HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 Next »

benEzra

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 03:09 PM
Number of posts: 11,712

Journal Archives

Except you're fighting to ban many of the *least* powerful and *least* misused.

Rifle bans in particular are not aimed at violence reduction whatsoever, since all rifles combined account for fewer than 3% of U.S. homicides, less than half as many as shoes and bare hands.

Rifle bans are aimed at "othering" gun enthusiasts, not fighting violence.

The 1994 Feinstein law banned no guns, and actually tripled sales of AR's and AK's after 1994.

All it did was to require that civilian AR's and AK's could not be marketed under any of 19 banned names, and had to have a smooth muzzle or a pinned on muzzle brake instead of a threaded brake or flash suppressor. The AR-15 became the most popular civilian rifle in the United States during the Feinstein non-ban, and ironically the nonsensical law probably made the AR's dominance of the civilian market occur a decade earlier than it would have otherwise. 20, 30, and 40+ round magazines for AR's, AK's, and whatnot could be freely imported, possessed, and sold during the non-ban, and were.

The only real effect of the law was to help drive the handgun market toward smaller, more concealable pistols, and toward larger calibers in full-sized pistols, by making traditional 15+ round 9mm magazines more expensive. But it did not ban them, and they could be freely bought and sold. The civilian AK that I shot for a while in USPSA competition was a 2002 model, FWIW. I bought it in 2003, along with several 30-round magazines and a rare 40-round RPK magazine. The 30's were $10 or $15, as I recall.

We have. Our existing firearms laws reflect the U.S. consensus.

Automatic weapons and over-.50's are tightly controlled, as are sound suppressed weapons, disguised firearms, and explosive projectiles. Non-automatic civilian small arms under .51 caliber are considered suitable for civilian ownership here, as are most over-.50 shotguns and some over-.50 rifles, and always have been. The mentally incompetent, felons, and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are prohibited from ownership, most states require a license to carry concealed, and there are a large body of restrictions on when and where guns may be fired.

I'll also point out that the guns the gun control lobby wants to ban here are the *least* misused of all weapons in this country, accounting for 2% or less of U.S. homicides, despite being the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes. Fighting to ban them is nonsensical, and arguing that the USA should embrace gun laws that even the United Kingdom has rejected (never mind the rest of Europe) is pretty far out there.

Then you should tell all the physicists working on supercavitating projectiles, blades, and foils

that their entire field has been using their terminology wrong since the 1960s and needs to get it straight. Also be sure to tell the peer reviewed fluid dynamics journals that they are doing it wrong and need to revise all their articles ASAP.

But aside from all terminology quibbles, all bullets do form temporary low-pressure cavities in fluid media upon impact, but such cavities are not well correlated with lethality, just temporary incapacitation, and then mostly out of rifle-length barrels. .223 creates such cavities, but smaller ones than deer calibers do, and citing temporary cavity as a rationale for banning centerfire .22's is rather silly, IMO.

I think it's really wrongheaded that Marine Corps officers and NCO's

don't have *any* armed response capabilities in off-base situations like this. The best they might manage under the current system is to run to their car where they can legally have a weapon. A civilian desk jockey on a Federal installation sits behind armed protection, but a career officer or master sergeant in a recruiting station or similar facility, even at elevated FPCON, has less ability to defend their installation than my 75-year-old dad does drinking coffee at Bojangles.

It reminds me of post-9/11, when National Guard troops were stationed to "guard" airports and other potential terrorism targets with empty carbines and empty magazines; it doesn't make sense to me, IMO.

He wants to ban 100-rounders, he says. Problem is,

the gun control lobby keeps going after popular 11 to 30 round magazines, going back to the 1860s and 1870s, of which there are now a third of a billion or more in U.S. homes.

You guys would have gotten a lot more traction with magazine capacity limits if you set the limit more reasonably, like 30 for rifles and 20 for pistols, instead of aiming for 40% less capacity than a New Yorker could buy in 1862. Calling anything over 10 rounds "high capacity", when the first mainstream civilian repeating rifles of the 1860s held 16+1, most full sized 9mm pistols hold 17+1, and most small-caliber rifles hold 30, is as ludicrous as calling any abortion after 10 weeks "late term". It's simply not. Heck, Lewis and Clark carried a 20-round repeater on their famous expedition in 1804 to 1806, with a power similar to a modern .45 ACP.

Of course, the lobbyists poisoned the well for that issue by going for a 10- or 15-round limit in the first place. After seeing the desired end goal (10? even lower?), even a 30-round limit will likely be seen as only a stepping stone to the ridiculous capacity limits the prohibition lobby wants, and be opposed on that basis.

Australia also bans pump shotguns, and is now talking about banning lever-actions

and straight-pull bolt-actions. Australian gun restrictions are ridiculous even by the UK's standards, which in turn are ridiculous by European standards. John Kerry's shotgun would get him tossed into prison in Australia, even though it'd be perfectly legal in the UK.

And calling a non-automatic civilian rifle a "WMD" (especially a relatively low-powered one) is to stretch that term beyond all recognition. If an intermediate-caliber Title 1 civilian carbine is a "WMD", what term do you use for nukes?

I would call that "artistic ignorance." (n/t)

And that line is drawn at .51 caliber,automatic fire, and explosives.

Non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed handguns, rifles, and shotguns under .51 caliber (with exemptions for some over-.50 weapons, like 12-gauge and 20-gauge shotguns and African big-game rifles) is where the consensus is in this country for gun ownership.

The prohibition lobby has made attacking that consensus its #1 priority since the early 1990s, but the only thing that has done is to discredit the gun control lobby, and hasten the mainstreaming of nontraditional looking civilian guns in the mid-1990s.

Now the guns and magazines the prohibitionists most want to ban define the mainstream, yet are among the least misused weapons in the nation. It's not that the gun control lobby can't grasp that fact, either; they fully understand it, they just don't care.

Do you have any *idea* how many American voters

an Australia-style ban and confiscation would affect?

You'd probably be talking in the neighborhood of 60+ million gun owners and 200+ million guns affected, plus a quarter-billion-plus magazines. Even compared to France, Germany, Norway, Finland, and New Zealand, Australian gun laws are downright totalitarian. Heck, they make England's gun laws look relatively free by comparison (Brits can own semiautomatic and pump shotguns with unlimited magazine capacity, whereas Australia even banned and confiscated pump shotguns).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 Next »