Kerry wants to ban all shotguns!

[Deacon]

People are usually just ignorant fuckwits, Blaze, which means that they think whatever they're told to think.

[Martin Blank]

You guys are half-right.

The sale of fully-automatic weapons is illegal, provided that the weapon was manufactured or imported on or after May 19, 1986. You can still purchase a fully-automatic weapon manufactured or imported before that date. Note that these are VERY expensive -- a firearms training location in Nevada bought a number of Uzis for its submachinegun training course, and spent a few thousand dollars each. They spend a great deal of time, effort, and money keeping them in good shape, because there is no replacing them with new models.

Semi-automatic rifles made to look and function similarly to their military cousins (like the AR-15/M-16 pairing) have to be manufactured in such a way as they are not easy to convert to fully-automatic weapons. The old tale of shaving some small part so it didn't catch no longer holds true, assuming that it ever did. Nowadays, the weapons are designed with different machining of the area and parts, so that the receiver for one will not work in the other.

[Arminius]

Good to know MB, but people here seem to ignore which law I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Ban of those 19 weapons made by Bill Clinton in 1994 (do not have the exact name).

[quote="MissCheetah";p="399566"]There is a law, still on the books, banning ANY type of automatic weapon regardless of style. (automatic weapons fire multiple rounds with just one depression of the trigger)

There was a second law, now expired, that banned assault style weapons, regarless of if they were semi-auto or not.[/quote]
You are absolutely right about that MC. But, where did I mention that I could buy full-automatic weapons ? I just said I could buy an AK-47, a UZI and an AR-15 (which are already enough destructive without being full-auto). The AR-15 is not the deadliest weapon, I concur, but an AK-47 still very lethal even if the full-auto mode is off.

[Deacon]

I'm not sure enough about the rest of them, where most are banned because they fall under a certain general description, but Kalashnikov weapons are banned *by name* in the '89 ban.

And on what do you base your assertion about the degree to which an AK-47 is "lethal"?

[Arminius]

I watched a demonstration on discovery channel. Can't remember the program name. You know, the program where they compare weapons or war machine together ? Spite fire vs Messershmidt, T-34 vs Tiger, AK-47 vs M-16, etc ? Maybe it's not the most reliable source but it was indeed very demonstrative.

The M-16 is more accurate, of course, and is lighter and easier to handle. The Ak-47 is heavier but stronger. There was that brick test. The M-16 made a small hole in the brick (the bullet didn't pass through it) . The Ak-47 completely cleaved it. The weapon itself is undestructible. It can resist to a wheel of a pickup truck. You won't be able to break it even if you hit it with a maul on a precise spot. One good hit on the M-16 and the weapon is wrecked. The M-16 is only better on long range.

[tankkisankari]

The original Kalashnikov being a 7.62mm vs M-16 being 5.56mm makes a big difference in penetration. I never got to shoot with the kalashnikov my tank had, we used a Valmet RK 62 for basic shooting and other duty stuff, but it felt more comfortable to hold than the Valmet. I might have to borrow it from my cousin some time and have ago with it.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="arminius";p="400377"]The M-16 is more accurate, of course, and is lighter and easier to handle. The Ak-47 is heavier but stronger. There was that brick test. The M-16 made a small hole in the brick (the bullet didn't pass through it) . The Ak-47 completely cleaved it. The weapon itself is undestructible. It can resist to a wheel of a pickup truck. You won't be able to break it even if you hit it with a maul on a precise spot. One good hit on the M-16 and the weapon is wrecked. The M-16 is only better on long range.[/quote]
From personal experience with the weapons (their civilian derivatives, actually, with the Romanian SAR-1 instead of the AK-47 and the Bushmaster XM-E2S instead of the AR-15), I can tell you that I've seen a relatively thin hardbound book stop an AK-47 bullet (only one of many fired at the flaming piece of crap $30 RPG, but still stopped it), and I've seen an AR-15 round go through wood that stopped an AK round.

The M-16 line is less dainty than you make it seem. I've seen my friend's rifles go through some pretty serious abuse, including having things dropped on them, and seeing them get dropped (both on rare occasions). None of them has ever misfired as a result of such treatment, nor have they ever even gained a scratch from it. The only time any of them misfires is when using the 50-round magazines on the AK. The loading spring tension in the magazine isn't what it needs to be for a magazine of that length, but anything stronger and it would get to be impossible to load.

As for lethality, they're both quite lethal. The AK delivers more energy on impact due to the larger round, but this also assists in stabilizing the round farther out. The M-16 round tends to tumble at a distance, and while this does help make up for lost velocity, it affects aim out beyond a certain point.

[Lunatic Jedi]

[quote="Deacon";p="394489"]Like the guy in London who used a Katana instead to defend himself against 4 thugs armed with firearms[/quote]

Now THAT'S the stuff! I say we have more people investing in swords for home defense. Admittedly, maybe it didn't quite work in The Last Samurai, but...