HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A "high firepower we...

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:32 AM

A "high firepower weapons ban"

I just invented this term a few posts ago. Seems that instead of endless argument of the definition of an "assault weapon", legislation can be crafted that regulates firearms based on three criteria:

1. Magazine capacity

2. Rate of fire

3. Caliber


These three elements would collective comprise "firepower". For example limits could be set as follows:

Magazine capacity: Seven (perhaps ten) rounds maximum. Would apply to any civilian firearm.

Rate of fire: 60 rounds per minute. This is slower than an AK-47, considered to be a slow semi-auto rifle.

Caliber: 30-06 in rifles, 44-mag handguns and 10-guage shotguns.

A simple formula could be used to prohibit firearms that tried to hit the maximum on all three measures, for example, a 10-round magazine in a handgun might be okay, while shotguns would be limited to five rounds. A 30-06 rifle might be limited to five rounds while a 22 could contain 10.

These are just examples, but it seems the concept has promise. Appreciate all constructive criticisms and ideas.

156 replies, 8133 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 156 replies Author Time Post
Reply A "high firepower weapons ban" (Original post)
Scuba Jan 2013 OP
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #1
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #60
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #2
Lex Jan 2013 #3
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #4
onenote Jan 2013 #11
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #24
onenote Jan 2013 #45
villager Jan 2013 #31
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #102
Lex Jan 2013 #123
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #153
Straw Man Jan 2013 #142
Lex Jan 2013 #150
Straw Man Jan 2013 #151
Hugabear Jan 2013 #5
stevenleser Jan 2013 #7
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #108
stevenleser Jan 2013 #127
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #134
stevenleser Jan 2013 #137
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #138
oneshooter Jan 2013 #121
stevenleser Jan 2013 #124
oneshooter Jan 2013 #126
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #9
Hugabear Jan 2013 #17
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #23
Hugabear Jan 2013 #25
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #32
Recursion Jan 2013 #75
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #140
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #37
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #139
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #70
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #91
GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #132
Scuba Jan 2013 #8
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #14
guardian Jan 2013 #86
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #12
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #20
thucythucy Jan 2013 #106
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #21
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #29
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #39
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #47
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #51
beevul Jan 2013 #112
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #114
beevul Jan 2013 #116
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #117
beevul Jan 2013 #118
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #135
wercal Jan 2013 #155
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #141
Straw Man Jan 2013 #143
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #41
hack89 Jan 2013 #59
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #80
hack89 Jan 2013 #81
hack89 Jan 2013 #82
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #77
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #94
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #104
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #136
Drahthaardogs Jan 2013 #87
Scuba Jan 2013 #88
Drahthaardogs Jan 2013 #107
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #131
stevenleser Jan 2013 #6
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #35
stevenleser Jan 2013 #38
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #44
stevenleser Jan 2013 #46
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #83
stevenleser Jan 2013 #85
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #89
Recursion Jan 2013 #40
theKed Jan 2013 #76
oldhippie Jan 2013 #10
Scuba Jan 2013 #13
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #42
NickB79 Jan 2013 #145
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #149
SpartanDem Jan 2013 #15
jmg257 Jan 2013 #16
Scuba Jan 2013 #18
jmg257 Jan 2013 #52
Scuba Jan 2013 #57
jmg257 Jan 2013 #64
Scuba Jan 2013 #67
Recursion Jan 2013 #36
hootinholler Jan 2013 #19
rrneck Jan 2013 #22
Scuba Jan 2013 #28
SayWut Jan 2013 #26
Scuba Jan 2013 #30
SayWut Jan 2013 #49
Scuba Jan 2013 #56
SayWut Jan 2013 #69
Recursion Jan 2013 #34
SayWut Jan 2013 #63
Recursion Jan 2013 #66
SayWut Jan 2013 #73
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
SayWut Jan 2013 #78
Recursion Jan 2013 #79
oneshooter Jan 2013 #122
NickB79 Jan 2013 #146
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #154
Scuba Jan 2013 #27
rrneck Jan 2013 #48
Recursion Jan 2013 #72
rrneck Jan 2013 #111
Recursion Jan 2013 #129
rrneck Jan 2013 #130
Recursion Jan 2013 #33
Scuba Jan 2013 #43
HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #58
Straw Man Jan 2013 #144
spin Jan 2013 #95
Recursion Jan 2013 #50
Scuba Jan 2013 #62
Recursion Jan 2013 #65
Scuba Jan 2013 #68
Recursion Jan 2013 #71
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #53
Recursion Jan 2013 #55
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #61
HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #54
guardian Jan 2013 #84
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #90
guardian Jan 2013 #92
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #93
guardian Jan 2013 #96
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #97
guardian Jan 2013 #98
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #99
guardian Jan 2013 #100
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #133
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #101
Straw Man Jan 2013 #148
Scuba Jan 2013 #105
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #109
Scuba Jan 2013 #110
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #113
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #103
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #115
Paladin Jan 2013 #119
Scuba Jan 2013 #120
2ndAmendmentRights Jan 2013 #125
Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #128
Straw Man Jan 2013 #147
samsingh Jan 2013 #152
JoeyT Jan 2013 #156

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:35 AM

1. I really appreciate your post and attempt to move the conversation forward. I've been confused

reading about assault weapons on DU. On the one hand, some do use it to purposely confuse the issue but on the other hand there is an actual point to be made.

Your suggestion and post are helpful. Hope it catches on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:21 PM

60. Agreed.

I disagree with several details, but that's not the point. This is the kind of creative thinking and civil approach that will foster progress on the issue of gun-related violence. When each side just vilifies the other, nothing positive happens. When someone presents ideas, a real conversation can arise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:57 AM

2. Too restrictive.

.50 BMG rifles have not been actively used in crimes. They have been possessed by some who have been arrested for other crimes, but none have been used in a crime. So there is no real reason to outlaw them except for irrational fear of some gun-banners.

.50 caliber handguns have been used for hunting. Leave them alone.

Magazines can be printed on a 3-D printer. Have fun trying to outlaw them.

.22LR tubular magazines typically hold about 15 rounds, some rifles more.

What to you realistically hope to achieve? According to the FBI more people are murdered by being beaten to death than are murdered by so-called assault weapons.

If you really want to reduce gun violence there are genuine solutions:

End the war on drugs by legalizing all drugs. Then the gangs will become legitimate businessmen.

Ban the publication of the names of rampage killers. When they learn that they won't be famous, they will quit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:00 PM

3. "more people are murdered by being beaten to death"

Never heard of a theater full of people or a school full of children being beaten to death by one guy so your point is moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:04 PM

4. Media event murders are covered by my last suggestion.

Ban publication of the killer's name if its a rampage shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:16 PM

11. Should we also hold secret trials of those arrested for "rampage" shootings?

Sorry, but a government-imposed "ban" on the publication of a criminal defendant's name is a non-starter under the First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:36 PM

24. Good question.

Most of the time, rampage killers commit suicide.

