HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A suggestion for a **very...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:29 PM

A suggestion for a **very** different approach to gun control:

Mandate the maximum fire rate for guns. Make it an absolute. People can then have whatever asshole assault rifle looking thing that gets their dick hard.

But mandate the amount of ammo it can fire. Like four rounds per minute. Whatever seems reasonable.

If possible, retrofit guns to meet this standard.

Make the transfer of any existing gun that doesn't meet the standard illegal, even if the gun is simply given away.

This ought to keep Chuck Heston's cold dead hands unpried.

24 replies, 1414 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 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply A suggestion for a **very** different approach to gun control: (Original post)
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 OP
yourout Dec 2012 #1
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #2
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #6
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #7
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #9
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #11
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #17
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #21
RobertEarl Dec 2012 #3
yourout Dec 2012 #4
LAGC Dec 2012 #23
rucky Dec 2012 #5
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #8
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #10
Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #12
derby378 Dec 2012 #13
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #18
Recursion Dec 2012 #14
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #19
bluerum Dec 2012 #15
Llewlladdwr Dec 2012 #16
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #20
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #22
k2qb3 Dec 2012 #24

Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:33 PM

1. I was just thinking the exact same thing.....Automatic, Semi-Auto...I don't give a shit as long....

as it can only fire 5 rounds in 30 seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourout (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:36 PM

2. 5 Rounds In Thirty Seconds Could Equal 10 Murdered Children Per Minute

Is that a sufficient reduction in carnage to matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:42 PM

6. I would advocate for a much slower rate. Sit there and say "bang" then count 15 seconds. Say Bang.

That is a seeming eternity between the two bangs. Time for someone to perhaps react.

I want guns turned to slag. Every last fucking one of them. But that will never happen. So let's look at actual solutions that might help. We will never stop bad people from doing bad things. We meed to mitigate the risk to some level that approaches "acceptable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:45 PM

7. I Understand Incremental Improvements - However, I have Moved On To Ban All Firearms

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:46 PM

9. Wishing will not make it so.

I, too, prefer all guns turned into slag. That will not happen, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:51 PM

11. Not Wishing At All - How Long Did It Take For DUI Laws? - How Long Did It Take For Smoking Laws?

If society can change its mind about DUI and Smoking it can change its mind about guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:35 PM

17. Apples and oranges

And I bet you know why.

The Constitution. It is so easy for law makers to hide behind it. And they will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:57 PM

21. To Each Their Own - The Path Is Clear In the US - Repeal The 2nd Amendment

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:38 PM

3. Shotguns have a 3 shell limit

No gun should have any more than that.

Otherwise, TIC!, all kids should be supplied with full body armor. Gunturrets at every school, theater.. heck, every corner should have a gunturret/guard tower. That way boys can keep their 30 round a second people killing metal sticks they love more than anything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:40 PM

4. Actually most shotguns have a 5 shell limit except for hunting waterfoul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:41 PM

23. You must never have heard of a SAIGA.

Mag-fed shotguns rule!

Thank the Goddess that these mass-shooter idiots haven't resorting to using one of them to commit an atrocity. You want to talk about putting out some serious lead in a very short period of time?

WOO-BOY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:40 PM

5. What is a reasonable level of lethal-ness?

I don't think that having that debate will get us any closer to the root of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rucky (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:45 PM

8. We will never ban guns. Not in our lifetimes. BUt we CAN slow them down.

By limiting the number of shots we can give people a chance.

Imagine my fire rate. Say Bang and then count 15 seconds. That is a long time. Things can be done in that time.

Imagine, even, if the shooter is like Yosemite Sam, with a gun in hand. That is still 7-1/2 seconds, which is still a remarkably long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:48 PM

10. Not a bad idea.

My suggestion of focusing mostly on hi-capacity magazines is pretty much intended to do the same thing.

I don't care what the gun looks like. I care about the rate at which hot lead comes out the barrel.

We could require that semi-automatic firearms have fixed, not removable magazines, with a maximum of ten rounds. When it's time to reload, you don't just pop out a magazine and snap in a full one. You have to load the gun's built-in magazine, one bullet at a time.

You could even require that existing semi-auto firearms be retrofitted so they have fixed, not removable magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:02 PM

12. I like your idea

mine was a maximum number of 6 rounds per gun. I like the fixed magazine idea, with 6 rounds. If a hunter can't get his target in 6 rounds or you can't stop the bad guy breaking into your house, I would think you are pretty screwed at that point anyway.

I think it works and does not step on the 2nd amendment at all, in that it's regulating only the rate of fire & capacity of the individual gun, not the ownership of guns or the number of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:04 PM

13. How much do you know about firearm construction?

Geez, you want to install an egg timer on every revolver? Because that sounds exactly like what you are proposing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:45 PM

18. How much do you know about competent engineers?

Stop being silly.

I know enough about it to know it is a mechanical device that, given a stated requirement, can be made to comply.

C.A.F.E. . . . . just as an example.

S.S.T. . . . . just as an example.

L.E.D. . . . . just as an example.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:13 PM

14. I don't see a way that's physically possible; do you have any ideas?

I'm not against thinking outside the box like this, but I'm trying to figure out a way to do that and coming up blank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:46 PM

19. How would I know?

But guns are, at their root, very simple mechanical devices. A competent engineering team can devise a way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:26 PM

15. Standard bullseye rapid fire competition is 5 rounds in 10 seconds.

Many thousands of people engage in bullseye competition.

Just an fyi, in case you know, really want to understand the implcations of this kind of proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:35 PM

16. How would such a thing work?

How do you get the rate of fire any lower than one round per trigger pull?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:49 PM

20. I have no clue because I am not an engineer

But I am sure some engineers could figure out a way.

To answer your question: limit the number of trigger pulls per second. Maybe a gas fed lock valve than has an exhaust meter that holds the trigger locked for 15 seconds?

But lets not get into the how before we define the what.

Engineers can work out the what pretty quickly, I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:38 PM

22. Actually it would be much harder than you think

Espcially for retrofit.

Would you put the police under the same rules?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:18 PM

24. This is silly.

It isn't the mechanical specifics of the weapon, the whole approach is flawed. The critical component is the nut behind the trigger

Here's a guy with a revolver that holds six: There are people nearly as fast with civil-war era revolvers and bolt-action rifles, or even the bow and arrows.

A fixed magazine that holds ten is what the SKS is, until somebody modifies it.

Yes they are simple mechanical devices, and it would be even simpler to bypass whatever damage your solution did to the weapon.

A weapons ammunition capacity is almost completely meaningless if nobody is shooting back.

The reason we can't get any common sense public safety legislation passed is because we've been stuck on this stupid attempt to ban features for 30 years, and it hasn't done the slightest bit of good anywhere, no matter how many of our historic firearms idiots destroy, how much legal jeopardy you put law-abiding people in, or how much unnecessary expense you add by passing laws about stuff you don't even understand. (How Feinstein has managed to be the leading voice for this legislation for this long and still not know the first thing about the subject is mind-boggling)

20 years later I still get pissed thinking about those million Garands getting burned...that kind of idiocy is why there's no productive dialogue on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread