Feinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill


by nsaspook
Tags: assault, feinstein, weapons
nsaspook
nsaspook is online now
#1
Dec27-12, 02:43 PM
P: 493
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Mainly a rehash but this is the section that will kill the bill if it remains in.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
A complete database of most gun owners in America complete with fingerprints and photos because IMO most gun owners will have at least one weapon that meets some criteria of the bill.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur
Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers
Bright points in Sun's atmosphere mark patterns deep in its interior
phinds
phinds is offline
#2
Dec27-12, 03:00 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,678
Yeah, we'll have to have a lot more children murdered before congress would dare pass anything that the NRA doesn't like
Jack21222
Jack21222 is offline
#3
Dec27-12, 03:09 PM
P: 771
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
Yeah, we'll have to have a lot more children murdered before congress would dare pass anything that the NRA doesn't like
And in what way will a database prevent somebody from stealing (or even just borrowing) a gun from a relative and using it?

russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#4
Dec27-12, 03:58 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999

Feinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill


Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
And in what way will a database prevent somebody from stealing (or even just borrowing) a gun from a relative and using it?
It won't prevent, but should reduce, since most such killings have used legally obtained weapons.

It should also reduce straw purchases by making them easier to track.
TheMadMonk
TheMadMonk is offline
#5
Dec27-12, 03:59 PM
P: 11
How does banning certain features like a thumbhole stock make it any more difficult to shoot somebody? That is just cosmetics.
MarneMath
MarneMath is offline
#6
Dec28-12, 12:45 AM
P: 422
Quote Quote by TheMadMonk View Post
How does banning certain features like a thumbhole stock make it any more difficult to shoot somebody? That is just cosmetics.
No, not at all. It's a way to make a semi go fully automatic.
CAC1001
CAC1001 is offline
#7
Dec28-12, 01:28 AM
P: 18
Quote Quote by MarneMath View Post
No, not at all. It's a way to make a semi go fully automatic.
A thumbhole stock has nothing to do with making the weapon fully automatic, and all guns manufactured in the U.S. must be made where they cannot easily be converted to fully automatic. Any gun that is easy to convert to automatic is considered under the law as an automatic fire weapon.
MarneMath
MarneMath is offline
#8
Dec28-12, 11:17 AM
P: 422
I wrote a reply earlier that got deleted so just check your email for the notification . Short and simple, attach the stock and adjust the trigger well you can an auto feel. Almost like using the spring in a butt stock and forward pistol grip to automatically launch the bolt forward.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#9
Dec28-12, 11:43 AM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Googling on "thumbhole stocks", it appears they were added to the ban because the last time around they were used as a work-around to the pistol-grip ban. Still, I can see how using the springy-ness of your thumb you might be able to let the gun's recoil shake it back and forth and pull the trigger faster in a semi-auto gun.

Even better, the "slide-fire" stock: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/07...de-fire-stock/
CAC1001
CAC1001 is offline
#10
Dec28-12, 12:09 PM
P: 18
Bans or limits on bump fire mechanisms I can understand, bans on things like pistol grips I think are silly.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#11
Dec28-12, 12:19 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
I think a pistol grip implies firing from the hip instead of aiming like with a "real" rifle. That's the difference between a gun meant for hunting and one that's well suited for hosing down a room full of kids.

A pistol grip shotgun for home defense would different to me though, since the range is generally very low and firing from the hip more normal.
nsaspook
nsaspook is online now
#12
Dec28-12, 01:21 PM
P: 493
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
I think a pistol grip implies firing from the hip instead of aiming like with a "real" rifle. That's the difference between a gun meant for hunting and one that's well suited for hosing down a room full of kids.
Anyone who has shot expert with at M-16 would disagree about the pistol grip nonsense. A huge number of the AR-15 type rifles are owned by former military members who have never hip-shot a weapon in combat, that crap only happens in video games and bad movies.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/atta...9&d=1214659269
http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/atta...0&d=1214659269
TheMadMonk
TheMadMonk is offline
#13
Dec28-12, 01:32 PM
P: 11
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
I think a pistol grip implies firing from the hip instead of aiming like with a "real" rifle. That's the difference between a gun meant for hunting and one that's well suited for hosing down a room full of kids.

A pistol grip shotgun for home defense would different to me though, since the range is generally very low and firing from the hip more normal.
If you want to hose down a room full of kids, firing from the hip doesn't make sense. You'd probably not hit a thing doing that. I also doubt the types of people who would shoot at a room full of children would care whether their weapon of choice has a pistol grip or not. After all, if you're willing to break the law by murdering people, why would you bother paying attention to gun laws?
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#14
Dec28-12, 02:21 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Quote Quote by nsaspook View Post
Anyone who has shot expert with at M-16 would disagree about the pistol grip nonsense. A huge number of the AR-15 type rifles are owned by former military members who have never hip-shot a weapon in combat, that crap only happens in video games and bad movies.
I was in the navy and tested sharpshooter on the M-16, the one and only time I had the opportunity to qualify and I didn't say you would shoot from the hip in combat. But a non-military mass murderer who know little more than what they see in movies might be inclined to do it.

Oh, and just for clarity, I didn't literally mean shooting from the hip: I really meant any shooting position below shouldered (such as is described in your links), where you are't actually aiming. Aiming matters less when you can spray more bullets.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#15
Dec28-12, 02:36 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Quote Quote by TheMadMonk View Post
If you want to hose down a room full of kids, firing from the hip doesn't make sense. You'd probably not hit a thing doing that.
At close range, when you're firing dozens of bullets at multiple targets, clustered together, I think you could hit quite a lot.
I also doubt the types of people who would shoot at a room full of children would care whether their weapon of choice has a pistol grip or not.
I'm sure they don't put much thought into it; they just buy a gun they know is designed as an assault weapon. So what? I haven't put much thought into the particulars of the suspension system design on my car either. Someone else did that for me.
After all, if you're willing to break the law by murdering people, why would you bother paying attention to gun laws?
What does "pay attention" mean? It certainly makes a difference whether they can buy everything they need at K-Mart or not. They will find out out about gun laws when they go and try to buy an assault weapon and are unsuccessful, whether they are "paying attention" or not.

The fact of the matter is that most of the weapons purchased in these mass killings were purchased legally, so it stands to reason that gun laws that change the type of available guns will have an impact on what kinds of guns are used in these crimes.

The pistol used in the 2011 Tuscon shooting had a legally obtained 33 round magazine from which 31 shots were fired. The shooter was taken down by bystanders when he couldn't reload smoothly. It stands to reason that if he had had a 10 round magazine, there would have been fewer people shot: the magazine he used was one that was banned for a few years under the '94 assault weapons ban.

And, the shooter tried to buy more ammo the morning of the shooting but was thwarted by a WalMart clerk who didn't like his demeanor.

Sure, people can try to find black market sources for guns and ammo, but that is difficult, expensive and risky.

Availability matters.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#16
Dec28-12, 05:09 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,628
A reason to address availability of guns: the Christmas Eve ambush slaying of two volunteer firefighters responding to a house fire in upstate New York.

Now, a 24-year-old woman was arrested Friday and charged in connection with the Christmas Eve ambush slaying.

She apparently purchased the Bushmaster and shotgun used by the shooter who apparently committed suicide.

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-woman-arres...195532926.html
CAC1001
CAC1001 is offline
#17
Dec28-12, 05:20 PM
P: 18
Let's also remember that no gun one can buy in America "hoses" or "sprays" bullets.

Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
I'm sure they don't put much thought into it; they just buy a gun they know is designed as an assault weapon.

So what? I haven't put much thought into the particulars of the suspension system design on my car either. Someone else did that for me. What does "pay attention" mean? It certainly makes a difference whether they can buy everything they need at K-Mart or not. They will find out out about gun laws when they go and try to buy an assault weapon and are unsuccessful, whether they are "paying attention" or not.

The fact of the matter is that most of the weapons purchased in these mass killings were purchased legally, so it stands to reason that gun laws that change the type of available guns will have an impact on what kinds of guns are used in these crimes.

The pistol used in the 2011 Tuscon shooting had a legally obtained 33 round magazine from which 31 shots were fired. The shooter was taken down by bystanders when he couldn't reload smoothly. It stands to reason that if he had had a 10 round magazine, there would have been fewer people shot: the magazine he used was one that was banned for a few years under the '94 assault weapons ban.
Remember "assault weapon" is just a term referring to cosmetics on the weapon, such as a pistol grip, folding or retractable stock, bayonet lug, etc...on the magazines, people can have an argument I think, but even that depends. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter reloaded fifteen times. And reloading wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza. James Holmes, if he'd had to reload ten round magazines repeatedly, might have been able to shoot more people then he did, because his 100 round drum magazine jammed. Those are very prone to jamming. 10 round magazines are not very prone to jamming, and he'd have probably been able to keep reloading them with the tear gas he'd fired.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#18
Dec28-12, 05:23 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Quote Quote by CAC1001 View Post
Remember "assault weapon" is just a term referring to cosmetics on the weapon, such as a pistol grip, folding or retractable stock, bayonet lug, etc...on the magazines, people can have an argument I think, but even that depends.
I wouldn't consider most of those features "cosmetic". Even if they were, they would be included in the ban for recognizably, which is still fine with me.
For example, the Virginia Tech shooter reloaded fifteen times. And reloading wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza. James Holmes, if he'd had to reload ten round magazines repeatedly, might have been able to shoot more people then he did, because his 100 round drum magazine jammed. Those are very prone to jamming. 10 round magazines are not very prone to jamming, and he'd have probably been able to keep reloading them with the tear gas he'd fired.
Sure, the need to reload stopped some, but not all. So what? I'm not claiming it can reduce the death toll of all or eliminate all mass killings, I'm just saying it will help. You agree it will help, right?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
How do ISPs work? [bandwidth bill = electricity bill] Computers 30
Assault Intervention Device Current Events 8
British politics and assault on character Current Events 14
Medicare Bill and now the immigration bill..... Current Events 10