HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » BREAKING: Hell Freezes Ov...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:28 PM

BREAKING: Hell Freezes Over !!! (Not A Climate Change Story!)

From the NY Post, Of All Places...

Adam Lanza’s weapons
Last Updated: 12:28 AM, December 18, 2012
Posted: December 18, 2012

Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?

That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?

We say: Yes.


Adam Lanza broke into the Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday morning armed with a “sporting” version of the US military’s principal assault weapon, plus two equally deadly handguns.

In the blink of an eye, he killed 26 people — including 20 small children, all of them shot multiple times.

How many bullets did Lanza fire?

Unclear.

Did he have to pull a trigger to discharge each round?

Yes.

But the fact is that the volume of fire produced by Lanza’s semi-automatic arsenal was substantively the same as the fully automatic “gangster guns” effectively outlawed by Congress in 1934 and again in 1968.

That ban did no real violence to the 2nd Amendment, so it’s hard to see how constraining the availability of high-tech military knockoffs would do so today.


The rest: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/adam_lanza_weapons_NU2tb0tIf9hNsOCZkPJ1XP


36 replies, 3344 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply BREAKING: Hell Freezes Over !!! (Not A Climate Change Story!) (Original post)
WillyT Dec 2012 OP
Mel Content Dec 2012 #1
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #4
rhiannon55 Dec 2012 #7
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #9
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #16
Lordquinton Dec 2012 #18
Duppers Dec 2012 #31
EOTE Dec 2012 #32
Duppers Dec 2012 #35
Skittles Dec 2012 #34
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #2
ellisonz Dec 2012 #13
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #15
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #3
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #5
Aviation Pro Dec 2012 #6
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #10
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #19
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #23
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #27
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #11
ellisonz Dec 2012 #12
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #14
Lady Freedom Returns Dec 2012 #8
PD Turk Dec 2012 #17
malthaussen Dec 2012 #20
jeff47 Dec 2012 #26
malthaussen Dec 2012 #30
jeff47 Dec 2012 #36
Bandit Dec 2012 #28
malthaussen Dec 2012 #29
Bandit Dec 2012 #33
budkin Dec 2012 #21
pansypoo53219 Dec 2012 #22
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #24
shintao Dec 2012 #25

Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:32 PM

1. IF the assault weapon ban returns-

 

sales will EXPLODE until the day it takes affect.

they already are.

AND by that- I'm NOT saying that there shouldn't be an AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #1)


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:01 AM

7. Feel good legislation?

Really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhiannon55 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:23 AM

9. Perhaps you haven't seen the proposed legislation?

 

or do you not remember what it was like during the last "cosmetic feature" ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:09 AM

16. It's getting late. Time for you to get back in mama's basement and stroke your gun. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:28 AM

18. This brings up a valid point

The main obstacle to solid gun laws is semantics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:04 PM

31. why the hell do you need a M21?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:09 PM

32. If you know a better way of compensating for one's many inadequacies, I'd like to see it. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:07 PM

35. lol !!

Bigass trucks & guns.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:57 PM

34. Swine

very apt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:34 PM

2. Remember that Tom tomorrow cartoon

We have had that seismic shift.

Expect our friends to go out of control.

And in this...Rupert was affected by the shooting in Australia that led to the ban. He also advocated for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:31 AM

13. Delicate Flowers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:07 AM

15. I just finally saved it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:38 PM

3. Machine guns weren't banned in '34 or '68

 

They were taxed. Furthermore, a musket can also produce the same volume of fire as the automatic "gangster guns" that were taxed last century. Perhaps the "journalist" needs to review the difference between "volume" and "rate" of fire, however, I suspect that they were fully aware of what they were saying and chose to be intentionally misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:41 PM

5. what is the difference between volume and rate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:59 PM

6. Volume of fire....

....is the measure of effectiveness in a military unit such as an infantry platoon. Rate of fire, which varies by individual weapons, is measured by how many rounds can be fired in one minute from a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aviation Pro (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:23 AM

10. And the rates of fire can be a little misleading.

For example, the M-16 is rated about 800 rounds per minute in automatic mode. That is about 13 rounds per second. However, the larger mags hold only 30 rounds, so at 800 rounds per minute your rifle is now empty in less than 2.5 seconds.

This is one of the reasons the modern M-16s and M-4s are limited to 3-round bursts instead of full auto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:35 AM

19. And you roast the barrel if you keep it up for any length of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:36 AM

23. I was wondering if that is what was being hinted at

by the "sustained rate" of 12-15 per minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:29 AM

27. That sounds about right.

The bump fire video that was posted a couple days ago got the gun so hot, the guy was complaining holding it near the mag well. That rifle is pretty much destroyed at this point. Turned a tack driver into a freakin' fire hose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:27 AM

11. Volume vs. Rate

 

Here's an example:
A swimming pool holds 5,000 gallons.
A garden hose takes 8 hours to fill it up.
A 2.5" fire hose takes 20 minutes to fill it up.

The garden hose and fire hose both produced the same volume of water, but the fire hose produced it at a much faster rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:29 AM

12. So you're saying that if we tax all guns heavily...

...we can suppress the spread of guns. Sounds great to me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:37 AM

14. Of course

 

That should make it where only those who are well off can afford them. Whether or not that solves the problem of mass killings, I don't know. I guess that one would have to determine the average socioeconomic class of those have been doing the mass killings.

Now, due to the '86 machine gun ban, those things have gotten VERY expensive, to the point that the $200 tax is pretty much meaningless by comparison (think $15,000 for an M16). I don't know of too many of those that have been used in crime, so maybe that would solve the problem for semi-autos as well. You might even get some gun owner support for that due to the expected appreciation of their investments, but I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:03 AM

8. Yes Virgina, there is a Santa Claus!



The tide IS turning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:19 AM

17. Well then

Put the high capacity magazines under the NFA and subject them to the same licensing requirements as full auto weapons.

It's not the folding stocks or barrel shrouds or pistol grips or any of the rest of the barbie doll clothes that the rifles are dressed in that's dangerous, its unrestricted and unregulated access to multiple high capacity mags that appears to be the problem.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PD Turk (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:45 AM

20. I really do fail to see the logic in that.

I've fired an M-16, for my sins. It takes about six seconds to change the mag, if you are a ham-handed physical incompetent like myself. Much less if you tape the mags and just flip them. That being the case, does it really much matter if you carry 100 rounds in one magazine or five?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:40 AM

26. Pausing for 1-2 seconds every 5 rounds adds up to a lot of not-shooting time.

Plus, which is easier to deal with: three 30-round magazines or 18 5-round magazines?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:47 PM

30. 5 standard magazines @ 6 seconds = 30 seconds.

I really doubt 30 seconds -- or even a couple of minutes -- would make any difference in response time or body count. What you really want, if your purpose is to slow down the rate of fire, is a weapon that has no magazine at all -- which rules out most pistols (even revolvers have a "magazine"), and most rifles except single-shot target weapons. As somebody says elsewhere in the thread, might as well just restrict all weapon sales except muzzle-loading muskets. Which would be no skin off my nose -- I don't play with guns -- but would surely piss off the responsible segment of gun owners who would rightfully feel that they are being made to pay for the sins of others.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:45 PM

36. It makes a difference because it gives time for victims to do something

Shooter's reloading....if you happen to be close, you could try charging. If not, you've got time to run a bit for cover further away.

And that's assuming the reloading goes well. The Giffords shooting stopped when the shooter fumbled his reload.

Plus, the small size means having to carry a lot more of them, or bringing less ammo. Either one makes the attack significantly harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:21 AM

28. What would be more effective in suppressive fire power, a belt fed machine gun or a clip fed one?

It matters how much fire power one has. If your rifle held only four rounds per magazine, how would it compare to a belt fed machine gun. If you limit the capacity you limit the mayhem.. It really can't be more simple than that..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:30 PM

29. Supression fire is hardly the same thing as mass murder at point-blank range.

Hell, a .50 cal machinegun is better for tearing up stone walls than a 9mm pistol, but that doesn't mean the latter isn't quite sufficient for killing soft targets in quantity.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:50 PM

33. Believe it or not a machine gun can also kill soft targets at close range in quantity

The point though is that to limit mayhem you limit the amount of rounds that can be fired before reloading. When adrenaline is flowing it isn't as easy as some may think to slap a new clip in the gun. Sometimes the fingers fumble a bit and time lapses. How long would it take to fire off a hundred rounds if you had to change clips every five rounds? Compare that to a hundred round belt. The more rounds you can fire without reloading the more damage you can do....It doesn't get more basic than that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:14 AM

21. NY POST? Damn son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:29 AM

22. make only muskets LEGAL for personal use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:39 AM

24. Let us know when you'll be posting here with moveable type or a quill pen..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:42 AM

25. Oh come now, Muskets 4 Military

 

We need a balance of power here. I demand all the weapons that the founding fathers envisioned. I want artillery, cannons, rockets, bombs, muskets, hand guns.

Now we can argue about what the founding fathers envisioned I feel they could see 100 years into the future and imagine what it would be like, and then the wrote the 2nd. So that would place the date at about 1900. That fair enough, or do you think they were too stupid to look at the future?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread