DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

I asked my state senator for a definition of "assault rifle" He sent a letter saying that "an assault rifle is any rifle that can be used as an assault rifle". I am not clearer not than before I asked. As a former military officer, I would not consider any semi-auto rifle as an assault riffle. I find it very disturbing that the uninformed have used appearance as a definition of assault rife, rather than function. If I take the handle off an AR-15 (the classic "assault rifle") and replace the black carbon fiber stock with nice walnut, it no longer scares people the same way. AR-15s are used in hunting in many states. There are NO full automatic rifles legally in civilian hands without a Class III permit, which carried additional background checks of a much deeper nature, and a significant additional fee. There are full auto assault rifles in the hands of gangs, but they are already illegal. Why is there no effort of control gangs or the trafficking of guns through gangs? Just saying....

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

My home defense 12 gauge holds 6 (legally) and there is nothing quite as threatening to a home invader as the sound of a pump gun being racked----in the dark. I prefer the 12 gauge because pistol and rifle bullets go through walls and my neighbors would get pissed. I would still prefer they run from the sound and I never have to shoot.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Agree with most, but they need to look at the Class III firearms application for a full auto. FFL is a dealers license.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

I don't know about the Class III requirements, but most states do NOT have a requirement to keep guns locked. Some state, but not all, have a requirement that you may not leave guns within reach of a minor. Dylan Kliebod's grandfather violated this common sense rule, but nothing happened to him. In NJ, we recently had an ex-cop leave a .22 rifle on a bed, where it was picked up by a 4 yo who then shot and killed an 6 yo. He will be prosecuted. NJ does have the rule about accessibility. I wish all states had this. I do not want the police checking ahead of time. That is my responsibility. But if you leave a gun out and it is used in a crime, you have demonstrated your lack of responsibility, and you should lose the right to own guns. IMHO. Let the flame war begin.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Sorry for your misinformation, but NRA published a list of about a dozen self defense cases in their magazine each month, giving reference to the city where the story ran. The FBI reported only 261 deaths by rifle in 2010, vs just below 9000 handgun deaths. It does not separate out gang violence, or known criminals from other gun deaths. The make 2 other interesting statistics: about 8,000 of the 9000 are by some sort of already criminal activity, and background checks will miss 85% of those who should not have guns because state courts are not mandated to report to the NICS database.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of New Jersey. A few years ago, a man was arrested because he still had his Boy Scout .22 cal semi-auto, bought 50 years ago at Sears. Because it could hold 15 .22 LR (15 is the limit in NJ) and you could insert 17 .22 cal shorts, he was deemed to have an assault rifle in his possession.

mdfenton

Anti-gun people, please read thoroughly:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/guns-arm-citizen-crime/2014/01/04/id/545187?ns_mail_uid=19984395&ns_mail_job=1552083_01042014&promo_code=161F2-1

http://www.newsmax.com/US/concealed-weapons-murder-rates/2014/01/02/id/544949

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Update: This morning a new report says that there are 104 guns per 100 people. All this while the death rate from firearms is dropping

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

If you are looking for more valid statistics, stay away from the NRA, CDC or JAMA. Anyone with an agenda has bias. Google the FBI crime statistics. They simply report without an editorial. They did note that states are not required to report felonies or involuntary commitments to the NICS database.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Chill. You were the one who asked for a rational discussion. The writer is ignorant of firearms physics. I make it a policy to never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I just suggest they do their research first.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

I teach firearm safety. I am not a lawyer. I would suggest that anyone carrying a gun across state lines for any reason, you search the Internet a few days before you go, for current relevant regulations, including recent changes. Then print out those regulations and carry them with you. You may very well be within your rights, but if the beat cop doesn't keep up with the changes, you may need a lawyer anyway. Every state has different rules. It is your responsibility to know and comply with all Federal & State laws. Just in case, carry the card of a good firearms attorney.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

It should not be assault rifle but assault weapon. I would not like to be beating to death with and assault baseball bat. Any thing can be used to assault someone, not just a rifle. The key word being assault as to assault someone as in attack. So, really there is no such thing as an assault rifle - unless of course, you are going to assault someone with it.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

No it doesn't. The chart doesn't indicate what these men died from, therefore it's just an assumption on your part.

Grant Good Loc: Gold Coast AUSTRALIA

DrPhrogg, As far as cultures are concerned you wouldn't find two countries more closely alined than the US & Australia, same basic beginnings, Discovered by Europeans, (at least that's how we were taught, however if today one was to DISCOVER a country which already had inhabitants it would be called INVADED).. and as a result the same multicultural population built up from immigrants from every country on earth. We have the gangs, usually young impressionable males, not really the sharpest tools in the shed, as their brains are still developing and are currently in their infancy stage, they cause trouble in much the same way, and drug related crime is very similar, the only major difference is the gun culture. Our new gun control laws are as a result of the 1996 Tasmanian massacre where 35 people were slaughtered as they spent their day at a tourist attraction, has proven to be a major game and statistic changer. (the parents of a friend of ours were two of the slaughtered, he was with them and today is a hopeless drunk as a result of having part of his mothers brains splattered onto his shirt as they were hoping off the tourist bus). The nutcase who carried out the massacre, Martin Bryant, was brought up the good old fashion way, a number of weapons in the house, was taught to shoot from an early age and didn't think twice about blowing the head off some wildlife for a bit of shooting practice. The result of the new laws is alarming and testament to just how effective they have been. Prior to 1996 we had 13 such mass shootings in an 18 year period. In the 17 years since we've had 0 mass shootings. if you have the time watch this interviews from the Jon Daily show, it sums up the debate quite well. there are 2 more parts to that series of interviews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

pbearperry Loc: Massachusetts

You are right,it just amazes me how people who are completely devoid of knowledge on a topic and be so vocal for or against it.Wheres my Prozac?lol