're intruders into my home? What the hell are you smoking? Are you just trolling these forums?

It appears that the data I previously had for fragmentation doesn't play out. Not sure what changed since the earlier tests. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

---

Gotta love the box of truth!

Dr. Roberts' data shows minimal penetration with 5.56, but that's into ballistic gel, not drywall.

No, I'm not trolling - if your round leaves your home and hits an innocent bystander, you can expect a civil suit, and you can expect your efforts to select an appropriate HD firearm and ammo to be a substantive point of discussion. One good reason to not have any punisher-branded accessories, or anything zombie-related. NFW am I going to take the stand and explain to a jury that my biohazard reticle and zombiemax ammo was just a joke.

The point I was making was in avoiding having casualties within the home as well as outside the home. There have been a number of older tests that showed XM193 fragmented heavily. Current tests aren't showing the same results. It makes me wonder what changed in the ammunition since the testing protocols haven't changed. I guess I'll just have to think about my options.

This is why all the bedrooms are upstairs in my new house. If someone wants to steal my TV downstairs, I'm not going to shoot them... I'll let the police and my insurance company sort it out. If someone insists on coming upstairs at night without my permission, they are going to meet a wall of lead and I'll let God sort it out. I would imagine it's pretty hard to advance up a narrow staircase against lots of lead, even if you are wearing a EOD suit and have a bulletproof riot shield. And this provides a good backstop for me too: the bullets that miss will go through the floor and into the unoccupied basement.


Sorry about dragging your thread off topic. I do think the quiz slides are the most effective.

I agree 100% with the sentiment that we should always be using the term "rifle" rather than "assault weapon". I do not plan to ever use my FALs as an "offensive" tool thus the term "assault" is just plain wrong. The term "assault" should never be used, it is nothing but a rifle, just like any other rifle.

Thought: what about making two versions? One with just the quiz slides, one with more of the discussion points and my conclusions. I hate to give up the data on magazine size, as that seems like a very important one for the uninformed, but could probably get 80% of the value in 20% of the time.

If I did that - any other ideas on side-by-sides that could be added?

Sooooo... check it out: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Sooooo... check it out: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

---

Nice. Thanks!

Wow.

I still like my side-by-sides, which illustrate the idiocy of the evil feature ban, but this is a far better presentation than mine. Thanks.

The quiz was the most effective part. (thanks for attacking my mosin asshole [Coffee]) Just a few thoughts though:
1. The AWB of 1994 had its sunset in 2004, and the VA Tech shooting occurred in 2007 (I remember, because I was in college at the time). If an anti-gunner saw that, they might jump on the rest and say that the whole thing is false. Maybe point out that the firearms used would have been available during the AWB.
2. I would point out that the term "Assault Weapon" is intentionally vague. Fast forward fifteen years and home defense shotguns, revolvers, even baseball bats could be considered "assault weapons" because you can hurt somebody with them.
3. Point out to those who don't believe that the second amendment grants the individual right to bear arms, that the use of the word "people" in the first amendment is in the same context as in the second. A lot of people would be pissed if the first amendment didn't give the individual freedom of speech.
4. Mention that with the banning of bayonet lugs as an "evil feature" how there is a lack of bayoneting instances (which furthers the point of the arbitrary ridiculousness of the whole ban).

Put in a note about how the AR in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cameron

The problem is that the libtard/fuckwits/socialists don't want to ban your "assault rifle". They, and the general public, don't give a shit as to what constitutes an actual assault rifle, they don't care about semantics or full auto, semi auto or select fire. The reality is that they want to ban all firearms and will start with firearms that are easily identifiable and that they can make a case to the general public that has some logic behind it. The case they make is that "assault rifles" are designed for anti-personal purposes, and most people don't really understand why "we" think we need them, same thing with magazine capacity.

So when we start debating the semantics and the definition of an "assault weapon" we have walked into their trap. No one cares what an actual assault rifle is, none of my non-shooting friends could give a fuck, they know the libs are out to ban military "style" weapons. We need to debate the validity of personal defense with any weapon, the realities of mag capacity as it relates to defense.

---

This is the bare bones truth. Once we are cornered into arguing semantics with the gun grabbers we have already lost. The best way to convince them is to take them shooting. Take them out for some fun if they are willing to go with you. The problem is that the information is out there if they really cared to look for it. Yes I agree we need to send as clear of a message as possible and have it easy yo find in as many places as possible, but that is not what is going to win the fight because those who do not understand need to want to seek out the information that is counter to the spoon fed liberal indoctrination that they have been raised on.