MINOT, Maine — State police and the Maine attorney general’s office are investigating an armed standoff overnight Friday where dozens of shots were fired by the homeowner.
Michael Callahan, 44, was arrested and charged with reckless conduct with a firearm and domestic violence criminal threatening according to a press release issued by Maine Department of Public Safety Spokesman Stephen McCausland.
Callahan fired dozens of shots over a six-hour period, according to troopers.
No one was injured.
Troopers were called to Callahan’s Verrill Road home around 10:30 p.m. Friday after a family member fled the house when Callahan began shooting inside, according to the release.
It was not immediately clear what the intended target was of Callahan’s gunshots or how many guns were used. One of the guns seized was an assault weapon.
One member of the tactical team returned fire around 5 a.m. and Callahan surrendered to state police shortly after, McCausland said.
The attorney general’s office is investigating the incident, which is standard procedure when officers fire shots.
Callahan was taken to a Lewiston hospital for evaluation before being transported to the Androscoggin County Jail.
Guns don’t shoot bullets inside. People shoot bullets inside.
“It was not immediately clear what the intended target was of Callahan’s gunshots or how many guns were used. One of the guns seized was an assault weapon.”
Nothing like using a hot button. There is no clear definition of “assault weapon” the reference is very broad. Any weapon that is used to “assault” another could fall under that terminology. Until there is a clear definition of what is actually an assault weapon why don’t we use our imagination and come up with something that is more descriptive of whatever weapon someone actually uses in the act of an assault. There are many people that confuse assault weapon with assault rifle with the latter being a fully automatic rifle. Why don’t we use the term semi automatic rifle.
The lame excuse that we can’t define “assault” is not going to stop the majority of Americans from wanting to ban the Bushmaster and other military-style rifles of high caliber that fire as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.
the only thing that is lame is an idividual who wants to ban something they can’t even define…
It can be defined. I already gave some criteria. Semi-auto rifle, .223 caliber. We can come up with more, I’m sure.
So a Bushmaster chambered in a .308 is fine?
No, it’s still semi-automatic. A Remington 700 in .308 is a hunting rifle, bolt-action, and is fine.
One of the most deadly weapons to grace a battlefield. Remington Bolt Action Sniper Rifle.
It wouldn’t be banned if we banned semi-automatic rifles with calibers like .223 and 7.62. A .22 rifle wouldn’t be banned.
The thing about bolt-action rifles is that you have to pull back the bolt to load the next round, drastically increasing the time it takes to fire a shot. The gun you’re describing is basically a hunting rifle with a flash suppressor.
Did not stop the guy in Texas in 63 did it?
It would reduce the number of deaths considerably.
No it would not.
Whatever gets done from today forward ain’t gonna make much of a dent in the +310 million registered weapons already out there — plus all the hand-me-downs and unregistered guns. It’d take several generations for all that to settle down…
OUCH! Thanks for that.
What about a semi-auto .22mag? That’ll do some damage. Or how about a semi-auto 12ga shotgun? Let’s see, my remington 7400 (semi-auto 30.06), Oh! I have a semi-auto rifle that shoots .40cal, should that be banned? From what I can tell, you’re basing your decision on the “look” of the weapon itself. If it looks evil, it must be evil….. Lighters don’t make arsonists and forks don’t make people fat… The 2013 Dodge Charger SRT8 ****ASSAULT VEHICLE**** It’s black, scary and clearly designed to kill innocent people by enabling the driver to exceed the posted speed limit by 100mph!!! 32,367 people were killed on the roadways in 2011! Americans don’t need 470hp…. BAN THEM!!!
No, I’m basing the ban on the semi-auto aspect combined with certain kinds of rounds. It’s very similar to the successful assault weapon ban in Australia:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
Well again, what about 12ga, 30.06, .22mag and a whole variety of calibers offered in semi-auto… Do you propose a ban on those?
I’m ban rounds with over 1000 ft-lbs in semi-auto (so, you could own 30-06 in bolt action). As for the shotgun, even US Special Forces uses pump.
Spruce, now I know you’ve answered this question several times about .22… But I’m going to ask it again… Here are the “criteria” of an “assault weapon” from the Wiki link that you posted.
“the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following items:
Collapsible stocks: allow for adjustment to the length of pull.
Folding stocks
Pistol grips (on rifles): reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist.
Bayonet mounts: often on civilian firearms due to the same parts being used on both government and civilian rifles
Flash suppressors: shield the shooter’s vision, as well as those beside or behind the user.
Threaded barrels: mount flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brakes both used for aiding recoil management.
Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts: concentric rings around the muzzle.
A barrel shroud: a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.
Magazines greater than 10 rounds”
Aside from the grenade launcher mount and possibly the bayonet mounts, I can easily put all of these onto a Ruger 10/22 semi-auto .22cal rifle. Would this make it an “assault weapon” and therefore should be banned?
I agree that “assault weapon” is a confusing term in the US, with multiple interpretations. As I have said many times, I’d ban rifles that meet both of these: (a) semi-auto and (b) ammo with over 1000 ft-lbs energy.
You can dress up a .22 with a folding stock and bayonet mount and a ballet tutu, and I still wouldn’t ban it.
Fair enough.. You’re knowledgable, well spoken and not rude, so I respect you opinion. I personally don’t agree with a potential ban. I think it will leave too much leeway for legislature in terms of what they would consider “restricted” and I also just feel that if you want to own an AR-15 for example, you should be allowed to. I have one and hey, they’re fun to take to the range. Maybe a better solution would be to focus on the high capacity magazines. However, in my own personal opinion, any type of ban or regulation of any sort, will not solve the problems. There will still be mass shootings around the country for years to come. That just isn’t going to stop unfortunately. There’s some very sick people out there and ban or no ban, weapons will still get in the hands of the wrong people.
I own handguns that have more than 1000ft-lbs of energy. I have 60 year old deer rifles that far exceed your criteria and are semi-auto. The Remingtons are quite popular in Maine for hunting. You do realize that the .223/5.56 is a pretty weak round as far as rifles go, right?
Ease up on the coffee, brother. LOL
Please learn more about ballistics. In your line of thinking a .22 would be banned.
No, .22 would not be banned.
I understand the workings of specific firearms. My point is,
that is a weapon that is capable of inflicting mass casualties in the right hands. I do not want to sound like I do not feel that something should not be done to stem these mass killings that have occurred, they are tragic to say the least. There needs to be better security measures taken to protect our children
and the population in general, but a weapons ban is not the answer. Better enforcement of our existing laws would be a start. Better communication from all stakeholders like law enforcement, mental health professionals, sportsman’s groups and gun dealers and so on is needed. If the Sandy Hook shooter made
multiple attempts to purchase weapons and was refused for whatever reason, why wasn’t there red flags? Something should
trigger warnings when this happens. Without access to his mother’s legally purchased weapons, which she failed to secure he still could have inflicted mass casualties by simply running the car into a large group of children with equally devastating results. If he had done this, would you be calling for a
ban on cars?
I agree with all your proposals and think they should be implemented. I respectfully disagree with you about a ban on certain high-power (1000 ft-lbs) semi-automatic rifles. If those guns are sold, there will–statistically–be cases where they are used by legal owners or relatives/acquaintances of legal owners to attempt murders. The nature of these weapons means the murdering is likely to be miore effective and involve more targets.
Certain hood ornaments were banned on cars because, statistically, they resulted in greater injury/death to those hit. Similarly, certain guns are just prone to greater and more effective killing in cases of accident or crime. Banning them will save lives.
1000 ft lbs is not high power by real standards. My .45-70 lever action rifle firing a round designed over 100 years ago makes 3000 ft lbs at the muzzle.
a .223 is a .22.
Are you aware that many .22 rifles are semi-auto with high capacity magazines? This is the problem with defining what would be banned, everyone has a different idea of what the problem is. We need better education, not more gun control. I know lots of people who own multiple handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc and none of them have gone on a shooting spree. Owning guns does not cause violence, disturbed and mentally ill individuals are the ones who cause the problems. If we took all forms of mental illness more seriously in this country this problem would be minimal at best. Think of all the recent homicides where the individual had been treated at a mental health institution or where family members knew something was wrong.
Well now, there’s a thought. Hunting what, wild boar from 1/4 mile?
The point is, BAN SOMETHING! Right?
Ban something that serves no purpose but to massively kill human beings.
If that’s the case, then why should police or Obama’s security detail have them?
Very few people are going to even think your line of argument is legitimate.
Explain to me then where I’m wrong. If Obama need many guards, armed with fully automatic weapons to protect his family, why can’t I have a semi automatic to protect mine? If these guns were not useful for defense then the Secret Service wouldn’t use them would they?
The President is the head of the military. We can’t have a strong military if the head is vulnerable. Without a strong military, we have no good defense. Simple.
My point was only that, if certain firearms had no legitimate defensive use, then the Secret Service probably wouldn’t use them.
You aren’t the president, neither am I but I don’t need a big gun to defend myself.
If an incident were to occur, I would prefer to have more than I need rather than less.
Duh…maybe because he is the President of the free world and you are not?? Just a thought.
My point was simply that, if these kinds of firearms are not suitable for defensive purposes, then the Secret Service would probably have no use for them. Of course the president should have armed security, but I find it hypocritical that the same people who enjoy around the clock armed security guards with automatic weapons would deny me a semi automatic for the defense of my family.
They have FULL auto weapons.
Does target shooting count?
Or is target shooting nothing?
Target shooting doesn’t need semi-auto rifles.
Why not?
Ever shot clay pigeons? Or duck? Not required but it sure is fun…..
Use a .22 semi-auto
Great idea! But only if you don’t want your clay pigeons to get broke. Or if you don’t feel like duck for supper…..
I never understood how you get all the birdshot out of the duck, anyway.
My .22 breaks the skeet well. My preferred weapon is the 20 when shooting skeet, but a well aimed .22 does the job.
Be carefull, Ralphy, or you’ll shoot your eye out.
My name is not Ralph or Ralphy and I am very careful when I handle any gun.
A 10/.22 can do a lot of damage to skeet and any other living thing.
Did you assume I know nothing about guns and hunting?
Well, you are shooting skeet with a .20 cal. BB gun. I’ve got a Ruger, and know exactly what it can and can’t do.
I shoot skeet with a Mossberg 20 gauge pump, it’s fun, a Ruger 10 / .22 can shoot the skeet as well.
Don’t try to imply I don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s rude. You called me Ralphy and I’m not a Ralph and now you think I shoot skeet with a BB gun? How condescending as well.
Use a shotgun with a small magazine, Browning makes great ones. Or use the classic pump. Even US Special Forces uses a pump.
Or perhaps protect people from their govt like Syria over 40k dead and counting.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is to allow citizens to help put down insurrections–not start them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html
“The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to
“suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines
treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.”
SO, what is your idea on how to regulate responsibility not every owner of a gun is out shooting people, or starting anything. So now a mass shooting is an Insurrection? I would say the OK bombing was not any school shooting.
All I’m advocating is a ban on calibers like ..223 and 7.62 (or similar calibers like .30-06) in semi-auto rifles. Actually, I would ban semi-auto shotguns like the AA-12 (capable of holding a large magazine, semi-auto)
So .17 cal is good, and anything in the .40 and .50 cal is fine. But nothing in .20 to .30 cal? Now i’ve got it.
It’s a matter of the kinetic energy of the bullet. You can calculate force easily enough (force = mass x velocity squared). At over 1000 lbs energy, such as .44magnum, I’d ban it in semi-automatic rifles.
Do you also intend to ban heating oil?
You mean abortion “clinics”. How about the 3,315 babies that are murdered each day legally.
Different issue, irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Wow, somebody who gives himself such moral high ground must be strongly against the wars.
All in the name of a 1st amendment right to privacy! I guess some constitutionally protected rights are more important than others.
You mean like drones and nuclear weapons?
I’m sure a Republican president would use drones. The issue, though, isn’t how horrible our President is–the issue is that banning assault weapons would save lives and help heal the sickness of violence in our country.
Oh come on, that is not going to help anything, the murder rate according to the news is dropping in America not on the rise, America has always been violent, before TV, Video games, Internet, I guess the govt did not mass murder Indians?? and as long as man has been around murders has been present, and mass murders at that, history proves that, there is and never will be a place called utopia except in your head.
Worked in Australia:
Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the
assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version
avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.
As Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff pointed out, Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal write that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
I’m sure a Republican president would use drones as well, unless that president was Ron Paul. Banning “assault weapons”, or any type of weapons, will do none of what you say. Not sure if you’ve noticed or not, but people who would commit such atrocities as what happened in Newtown aren’t concerned with obeying any type of laws. Unless you are able to round up every firearm in existence, and make sure that no firearms can ever be manufactured by anybody ever again, then there will always be violent acts committed with guns. Firearms have been part of this nation’s fabric since before we became a nation, but these mass killings are a relatively new thing. So what’s gone wrong, what’s changed? The answer is society. The bigger question is why. We can point to all kinds of symptoms of this change, but have failed to figure out the answer. As far as banning any or all guns is concerned, I have the right to own any type of firearm I want to own, with as high a capacity magazine as I want to have, especially if I’m responsible with them (which I am). NObody has the right to tell me what my rights are.
Actually, the 5.56 (military version of .223) is a round chosen for its ability to WOUND the enemy, not kill them. As far as rounds go, it is not an ideal killing round. Underpowered (delivered energy wise) and overly fast.
So is a 5.56 ok ?
Same as .223. Banned in semi-auto.
Just checking to see if you knew.
An “assault weapon” is any weapon used to commit an assault. It could be a butter knife, rock or even a good book. Who will we leave it to as to decide what gets banned and what does not?
Why can’t we define assault weapons as semi-automatic rifles in calibers like .223 and 7.62?
You will do better if you use magazine capacity as your argument.
I think that’s a good point, if you mean better to help convince people to start cutting back on the power (in terms of killing lots of humans) of their guns.
Because that would be rediculous, it is not specific, the caliber of the weapon is pretty much irrelevent to the act of a mass shooter and it is the person who does the killing not the gun.
Some guns are much better at killing a lot of humans quickly than others. Some lunatics will grab whatever gun they can get from a relative, friend, or acquaintance. Or maybe they purchased it themselves before they lost it. If that gun is a Bushmaster, odds are more people will die than if it is a .22 lever action.
As we’re sure you will, anytime you’re given facts you add more BS to your strawman argument.
What don’t you understand about semi-automatic rifle in calibers like .223, 7.62, .30-06 and so on?
WRONG!!!!
People have been trying to ban pornography and that has yet to be banned but we all know it when we see it, just like we know what is meant by an “assault rifle” when one is mentioned.
That’s a really strange comparison, pally. Got some kind of weird hobby going on or what. Can’t seem to recall anybody ever being whopped to death by a rolled-up Playboy or Hustler? You?
A Bushmaster .223 is not a high caliber weapon! It is a small calibre/high velocity round.
Good, we’re getting somewhere. The Bushmaster should still be banned.
My Remington 7400 .30 06 can fire as fast as I can pull the trigger as well….is that an assault rifle?
Nope. Because ol’ Spruce only wants to ban Bushmasters of the 5.56 and 7.62 variety, I guess….
Check out wikipedia’s definition of assault weapon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Spruce, we have had a fine conversation, with what I feel to be shared mutual respect. But surely you can’t believe that Wikipedia should have any sway in ANY discussion. It really is a horrible source. I only hope our lawmakers do not rely on Wikipedia….
You’re right. It’s a starting point. Bye, thanks for the discussion.
I do love you, Spruce, and will defend you with every last drop of blood in my body, and that is a fact. Ultimately{SIC?} we are all good…
spruce according to you Wiki link one characteristic of an “assault rifle” is the ability to mount a “grenade laucher”. When was the last time you could walk into a FFL and purchase a “grenade launcher” that could be fitted on an AR-15 or any “assault rifle” for that matter?
The fact it can mount a grenade launcher–that’s the criterion used to define “assault weapon.”
The rail system is also used for more than just “grenade launchers”. Items such as flashlight and laser sights are two examples. Wouldn’t it be far easier to outlaw the private ownership of a “grenade launcher” since you cannot own “grenades” anyway?
From Wikipedia:
“Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. In common parlance, the term is used to describe any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge and is frequently conflated with assault rifle (a firearm with full-automatic capability). Unlike the term assault rifle, however, the term ‘assault weapon’ has no consistent or specific definition and is, therefore, subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military firearms…..”
So there you go….No clear definition by your stated source.
You’re right. There is no clear definition. That doesn’t mean we can’t come up with one–as I have being showing throughout this forum.
In the end what we will find that happens is a ban or restriction on high capacity magazines and more control over the purchase of ammunition in relation to the amount that is purchased and by whom. There will be background checks on ammo purchase as well as firearms. That may in some way be more tolerable to some, but probably not. I still advocate for better safegaurds against those who are ineligable to obtain weapons and strong penalties for those that allow access to those that would be otherwise banned from owning weapons. The problem with almost all mass shooting incidents is that the perpetrator showed signs of mental health deficiencies long before the shootings took place.
Semi-automatic rifles in this caliber should be banned. Bolt or lever action, not banned. Easy.
lever action
Thanks I fixed it. I used to own a Winchester 30-30.
Your welcome.
No charge, for a freedom loving gun enthusiast , like yourself.
They stopped making the classic cowboy Winchester the year after I bought one.
So an easier question may be, What semi auto weapons should be allowed?
I wouldn’t ban a Glock but the extended mags, yes.
Most AR type rifles are chambered in .223/5.56. Not exactly a high powered round. I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans really want more gun control, but even if they did, I won’t be subjected to mob rule. Ideally, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, liberty is a well armed lamb resisting the outcome of that vote.
The .223 tumbles through the body, inflicting major damage in multiple locations. It is a mean, vicious round. Hunters don’t even use such things on animals–it’s too messy, cruel.
I am glad that you are learning. A .223 is not a great game round, and not many outdoorsmen use them as such. But they do have a place. Across your garden at a groundhog, or across a field at a coyote. It is a tool withj a purpose. Any tool can be misused…
I learned that a long time ago, my friend.
You may want to check into what coyote hunters favorite caliber is.
As I said, the round (.223) tumbles through the body–of an animal or human. Good hunters don’t torture animals. If you have clean shot on a coyote, you don’t need .223. People used to hunt with 30-30’s.
Many calibers “tumble” spruce. The smaller the caliber the more likely they are to tumble.
There’s a reason the US military uses the .223. Not all tumblers are created equal.
You’re right, though–assassins use the .22 pistol because the round tumbles about in the head (fired point blank). No, I wouldn’t ban this gun. Or 22 semi-autos.
I’d ban the .223 in semi-auto.
How are you going to ban a round (.223) from a particular firearm? That’s a serious question Spruce. They now manufacture a revolver that is chambered for the .410 which is traditionally a shotgun round.
My .22 does that are we going to ban them as well?
No, .22 does not get banned. Geesh.
Why? I “can just stick in a larger clip” in my Ruger 10/22 and not have to reload for 50 or 100 rounds.
The .22 is a lot weaker than most ammunition. Less power, less weight. F = mv2. Look at all the powder load behind a .223 compared to the puny little .22
how about the .22 mag, and tell that family about the .22 who got shot in Hermon about that puny .22 that killed him. Remeber the breaking and he got shot that was a puny .22 did the job quite well.
I still wouldn’t ban ..22 or .22 magnum. I’d ban–in semi-auto rifles only–calibers with over 1000 ft/lbs.
Spruce the muzzle velocity of a .22 is actually high then a .223. You are correct to say that the force of the .223 is higher but either round will kill you just as dead as the other.
A.223 is far from a high caliber. High velocity yes. it’s no larger than a .22, just has a lot more powder behind it. Also I own a semi-auto that holds five rounds. Do you want that banned to?
If you can just stick in a larger clip, it should be banned.
Like a .22?
The .22 has far less punch than a .223. Just look at the powder in the load, the difference in catridge size.
What a shock – another story about a lunatic with an assault rifle and a bunch of posts by lunatics who think that everyone should be armed with one.
Please tell us, Oh Great One, what is your idea of an assault rifle? Please grace us with your infinate wisdom….
I am a lunatic because I do not agree with a proposal that would not have the desired effect and in the process infringes upon my constitutional rights. There are better answers to help stem the tide of this type of violence.
Pally, this has nothing to do with all that and nit-picking about the type of weapon means zilch, get it? Most non-gun owners don’t even care about those details.
The problem that you fail to understand is it is all about the weapon(s) in question because the conversation is about banning said weapons. By the way, I am not your “pally” Got it.
Yeah well, buddy rough, don’t get yourself in an uproar. Ya took a 5 word sentence and turned into a rant about guns — so who’s really a bit off the handle here? I didn’t fail to understand that at all — nor the concept the article didn’t even nearly rate all the raving you did. And to top it all off, I hope you don’t like it, Chum… Have some kind of a Holiday.
I am far from off the handle as you state. I know what my beliefs are and I am willing to support those beliefs when they are challenged. You chose to chime in and start calling me pally and trying to convince me that the conversation is different than what it is. My five word sentence was drawing attention to the use of the terminology “assault weapon” in the article and the fact that it is a hot topic at this time. If you did not like the reference than move on, nothing to see here for you. Calling me pally, buddy and chum I assume is your way of eliciting some sort of liberal left name calling match, sorry to disappoint you, you won’t bring me to your level. I will have a great Holiday, I think my loving wife just bought me a new AR 15 and a thousand rounds of ammo.
Please, save one for yourself
I will never cease to be amazed that spineless little trolls like yourself will resort to language and such bitter hatred for anyone that disagrees with your point of view. I will tell you there chummy, to hope that another person would inflict harm to one’s self because their view differs from yours is nothing short of disgusting and vile. I guess to expect anything more from someone with your mentality would be a stretch. I hope that with some reflection you will come to realize what an offensive comment you have made and come to the conclusion that you should be ashamed to have done so.
The majority of Americans want assault rifles banned–and they should be. It will decrease gun-related deaths in our violence-addicted country.
Can you please define what an ‘assault’ rifle is?
We can quibble about the word “assault” forever–and it will be a ridiculous debate. It’s like saying there is no such thing as “love” because we can’t agree on a definition of love.
Why not just go down the line, starting with the Bushmaster purchased legally by Adam Lanza’s mother. A perfect case of a legal purchase making access easier for those who shouldn’t have it.
It fires a powerful caliber (.223) every time you pull the trigger, as fast as you can pull it. That weapon should be banned.
so, in other words, you can’t define an assault weapon, yet you want to ban them….typical leftist, control freak nonsense
Plenty of conservatives want a ban on assault rifles, including the majority of law enforcement officers. Plenty of liberal own guns. You’re seeing the world through your own coke-bottle lenses.
Again, cite sources, you keep beating the same drum, but most of us have yet to see a poll or actual statement,
I would like to see a source, that’s not code pink or the huffington post, that states the majority of law enforcement officers want “assault rifles” banned.
Of course the law enforcement wants them baned, they have them and want total control over the people, that is why the people need them to protect ourselves against the govt.
Another from the lunatic fringe. Yeah I want everyone off the streets to have military style combat weapons but not the police. Ever been to Europe where the police have UZI’s and virtually no one can own a weapon. Are the police taking over there? Are they taking over in Germany and France?
So, in other words, you can’t define all the ingredients in bath salts, yet you think they should be illegal.
Like my Remington 750, chambered in 30.06? How about my Browning double 12? Lots more powerful then a .223. But they do look traditional. One might say they don’t appear “battle ready”?
Bolt action? or semi-automatic? You see, we can compare it to the Bushmaster to get relevant similarities and differences, can’t we?
Both are semi auto, thats why I mentioned them, not my model 94 lever, or my 16 gauge pump action. I’ve got a 1911 Kimber .45 that in my opinion would be much more deadly in a closed setting, then any rifle. Put 00 buck in any 12 gauge, far more damaging then any so called assault weapon. We can’t ban them all.
We can ban semi-automatic rifles of certain calibers like .223 and 7.62. This are military-style rifles that differ from the military versions in minor ways, and can easily be modified to be fully automatic.
7.62 is a .308, which is one of the most popular large game rounds in the world. The style of the weapon is totally cosmetic. You do know that you can chamber the Bushmaster in almost any round, don’t you? I’d prefer a .270…..
When was the last time a converted weapon was used in a mass shooting? Those caliber are chosen for much different reason than their relative “fight stopping power”. Educate yourself before you start advocating strip the rights of law abiding Americans.
How about AR-15’s in .222 Remington?
A Remington 7400 or 742 with work could also be made full auto, so could the Ruger 10/22. Should we ban those as well?
7.62 is a .30 cal.they come in many different variations. please get an education before commenting. single shot,lever action or semi auto rifle or pistol 30-30- 30-06 -308 just to name a few
You still didn’t answer my question. What qualifies as an assault rifle as opposed to a standard semi-automatic rifle? And .223 is a powerful caliber? I think not. Most hunters won’t use it for anything other than coyotes and other varmint in the state of Maine or anywhere else. So, I ask again, how do we qualify an assault weapon?
Spruce a AR-15 and a Mini-14 are both chambered for the .223 but look nothing like each other. So what makes an “assault rifle” and “assault rifle”? What are the physical characteristics that makes one a “assault rifle” and one just a “rifle”?
I think they believe they are any rifle that doesn’t look like grandpas old model 94. Heck, they believe a .223 is a high caliber round!
And to think, once upon a time that Model 94 would most likely have been classified as an “assault” rifle once upon a time!
Many an indian would agree. I don’t know this to be fact, but I would place a small wager that more men have fallen to a 6 shot Peacemaker, then any Bushmaster.
The rifle you could load on Sunday and fire all week, if I recall.
a gun that can kill 20 5 year old’s in a matter of seconds.
Like a repeating rifle?
Like a hundred year old double barrel 12 gauge?
With practice a person could do that with a double barrel shotgun or a pair of revolvers with speed loaders. That’s an emotional response and still doesn’t give a definition of an assault rifle.
yes, I know any gun can kill 20, 5 year old’s in a matter of seconds, if all conditions are optimal, but with the Bushmaster any damn fool can kill as efficiently, as someone who has trained for years.
The majority have been training for years actually. Most of them, including the CT shooter, spent hours a day playing first person shooter games. They’ve learned how to kill efficiently because they’ve had hours of practice. That still doesn’t answer main question though. How do we define what an assault rifle is.
We start talking about it, we come to terms, we act like grown ups. We stop denying that this country has a problem with guns. We stop denying that people have mental illness. We need to have federal rules, that all states must follow, so people can’t cross state lines and get guns. We need to understand that guns are not more important that people. That the “right” needs to have more concern for babies that have been born, then those who have not.Every one of those babies, were wanted and loved, and a mad man stole their lives with a gun, as a nation we should be outraged, and doing all in our power to see that it never happens again.
It’s time to put our big boy/girl pants on and work this out!
more guns won’t help, and I don’t want a total ban, so how about something in the middle?
Shot gun can do that too.
Can you please define “The majority of Americans” Would that be 156,000,001 Americans and if so, who polled everyone because I don’t remember anyone asking me.
An FFL is required to own an “Assault Weapon”!
Define assault weapon? Any one can buy a semi auto AR 15 you dont need an FFL.
A semi automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon
An AR15 is not an “assault weapon”….
The FBI even admitted that the 1994 ban had no measurable effect on violent crime.
Ya that same majority that is joining the NRA at about 8k a day.
since the shooting in CT last week, over 100 people have been killed with the use of guns, in the U.S. One week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/us-shooting-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2348466.html
Can you tell us how many were killed in that same time span with other weapons? Just curious.
In the same time span 211 people died at the hands of a drunk driver.
And if you believe anything from huffpost, I have some oceanfront land just outside Kansas City for sale.
I wonder how many were killed with these awful “assault rifles” as opposed to some cheap handgun. I wonder how many of these people were killed with guns that were legal? Would a new law have saved any of them?
mostly in states with the most restrictive gun laws,what does that tell you?
Wonderful—— how many other weapons does he have hidden? Wonder what made him snap?
Only allow the comments you like BDN, you fashist slob…..media is most of the problem.
Do we have an anger issue?
he was protesting the ban on assault weapons that is clear. he didnt shoot anyone just shooting in the air
And, like the “Fiscal Debt” debate… Nothing is decided… more mass shootings to come!!!
All fun and games til they started shooting back, eh?
The police should have given him body armour and a fully automatic weapon so that he could be safe.