Maybe they could be given a psuedonym for purposes of the trial, if they are alive to have one. Making them into celebrities and inspiring copycats isn't working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:53 PM

45. It would never survive constitutional scrutiny

First, it would be difficult to prove that publicity is a motivating factor in many "rampage" killings. Sometimes its revenge, particularly in workplace shootings or gang/drug related slayings (where someone wipes out an entire household). Plus, attention getting may be the impetus in slayings that target only a single victim, such as attempts to kill a celebrity or even a politician. While we allow plaintiffs to maintain their anonymity in certain types of civil litigation (such as civil actions for abuse), that is generally not the case in criminal suits. For example, laws that prohibit the publication of the name of a rape victim (or someone alleging to be a rape victim) have been struck down as unconstituional on several occasions. And there certainly is no precedent, particularly in our legal system which is based on public trials, for barring the disclosure of the name of someone accused of a crime. Son of Sam laws that try to prevent a criminal from profiting from their crime may survive constitutional scrutiny if narrowly drawn, but several have been struck down. If its not clear that the state can constitutionally prevent a convicted criminal from writing a book or being paid for their story its hard to imagine how the press could be prevented from writing a book or telling a story about an accused or convicted killer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:42 PM

31. Gun killings are the fault of the media! But *never ever ever* due to the gun!

I swear! I swear it's true! Look over there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:38 PM

102. So as long as there is a break in between ...

 

... Numbers don't matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #102)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:40 PM

123. No relevance to mass shootings that happen within minutes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #123)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:45 AM

153. So .... Yes?

 

Got it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:53 AM

142. I would think any meaningful progress ...

Never heard of a theater full of people or a school full of children being beaten to death by one guy so your point is moot.

... toward reducing murder rates would be measured in the aggregate, rather than by a per-incident death toll.

Not moot at all -- improving the overall public good is the goal.

Wanna know a secret? The vast bulk of the problem is illegal handguns. Wanna know another? Making more handguns illegal won't solve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #142)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:18 AM

150. Then you'd be wrong, Straw Man.

The goal is stopping mass shootings in public places.

Apropos name, by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #150)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:42 AM

151. OK, just as long as we're clear.

The goal is stopping mass shootings in public places.

Which is only a tiny part of the overall violent crime problem. Cut off the tip, leave the iceberg. What do you propose to do about gang and drug-war killings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:05 PM

5. "Magazines can be printed on a 3-D printer. Have fun trying to outlaw them."

You can also create your own explosives. Just because you can make something yourself, doesn't mean that we can't make it illegal.

And you could also place restrictions on 3D printers if it becomes necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:08 PM

7. One solution would be to outlaw sale of guns that can even accept a magazine. Make all bullets

internal and limit the amount a gun can handle at a time to 7. Make them all manual reloads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:59 PM

108. Well, that must be why all firearm related homicide in California is so low... waitasec...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #108)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:26 PM

127. Please continue... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #127)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:04 PM

134. Continue what?

California is #4 in gun-related homicides per capita in the US.
California has a 10 round and fixed magazine limit for 'assault weapons'.

Granted your solution is a TINY bit more restrictive, I believe California's limit is 10 rounds.
Still useless. The FBI counted the average number of shots fired per homicide related to firearms, at 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #134)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:10 PM

137. Still not the same thing. But you knew that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #137)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:17 PM

138. No, you described California's assault weapons ban.

You simply required 3 fewer rounds in the mag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:56 PM

121. My Grandfathers Model 1892 rifle holds 14 rounds

in a tubular magazine. What will we be ordered to do, cut the mag tubes?
Mw 1866 Henry carries 18 rds. It is valued at $8-10,000. To cut it ruins the collector value( it is a 85% finish rifle).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #121)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:14 PM

124. The solution would depend on the gun

Solution A - Must be locked in a safe in the home

Solution B - Must be locked off site in a special safety deposit box

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #124)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:18 PM

126. All of my collection is locked in 650# fireproof safes.

That are bolted to both the concrete floor and the concrete block wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:13 PM

9. Restrictions on 3-D printers?

Have fun trying.

People don't make their own explosives because it is too dangerous, not because it may be illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:23 PM

17. The technology exists to do so

There are already copiers won't let you print certain copyrighted works.

You can program restrictions into printers that will prevent them from making certain items, or accepting certain instructions.

Of course, you could get around those restrictions - but you would be breaking the law in doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:32 PM

23. How often will your police come around and inspect my printer? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:36 PM

25. Depends - if you get caught with an illegal magazine in your possession

Although it does seem to me that you're more interested in protecting your precious high-capacity magazines than you are in reducing gun violence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:42 PM

32. Most gun violence comes from the 1st round, not the 30th.

It is extremely rare for a criminal to fire a 10th round, and even much more rare for the criminal to fire a 30th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:53 PM

75. Airplane crashes are rare but they get a lot of attention. Same with mass shootings

If we want to talk about "transportation safety" we should focus on cars, sure, but airplane regulations are a good thing.

Mass shootings are rare, and the things that make them less likely don't really affect the majority of gun homicides, but that doesn't mean there's no sense in looking at them, particularly when there's great political pressure to. Or to put it another way, 99.99999% of murderers don't use the 30th bullet, but the one who does is named Jared Loughner.

I think regulating transfers is ultimately a much more important thing to do than restricting types of weapons, but if we are going to restrict types of weapons I like to see people talking about capabilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:20 PM

140. Not all attention is rational.

Not all regulation is productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:46 PM

37. Some of the printers are open sources and will never support such restrictions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:19 PM

139. People are building these printers from the ground up, on their own with their own open source

code. How in the hell are you going to regulate that?

Ban all homebuilt 3d printers and only allow them from Xerox corporation, so Xerox can build in safeguards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:38 PM

70. Vaginas can be printed on 3D printers too, good luck "usin" one. Jus sayin, the 3D printer excuse is

...stupid on it's face

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:22 PM

91. Take a look at this one:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #91)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:02 AM

132. Great job.

Your check's in the mail.

Wayne

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:09 PM

8. Make some suggestions then ...

I agree anyone with a 50-caliber handgun isn't a great threat. One round will kick the weapon out of the hand of an inexperienced gunner.

I also agree with ending the war on drugs and not turning mass murderers into celebrities.

As for printing magazines, make it a crime. My car will go over 70, but it's a crime to do so. Make possession of high-capacity magazines a crime and the punishment severe. It will deter many, like the mother of the Newtown shooter.

I recall fondly a Remington 22 with tubular magazine. Fun for target shooting, squirrel hunting. Could easily be exempted/grandfathered.

How would you limit firepower through legislation? Do you have any constructive ideas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:20 PM

14. I think the item we agree on would take care of most of the problems.

Doing that would reduce gun violence (And knife violence, beating violence, etc.) to a low enough level that we would not be worried about it. Zero level is impossible.

And one other very difficult thing, bring jobs back to our inner cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:36 PM

86. "As for printing magazines, make it a crime."

 

Yeah right. That will deter a psychopath bent on mass murder. That is about as effective as placing a "gun free zone" sign in front of a school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:17 PM

12. Are you kidding me?

First, you go with the old tired talking point of assault rifle deaths vs. "beaten to death", forgetting that one is a very narrow catagory and the other is an extremely broad one.

And you can't expect legalization to end all gun crimes. My guess is that the majority of gun deaths are not the result of drug gang warfare.

And apparently you want to circumvent the 1st Amendment (freedom of the press) to protect what you believe the 2nd Amendment protects. Banning the publication of the name will do very little to stop these mass shootings. Most of these shooters plan to die in their own act, so whatever they fantasize people reacting to their actions, that's what they are going to go off of.

S.S.D.D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:29 PM

20. The media ban would have to be very narrow to be Constitutional.

The law would have to be carefully crafted. The rampage killers are known to fantasize about being famous. The Columbine killers are known to have speculated about who would play them in the movie about their lives. If they know that it won't make them famous, then they will have to do something else. It would be a 1A limit, but a narrow and specific one.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides. That is their right. Guns don't radiate a "kill yourself" mind control field. People that want to kill themselves choose a tool that will get the job done.

The war on drugs effects violence in many ways. Not only gang warfare, but addicts use violence to get money for the next fix. Prices of drugs are highly inflated due to the cost of smuggling & underground distribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:17 PM

106. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

No American law would be able to prevent an overseas news source from reporting the name, which would then be rebroadcast all over the net.

Come to think of it, arrest records are public--that's part of our being an open society. Any civilian here could obtain the arrest record, and post the name. You keep telling us how absurd it is for the government to regulate guns, printers, etc., but now you're going to have the government regulate every blog and website?

Norman Mailer wrote a book about Lee Harvey Oswald, Truman Capote wrote a book about two mass murderers in the 1960s. You going to have the government ban what novelists and historians can write about? Someone produces a documentary on YouTube about a mass killer, you going to ban that too? A rock or hip hop group decides to write about a killer, you going to ban that as well? Talk about government intrusion on our rights!

And all in an effort to insure there are no further limits on gun ownership, which remains the one most precious inalienable right of all, and freedom of speech and the press be damned. How weird is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:32 PM

21. You Can Have A Gun To Protect Yourself, But You Cannot Have A WMD

It's really that simple. If you want a gun for self-protection or hunting, then a low capacity firearm is all that you need. You do not need a WMD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:39 PM

29. WMD is used to mean nukes, poison gas, biological agents, radioactive fallout.

I don't have any of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:48 PM

39. WMD stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction

What happened in Newtown is mass destruction. Are the results any different from if you dropped a cannister of poisoned gass into that Kindergarten classroom or use a Bushmaster machine gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:57 PM

47. So when Bush was claiming Saddam had WMDs...

...he meant the Saddam had machine guns? Wow, Bush was right after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:07 PM

51. Worldwide, Machine Guns Kill More People, in particular children, than a dirty bomb

Bush's war rhetoric notwithstanding, assault rifles are the most common WMD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:32 PM

112. WMDs are by definition indiscriminate...guns not so much. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #112)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:42 PM

114. What was discriminating about the victims in Aurora and Newtown?

The Newtown killer had more kills than each individual terrorists involved in the London 2005 attack. Each of the 4 terrorists killed 13 people in a coordinated attack. The Newtown killer killed 26 just by himself.

If assault weapons are not WMDs, then what are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #114)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:48 PM

116. Bullets are not self guided.

One must actually aim to hit whatever their target is, and the shooter in newtown surely did just that.

WMDs not so much.

"If assault weapons are not WMDs, then what are they?"

They're simple self loading semi-automatic rifles which someone decided to label pejoratively.

The definition of WMD is not based on the end result, but rather the methodology involved in achieving it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #116)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:56 PM

117. So No One Has Ever Been Killed by a Stray Bullet?

And if someone is spraying a crowd with bullets, they're not aiming at someone in particular when they're shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #117)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:02 PM

118. Improperly aimed is still aimed.

The closest you're going to come to "WMD" with a gun, is a shortgun, and even they are aimed.

"And if someone is spraying a crowd with bullets, they're not aiming at someone in particular when they're shooting."

Automatic weapons are not what the current gun debate is about...and semi-automatic weapons generally do not "spray" bullets like automatic weapons do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #117)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:15 PM

135. So if guns are now WMD, what are nukes, gas, and germs? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:46 PM

155. I know you won't like hearing this...

...and you'll accuse me of using NRA talking points...but we have to get one thing straight.

The AR-15 is not a machine gun.

Ok?

Now before you get upset, let me articulate why that is important.

The difficulty with crafting legislation that outlaws Assault Rifles lies in the details. This is because there is fundamentally no difference in rate of fire or even magazine capacity between an AR-15 and a common hunting rifle.

Exhibit A would be the BAR .308 semi-auto. You can search Google Images for it. Its wooden, has no flash suppressor or pistol grip, and doesn't look flashy at all....its what a most would picture a 'hunting rifle' looks like. Yet, it does exactly the same thing the AR-15 does - it is semi-automatic and can accept a high capacity magazine. Its actually more powerful.

That term I used was 'semi-automatic'. And that's exactly what the BAR has been since the late '60's. And that's exactly what the AR-15 is. Neither of these are machine guns. Both require one trigger pull per bullet.

The same can be said for the vast majority of pistols out there that are semi-automatic (think Jared Loughner).

Machine guns have been very restricted in this nation since the days of Al Capone....and I may be wrong; but, I can't recall a single mass shooting in my lifetime that featured a machine gun.

So why are these semantics important?

For starters, you don't want to write your congressman demanding he restrict machine guns...that would be redundant. Next - how does one outlaw an 'assault weapon' and not a 'hunting rifle'? Its been tried before, so manufacturers just made 'Assault Weapon Ban Compliant' weapons. I actually think the 1994 ban is responsible for the meteoric rise in popularity of the AR-15. This is because the ban caused the manufucturer to sell a stripped down model, yet they made it very easy to accept accessories, and an entire cottage industry of interchangeable parts sprung up. AR-15 owners can customize and accessorize just like some people do with automobiles. That's more fun to them than that plain ole .308 BAR.

So, how does one outlaw an assault rifle? And, even though we are in the shadow of two recent mass murders using the AR-15, shouldn't we step back and ask why outlaw the AR-15 and not Semi-Automatic pistols, since they are used in so many crimes (and mass shootings). The OP tried to address these questons - a good attempt, yet it is still very flawed. But to not address these questions just gets us AWB 2.0...some people pat themselves on the back, but nothing meaningful is accomplished.

Anyway, please know that an AR-15 is not a machine gun; and, despite the protests of many, it is a very important distinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:25 PM

141. You can't have a WMD because it is impossible to use defensively without killing innocent people.

Same reason you can't have explosives, non-black-powder rifles over .50 caliber, grenades, rockets, artillery. These are area effect weapons, or anti-material weapons.

My AR with a 30 round mag can be used against a single hostile with extreme precision and no danger to innocent people around me.

Your analogy is broken.

I have every bit as much reason to possess such a device defensively, as the police do. I am less likely to need it, but 99% of police officers with AR's and high cap mags in their trunks don't use them in a given year either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:03 AM

143. Whoa there ...

If you want a gun for self-protection or hunting, then a low capacity firearm is all that you need.

And how exactly does that metric work? Will all assailants be unarmed or armed only with low-capacity firearms themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:49 PM

41. Too bad. Buy a 22. Deal with it. The free for all is coming to an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:19 PM

59. You really think so?

there is absolutely no rational reason that an AWB will pass any time soon. And if it was, it would not ban semiautomatic rifles in calibers larger than .22. They may look different but they will be available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:05 PM

80. the tide has turned. Too many dead children.

I'm sure you will continue to have unfettered access to your precious toys for a while longer, but obstruction at the federal level is going to become politically unsustainable. At the state level change can be even more rapid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:11 PM

81. So why are at least 12 Senate Democrats saying they will not support an AWB?

I question your grasp on social and political reality.

I support all of the president's EOs plus universal background checks and a high capacity mag ban. But even the president's advisers think they will not get all of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:14 PM

82. How the NRA is winning - article in the Washington Post

I question your grasp on American political and social reality.

It’s easy to think that in the wake of Wayne LaPierre’s angry press conference and the National Rifle Association’s tin-eared web video on President Obama’s daughters that the NRA is losing — and losing badly — in the fight over the proper place for guns in American society.

Easy and likely incorrect.

But, there’s also plenty of evidence to suggest that the NRA is regarded entirely differently in the country at large. Polling conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal this week showed 41 percent of people had a favorable opinion of the NRA, while 34 percent viewed it unfavorably, a margin largely unchanged from a similar survey conducted in January 2011.

And a look at the longer-term trend line on views of the NRA by Gallup suggests a striking consistency in the overall impression Americans have of the gun rights group.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/18/how-the-nra-is-winning/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:59 PM

77. Thank you, you are one of the people that have convinced me..

That what is needed is a near total gun ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #77)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:32 PM

94. Your mind was already made up before you read any of my posts. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #94)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:53 PM

104. Yes, I just said that.

You are one of the ones that have convinced me. That does imply that there are others and there were others before you. But, no my mind was more on what the OP was suggesting we should do before extremists came out and kept pointing out how nothing can be done to stop the carnage. Because that is basically what you are saying when you shoot down every reasonable precaution against gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:17 PM

136. I did make two suggestions. Try reading again. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:43 PM

87. Not sure how this would work. For example

When I was in Alaska, I ALWAYS carried a rifle capable of stopping a bear when hiking, fishing, etc. in the bush. My .338RUM would have likely been banned under this scenario. You sure aren't going to carry a .22 or even a .357 Magnum for bear protection up north.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #87)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:01 PM

88. Hmmmm....

http://www.bearsmart.com/becoming-bear-smart/home/bear-deterrents/bear-spray


Bear pepper spray is the most effective means of repelling an attacking grizzly or black bear in a non-toxic, non-lethal manner. Although common sense might suggest that guns would provide greater personal protection, research and experience indicates that human-bear encounters that do not involve firearms are less likely to result in injury to a human or bear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #88)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:34 PM

107. Most folks up north do not trust their lives to pepper spray.

I had to take the training every year for work. The class was taught every year by Alaska's foremost experts. The rules are in order of preference

1) High powered rifle in .300 WIN MAG or larger

2) 12 gauge shotgun with BRASS slugs.

3) Pepper spray

Have you ever been charged by an Interior grizzly? I was bluff charged by the same bear six times. I had that very rifle targeted on her head every charge, and luckily for us both, she stopped about 20 yards short each time, backed up, and charged again. She would have have come within 15 yards, because that was not going to happen.

No offense but I KNOW who are considered the top bear experts in Russia and Alaska, and it is not these people. The statement that "human and bear conflicts that do not involve firearms, blah, blah, blah...." is padding the statistics. I am not talking about ENCOUNTERS. I am talking about stopping a full on, 1400 lbs of teeth, claws, and saliva, running you down at 35 mph, frontal charge by ursus arctos in all of its pissed-off glory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #88)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:44 AM

131. Pepper spray will really help...

...if the wind is blowing.

BTW, it's probably not best to post ADVERTISING COPY from an anti-hunting group as fact. Show empirical evidence, please.

Just sayin'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:07 PM

6. I think you have to add muzzle velocity/muzzle energy to this list instead of Caliber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

We would then have guns with fewer bullets in the magazine, low rate of firing those magazines and they would fire bullets with less destructive power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:45 PM

35. Please explain why that is a relevant metric

Hunting rifles tend to have higher ME and MV, but are scarcely the problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:47 PM

38. Muzzle Energy is often described as the destructive power of a given firearm or load

- wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

I think restricting muzzle energy by firearm type makes sense. Restrict handguns with high muzzle energy, restrict rifles with high muzzle energy, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #38)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:51 PM

44. So you are arguing for banning/restricting hunting rounds

Which have nothing to do with mass shootings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:57 PM

46. No. Edited to add...



Note that in energy equations (Thanks to wiki for the graphic) that changes in velocity have the much higher impact on energy than changes in mass due to the exponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:20 PM

83. The point you are missing is that you need that for large animals

not so much for humans. The weapons some are so concerned about have neither large ME or MV.

You are chasing a useless metric if your true goal is to address human gun deaths

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #83)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:33 PM

85. When you go to hunt for hippos, elephants and whales, you get a special permit that allows use of

those guns.

OTOH, isnt it illegal to hunt all of the above? Not to mention most guns dont work well in sea water?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #85)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:02 PM

89. Elk, deer, moose are all larger game animals

And in most jurisdictions you CANNOT use .223 for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:49 PM

40. Easy, use a points system

Scuba listed three categories. Scaling "up" on each category costs you points, and a legal model can only have so many.

Want a high muzzle energy? Make it a single-shot bolt-action rifle. Want a semi-automatic with detachable magazines? Require subsonic ammo. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:58 PM

76. This is in the right direction

hunting eeapons don't need high rate of fire or capacity. Home defense weapons dont need high velocity/large calibet rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:16 PM

10. Great idea .....

 

... if you want to see a Republican President and Congress. Limiting rifles to 30 caliber will only turn, oh maybe, 10s of millions of big game hunters against Dems. And those hunters that go after big, dangerous game that require rifles larger than 30 caliber generally have a LOT of money to spend on campaigns. Just really great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:18 PM

13. Where do you think the limit should be set?

Or are you just going to criticize without being constructive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:51 PM

42. They already vote republican by a vast majority. Really not a big threat.

I'll trade fewer massacres for those votes any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:29 AM

145. It IS a big threat.

Hunting is practically a religion in the Midwest, and it's enjoyed by Democrats just as much as Republicans. The northern half of Minnesota is virtually all blue, yet virtually every person you talk to up around Duluth loves hitting the woods in the fall with a gun.

