Register to reply

Feinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

by nsaspook
Tags: assault, feinstein, weapons
Share this thread:
nsaspook
#19
Dec28-12, 05:26 PM
P: 646
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
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.
Actually you are aiming but just not using the rear sights at under 25 meters. Instead of three point aim it's a two point aim. It's a good thing most gangsters learn weapons handling from movies because they actually think aiming matters less when you can "spray bullets" unfortunately it's usually why bystanders get shot instead of the intended target.

The only reason it's (pistol grip) in the law is cosmetics unless these are assault weapons too. http://www.harrogateshooting.co.uk/shooting.html
CAC1001
#20
Dec28-12, 05:30 PM
P: 18
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
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.
Not sure what you mean when you say, "they would be included in the ban for recognizably?" I do not see how a folding or collapsible stock makes any difference regarding the gun's ability to shoot, or pistol grip (you can fire a rifle with a pistol grip from the hip if that is what one wants to do)., or bayonet lug (has a criminal ever fixed a bayonet and charged?).

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?
It probably would help, but I don't know if it would help enough to where it makes sense to limit the ordinary citizen in terms of the size of the magazine they can use. Take car accidents. About 3X as many people died in car accidents in 2011 as died from gun violence. So should we ban sports cars and put limits on the rate at which a car can accelerate from 0-60 and on the top speed cars can be capable of going to? Wouldn't that help limit some of the car accidents by some amount? About the same number of people each year are killed by drunk drivers/driving as are killed by gun violence as well, but imagine the uproar if someone decided to ban alcohol and could enforce the ban, or limit how much people could buy?
nsaspook
#21
Dec28-12, 06:09 PM
P: 646
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
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?
No I don't. What's wrong is the type of "sicko gun sub-culture" we are creating where a gun is seen as a force of emotional vengeance. This is totally different from the NRA type "freedom gun culture" that mainly sees weapons as the protector of freedom and country or even the "gang gun culture" use of weapons.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news...as-no-newtowns

If the United States, itself awash with weapons, wishes to benefit from Israelís experience, it must make sure it learns the right lessons. The first and most universal one is that ever more stringent gun control is bad policy: As is the case with drugs, as was the case with liquor during Prohibition, the strict banning of anything does little but push the market underground into the hands of criminals and thugs. Rather than spend fortunes and ruin lives in a futile attempt to eradicate every last trigger in America, we would do well to follow Israelís example and educate gun owners about their rights and responsibilities, so as to foster a culture of sensible and mindful gun ownership.
edward
#22
Dec28-12, 08:50 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Quote Quote by CAC1001 View Post
Let's also remember that no gun one can buy in America "hoses" or "sprays" bullets.
Most any semi automatic rifle with one of the slide stocks certainly appears to be spraying bullets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKQAnTH-2c

The slide stock was supposed to be a safety device to avoid a bump fire. The ATF needs to reconsider the approval of the slide stock.
MarneMath
#23
Dec28-12, 09:06 PM
P: 439
It probably would help, but I don't know if it would help enough to where it makes sense to limit the ordinary citizen in terms of the size of the magazine they can use. Take car accidents
In combat, I used to carry 7-9 mags, which contained 210-270 rounds. Why would any civilian ever need that? That is what I would carry with the full intention to kill someone who would fire back at me. If we limited mags to civilians to be 10 rounds only, that would only be 90 rounds. A huge difference. It's a lot easier to escape with a guy has to reload every few seconds. Most people are not pros at the quick reload.
edward
#24
Dec28-12, 09:06 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Watch the slide fire closely. Once started the trigger finger doesnt move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE
CAC1001
#25
Dec28-12, 09:07 PM
P: 18
Quote Quote by edward View Post
Most any semi automatic rifle with one of the slide stocks certainly appears to be spraying bullets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKQAnTH-2c

The slide stock was supposed to be a safety device to avoid a bump fire. The ATF needs to reconsider the approval of the slide stock.
Yes, as I said before, I don't have a problem with bans or limitations on such devices.
CAC1001
#26
Dec28-12, 09:17 PM
P: 18
Quote Quote by MarneMath View Post
In combat, I used to carry 7-9 mags, which contained 210-270 rounds. Why would any civilian ever need that? That is what I would carry with the full intention to kill someone who would fire back at me. If we limited mags to civilians to be 10 rounds only, that would only be 90 rounds. A huge difference. It's a lot easier to escape with a guy has to reload every few seconds. Most people are not pros at the quick reload.
90 rounds is still plenty to kill a lot of people with and a person could carry more then 7 to 9 magazines. But out of most of the mass shootings we've seen as of late, in only one of them would a more limited magazine size have made a difference possibly (Tucson shooter). In the Virginia Tech shooting, in the Aurora shooting, in the Adam Lanza shooting, the outcome would have been the same. That said, I am not strictly opposed to limiting magazines to ten rounds, but not convinced of it either. I think both sides can make good arguments on the magazine issue.
MarneMath
#27
Dec28-12, 09:25 PM
P: 439
I fail to see how the outcome would've been the same. Ironically, I think it would have been worse in the Aurora shooting. (Simply because the mag he was using is well known to cause a weapon Jam, and from what I can recall, his inability to peform remedial action render that weapon ineffective.) Yes a person can literally carry more than 7-9 rounds, but every way I can think of for the person to do so, only increases the loading time for the weapon, and thus can give people a better chance to get away.

Nevertheless, let's assume you're right and the only possible shooting where it could've made a difference is the Tucson shooter. Isn't one enough? Especially, since there doesn't seem to be a real reason to have a 30 round quick release mag.

Edit:Just notice you mention the Aurora case!
MarneMath
#28
Dec28-12, 09:40 PM
P: 439
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....r-gun-problem/ Thoughts?
encorp
#29
Dec28-12, 10:02 PM
P: 27
They just need to put liability insurance on each gun owner. Let the markets decide which guns they'll insure. No insurance? No gun.

And if your gun slips into others hands and you're not some how killed in that theft, then you should be thrown in jail for a term depending on the crime committed with said fire arm
mheslep
#30
Dec28-12, 10:10 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
I've only read Sen Feinstein's page on the proposed bill with regards to links provided in this thread, so perhaps I missed some proposed answers to what appear to me to be the obvious questions. The US had an assault weapons ban for ten years, starting in '94. So:
1. Was the '94 ban effective?
2. How would this ban improve on the '94 ban?

Do most simply take it as axiomatic that a renewed prohibition law without seizure of existing weapons will reduce homicides, or is there consideration of evidence for a testable hypothesis?

I do see some specific changes from '94 until now in Feinstein's description, but it is not clear that they are germane to the flaws in the '94 law. Recall that Harris and Klebold used a TEC-9 at the Columbine HS shootings in '99, a weapon specifically banned by the '94 law.
CAC1001
#31
Dec28-12, 10:17 PM
P: 18
Quote Quote by MarneMath View Post
Nevertheless, let's assume you're right and the only possible shooting where it could've made a difference is the Tucson shooter. Isn't one enough? Especially, since there doesn't seem to be a real reason to have a 30 round quick release mag.
This is a good point, but at the same time, then I think of the examples cited about limiting liquor purchases or limiting the types of cars available, their speeds, etc...which would surely save some lives too.

I think he's over-simplifying the issue in a few ways. Stricter gun laws could probably prevent certain mass shootings from occurring, but gun violence itself, overall, isn't the same, where you have a lot of illegally-acquired hand guns being used in inner cities in cities with very restrictive gun laws. The other thing is that back when gun laws were less restrictive, we did not have these mass shootings as we see today.

He mentions China and Japan. Well Japan has a very homogenous population that is very well-behaved, we saw that during the aftermath of their earthquake, where things like rioting and looting didn't break out. Also, Japan has never had a large ownership of guns in the way the United States has. So with a well-behaved population and a complete lack of guns in the country, it isn't surprising that they have very little gun violence. Regarding China, well again, China has never introduced guns in large amounts to the general population and has been a repressive dictatorship for many years now. The punishment for getting caught with a gun there I'd imagine is pretty severe. The government censors the media and the Internet, so it surely makes sure the population is also disarmed.
AlephZero
#32
Dec28-12, 10:52 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 7,169
Quote Quote by CAC1001 View Post
About 3X as many people died in car accidents in 2011 as died from gun violence.
I don't know how you define "violence", but the total number of people whose cause of death was firearms related is roughly equal to the number killed in traffic accidents. Maybe you should forget about the "violent minority" and focus on other 2/3 of the problem. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

So should we ban sports cars and put limits on the rate at which a car can accelerate from 0-60 and on the top speed cars can be capable of going to?|
Actually, we already have a better idea - controlling the public use of ALL cars by speed limits and traffic regulations, not to mention compulsory driver training.

If somebody wants to drive off-road at 150 or 200 mph, that's their own affair. If they want to do the same along Main Street, that's something different.

Let's try an analogy to the "guns protect people against gun crime" argument: maybe everybody should have high performance cars, so if they see somebody driving dangerously they can chase them and force them off the road to defuse the situation ..... ?????????????????
Pythagorean
#33
Dec28-12, 11:34 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,287
Quote Quote by CAC1001 View Post
Not sure what you mean when you say, "they would be included in the ban for recognizably?" I do not see how a folding or collapsible stock makes any difference regarding the gun's ability to shoot, or pistol grip
I'm fairly sure he meant "Recognizability". It's the same reason you're not supposed to remove the orange tip from a (fake) pop gun. If you get shot by a cop for pointing a fake gun at him without an orange tip, it's your fault, not the cops fault.

If you're a bunch of kids riding around pointing a fake gun without the orange tip at people, you're being reckless. It doesn't matter about the gun's functionality, it matters about the social implications of having something that looks like a gun.

Now we apply this logic to assault weapons. If you look like an illegally-armed militia group, it gives you proximity social power.
MarneMath
#34
Dec29-12, 12:08 AM
P: 439
Stricter gun laws could probably prevent certain mass shootings from occurring, but gun violence itself, overall, isn't the same, where you have a lot of illegally-acquired hand guns being used in inner cities in cities with very restrictive gun laws
If it can prevent mass shootings, then why not do it. It seems like the crux of your argument is "it doesn't solve everything so why bother?" Sure, illegal gun ownership and gang violence will probably kill more people yearly than any mass shootings, but that doesn't mean you don't do anything to make it harder for mass shootings to happen.

A gun's real only purpose is to kill someone with relatively little skill. I understand there exist SOME shooters (include myself) who enjoy going to ranges and testing your skill, but in the end of the day, the gun was designed to kill something. With that in mind, I have no idea why it isn't highly regulated. If we are going to trust people with guns, we need to make sure that they know how to use them, properly store them and at the same time limit the ability for one person to shoot 30 5.56 mm rounds.
Skrew
#35
Dec29-12, 05:35 AM
P: 168
In regards to magazine capacity,

Cho killed the highest number of people in the US with two handguns, one which used 10rd magazines the other 15rd.

There is little reason to think lanza wouldn't have been equally capable.

When shooting unarmored people at close range, children even moreso handguns would be just as fatal.

Suppose this passes, when the next mass shooting happens, what will be the next set of regulations pushed? Magazine limits to 5rds? No detachable magazines?

Outside of a mass confiscation of firearms and a ban on semiautomatics, you're not going to be stopping mass shootings before they start.

I feel the only thing which is worth doing as a response to mass shootings is allowing the general population to respond in a proactive fashion.

While what happened in Newton is horrible, things like it are incredibly infrequent events considering the US population of over 300 million. I feel feinstein is more interested in advancing a social agenda then makeing anyone significantly safer. Her proposed legislation results in a significant loss of freedom and personal power for little if any gain.
MarneMath
#36
Dec29-12, 05:52 AM
P: 439
Of course, the handgun issue is an entirely different issue altogether, and quite frankly more dangerous. You can carry more mags, in less space that can do quite a bit of damage quickly and also hide the weapon better. I've always argued that targeting assault weapons is really just a 'feel good' tactic. The real problem in the US is the massive amount of killing done by handguns.

However, that isn't the point. The point is there is literally no point for a civilian to have a 30 round mag nor is there a point for a guy like Cho to have a hollow point round. The only goal for a hollow-point is to increase the damage to a target. This round is ban for military use, yet we sell it? Come on! (I can understand why it would be sold for hunting rifles, but I'm willing to wager no one is going to hunt for a deer with a p22.)

While massing shooting like Newton are 'rare', they are more frequent here than our peers, and gun violence as a whole is larger in the states also. Clearly there exist a problem, ignoring it and saying 'welp there's nothing that can be done' seems way too defeatist for my taste.


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