Try winning states like Michigan and Ohio without the support of the union worker who also likes to go deer and duck hunting in the fall. I'm sorry to tell you that you will fail by a wide margin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #145)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:05 AM

149. 22% of democrats own guns. Some small percentage of those are "gun nuts".

So new reasonable regulations would perhaps result in 2% of democratic voters, most of them in solid red areas, changing sides. Oh well. I'm willing to pay that price to reduce the number of gun massacres.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:20 PM

15. This is a good idea

the term assault weapon is excuse the pun a loaded term. First it's not technical definition and second it end of day it's about banning high powered weapons. I would add banning new guns with magazines all together, nothing should hold more than ten rounds and make possession of large mag illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:21 PM

16. Too hard...someone would have to make a list with specs of every weapon ever made. nt





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:27 PM

18. You forgot the satire thingy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:08 PM

52. Cause I was serious...Ok - I see where you are coming from. Please

tell me the fire-power ratios for:
an H&K P2000 .40SW w/155gr & 180gr, & in 9mm
a Wather P99 in 9mm & .40sw
a Glock in 9mm, .40SW, .45acp & 10mm
A Beretta 92F in 9mm & .40SW
a Beretta Bearcat in .32 acp
a Beretta Cheetah in 9mm
A Colt 1911 in .45 & .38 Super
A Beretta Storm Carbine in 9mm, .40Sw & .45ACP
a Springfield M1A in .308 (the National Match version)
an AR-15 in 6.8spc & 5.56
an AR-10 in .308
an SKS
a Benelli M1 S90 in .12 ga shooting hi-brass magnums
a Winchester SX2 in .20 ga,
a Remington 1100 in .12ga.
a Remington 7400 in .243, 7mm Mag, .308, & 30-06.
an M1 Garand in .308 & 30-06
an M1 Carbine in .30


I would like to know which versions of these I could legally purchase and the resultant capacity I could legally possess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:15 PM

57. Don't know. See Recursion's post # 50 for an interesting suggestion of how that might be determined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:28 PM

64. Sheesh - that is even worse! Holy shit!!!

IF we are serious, then let's just stop screwing around.

How about we ban:

Repeating arms with an internaly fixed or permantly attached magazine with a capacity greater then 8 rounds.
Repeating arms that can accept a detachable self-contained magazine capable of containing more then 8 rounds.
Ammunition feeding devices of any sort, used to directly facilitate the loading of a firearm, with a capacity greater then 10 rounds, or containing more then 8 rounds (stripper clips)

Some C&R exemptions.

If you want to break it down for some reason, then:

Repeating Shotguns: 6 rounds
Repeating Rifles & Carbines: 8 rounds
Repeating Handguns: 10 rounds

or whatever.

The problems are capacity and detachable magazines and fast reloads, and handguns. The problem will ALWAYS be dealing with the guns & mags already out there. 10 round limits worked for new mags, but did nothing to slow down reloads, or deal with grandfathering. NY attempts to fix that with 'exisiting less then 11 ok, but load with 7' AND includes very limited grandfathering on hi-cap, but still does little for fast reloads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:31 PM

67. Thanks, these suggestions are worthy of further discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:46 PM

36. No, that's the beauty of Scuba's idea: it doesn't require that

It simply takes objective metrics and evaluates current and future guns based on that. I think this is a great idea, whatever nits I might pick with the particular lines Scuba drew (which I assume were for illustrative purposes anyways).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:28 PM

19. Caliber is a bad metric

Muzzle energy would be better.

BTW 30-06 is not a caliber, it is a designator. It is a 30 caliber round though, but a high energy one. It develops more energy than my 50 caliber muzzle loader.

I'm not sure about magazine size for fixed magazines and outlawing removable magazines would impact a lot of handguns because they can only be loaded by removing the magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:32 PM

22. Best I've seen

You hit the big three that matter. There is another variable though. The intended purpose of the gun. If the purpose is lawful and not intended to hurt anyone, regulating the big three is moot because nobody got hurt. And if the purpose is to hurt another unlawfully, the characteristics that are determined acceptable won't keep it from being a tragedy.

There is no such thing as a benign bullet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:39 PM

28. Please see my post #27, which I meant to reply to yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:37 PM

26. "fire power" based on ammuniation isn't that simple.

 

30-06 isn't a caliber, it's a cartridge. In your example 7.62mm or .30 would be the caliber.
Trivial nomenclature, nit-picking, arguing over technicalities? Not really.

.30 caliber ammunition comes in all sizes, loads, muzzle energy; from the relatively weak 7.62x39 (AK-47, 1,810 ft·lbf), and .30 carbine (M1 carbine, 880 ft·lbf), to the .300 Win Mag (4,027 ft·lbf ,avg muzzle energy compared to the 30-06 muzzle energy of 2,900 lbf).

OTOH, there is 7mm ammunition that is just (or more powerful), than .30 caliber/7.62mm).

Point is, using a caliber based standard or measure of "fire power" doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do. Using your reasoning (or what you hope to accomplish), one would have to use the average muzzle energy (bullet weight x muzzle velocity. Note: muzzle velocity can vary due to barrel length, type and amount of powder and even temperature), as the cut-off point.

Another example you use is .44 Magnum (.44 being the caliber).

Even though .45 ACP is just a hair larger in diameter, it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of the .44 magnum. .45 ACP also happens to be one of the most popular cartridges around.

Now, given all those variables, how would "fire power" be determined as to what constitutes a legal firearm if ammunition is taken into consideration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayWut (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:40 PM

30. You're apparently better versed than I on these details. What would you suggest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:58 PM

49. It would help if I knew exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish.

 

I know your intent is to reduce firearms related deaths and/or abolish certain firearms based on their firepower or lethality.

However, you're trying to reinvent the wheel here by proposing an idea that is random and more complicated than you realize.

If it's of any help, the performance based measure of what should be allowable, and what should not, had been proposed ages ago, when it was determined to be unworkable as it would have banned practically every hunting, target rifle available.

As an alternative, the definition of ammunition to be prohibited was changed to a materials based one; commonly known as or referred to as "cop killer bullets".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayWut (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:14 PM

56. If you can't be constructive, perhaps this isn't the thread for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #56)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:33 PM

69. I offered my knowledge of the subject, and my opinion of why your idea is full of holes.

 

And you did ask for the following...
"These are just examples, but it seems the concept has promise. Appreciate all constructive criticisms and ideas."
How much more constructive need I be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayWut (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:44 PM

34. Muzzle energy is probably the best metric

the mass of the round times the square of the muzzle velocity. For the most part that's what "matters", too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:26 PM

63. Unenforcible and problematic.

 

What would be an agreeable or sane cut-off mark?

Should there be different cut-off depending on the type of firearm?
Let's say for the sake of argument, 1,500 ft·lbf.

While that would be satisfactory for a handgun used for self defense, it wouldn't be nearly enough for someone hunting big game, particularly at long distances (say 300-400 yards or more).

I'd also be concerned about enforcement and risk of prosecution.
If the law states that muzzle energy of a rifle can not exceed 1,500 ft·lbf, what happens if seized, confiscated ammunition is measured (to be determined by ballistics testing), at 1,505 ft·lbf?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayWut (Reply #63)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:30 PM

66. I suggested a "points" system earlier

You can trade off among form factor, rate of fire, magazine capacity, and muzzle energy.

Mostly just spitballing here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #66)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:48 PM

73. You're right.

 

"it's two complex".

Police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, juries, etc have enough trouble understanding the nuances and fine details in the law as it is, even when it's explained to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayWut (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:49 PM

74. Thanks. I used to proofread, even...

I don't see these as being law enforcement issues very often; these are manufacturing restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:02 PM

78. The problem with the point system you suggest, is that there are too many variables.

 

Some things are constant and are easily determined (magazine capacity for example).
Others are more dynamic (muzzle energy for example).

Combining both factors leaves too much room for error or flawed interpretation; or to be more specific, room for law enforcement to make an improper arrest, a prosecutor to bogus file charges or an attorney to properly defend his/her client.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayWut (Reply #78)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:04 PM

79. There are. And restricting types of guns isn't my personal thing

But I get why it is some people's, and I think this conversation is a much more constructive one to have than most restriction conversations I've seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayWut (Reply #63)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:13 PM

122. My 1875 Sharps rifle uses a 530gr cast lead bullet

and 67gr of 2Fg black powder. Velocity is 1260 FPS.
My bolt action 45/70 uses a 400gr JSP at 1985 FPS.

Same cartridge, different specs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:41 AM

146. I could see an easy work-around for that though

Say that the system devised makes it illegal for an AR-15 to use a high-capacity magazine AND use full-power ammo. It would have to use either one or the other to be legal.

A manufacturer could simply market a modified upper barrel assembly for that rifle that could reliably cycle lower-velocity ammo, and an ammo maker could introduce lower-velocity ammo, and the gun would be legal to own and use. Something similar has happened before: when California made .50-cal rifles illegal, a manufacturer started selling .416-caliber barrels and ammo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett

Now, you might say "but the lower-power ammo would make it less lethal though."

Not necessarily. A 5.56mm round, loaded with a frangible bullet designed for hunting small game and varmints, would still fragment and expand at lower velocities. You would see the same damage done as you'd see with an FMJ bullet today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #146)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:47 AM

154. so now

I assume you would serial number and restrict the purchase of AR-15 uppers. One of the major features of the platform to allow the same weapon to fire many different types of rounds without having to purchase additional guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:38 PM

27. Yes, to perhaps inappropriately use a "shooting" metaphor, there is no silver bullet solution ...

... so we'll need "silver buckshot" instead.

Background checks seem like a no-brainer. I would suggest that they be universal and rigorous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:58 PM

48. Well

The combination of the terms background checks and "silver buckshot" raise questions.

Background checks are a great idea but I don't see how they can be enforced without some pretty serious invasions of privacy.

Regulating the transfers of firearms aren't really regulating firearms, they're regulating relationships. If someone buys a gun from a firearms dealer, the buyer and the seller have to satisfy certain criteria to have that kind of relationship. The buyer has to pass a background check, which is to say they have to be a certain kind of person. The seller has to be a certain kind of person as well. That kind of person has to have a brick and mortar facility from which to sell the gun. He also has to give the BATF access to that facility at will to inspect his inventory and his bound book to verify if he has satisfied chain of custody documentation. If you don't compel chain of custody, background checks will be useless.

If we want to compel background checks between everybody we will have to turn every gun owner in the United States into a defacto firearms dealer with all the rights and responsibilities thereto. We will be demanding they have a particular kind of relationship with whomever they transfer the firearm. Demanding people be a certain kind of person before they can have a certain kind of relationship is fine if you are regulating a business relationship, but people have all sorts and kinds of personal relationships which may facilitate or require the transfer of a firearm. And that relationship would have to be documented along with federal access into the brick and mortar facility where it occurs, which in the case of personal relationships would be a private residence. The cultural and political ramifications of such regulation are pretty disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:46 PM

72. Or we have to mandate all firearms transfers go through an FFL

De jure that's how most states deal with alcohol, so it's not an impossible idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #72)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:31 PM

111. It gets real complicated real fast.

Would you ask to borrow a gun from a gun store? You won't have much luck. But the president's plan leaves room for "common sense" sharing of guns between family members or for hunting and sport shooting purposes. That, pardon the pun, shoots the chain of custody right in the foot. The administration has already conceded that it is impossible to maintain chain of custody documentation between people when the relationships between cannot be controlled or defined.

Here's a c&p from an earlier post of mine...

Bob and Alice have been married for twenty glorious years. Bob wants to take up target shooting so Alice decides to give him a gun for his birthday. Alice goes to the store with the make and model of the gun he wants, fills out the paperwork pays for the gun and leaves. She gives him his present over dinner that evening.

Bob and Alice have been living together for five years. The neighborhood is going downhill and they can't afford to move, so they decide to get a gun. Since Bob is a truck driver and is often away from home, he tells Alice what to buy and she makes the purchase.

Bob and Alice hooked up at a rave and fell madly in love. Bob thinks guns are cool so Alice goes to the store and buys him one.

Bob and Alice broke up because Alice found out about Cathy. She kicked Bob's cheating ass out but kept the gun. Alice meets John and falls madly in love with him and gives him the gun as a gift.


Relationships are so malleable that any exception will allow people to redefine the relationship to avoid the NICS check. But if you make it mandatory for each and every possible transfer it will be come ridiculously complicated and intrusive.

It always reminds me of this movie...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #111)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:29 PM

129. I get that, and I don't mind sticking with transfer of actual legal ownership

I guess it's more along the lines of how a car is titled. Having it always be legally "somebody's" gun. It's not as good as actual registration, but it's better than Bob selling to any yahoo who comes to his garage sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #129)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:02 AM

130. I can see that. And the trace data would be invalueable.

I just seems to me that the only time it could conceivably be "somebody's gun" is when it gets bought from the dealer. From then on it would be untraceable if people didn't want it traced.

I do like the idea of opening NICS to private citizens, but I don't think we could compel them to use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:43 PM

33. I really appreciate this thread. Some thoughts about rate of fire.

I haven't heard of ways to slow down semi-automatics. But this definitely sounds like a problem with an engineering solution. What if there were a way to get gunmakers to delay the feeding of the next round, or the cocking of the hammer, for X seconds? Say, 5 (aimed shots are going to be slower than that, anyways).

Yes, that would probably be circumventable. Yes, compliance with retrofitting wouldn't be close to 100%. But that's still a very interesting idea, and the public seems to approve of technocratic solutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:51 PM

43. I suspect rate-of-fire has to come from the base design. I doubt one can retro-fit that ...

... Rem autoloader you've been using for ducks.

Grandfathering could take care of a lot of issues. That's where specific make/model designations might be useful.

But if we can stop the proliferation of rapid-firing, high capacity, high powered weapons we'll be doing our society a service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:17 PM

58. Rapid-firing is low-powered.

There is a reason for the M16 to be only .223 cal...and its the same reason why 50 caliber machine guns are mounted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #58)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:15 AM

144. Which is why ...

... the full-auto FAL and M-14 were such a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:32 PM

95. So let's assume that 3 people break into my home. I can only shoot one shot every five seconds ...

I miss with my first shot or it doesn't stop the first attacker. The three guys swarm me and take my gun away. They then shoot me 9 times waiting 5 seconds between each shot.

I should also point out that I can aim and place 5 shots in the black of a 25 yard bullseye pistol target in five seconds especially when using a .22 caliber target pistol which has a low level of recoil. The black center circle (the nine and ten rings) of that target has a diameter of 5.5 inches. At 21 feet I can hit the black of that target 5 times in under 2 seconds without any difficulty and possibly in less than 1 second. For those interested I usually use a Ruger Great Eight target pistol which was a special run of the normal Ruger target pistol made for an outside vendor. At 21 feet I can place all five shots of my S&W .38 caliber snub nosed revolver in the much larger 9 and ten rings of a standard sillouette target in less than 2 seconds. (I should point out that shooting at paper targets that are not shooting back is far easier than shooting at an armed individual who is moving and returning fire.)

I should point out that I am not bragging as many other experienced shooters can hit the target more accurately as fast or faster than I can. I remember one instance when a concealed weapons instructor was teaching a class of students on the range and walked out to the lobby to tell the range master that another shooter was using a fully automatic pistol on the range. He was wrong. The guy was just one very skilled shooter in his early 20s who was attending college while working for the police department. His speed and skill while shooting a semi auto pistol makes me look like an amateur and I have 40 years experience with shooting handguns. A competitive shooter named Jerry Miculek has fired 6 shots from a revolver, reloaded it and fired six more shots in 2.99 seconds. You can read about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Miculek or watch videos of him shooting on YouTube.

I have no idea of how you would engineer a semi-auto pistol or revolver and limit the rate of fire. I imagine it would be a challenge and no manufacturer would have any interest in making one as there would be absolutely no market.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:06 PM

50. This works really well with a "points" system

Let's say a gun gets a limit of 50 points. The gunmaker can "spend" those points on any of these categories:

(These numbers are just thrown out there, and using my illustrative categories rather than Scuba's)

Rate of fire
Bolt action is free
Pump and lever action are 10 points
Semi-automatic is 20 points

Muzzle energy (hash out multiple chamberings later)
1 point per 300 foot-pounds

Form factor
Handguns cost 20 points
Carbines cost 15
Full-length costs 10

Magazine capacity
No magazine is free
Internal magazines at 1 point per bullet
Accepting detachable magazines costs 20 points

I don't know. Maybe it's too complex, but it's very interesting to think about.

So you could have a .50 BMG, but it would have to be a single-shot bolt-action. Or you could have an AR-15 that fires subsonics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:21 PM

62. Good concept. I'm not an expert but does an AR-15 then get ...

20 points for semi-auto
20 points for a detachable magazine

so there would be 10 points left for muzzle energy (3,000 ft/lbs).

That's alot, more I suspect than a .223 generates, meaning the AR-15 would be OK.

If I did that right, I'd advocate for a stingier standard. But I like the concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:30 PM

65. Oh, yeah, the numbers were completely off the top of my head

Just as a proof of concept

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Scuba (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:44 PM

71. jmg257 has a point, and his way is simpler

There's always a simplicity/nuance tradeoff and I think your idea and mine are both leaning towards the "nuance" side. And I'm sure 20 advocates would have 21 different schemes.

There's a million different ways this idea could go and it's not the specifics I'm concerned about at this point; what I like so much is the idea of addressing the capabilities of firearms in regulating them. The much-mentioned NFA was a capabilities-based schedule, and it's worked very well.

There's two very different kinds of shootings we're trying to address here: Newtown/Aurora/Columbine stuff, and "normal" shootings. Weapons regulations like this are a way to address the first kind, and really jmg257 got to the gist of how to do that (limit magazine capacities) as well as the inherent limitations of that (lots of magazines already out there). "Normal" shootings can pretty much only be dealt with by background checks, police work, early intervention, etc., because they pretty much use "normal" guns. (This is less sexy but would save many more lives.)

Basically, as a process issue I'm "for" discussing capabilities of weapons rather than anything else about them. As a policy issue I'm open to a lot along those lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:09 PM

53. Include the range of fire ... the weapon's effective kill distance.

over a specific period of time, say 1 minute.

So let's say the weapon's effective kill distance ends at 50 feet. You draw an 180 degree arch with a 50ft diameter from the weapon. Then you place people shoulder to shoulder all the way around the arc.

How many of the people can the weapon kill in 1 minute when fitted with various type and sizes of ammo?

The more deadly the weapon, the stricter the regulations around both the weapon and the ammo.

I also continue to recommend graded weapons licenses, similar to how driver's licenses are handled. You start with a learner's permit for a particular class of weapons, then you get a restricted license, and then the restrictions are reduced as you demonstrate proficiency.

In addition, today I have a license that allows me to drive a car but not an 18-wheeler. But I can take training, pass a proficiency test, and have my license expanded to include 18 wheelers.

In this model, I can start will one class of weapons, but then increase the set of weapons I can own based on demonstrated proficiency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:12 PM

55. Except murders basically never happen outside of 15'

It's an objective metric, but I don't think long-range shootings are a problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:21 PM

61. Maybe we use a standard size school room, or movie theater?

And ... going back to my earlier suggestion ... you could examine the total "kill area" a particular weapon has.

For instance, I'd suspect that an AR-15 with a 30 clip mag could kill more people over a larger area during a specific time person (like 1 minute) than most hand guns.

I think TIME is an important element in an effort of this type because particularly in these mass killings, its over in a relatively short amount of time.

So the fewer people that can be killed in say a minute, the more time others have to escape, hid, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:10 PM

54. Just ban black guns.

No one has been shot with a pink gun, so all guns should be painted pink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:27 PM

84. Can we stop with the endless litany

 

of formulas, rules, and proposals to limit private firearm possession? It is obvious the antigunners' preference/goal is to ban all firearms. Just say so. It would be more honest and constructive just to start with the anitgunners' actual goal of zero firearms in private ownership. Then the debate can be over should private ownership be permitted and why/why not.

These mindless formulas are ridiculous in the extreme. You can have this, but not that. A rifle can have this type of stock but not that. Handguns can have x number of rounds but not y number of rounds. This color is permitted but that color is not. You can use FMJ but not JHP. You can shoot an assailant if they are at least 1.698322 times your body weight or at least 29% taller than the victim. An exception is made for people with arthritis in their thumbs, but not in there knees. You can use this caliber round, but only if you duct tape a NYC telephone book so that it blocks the muzzle. You can have a concealed carry permit, but only if you wear a speedo. Ad infinitum.

Sheeeeesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #84)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:07 PM

90. Strawman much? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #90)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:23 PM

92. It's satire, not a straw man

 

The whole point of these proposals and formulas is to make gun ownership so burdensome, difficult, expensive, or to limit the firearm's effectiveness to the point that nobody will want to own a gun. I'm just calling it out for what it is.

And IMO many of the actual proposals are equally as ridiculous as the examples in my satire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #92)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:27 PM

93. No, it's strawman. You just added some satire in there for good measure.

But essentially what I read from you is that people who advocate for gun control actually just want a blanket ban on all firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #93)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:51 PM

96. I think the majority of those making such proposals do want a blanket ban.

 

I perceive all of these limitations/regulations/measures as nothing but an incremental step toward the ulterior goal of a total ban. They just know they can't get their ultimate goal implemented now. I think many pro-gun people think the same as I. You apparently contend a total ban is not the goal. But until those making such proposals convince the pro-gun people that a total ban is not the goal I think both sides will keep talking past each other.

Perception is reality. Perception is powerful. In communication, the onus is on the sender, and not the receiver, to clear up misperceptions. For me personally, a good start would be for those wanting measured limitations to be as vocal and forceful against those antigunners wanting a total ban or $5000 per bullet tax as they are against lawful gun owners. When you start calling someone calling for a $5000 per bullet tax "little penis" then maybe I'll start believing you. Until then...talk to the hand because the face ain't listening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #96)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:53 PM

97. Oh, snap girlfriend!



"Antigunners" aren't the ones responsible for over 30,000 deaths a year. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:58 PM

98. Just as I thought

 

Any attempt at serious communication is futile. I'll just stick with snarks in the future. That is all the antigunners deserve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #98)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:58 PM

99. You're the one putting thoughts in people's heads.

Don't be so shocked that people take you as a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #99)


Response to guardian (Reply #98)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:39 AM

133. You started the subthread with snark/satire and then complain about snark?

Meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #93)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:18 PM

101. Some here clearly do

Reality != strawman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to guardian (Reply #84)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:55 PM

105. I don't want to ban them all. That's an NRA talking point. Why do you repeat it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #105)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:21 PM

109. That's NOT an NRA talking point!

Far too many threads here in GD have stated otherwise. Not everyone here proposing restrictions wants to ban them, but quite a few have proposed an incremental approach over the past month and were very clear about it. You can't blame someone for taking away that impression.

Declaring every point you dislike as an "NRA talking point" is just a ruse to shut down debate. It's like yelling "nazi" over someone's argument. If you disagree, then provide your opinion on why the poster is incorrect in his impression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #109)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:29 PM

110. A few DU members do not make decisions for the President or Congress...

Nobody in Washington is saying ban them all. Even New York's latest laws don't being to approach banning them all.

Yet the NRA foments righteous outrage among their members, because 'they're going to ban them all, ya know?'.

It's a red herring. Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #110)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:38 PM

113. The poster was grumbling about Posts on DU.

I'm aware of the situation in Washington. I'm unsure if they can even manage to raise the debt limit, so I don't have high hopes on gun laws.
But the opinions on DU have been far more extreme, as is expected on a political website. Each thread is its own trial balloon or a chance to get your $.02 out there. The poster you had replied to obvious was a bit disillusioned about the debate in GD (and added a large helping of sarcasm to prove it) and was just venting like many others on both sides. I know the NRA is scaring it's members with visions of black helicopters and large internment camps ala Beck, but I think this guys rant was about GD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:52 PM

103. Add muzzle velocity

Caliber is mass. Muzzle velocity is momentum. Takes both to calculate force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:46 PM

115. Caliber category is a little wierd.

 

I think the caliber condition is a little convoluted. I didn't even know 10 gauge shotguns were a problem. Aren't the only 10 gauge shotguns like single shot or double barrel break action? Many handgun caliber hunting weapons (single shot thompson contender pistols and large game revolvers) are commonly chambered in calibers much larger than .44mag, sometimes even rifle calibers. I think the best way to deal with establishing a maximum caliber (in the interest of public safety, of course) is just a single size like .510 inches in diameter for rifled projectiles, 10 gauge for shotguns. It would be easy to understand and easy to enforce.

If you limit to 2 out of three - the intermediate caliber AKs and AR15 would never hit all three catgories. They are, in reality, intermediate in power (typically on the low side of power for atypical rifle cartridge). Some states don't even allow those calibers use for hunting due to low power possibly being inhumane.

Mechanically, there is no simple way to limit semi-automatic fire. A typical person can squeeze a trigger 2-5 times per second. Considering the simple 100+ year old .45acp 1911 with 7 round magazine, a very average 3.5 shots per second and a mediocre reload time of 3 seconds... you're looking at a maximum rate of fire of about 90 rounds per minute. Under the same conditions, a common 10 round pistol can about 110 rounds per minute. Basically, ANY mag-fed semiauto can EASILY surpass any reasonable limit on shots per minute assuming average shooting skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:25 PM

119. Nice Try On Your Part. But You See What's Happened To Your Thread.


Presenting any sort of formula for controlling guns is an open invitation for the Gun Enthusiasts to pick it to pieces, ostensibly on the basis of this or that technical "metric" they don't like. The plain fact is, these people don't want any sort of restrictions placed on guns whatsoever. Again, your constructive efforts are appreciated by those of us who view the wide-open trafficking in guns as a national disgrace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #119)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:30 PM

120. There are some constructive posts. I knew the antis would try to muddy the waters ...

... but we shall not be deterred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:16 PM

125. Wait, what?

 

Wait, what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:29 PM

128. A very fine point, if this does not seem reasonable let's go for a bb gun

It is about being sensible and it does not matter what description brought forth let the limits be placed as you have stated. If your offering does not go well then we can start with a single bb weapon with lever action and end somewhere in the sensible area you have put forth. We have to protect our citizens, mental health, video games and violent movies or shows needs to be limited. Bottom line, without the weapons used in recent mass shootings being available the shootings will not result in as many deaths. Gun lovers should be promoting safety and sensible use and not the mad max gun nuts. ENOUGH!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:46 AM

147. Have you ever considered ...

... that an ordinary citizen just might need an effective firearm for a legitimate purpose? Or is humanity just a mass of ticking time bombs in your estimation?

I'm sorry, because I know you mean well, but I would suggest that taking mass murder as a given and then looking for a technological fix that will mitigate the death toll is macabre. If that truly is the best solution, then civilization has failed and we now live in Hell.

Oops -- I forgot to be constructive. Take your metric and apply it to a tiered licensing scheme. A person would be licensed to own a certain class of firearm, based on background checks and training qualifications. Strict "Shall Issue" on clear criteria would have to be guaranteed, and registration would most likely not be necessary. It would be enforced at point-of-sale.

It won't stop gang-and-drug violence or suicidal spree killers, but it's something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:43 AM

152. good ideas

thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:57 PM

156. I like the concept,

I'd quibble about details, but the concept definitely has promise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread