HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Let's call them what they...

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 11:57 AM

Let's call them what they are:

Semi automatic magazine fed rifles.

This phrase "assault rifle" is bullshit. Language should clarify thought.

The AR 15 is no deadlier than the M1 Garand nor the Mini 14. It is more ergonomic, customizable and modern looking, but with regard to the purposes that some people want to control and/or eliminate long guns the rifle that they used in WW2 is actually deadlier.

The item that some want to get rid of and others enjoy using is a long gun that shoots every time the trigger is pulled and can be quickly and easily reloaded with a magazine.

It would behoove those favoring tighter control to use accurate language, because otherwise you'll have an infinitely long dance as you try to restrict something you haven't defined. As long as it can be fed by a magazine and fire each time the trigger is pulled it will be capable of killing many people in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, whether it looks like something out of Star Wars or something great grandpa brought home from the war,

And, to enthusiasts, it appears you are being intellectually dishonest or ignorant because you are talking about banning one subset of something in such a way as to NOT address the problem (the ability of an individual to fire a lot of very powerful bullets very quickly with a potentially high degree of accuracy) while inconveniencing and pissing off a lot of law abiding citizens, and often voters in swing states.

What you want to restrict is a very broad category of firearm, but the fundamental features that make it deadly haven't changed since grandpa's time: it shoots every time you pull the trigger and you can slam in a new magazine in seconds. Banning "high capacity" magazines or adding features that make it slower and more difficult to change are chimeras, easy as hell to get around

Personally, I both like firearms and damned well know there are people who should *NOT* have them (regardless of what the Constitution says. violent idiots should not have guns, period). And I see the discussion in general as a positive for our democracy. I just think that if we defined and agreed about what we were discussing there would be more light and less heat.

144 replies, 17206 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 144 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's call them what they are: (Original post)
The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 OP
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #1
virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #2
The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #3
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #10
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #9
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #4
The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #6
The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #8
gejohnston Jul 2016 #13
aikoaiko Aug 2016 #15
DonP Aug 2016 #16
flamin lib Jul 2016 #11
Straw Man Jul 2016 #12
Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #14
The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #18
flamin lib Aug 2016 #19
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #21
Straw Man Aug 2016 #25
Marengo Aug 2016 #30
flamin lib Aug 2016 #36
benEzra Aug 2016 #35
flamin lib Aug 2016 #37
benEzra Aug 2016 #42
Straw Man Aug 2016 #55
pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #61
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #56
benEzra Aug 2016 #76
Puha Ekapi Aug 2016 #75
pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #59
Marengo Aug 2016 #87
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #94
Marengo Aug 2016 #95
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #96
Marengo Aug 2016 #97
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #98
jmg257 Aug 2016 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #22
flamin lib Aug 2016 #24
Marengo Aug 2016 #31
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #34
Marengo Aug 2016 #47
pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #60
flamin lib Aug 2016 #38
Marengo Aug 2016 #46
flamin lib Aug 2016 #48
Marengo Aug 2016 #49
flamin lib Aug 2016 #65
Marengo Aug 2016 #85
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #67
Marengo Aug 2016 #70
Puha Ekapi Aug 2016 #78
benEzra Aug 2016 #79
Marengo Aug 2016 #140
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #141
Marengo Aug 2016 #142
benEzra Aug 2016 #143
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #144
Straw Man Aug 2016 #50
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #17
The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #23
jimmy the one Aug 2016 #26
jimmy the one Aug 2016 #27
benEzra Aug 2016 #32
flamin lib Aug 2016 #39
benEzra Aug 2016 #45
Straw Man Aug 2016 #51
The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #88
flamin lib Aug 2016 #90
benEzra Aug 2016 #138
jimmy the one Aug 2016 #28
The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #29
benEzra Aug 2016 #33
flamin lib Aug 2016 #41
benEzra Aug 2016 #43
flamin lib Aug 2016 #71
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #72
Straw Man Aug 2016 #73
benEzra Aug 2016 #74
Puha Ekapi Aug 2016 #93
Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #77
benEzra Aug 2016 #81
Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #82
Straw Man Aug 2016 #53
flamin lib Aug 2016 #40
benEzra Aug 2016 #44
flamin lib Aug 2016 #66
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #68
Straw Man Aug 2016 #52
beevul Aug 2016 #99
Sancho Aug 2016 #54
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #57
Sancho Aug 2016 #62
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #63
Sancho Aug 2016 #64
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #69
beevul Aug 2016 #100
Sancho Aug 2016 #101
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #106
Sancho Aug 2016 #107
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #108
Sancho Aug 2016 #109
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #111
gejohnston Aug 2016 #112
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #110
beevul Aug 2016 #113
Sancho Aug 2016 #114
beevul Aug 2016 #116
Sancho Aug 2016 #117
beevul Aug 2016 #118
Sancho Aug 2016 #119
beevul Aug 2016 #120
Sancho Aug 2016 #121
beevul Aug 2016 #123
Sancho Aug 2016 #124
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #126
Sancho Aug 2016 #128
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #130
Sancho Aug 2016 #131
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #134
beevul Aug 2016 #135
beevul Aug 2016 #133
benEzra Aug 2016 #137
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #122
pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #58
Motley13 Aug 2016 #80
benEzra Aug 2016 #83
mwrguy Aug 2016 #84
benEzra Aug 2016 #86
Straw Man Aug 2016 #89
pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #91
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #92
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #102
Straw Man Aug 2016 #103
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #104
Straw Man Aug 2016 #105
beevul Aug 2016 #115
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #125
jmg257 Aug 2016 #127
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #129
jmg257 Aug 2016 #132
benEzra Aug 2016 #139
beevul Aug 2016 #136

Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 03:17 PM

1. I can appreciate your thoughts on these matters. But this is a culture war...

 

The controller/banners are looking for ANY restrictions, however ineffective or ill-conceived, in order to strike back at whole populations of people which have been amply demonized on this site and in MSM. The same kind of anything goes approach has ALWAYS underwritten prohibitionist theory; the thing, the practice, the status is secondary, even the purported society improvements (rarely defined in the face of the very real data of far fewer crimes and childhood accidental gun deaths) are of minor importance. It is the hatred of other people that is all to the prohibitionist. What has caused this prohibitionism to persist is not the numbers of gun controllers, their financial backing or some splendid grassroots organizing. It is the near hegemony of anti-gun viewpoints within the policies and editorial staff of MSM, and the elite positioning of anti-gun politicians within the Democratic Party. Even the assumed political support of academia has fallen on hard times since the Bellesiles' blow up, and the increasing weight of data showing the drop in crime and gun accident rates.

The prohis are locked into their highly-charged moral positions (as evidenced by the same gun control droning at the Convention) probably to placate the elite hardcore in the Party, and to gve some mystical assurance to minorities that their communities can be improved by passing ban laws, sorta like the WOD, another prohibition supported by both parties and the leadership within these communities. Fortunately, drug prohibition is beginning to smell of complete decay.

Worthy of future discussion:. How the Democratic Party, which has junked its older liberal/progressive foundation (FDR, HST, HHH, LBJ, etc.), has come to rely on the emaciated and false god of regulatory proprohibition, and how all this dovetails with the Party's evident abandonment of whole swaths of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 04:30 PM

2. Ditto...

Worthy of future discussion:. How the Democratic Party, which has junked its older liberal/progressive foundation (FDR, HST, HHH, LBJ, etc.), has come to rely on the emaciated and false god of regulatory prohibition, and how all this dovetails with the Party's evident abandonment of whole swaths of the country.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:43 PM

3. My pony real point is that language should serve to clarify

not obfuscate, the issue(s) and point(s) of stasis. "Assault weapon"obfuscates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 02:12 PM

10. I agree, and "assault weapons" was purposefully used to obfuscate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 02:11 PM

9. Thanx for the graphics.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 05:52 PM

4. the big idea

The primal urge: I read/hear about a mass murder (especially involving young people, students or children) and a gut response is that I want it to be more illegal than it already is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 06:32 PM

5. But mass killing is already as illegal as anything could be.

How do we realistically keep it from happening.

That some people want to just make them all illegal, confiscate them all and melt them all down is understandable, God knows I'd feel that way if my kid or lover had been shot by one of those loonies.... but not only impracticable but even overtly stating that as the goal would doom any and all Democratic party power for a generation or more.

I can understand both people who are horrified and disgusted by the very existence of guns and people who love them and think they are intrinsically fun, works of art, vital to individual safety and an explicit constitutional right to possess and bear.

I used to live in San Francisco I was born there, I understand how someone who lives there, or in NY can consider someone wanting a semi automatic high powered rifle as fucking insane. I had a moron neighbor across the street who kept threatening to shoot his girlfriend with a 30-06 ( a rifle quite capable of penetrating several walls after going through a person, great for deer or Nazis at 200 yards, not the optimum choice for use in a city neighborhood).

I'm only saying that the discussion should be not about "assault weapons" but about what the controllers are worried about and what many citizens own and use, and use the correct description. Arguing about features like picitinney rails ( the cool modular attachments for everything from lights to bayonets to grenade launchers), or pistol grips is stupid; what actually concerns the restrictionists is the capacity for firing a lot of bullets, with great accuracy, in a short amount of time.

The fact that an AR-15 type rifle is light weight, ergonomic, customizable and uses ammunition that weighs much less than what a GI of WW2 carried per bullet does not matter, I think, if what the bad guy is doing involves carrying the rifle from a parking lot into a night club or building. All that stuff would matter greatly if you were carrying it 20 miles a day every day, but a few hundred feet- grandpa's M1 hits way harder for weighting a bit more and not being totally customizable, and it's 100 year old technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 07:57 PM

6. basic answers

How do we realistically keep it from happening:
Short answer, we don't. We can't predict the future so we can't lock up folks before hand.

People generally turn to crime when they're out of legal alternatives. Giving people more options and better social support will help.
People are hung up on the idea of crime prevention. Gun-control is a myth. The only control there is over a gun is that which the one who holds it subscribes to. I object to gun laws even being called gun-"control".




confiscate them all and melt them all down:
I engage some of those folks for a post or three and point out the scale of the task and resources required and then give up on them.




I used to live in San Francisco I was born there, I understand how someone who lives there, or in NY can consider someone wanting a semi automatic high powered rifle as fucking insane:
I was born in Philly. I grew up hearing about the mob hits during the 70s. I remember when the Chicken Man got hit. I remember watching Skinny Joey on the news with regularity. I moved to an NYC suburb and remember their news on TV. One of the first stories that really stuck with me was about a multi-car drive by at a pool party. We had that stuff in Philly too but unlike Philly the folks at party returned fire. I worked in El Segundo for several years. I stayed in Inglewood. A lot of the same stuff.
Guns don't bother me much. I think most folks aren't out to kill me. I shot competitively from when I was 15 until 22.




the discussion should be not about "assault weapons":
Of course not. But the media is after sound bites and buzz words. The politicians who use them know that. Unfortunately many using these terms think things like 'every full-auto assault weapon 30 clip magazine rifle fires 300 bullets per second.' Yeah, exactly your point. In short, many don't know what they're talking about. Ever try convincing them to learn? You get accused of "technicalities" and "talking points".




grandpa's M1 hits way harder for weighting a bit more and not being totally customizable, and it's 100 year old technology:
I've fired an M-1 several times, stripped it, cleaned it and reloaded ammo for it, 150 grain spitzers and 220s. It's a great rifle. A Garand is a rifle that can shoot over 500 yards and for me, that's where my interest is. It's not what you'd pick for an indoor gun fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 08:01 PM

7. I'm jonseing for a Henry Big Boy in ..357

As I put it on my Facebook page: A firearm for people who still write with a fountain pen, as I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 30, 2016, 08:07 PM

8. Sounds pretty nice

Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:58 PM

13. I prefer to think of it as a firearm who appreciates craftsmanship and

tradition of a uniquely US design. Besides, the idea of paying a couple of grand for plastic and stamped metal that I can't legally hunt deer with, without changing the upper.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:26 AM

15. How many rounds does the .357 magazine hold? Maybe 1 more with .38 sp?



curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 03:17 AM

16. Usually 1 fewer .357 than .38 Spl, at least in my Uberti lever action '92

 

Also depends on whether it's a full size rifle or carbine length. The rifles usually hold 2 more rounds than the carbine model in the same caliber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 03:33 PM

11. So, 103 people shot in an Orlando night club with an AR 15 derivative.

How many could have been shot with the M1 Garand?

No, the AR platform is much more deadly than the M1 otherwise the military would still be using the Garand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:07 PM

12. Wrong again.

No, the AR platform is much more deadly than the M1 otherwise the military would still be using the Garand.

The military went first to the M14, which fired a .308 cartridge comparable in power to the .30-06 Garand but had full-auto capability and a detachable magazine. They soon realized that full-auto isn't controllable with such a powerful cartridge. Hence the change to the .223, which is less powerful and therefore lower-recoiling and more controllable.

A semi-auto in .223 is less powerful than one in .30-06. Controllability isn't a factor in the absence of full-auto capability. A detachable magazine is the key difference, but that is not unique to the AR platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:10 PM

14. Not to mention the military went away from full auto

 

To three round burst. To much of a waste of ammunition and ruins the weapon. But the civilian and military version LOOK the same, that is what counts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:05 AM

18. Nope.

At least as many would have been shot with a Garand. And since the bullets have much more power probably more people would have died.

The AR is lighter, the ammo weighs less (if you had to carry 200 rounds over mountains, etc) and can be custom tweaked more easily. NONE of which would matter if carrying it and some magazines a quarter mile to a club or office were all you were going to use it for.

that's my whole point; the fixation on the AR is of no use to the discussion, the phrase 'assault rifle' detracts from the discussion. The fact it is lighter and easier to carry 20 miles matters about as much as the quality of the sound system on a truck that is going to loaded with explosives and detonated somewhere. It might matter a lot about the stereo if you were going to drive it 50K a year, tho'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #18)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 10:24 AM

19. Really? God that's pathetic. How far will gun people go to defend their fetish.

The AR's cyclic rate is almost 700 rounds per minute-I know I'be done it. It can have up to 100 round magazines tho 30 is most common. The magazine can be replaced in less than a second.

The M1 only carries 10 rounds, cycles at a fraction of the AR and is reloaded with replaceable clips that can't be replaced as quickly. It is twice the size of the MCX, can't be hidden under a coat and is unwieldy in crowded spaces.

The M1 was the last trench gun. The AR is an urban , close quarters weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #19)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 10:52 AM

21. I agree

Holding on to the idea of an AWB is a really unfortunate and distracting fetish.

However, an accurate cyclic rate for the AR is about 80-90 per minute if you actually aim. The enbloc clip used with the M1 holds 8 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #19)

Wed Aug 3, 2016, 07:31 PM

25. Facts, please.

The AR's cyclic rate is almost 700 rounds per minute-I know I'be done it.

The 700 rounds-per-minute figure is for the full-auto M16 or M4. For a semi-auto rifle -- like an AR -- to achieve that rate of fire, you would have to be able to pull the trigger 11.66 times per second. Tell me you've done that.

Do you know the difference between sustained and cyclic rate of fire? The sustained rate of fire for an M16 -- meaning how many rounds you can fire over an extended period of time without destroying your rifle -- is 12 to 15 rounds per minute.

The M1 only carries 10 rounds, cycles at a fraction of the AR and is reloaded with replaceable clips that can't be replaced as quickly. It is twice the size of the MCX, can't be hidden under a coat and is unwieldy in crowded spaces.

The rate of fire for semi-auto rifles is based on how fast you can pull the trigger. That of an M1 Garand is 40 to 50 rounds per minute. That of an AR (or an M16 fired in semi-auto mode) is 45 to 60. That's a marginal difference, as is the differential in the time it takes to change magazines.





The M1 was the last trench gun. The AR is an urban , close quarters weapon.

There is no such thing as an "urban, close quarters weapon" that fires only in semi-auto. Perhaps you're thinking of the M4/M16.

The "urban, close quarters weapon" of WWII was the Thompson submachine gun. However, it fired a lowly pistol caliber: .45 ACP. The whole "assault rifle" concept was to develop a rifle-caliber weapon that fires full-auto. The civilian variant AR does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 04:02 PM

30. 10 rounds? Didn't you claim to have more knowledge about guns...

 

Than most of the "gun nuts" here on DU? Yet you make such a fundemental error?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=11154

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:12 PM

36. See 24. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:08 PM

35. If you are talking about cyclic rate, you're not talking about an AR.

An AR is physically incapable of firing at the cyclic rate of an M16, due to the fact that all civilian guns (like AR's) have to deal with trigger reset. If you are talking cyclic rate, you are thinking of a Title 2 restricted military/government M16, and even then that's only the instantaneous rate, not the actual rate of fire.

If you are talking about the cycle time of a semiauto, an M1 is only slightly slower, and only because the bolt has to travel further back to clear those big high-powered rounds. If you scale down the M1 Garand action to fit the little .223 cartridge, then you have a Ruger Mini-14, a wooden-stocked non-"assault-weapon" that fires at exactly the same (civilian) rate as the AR-15, and has the same range of magazine capacities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:21 PM

37. You are wrong, I've done it

and got kicked off the range in the process. Argument just like this one and we met at the range, loaded 15 rounds and my antagonist timed the test with a stop watch. He touched my shoulder and I fired as fast as possible. Did the math and I walked away $20 richer.

Then there's bump fire which is legal as per ATF and can be done with a fucking rubber band.

Now, wanna' call me a liar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:02 PM

42. Even bump-firing, an AR-15 can't touch the cyclic rate of an M16

because in an M16, the sear is tripped by the bolt carrier; the trigger doesn't have to be released and pulled again. While bump-firing, you float the rifle forward to allow the trigger to reset, but an M16 would have fired that next round as soon as the bolt closed. Bump firing is a fun simulation of cyclic, if all you are trying to hit is the berm, but put up 10 helium balloons a few feet apart and try to hit them bump-firing. Then try it from dynamic positions, and on the move, and with transitions from target to garget. I shoot competitively with an AR-15, and I guarantee that anyone who tried to clear an IPSC stage bump-firing would come in dead last.

An AR-15 doesn't fire any faster than a Ruger mini-14, or a 9mm pistol, or a 10/22, or any other civilian semiauto. I used to own a Mini-14 (Ranch Rifle) and functionally there is no difference between it and an AR, except that the AR makes a better target rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #37)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 07:02 AM

55. No. You have not done it.

You are wrong, I've done it

and got kicked off the range in the process.

You are claiming that you achieved a 700 rounds-per-minute rate with an AR rifle, right? That's what this ...

The AR's cyclic rate is almost 700 rounds per minute-I know I'be done it

... means. And it's impossible with a semi-auto rifle.

Argument just like this one and we met at the range, loaded 15 rounds and my antagonist timed the test with a stop watch. He touched my shoulder and I fired as fast as possible. Did the math and I walked away $20 richer.

To achieve a 700 rounds-per-minute rate of fire, you had to fire those 15 rounds in 1.3 seconds. Is that your claim? In semi-auto? Pardon my skepticism.

Now, wanna' call me a liar?

I'll be charitable and say that you "did the math" wrong. You owe your friend $20.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #55)


Response to flamin lib (Reply #37)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 08:20 AM

56. Pardon my intrusion

In firing almost 12 rounds per second with a semi-auto, could you please roughly characterize the size of the pattern on the target and the distance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #56)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:01 PM

76. Jerry Miculek, a professional athlete widely regarded as the fastest shooter in the world,

can do 6 shots per second with a .223 on a single target at very close range, not counting the initial acquisition time. That's approximately the same speed he can shoot a pistol, a revolver, a 12-gauge shotgun, or a .50 BMG, because at that speed the limits are driven by the capabilities of the human nervous system and trigger reset time, not the caliber. Top-grade CAS competitors are only slightly slower with lever-actions.

If someone can shoot 12 shots a second that actually hit something other than the berm/ground, they could be making a living outshooting the best professional shooters in the world.

As an aside, I think this shotgun (23 rounds of 12-gauge in 3.7 seconds) is UK-legal, as Brits can own semiauto shotguns of unlimited capacity on the 2nd-tier certificate, IIRC:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #37)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 12:57 PM

75. Now, wanna' call me a liar?

Sure, I gladly do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #35)


Response to flamin lib (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 03:27 PM

87. Why do you considdr the M1 as "the last trench gun"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #87)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 11:37 AM

94. Trench warfare was a thing of the past by the time the M1 was developed (late 1930's)

Methinks a certain self-proclaimed 'expert' isn't actually an expert...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #94)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 11:43 AM

95. That's what I was wondering. By the time the M1 was adopted, the Army was concentrating...

 

On developing mobile warfare capability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #95)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 12:44 PM

96. "trench gun":

"...the modern concept of the combat shotgun was fully developed by the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I. The trench gun, as it was called, was a short-barreled pump action shotgun loaded with 6 rounds containing antimony hardened 00 buckshot, and equipped with a bayonet. The M1897 and M1912 also could be slam fired: the weapon having no trigger disconnector, shells could be fired one after the other simply by working the slide if the trigger was held down. When fighting within a trench, the shorter shotgun could be rapidly turned and fired in both directions along the trench axis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun


IMHO, the M1 is the antithesis of the trench gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #96)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 01:59 PM

97. I've only seen the term used to describe combat shotguns. I'd like to understand the context...

 

In which he uses the term. Were the standard infantry rifles of that period specifically designed for trench warfare? What characteristics define a rifle designed for trench warfare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #97)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 02:54 PM

98. AFAIK "trench gun" never refers to a rifle

Combat shotgun = trench gun, used in CQ in a trench or tunnel. It is shorter than a standard shotgun and generally pump action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #18)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 10:46 AM

20. Not sure about you, but I guarantee I can get 120 rounds out of an AR a lot faster

then an M-1.

Swapping 3 mags vs. thumb-loading 15 8-rnd clips?? That is 1.5x cartridge belts worth, or almost 3 bandoliers!


The size and weight of the piece, plus recoil on the 30-06 will be a bit more too.

May be a more lethal round - but at indoor distances, not sure how much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #20)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 11:04 AM

22. ballistic damage from .30-06 in CQ...

...would be catastrophic or lethal in most cases and probably also seriously injure 1 or 2 people behind the primary target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 3, 2016, 01:57 PM

24. Yeah, 8 vs 10 rounds per clip. Was mixing Enfield with Garand. Thanks for the correction. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 04:12 PM

31. The M1 is clip fed, whereas the Enfield is magazine fed. There really isn't any excuse...

 

For one so knowledgable to confuse the two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:00 PM

47. I daresay that is a dubious claim.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #47)


Response to Marengo (Reply #31)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:25 PM

38. Only for bonefide gun nutz. The clip on the M1 is a box loaded outside the rifle.

The Enfield uses a stripper clip.

The question remains, could the Orlando shooter have shot 103 people with an M1 as opposed to the MCX?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:59 PM

46. No, this is basic technical terminology which someone of your supposed expertise...

 

Should be able to articulate with ease, yet I'm not seeing evidence of that. The Enfield system feeds from the magazine, not a charger (stripper clip). The charger loads the magazine. You'll notice I didn't use the word "clip" to incorrectly identify the Enfield's magazine as you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:29 PM

48. No, Marengo, this deflection over minutia and an attempt to ad honemiem

your way out of a losing argument. I confused the ammunition capacity of two WW II era trench guns and the gun nutz DO NOT WANT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION AT HAND. Could the Orlando shooter have shot 103 people with an M1 Garand assuming he could have gotten it inside the venue? Or to the OP, is the M1 Garand more deadly than the AR platform?

Address that issue. Dare ya' and a nany nany booboo to go with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #48)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 11:48 PM

49. What "losing argument"? Correcting your erroneous terminology? It's extremely difficult for me...

 

To understand how someone with your supposed vast level of firearms knowledge could confuse a semiautomatic, gas operated, clip fed M1 with a manually operated bolt action, magazine fed Enfield. In addition, you referred to the Enfield's feeding device as a "clip". These minutia accumulate and call into question your self professed status as some sort of expert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #49)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 02:36 PM

65. You're still deflecting and attacking me instead of addressing the basic premise. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #65)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 03:24 PM

85. I'm addressing your self professed status as someone highly knowledgeable of firearms...

 

Very difficult to accept considering some of the fundamental errors you have displayed in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #48)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:16 PM

67. "If YOU don't understand the internal mechanisms of assault weapons I suggest that you are...

...too ignorant of the topic to have this discussion."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211146#post8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #48)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:52 PM

70. Why do you refer to the M1 as a trench gun?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #70)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:11 PM

78. No shit.

If I was in battle and had the need to reach out to 500 meters and really put the hurt on an enemy and my two choices were an M-16 or an M-1, I know which one I'd choose. It wouldn't be the M-16

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #48)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:26 PM

79. In that particular venue, the Orlando shooter could have shot 103 people with a full-sized pistol,

a multitude of CA- and NY-legal non-"assault-weapon" carbines like the Mini-14, or a comp'd semiauto shotgun and speedloaders (UK legal, BTW), or a pump-action rifle like the Remington 7615. If all the above were banned, he could have used a detachable-magazine lever-action. And as a state-licensed armed security guard, he could have gotten a gun even if guns for "civilians" were completely banned and magically confiscated.

Banning modern-looking rifles does not, in any way, address mass murder. You are talking about outlawing guns in the USA that are considered suitable for civilian use in Canada and most of Europe, for pete's sake. It is about sticking it to people you despise, not saving lives.

I'll reiterate: 1300+ murders in Massachusetts in 8 years, and all rifles put together (including AR-15's) accounted for exactly seven of those. That is fewer than one murder year in the entire state, on average. Nationwide, rifles are involved in less than 300 murders annually out of 12,000+. Bans on civilian rifles are about sticking it to people you despise, not saving lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #48)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 08:27 AM

140. Still wondering why you refer to the M1 as a "trench gun"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #140)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 01:59 PM

141. I wouldn't be holding your breathe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #141)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 02:19 PM

142. You're likely right, but I am genuinely curious having owned several M1s over the years...

 

I've not read every piece of literature out there on the M1 and don't claim to be any kind of expert, however in what I have studied I haven't encountered the term used to describe the rifle. There must be a reason why he applies it, and I'd like to know why. I think I may know, and just want to confirm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #140)

Tue Aug 23, 2016, 08:39 PM

143. Because it's an "Evil Scary Gun Term", and "assault weapon" was already taken....

"Saturday Night Special" and "Riot Gun" didn't fit the context, "Sniper Rifle" didn't fit due to lack of optic, and "Bunker Buster" was too ridiculously hyperbolic to ever gain traction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #143)

Wed Aug 24, 2016, 05:38 AM

144. If only the control types could...

...hire someone with advertising experience. Someone used to creatively connecting words such that they charismatically attach to emotion and inspire verve among the faithful.

Someone like that would be....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #38)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:10 AM

50. I beg to differ.

The clip on the M1 is a box loaded outside the rifle.

This is a detachable box magazine for an AR or M16.




This is an M1 Garand's enbloc clip, which is used to load the rifle's fixed, internal magazine.




The Enfield uses a stripper clip.

This is an Lee Enfield being loaded with a stripper clip.





But that's not the only way to load a Lee Enfield. This is a Lee Enfield stripper clip next to a loaded Lee Enfield magazine. Notice that the magazine is a detachable box magazine, like that of the AR/M16. The Lee Enfield can be loaded either way: with the magazine in place via stripper clips, or by swapping out the empty box magazine for a preloaded one, as with an AR or M16.




The question remains, could the Orlando shooter have shot 103 people with an M1 as opposed to the MCX?

Yes. He had plenty of time. He also had a handgun.

Another factor to be considered is that shooting into a dense crowd with the .30-06 Garand would result in many more pass-through hits than the weaker .223. A .30-06 at close range, with full-metal-jacket ammunition, could easily pass through three or even four people before coming to rest.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:23 PM

17. I really want to say thanks for this OP...

...as it highlights an important issue. Imagine being a football fan, either kind, American football or what the rest of the world knows as football (soccer). Only there's a twist; all the players have to wear exactly the same uniform. There are no distinguishing markings, letters, numbers, colors or features. I suggest that the game would be a bit more difficult. It would be especially difficult for anyone who was near sighted. Three players cross in front of you with their backs turned. You can't tell who has the ball or what side they're on.

It's just tough being against something (guns, the opposing team...) when you can't identify what you're against.

This is what law is all about.

http://www.guns.com/2016/08/01/battle-lines-harden-in-controversial-massachusetts-assault-weapon-rule-change/

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who supports the state’s 1998 assault weapon ban, at first approved of Healey’s efforts but later qualified his concern that law-abiding gun owners may inadvertently end up criminalized.

On July 26, Baker’s stand against Healey seemed to become more pronounced in the form of an official letter, coupled with one from Secretary of Public Safety and Security Daniel Bennett, which questioned the policy change. Bennett went so far as to do a nuts-and-bolts comparison to two firearms which would seem on the outset to be very different – a banned SWD M-11 “Mac-10” style pistol and a Colt M1911 .45 – as an example of how the law could be manipulated under her office’s new guidance.

“For instance,” wrote Bennett, “the SWD M-11, one of the weapons banned by the statute, has a spring-loaded detachable magazine that pushes live rounds upward vertically; uses center-fire cartridges; has a gas-powered semi-automatic action; and has an ejection port on the right-hand side of the weapon. So does the M1911 pistol.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 11:58 AM

23. You're welcome

I am used to taking flack from both sides, as I support RKBA and also know idiots who shouldn't have guns, regardless of what the Constitution or anything else says. I think a discussion is needed but the extremes of neither side are really looking at the whole picture

As I said, I like guns, I have guns, I have no ethical problems with using lethal force in self defense or the carrying of guns by people who have demonstrated the knowledge skills and abilities that someone carrying a lethal weapon in public should be required to possesses.

I also have no problem with using the full force of the State to remove guns from and keep them from people who shouldn't have them and understand why people who hate them do so.

to me the point of stasis is how much of the problem is the technical capabilities of "modern" firearms and how much is the dire lack of mental health (and screening and training of potential gun users). Reflexively defending all firearms ownership by nearly anyone, while a valid philosophical stance, does almost as little good as wanting to ban them all and melt them down.

And I think that if the control folks used the right nomenclature it would help the discussion along. Both because if they want to ban or more tightly regulate something they should be clear - for the purposes of their own objectives (with which I agree - the objectives that is but not the methodology-, making it as rare as possible for someone to do what mass shooters do) and so that any legislation actually addresses the issue; otherwise all they do is get cosmetic features banned which does NOTHING to lower MY chances of being killed by a shooter. Also it's almost impossible to NOT be contemptuous of someone who is so factually in error that one assumes they are either willfully ignorant or dishonest, and again, that's where communication breaks down.

I don't have nor do I really care for any semi automatic rifles and my handguns are all revolvers, my 300 win mag is a bolt action (not counting a 10/22) and my next one will be a lever gun... No real emotional involvement so ......personally, the day I can't defend myself with 6 is the day Darwin can damned well take my ass away


Anyway, thanks. A always appreciate your posts, too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 01:08 PM

26. recoil is the rub

Manalishi: This phrase "assault rifle" is bullshit. Language should clarify thought.

I felt similarly about your OP, regarding your first sentence.
Here are some blogger gunnuts, one owns both an ar15 & an m1 garand, note the remarks on recoil. The recoil (some gunners say lack thereof) from an AR15/0.223fmj is so light it often needs not be re-aimed after shooting 20 shots, which makes for a greater hit accuracy without having to compensate for rifle rise which a shooter moreso would for the garand.

the AR is more shootable (recoil, heft, ergonomics); it is both less expensive and easier to feed (mine is 5.56 chambered, and will take most brass cased 5.56 or .223 ammo; the M1 requires match ammo or similar, and most .30-06 ammo in the stores is loaded too hot); and it is more practical (for home defense - easier to use, and higher capacity..
https://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-532116.html

Sure, the recoil is heavier than a .223/5.56mm AR, but it's still probably the lightest-recoiling rifle ever made that fires a full-size .30 caliber round .. The recoil is a firm push, but not sharp,

The ammunition is much more substantial than a 5.56mm (not bashing, just sayin'...). Recoil is very managable.

Recoil: Not severe, by any means on the M1, but enough to scrape my bare elbows raw after some prone shooting one day. That has never happened with an AR.

My previous thoughts on it, from a few months back:

Still only a small fraction maybe 1 to 3% americans own one (multiples per one owner), less than 3% of national gunstock is ar15; Most all gun owners would NOT want to own one, moreso & especially democrats. I think maybe 50c per 0.223 bullet, for why squander such money at a shooting range?
One of the biggest concerns with the AR15 should be that it has such low recoil for a high muzzle/high kinetic energy 0.223 bullet. There is such little rifle rise as with a heavier bullet, so the AR15 shooter does not need to compensate much at all for recoil, does not have to return the rifle to a shooting position, nor re-aim. Adam Lanza killed 26 teachers & kids, and he was a light guy. The San Bernadino recent shooting, the lady involved weighed about 100 lbs, and carried an AR15 (if report was valid), whether she shot it dunno, but the mere fact that she chose it is crystal clear was because of it's low recoil.
.. what good are assault rifles for? what do they accomplish which another rifle or handgun couldn't do better? They are a well to do white man's toy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=189992

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 01:14 PM

27. addendum on recoil

.................Rifle Weight-- Recoil energy -- Recoil velocity

.223 Rem. (45 at 3500) ... 8.5 ..2.6.. 4.5
.223 Rem. (55 at 3200) ...8.0 ..3.2.. 5.1
.223 Rem. (62 at 3025) ...7.0 ..3.9.. 6.0

.30-06 Spfd. (150 at 2910) 8.0.. 17.6.. 11.9
.30-06 Spfd. (165 at 2900) 8.0.. 20.1.. 12.7
.30-06 Spfd. (180 at 2700) 8.0.. 20.3.. 12.8
http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

If that's the bullet you are referring to (150 - 180 grains), quite a bit more recoil.

re the term 'assault rifle': howsoever it evolved, somewhen it has become a political term used today to mainly define rifles with a high muzzle velocity which often have an automatic rifle equivalent in the military {AR15 to M16, AK47, 74}, and which can often be converted back from civilian semi-auto to full automatic by use of a conversion kit or sometimes a simple tool such as a file (not that many assault rifle owners do this, it would be counter productive, just that the capability exists).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #27)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 06:00 PM

32. Dihydrogen monoxide hand-waving...

Last edited Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

"re the term 'assault rifle': howsoever it evolved, somewhen it has become a political term used today to mainly define rifles with a high muzzle velocity which often have an automatic rifle equivalent in the military {AR15 to M16, AK47, 74}"

Ummm, no. The prohibitionists use the term "assault weapon" to include moderately-high-velocity rounds like .223 Remington, lowish-velocity rifle rounds like 7.62x39mm (civilian AK-47 lookalikes, SKS), and even carbines that fire very-low-velocity rounds like 9mm, .45 ACP, or even .22LR.

The definining characteristic of an "assault weapon" is looks (mainly the shape and styling of the stock), not muzzle velocity or mode of operation. A semiauto .30-06 or a semiauto 9mm with a protruding handgrip is an "assault weapon", whereas a Ruger Mini-14 (semiauto .223 Remington) or Mini Thirty (semiauto 7.62x39mm) are ostensibly not.

"which can often be converted back from civilian semi-auto to full automatic by use of a conversion kit or sometimes a simple tool such as a file (not that many assault rifle owners do this, it would be counter productive, just that the capability exists). "

Baloney. Title 1 civilian "assault weapons" are as hard to convert to full auto as Title 1 civilian non-"assault weapons" like the Mini-14, the 10/22, etc.; any gun that can be converted to full auto by filing the sear is already a machinegun under Federal law, even if not actually converted.

A skilled machinist well equipped with blueprints, machine tools, and time can manufacture parts to convert any smallish-caliber civilian repeating rifle to full auto, but such parts are themselves machineguns under Federal law, and even attempting to create such parts will land you 10 years in Federal prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #32)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:33 PM

39. Double baloney on you and throw in a nany nany booboo too.

An assault weapon is a semi auto or burst fire weapon with a high cyclic rate of fire and removable magazine.

The AG in MA has foregone all the minutia about appearance and boiled it down to function. If it acts like an assault weapon it IS an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:38 PM

45. No, the MA AG didn't touch function at all.

"The AG in MA has foregone all the minutia about appearance and boiled it down to function. If it acts like an assault weapon it IS an assault weapon."

No, the MA AG didn't touch function at all. A Ruger Mini-14 functions just like an AR-15, but isn't banned.

What she did was redefine the phrase "copy or duplicate" to mean "somewhat similar to" or "sharing a couple of parts with", contrary to 18 years of legal precedent. It had nothing to do with function, and everything to do with stretching the original list of guns that were banned for their looks.

It also didn't have anything to do with misuse. Out of 1,301 murders in Massachusetts 2007-2014, all rifles combined accounted for 7 (yes, seven). This move was about sticking it to Massachusetts residents she---and you---hold in contempt, not about violence reduction.

"An assault weapon is a semi auto or burst fire weapon with a high cyclic rate of fire and removable magazine."

Pray tell, what is the "cyclic rate of fire" of a non-automatic Title I civilian AR-15, and how does it differ from the "cyclic rate of fire" of a Glock 17 or a Beretta 92 or a Ruger Mini-14 or a 10/22?

And nowhere, to my knowledge, has any legal definition of "assault weapon" ever encompassed Title II automatic weapons, just Title I civilian non-automatics. "Assault rifle," on the other hand, referred strictly to Title II select-fire rifles of intermediate caliber.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #39)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:23 AM

51. Eh?

An assault weapon is a semi auto or burst fire weapon with a high cyclic rate of fire and removable magazine.

Not full-auto? And when have burst-fire weapons ever been legal without NFA licensing? There has always been a legal distinction between semi-auto and full-auto/burst. No points for trying to conflate them.

Cyclic rate of fire is a measure of a machine's capabilities, and as such applies only to full-auto weapons. The rate of fire of semi-auto weapons is determined by the speed at which a human can repeatedly pull the trigger. Obviously it varies widely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 08:40 PM

88. Interesting. A good step in making conversation more concrete...

"The AG in MA has foregone all the minutia about appearance and boiled it down to function"

And THAT is my point.

Let us. progressives all, talk about "function". Not advertising hype nor prohibitionist hand ringing and hair pulling but functionality.

The ability to fire 20+ rounds per minute of highly deadly bullets with accuracy limited by the competency of the shooter and their ability to reload.

I'm only trying to clarify nomenclature. I make no secret of the fact that I fall on the side of the RKBA spectrum (but that does not mean I ascribe hostile motives of someone who disagrees with me), but dialog is what matters. There are those of us DEMOCRATS who feel that any high capacity hi velocity firearm in private hands is a mass murder waiting to happen. And there are those of us DEMOCRATS who feel that any restriction on something we can hold and own is bullshit that should be ridiculed and ignored. In my own case- I'll disarm as soon as the last tea bagger does...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #88)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 09:11 AM

90. For me that would mean

banning the import, manufacture and transfer of all semi auto gins that accept removable magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #90)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 10:36 PM

138. Which not even Canada, continental Europe, or the UK bans.

You are talking about banning and ultimately confiscating, what, 60%-70% of U.S. civilian firearms? From 75+ million people?

Reminder: merely raising prices on over-10-round magazines 1994-2004, and requiring civilian AR's and AK's to have fixed stocks instead of adjustable ones, unseated the sitting Speaker of the House for the first time since the 1860s, and was a huge factor in losing the trifecta 1994-2000. How well do you think a ban would go over that is too extreme even for Canada or Europe?

It is a sign of irrationality that the Massachusetts AG banned guns that have been involved in only 7 murders out of the last 1300. That is fundamentalism, not violence prevention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 12:24 PM

28. addendum 2

Troy sounds pretty knowledgeable on it, albeit dated:

Troy [Site Staff] 9/25/2005 10:38:49 AM EDT ... A military 5.56 FMJ loading like M193 will cause larger wounds than a military .30-06 loading like M2 ball, at least at close range. This is because the 55gr FMJ M193 bullet will fragment (out to a certain range), while the .30-06 bullet, with its thicker jacket, will not.
Thus, comparing strictly commonly-available MILITARY loads, 5.56 is the better performer. But in a broader scope, this is an exception.

Comparing the best performing (for human combat) 5.56mm round (arguably the 75gr Hornady or 77gr Nosler) vs. the best performing .30-06 load (155gr Hornady), the .30-06 is a *substantially* better performer. -Troy
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=251175

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 02:25 PM

29. A very intelligent post (well, series of them)

Thanks for contributing light rather than heat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 06:05 PM

33. 155gr .30-06 is still trading velocity for long range and penetration. Try 110gr.

Last edited Fri Aug 5, 2016, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Most full-power rifle loads are optimized for range and deep penetration. But step down to even a 110-grain bullet, and .30-06 is pushing it at 3400-3500 ft/sec, if you want to compare apples to apples. Remington also used to make a 55gr .30-06 load above 4000 ft/sec (Remington Accelerator), but I think they've been discontinued.

.30-06, .270, or .243 with fragile loads will produce far more severe wounds than a .223 with varmint rounds at equivalent range, because the full-power rounds stomp the lowish-powered .223 in terms of both velocity and energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:45 PM

41. Worked okay in Sandy Hook, Dallas, San Bernadino and on and on and on. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:17 PM

43. 6mm Remington "worked OK" (in your words) at U Texas. 9mm "worked OK" (again your words) at VT.

.223 Remington is the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges, and is average as far as velocity goes. Making it out to be a mega-super-ultra-death-cartridge that causes more serious wounds than .243/.270/.30-06 with comparable bullets is ludicrous. And since you want to outlaw semiauto 9mm carbines too, and 7.62x39mm, and .243/7mm-08/.308, and even .22LR, if they have protruding handgrips, it's all obfuscation. I suspect that there are exactly zero rifle cartridges you are OK with if they are chambered in a modern-looking semiauto with a detachable magazine.

FWIW, H.R.1022 a few years ago would have also banned the M1 Garand, as I recall, and the Feinstein AWB banned the Beretta BM59 (M1 Garand in a modern stock) by name. There are also a few hundred thousand Garands sitting in warehouses overseas that gun prohibitionists have blocked the importation of for civilian sale. So the gun control lobby isn't OK with those, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #43)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 11:33 AM

71. Why has NATO and our own Pentagon adapted the 5.56

as the ammunition of choice if it is so puny?

Riddle me that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #71)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 11:49 AM

72. Just a guess

Cost: 7.62 is 50% more than 5.56 ammo.
Weight: less weight equals more ammo the operator can carry further.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-911286
The FMJ round is designed to penetrate the target, leaving as small as injury channel as possible. It is not the legal goal of military forces to kill the enemy, despite what is actively promoted through propaganda. The goal is to injure the enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #71)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 12:30 PM

73. "Adapted" or "adopted"?

Why has NATO and our own Pentagon adapted the 5.56

as the ammunition of choice if it is so puny?

Because the "assault rifle" concept requires a high rate of fire in order to provide battlefield suppression, meaning that it is important for each soldier to be able to carry a large volume of ammunition and fire it controllably in full-auto. High-powered rifle rounds like the .30-06 and .308 fail on both counts That's why the M14 -- essentially a full-auto Garand -- was so quickly and unceremoniously dumped by the military and replaced with the .223 of the M16.

The "assault rifle" is meant to be a compromise between a high-powered battle rifle and a pistol-caliber submachine gun. Realize that fact and you might begin to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #71)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 12:42 PM

74. Because they were spec'ing it for use in automatic weapons.

They traded off per-round lethality to get usable select-fire capability, which was and is considered vital in CQB by the military; 3-round burst on the M4 is now acknowledged as a Fulda-Gap aberration that is now being rectified (the M4A1 is back to full auto, based on experience in Iraq and Afghanistan).

To my knowledge, the U.S. military, and all other militaries on this planet, have not procured a single .223/5.56mm semiauto for general issue, ever; all military semiautos ever issued were at least 7mm that I'm aware of (the Garand was originally prototyped as a 7x51mm). I believe some private security contractors have occasionally used a few 5.56mm DMR's as gap-filler precision rifles, and it's possible some of those have occasionally seen use with SOCOM for weight reasons as well, but nothing for general issue and especially CQB.

Would you prefer that all our rifles were rechambered in 6.8mm SPC, which was developed by/for SOCOM to offset the .223's lack of power? Or perhaps that we all switched to AR-10's in .243 Winchester? A 58gr varmint bullet at 3,925 ft/sec would be a pretty effective defensive round, would it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #74)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 11:17 AM

93. I have...

...an AR in 6.8 SPC. Built it specifically for deer hunting and it's my go-to now for that purpose. The reason I have it chambered in 6.8 is because the 5.56 NATO is not legal for big game hunting in my state because it lacks the power to reliably make a quick clean kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #71)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:07 PM

77. Mainly weight

 

And studies have found most engagements are not the extremely long range that the larger calibers were better at back in the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #77)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:29 PM

81. Weight is a big issue now, but that was less of an criterion before body armor was general-issue.

The main reason the 5.56mm M16 displaced the 7.62x51mm M14 back in the day was the M14's inability to fire effectively in full auto; the M14 could do impressive full-auto mag dumps, but for practical purposes was semiauto-only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #81)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:31 PM

82. Thanks

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #28)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:49 AM

53. And who says ...

A military 5.56 FMJ loading like M193 will cause larger wounds than a military .30-06 loading like M2 ball, at least at close range. This is because the 55gr FMJ M193 bullet will fragment (out to a certain range), while the .30-06 bullet, with its thicker jacket, will not.

... that our spree shooter will be using either M193 or M2 ball? There is a wide variety of loadings available for both calibers. In any case, the lack of fragmentation in the M2 ball ammo would also contribute to greater pass-through capability, which can result in more casualties in a densely packed crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:39 PM

40. Now that we have finished the big dick contest of who knows how much

the question remains, could the Orlando shooter have shot 103 people with the M1 Garand? Could he even have gotten it into the venue?

All the rest is rabid defense of a piece of equipment that is designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #40)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 10:24 PM

44. For short range, how about a Garand scaled down for a less powerful cartridge.



Not an "assault weapon", either, not even in Massachusetts or California.

[
"All the rest is rabid defense of a piece of equipment that is designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate."


This is exactly how gun control activists shot themselves in the foot in the 1990s. The fact that the guns you're talking about are both the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, and simultaneously among the least misused of *all* weapons (even less than shotguns), belies that argument. You're making lurid statements about guns that are considered suitable for civilian use in Canada and most of Europe.

Some actual numbers, that might mean something if the cognitive dissonance weren't so strong:



Yes, out of 1300 murders, all rifles put together accounted for only seven of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #44)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 02:46 PM

66. Address the fucking question. Stop with the red herring and deflection. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #66)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:27 PM

68. The red herrings and deflection in this thread are not coming from your interlocutors:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211238#post2

Don't ban assault weapons, ban semi-automatic guns of all types that have interchangeable magazines. That is what the AG of Massachusetts is attempting under their assault weapons ban; if it acts like an assault weapon it IS an assault weapon. Ban the import, manufacture and the transfer of all such guns. Let the existing inventory waste away in a closet somewhere or be confiscated at a crime scene or during estate probate.



You've stated clearly what you want elsewhere, so why are you dodging the issue here?

And yes, the Orlando shooter could have shot 103 with an M-1.
Do you want to ban those, as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #40)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:42 AM

52. My, my.

Now that we have finished the big dick contest of who knows how much

The what? Stay classy ...

the question remains, could the Orlando shooter have shot 103 people with the M1 Garand?

Yes, although he might have done it more easily with the M1 carbine or Mini 14, neither of which is going to be banned in Massachusetts.

Could he even have gotten it into the venue?

Is there any indication that he concealed the MCX and snuck it into the nightclub?

All the rest is rabid defense of a piece of equipment that is designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate.

When in doubt, fling invective. It satisfies a "sub primal urge" too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:41 PM

99. Everyone has them.

 

All the rest is rabid defense of a piece of equipment that is designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate.


Everyone has them:





The reality, is that this is all a reaction to a rabid attack on a piece of equipment and its supporting technology, which is owned by tens of millions of Americans, and I can prove it. Heres your characterizationof the firearms/technology in question "designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate".

If that isn't an attack, along the same lines as every anti-semi-auto/anti-'assault weapon' taking point, what is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:49 AM

54. The type of gun is not the problem...

there will always be new versions of weapons.

The problem is EASY ACCESS TO GUNS BY DANGEROUS PEOPLE. Random people should not be able to possess guns. Possession and use of weapons should require regulation, no matter how designed.

Here's my recommendation:

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #54)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 09:52 AM

57. I have many questions for you

The first and most basic question is, Why are you posting this?
I believe the OP's author is addressing the many useless laws attempting to remove AR-15 rifles and semi-auto AK style rifles from legal sale and, in some cases, from existing lawful owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #57)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 10:22 AM

62. Because it's a waste of time to "define" the type of guns...

At some point, there will be smart bullets, rail guns, plastic guns, energy weapons, drone guns, etc., etc....so the OP is correct that it's worthless to continually argue about the design of "arms".

OTOH, the problem of too many firearm deaths is NOT due to the evolution of different arms. The problem is ACCESS. Some people should not have possession or use of any firearm, much less the more destructive ones.

It doesn't matter if you have an AR15 or another type of weapon, IF you are emotionally stable, you are trained, you have proper security/storage, and appropriate need for the gun. What matters is that unstable people, children, untrained people, criminals, and even known terrorists have EASY ACCESS to possession of firearms in the US.

A license to buy, possess, or use firearms would prevent some deaths and make it much more difficult for the misuse of any type of firearm. The license could easily require different training and security for different types of firearms. As new designs are available, the license is modified.

I'm posting this to point out that the logic of the OP does not address the issue of too many firearm deaths in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #62)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 01:26 PM

63. More of my many questions

...it's worthless to continually argue about the design of "arms".
I agree, absolutely.



...the problem of too many firearm deaths is NOT due to the evolution of different arms. The problem is ACCESS.
This is a problem with no solution. Attempting regulate access to what you can build in a garage or basement is pointless and a waste of time. Having an impact on real world problems means dealing with reality. The real situation with the mass shooters out there is that they want some type of blaze of glory. They are resourceful, creative and antisocial. Sometimes these folks have a mix of psychological, emotional and drug problems. Treating those problems appropriately before people homicidal/suicidal would be a better answer and would be treating the cause rather than a symptom.



A license to...
And no one ever does anything without a mandated license right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #63)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 01:38 PM

64. I have been very careful to suggest that nothing is 100% foolproof...

but a license would reduce the deaths. A few resourceful criminals or dedicated terrorists would continue.

OTOH, many spontaneous acts from the obvious emotional and mentally extremists (like Sandy Hook) would NOT have access to guns. It would be much more difficult if you had to show a license before purchasing a gun or ammo, or produce a license before entering a shooting range, or before going hunting.

If your required insurance to obtain a license depended on proper training and storage it would reduce the many accidental shooting and deaths of children.

You get the idea. We know (from other countries) that reduction in the mass number of guns will reduce deaths, but we also know that limiting easy access to weapons by dangerous people also reduces deaths.

I believe a license is the best and easiest way. If you have some other mechanism that works better, that's fine with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #64)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:30 PM

69. More

First of all, I was remiss in my last reply. Let me say thank you now for the thoughtful dialog and chance to exchange ideas.
Having thoughtful Democrats with whom to discuss issues is a great opportunity. I also view respectful exchanges as progress even when neither party changes their views much or at all. Information is power and the understanding I get for why folks feel as they do is appreciated.


...a license would reduce the deaths.
I'm not so sure and doubt that. There are over 300,000,000 guns in private hands now in the US. The genie is out of the bottle.



...many spontaneous acts from the obvious emotional and mentally extremists (like Sandy Hook) would NOT have access to guns.
Are you suggesting that Nancy Lanza would not have been able to go a license?



We know (from other countries) that reduction in the mass number of guns will reduce deaths...
That claim has been asserted but remains unproven. Further, how would a license program remove any guns now in private hands so as to achieve that reduction?



...we also know that limiting easy access to weapons by dangerous people also reduces deaths.
Agreed and we have the NICS program now to do that. The thing which prevents the greater effectiveness of that program is that private sellers have no access to the running a check. Also, many states and some federal entities fail to report some folks who should be prohibited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #64)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:44 PM

100. License a right?

 

Screw that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #100)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:52 PM

101. Nothing unconstitutional...carry permits are legal.

Everything on this list is legal somewhere, sometime.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/518gXhv9x1L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #101)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 02:00 PM

106. "At a time of increasing gun violence in America" Gun crime has decreased markedly in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #106)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 02:02 PM

107. Nothing to do with crime...gun VIOLENCE...

Read the book. It has lots of references and is very accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #107)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 02:10 PM

108. How can gun violence not be a crime, unless one counts paper targets, clay pigeons...

...and empty bottles and cans as 'victims of violence'?

Fewer people are getting shot and robbed at gunpoint these days, which I
certainly hope all of us would be happy about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #108)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 02:20 PM

109. Many examples...here's one....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do

The macabre truth of gun control in the US is that toddlers kill more people than terrorists do

This week, in my country, considered by some of its more embarrassing denizens to be the “greatest country in the world”, an outspoken Florida “gun rights” advocate left a loaded .45 calibre handgun in the back seat of her car and was promptly shot and wounded by her four-year-old child. Truly a pinnacle of human potential, much like the invention of paper in second-century BC China, or Aristotle holding forth in the Lyceum, or whoever first pointed out that Florida looks like America’s penis.

What do you say about the outspoken Florida “gun rights” advocate who left a loaded .45 calibre handgun in the back seat of her car and was promptly shot and wounded by her four-year-old child? I take no pleasure in violence and pain. I’m not happy that Jamie Gilt, 31 – who has built a thriving web presence on the argument that guns are not only perfectly safe around kids, but necessary for their protection – left a loaded handgun in reach of her four-year-old son, who then picked it up, aimed it at his mother, and pulled the trigger. I find zero delight in the thought of Gilt’s toddler’s almost certain panic and horror in that moment, nor the guilt he may well carry for the rest of his life (guilt that only his mother deserves). I’m sure being shot in the back really hurts – even more so when it comes with a side of nationwide liberal schadenfreude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #109)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 03:19 PM

111. The *number of media accounts* is on the rise, not the rate. That is what is declining.

To put it crudely, if accurately- "If it bleeds, it leads"
Reliance on media accounts is what is known as the "'Summer of the Shark' effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark

The Summer of the Shark refers to the coverage of shark attacks by American news media in the summer of 2001. The sensationalist coverage of shark attacks began in early July following the Fourth of July weekend shark attack on 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast, and continued almost unabated—despite no evidence for an actual increase in attacks—until the September 11 terrorist attacks shifted the media's attention away from beaches. The Summer of the Shark has since been remembered as an example of tabloid television perpetuating a story with no real merit beyond its ability to draw ratings...

...In terms of absolute minutes of television coverage on the three major broadcast networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—shark attacks were 2001's third "most important" news story prior to September 11, behind the western United States forest fires, and the political scandal resulting from the Chandra Levy missing persons case. However, the comparatively higher shock value of shark attacks left a lasting impression on the public. According to the International Shark Attack File, there were 76 shark attacks that occurred in 2001, lower than the 85 attacks documented in 2000; furthermore, although 5 people were killed in attacks in 2001, this was less than the 12 deaths caused by shark attacks the previous year.



There's no need to believe me. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports give
the most accurate picture- and that picture shows a decline in violent crime rates:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics.


https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications

Crime in the United States

An annual publication in which the FBI compiles the volume and rate of violent and property crime offenses for the nation and by state. Individual law enforcement agency data are also provided for those contributors supplying 12 months complete offense data. This report also includes arrest, clearance, and law enforcement employee data. Use the new online UCR Data Tool to research crime statistics for the nation, by state, and by individual law enforcement agency.


Full-year results are available for the years of 1995 through 2014 (2015
results are expected to be published in September)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #109)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 04:42 PM

112. that has been dropping too.

It is also statistically wrong. One terrorist in Orlando killed more people in one day than all of the toddlers in a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #101)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 03:18 PM

110. I would like to address this but...

...if you have some time, please reply to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172197860#post69

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #101)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:03 PM

113. You were talking about a license to own, not a license to carry. Big difference.

 

Gun ownership is a right , not a privilege.

As to your cite, its an opinion, based on...more opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #113)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:07 PM

114. Nope...I never mentioned a license to own....

the license is just like a carry...a restriction on possession and use.

Legal precedent and court cases are not just opinions. Read the book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #114)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:21 PM

116. Possession and use is an extension of ownership.

 

Nope...I never mentioned a license to own the license is just like a carry...a restriction on possession and use.


Possession and use are extensions of ownership.

Nice try.

Legal precedent and court cases are not just opinions. Read the book.


I think , if you look at court cases where states have tried to license a right, you'll be rather surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #116)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:30 PM

117. The book is by a legal scholar...here's some more...there are many cases...it's legal.


There's no right for dangerous people and children to have any guns they want. There's no "2nd Amendment" claus that dictates the method to restrict guns. Simple. Read the book...and the references in the book. You'll see. Even Scalia admitted restrictions were legal on guns.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html

Americans Don't Have the Right to Bear Just Any Arms

* Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.
* Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
* Outlaw the public display of weapons.
* Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.
* Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.
* Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”
* Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.
Scalia clearly stated in Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale. He also wrote that his decision did not overrule the holding in the 1939 Miller ruling that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time, and that the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” was still permissible.
In other words, even one of the modern era’s most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.
Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible. After the deadliest shooting in American history took place at Virginia Tech (32 dead), Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. The NRA declared this violated the Second Amendment and, through intense lobbying, limited the definition of mental illness only to people institutionalized or found by a court to be a danger. Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #117)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:38 PM

118. So what?

 

The book is by a legal scholar...here's some more...there are many cases...it's legal.


So what?

If enough people say no, it isn't going to happen, regardless what your legal scholar says.

Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible.


Legal scholar or not, those are the talking points of an anti-gunner, and ignore verifiable reality.

How then can any of this legal scholars other words be any more trustworthy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #118)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:48 PM

119. You make my point...

I'm a gun owner (probably longer than you've been alive). There are plenty of states that have enacted parts of new laws.

Dangerous people and children should not have easy access to guns.

Apparently, you disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #119)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 08:00 PM

120. Not so much.

 

I'm a gun owner (probably longer than you've been alive).


That gives weight to neither your words, nor your opinion.

There are plenty of states that have enacted parts of new laws.


Yep, and there are many times as many states that aren't going to.

Dangerous people and children should not have easy access to guns.

Apparently, you disagree.


Where children are concerned, I can neither agree nor disagree, without knowing what definition of 'children' you're using - is it the anti-gun version that includes 18 and 19 year olds as children, or the traditional definition which discludes teens and adolescents?

As far as dangerous people are concerned, I'd rather they not be allowed to walk freely through society in general, let alone get a gun.

Apparently, you disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #120)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 05:37 AM

121. Again, you make my point...

you called me "anti-gunner", but that's not true. I'm just being reasonable based on experience and careful study.

Just like the Brady Bill, it's possible for Federal laws to supersede state laws - and some times they can pass.

Toddlers who are 4 years old who shoot Mommy are children by any definition.

Talking about competing "rights"? Can you lock up anyone who is emotionally unstable? What about "stupid" people? Keep them from walking around too?

Example: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/horrible-accident-woman-fatally-shot-by-punta-gorda-cop-role-playing-as/2288888

The hosting officers chose two students to role-play in a lethal force simulation, a scenario intended to demonstrate how and when officers decide to pull the trigger. Knowlton played the victim, Charlotte Sun photographer Sue Paquin told the newspaper, and a Punta Gorda police officer played a "bad guy." These scenarios are usually safe, acted out with either fake or empty weapons.

But when the officer's gun was fired, Knowlton — a mother, wife and career librarian — was hit with live ammunition.

She was rushed to a local hospital and pronounced dead.


That's why the Supreme Court recognizes there are limits to the "right" to bare arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #121)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 01:45 PM

123. No, I really don't.

 

you called me "anti-gunner", but that's not true. I'm just being reasonable based on experience and careful study.


If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

Just like the Brady Bill, it's possible for Federal laws to supersede state laws - and some times they can pass.


You should take that up with someone who asserted otherwise.

Toddlers who are 4 years old who shoot Mommy are children by any definition.


Did someone say they weren't?

Talking about competing "rights"? Can you lock up anyone who is emotionally unstable? What about "stupid" people? Keep them from walking around too?


Uh...what? Theres no "competing rights" here. My right to own a gun has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with how someone unrelated and unconnected to me in any way might misuse theirs, and I'm not interested in letting the likes of you put those rights into opposition of each other. That's the methodology of an anti-gunner you're trying to engage in there, by the way. Coincidence, I'm sure.

That's why the Supreme Court recognizes there are limits to the "right" to bare arms.


That's bear arms, and for what its worth, were talking about KEEPING arms, not bearing them, here.

Nobody opposes limits which are actually reasonable , but licensing a right, registration and gun bans are far far from it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #123)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 02:42 PM

124. So disagree with carry permits?

My "license" is nothing more than a version of the same permit issued by most states.

BTW, I've owned guns since the 60's. You can call me names all you want, but your desire to allow dangerous people to have guns in society is misguided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #124)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:59 PM

126. Not desiring prior restraint on an enumerated right =/= "(a) desire to allow dangerous people...

...to have guns in society". If someone is dangerous, then charge them with a crime or
seek institutionalization. If they have not committed a crime or been found incompetent,
they have the same rights as everyone else.

The fact that you, personally, disdain these rights does not (and should not, IMO) matter.

For example, white power dickheads marching around spouting racist slogans bugs me
a great deal, but I grit my teeth and realize that "yes, these assholes *do* have the
right to do that". I don't have to like it (I don't, not a bit), yet I realize that it must be permitted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #126)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:09 PM

128. Carry permits are prior restraint...

so again...you don't agree with carry permits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #128)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:14 PM

130. I have no problem with carry permits so long as they are given on an objective basis...

...and without the necessity of a nihil obstat from a politician with a badge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #130)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:21 PM

131. A license is a version of a carry permit...

and all carry permits are issued by the government run by politicians.

So unless you don't believe in government - then a license is legal and appropriate. As described, the license would be based on objective criteria (even if you don't agree with the politicians' definitions of "children" or any other particular term)...and it would prevent dangerous people from easy access to guns. Lawful gun owners would have no more inconvenience than your driver's license causes you now.

The life you save may be your own!!

Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #131)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:32 PM

134. Your licensing proposal is flawed, IMO, because of the idea "you can have one IF...

...certain criteria are met", which are de facto prior restrictions and fail the 'strict scrutiny'
test:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to determine which is weightier, a constitutional right or principle or the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Thirteen_notable_cases


Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), cf. Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Brown v. Board of Education, 785 U.S. 981 (1954)
One, Inc. v. Olesen, 301 U.S. 340 (1958)
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Loving v. Virginia, 897 U.S. 113 (1967)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Romer v. Evans, 380 U.S. 144 (1996)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
United States v. Windsor, 191 U.S. 771 (2013)





instead of "you are ENTITLED to a license as long as any of the following restrictions don't apply (felony record, adjudication as mentally incompetent)"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #131)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:36 PM

135. Newsflash...

 

Lawful gun owners would have no more inconvenience than your driver's license causes you now.


Newsflash: Lawful gun owners already have more inconvenience than your driver's license causes you now, every time they buy a gun from a dealer.

Don't piss down our backs and tell us its raining.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #124)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:29 PM

133. Red herring.

 

My "license" is nothing more than a version of the same permit issued by most states.


Only if you consider public carry and simple ownership to be the same thing. They aren't.

BTW, I've owned guns since the 60's.


So what?

You can call me names all you want, but your desire to allow dangerous people to have guns in society is misguided.


Right. Jump right to "your desire to allow dangerous people to have guns". Yeah, you aren't an anti-gunner, no siree.

I disagree with gun control that treats a right as if its a privilege being used as a means of mitigating dangerous people.

Theres tons of room outside of gun control, to attempt to combat dangerous people and what they may or may not do. Exercise those avenues before you come demanding that the people who aren't the problem in the first place bow to your demands.

But that's not gun control enough, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #117)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 05:03 PM

137. How would you get the gun control lobby to sign up to that, or be constrained by it?

"* Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds."

If you haven't noticed, the gun-control lobby is trying to ban common magazines between 11 and 30 rounds, not just 100-rounders or belt-feds. They are currently aiming for a 10-round limit, which is 2/3 of the capacity of mainstream rifles in the 1860's and 1870's.

"* Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms."

Gun controllers are primarily enamored of laws that make it harder for noncriminals and the mentally competent to own firearms, it seems to me. No one wants criminals and the small subset of the mentally ill who are dangerous to own firearms, so there's potential common ground there. But if the gun control lobby isn't interested in finding that common ground, why should gun owners?

"* Outlaw the public display of weapons."

Define "public display".

"* Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard."

Restricting licensed concealed carry to elites or those granted special political favors is like priority #3 of the gun control lobby, behind "assault weapon"/magazine bans and transfer bans. When that changes, let me know.

"* Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others."

When the gun control lobby agrees to this, let me know. Right now, banning guns based on such features is consistently their top legislative priority.

"* Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”"

Acknowledging that AP ammo is already banned in all calibers that matter would be a good starting point, but as the recent M855 debacle shows, the gun controllers aren't even remotely interested in acknowledging that fact.

"* Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing. "

Such rationality would be nice, but as you can see from this and other threads, banning modern-looking rifles is pretty much Priority One of the U.S. gun control lobby. If they want to show good faith in this regard, maybe they can start advocating for the repeal of the recently passed rifle bans in NY, CT, CA, and MA. The Massachusetts ban is particularly egregious, as Massachusetts had only 7 rifle murders out of 1,301 total murders 2007-2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #54)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 09:17 AM

122. Acknowledging your rudeness but asserting a basic right

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license.


Nope...I never mentioned a license to own....
the license is just like a carry...a restriction on possession and use.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/own -
verb (used with object)
3. to have or hold as one's own; possess:
They own several homes.



Implying that ownership stands apart from possession is just an extreme obfuscation of yours. Ownership and possession are equivalent and, since ownership implies possession, your suggestion is just nonsense. There is no hope that idea will ever see reality in this country. Perhaps focusing on the possible would be time better spent.

Self-defense is a basic human right. Case closed.

Questions that remain:
Are you suggesting that Nancy Lanza would not have been able to go a license?
That claim (...reduction in the mass number of guns will reduce deaths...) has been asserted but remains unproven. Further, how would a license program remove any guns now in private hands so as to achieve that reduction?

The NICS program already does the workable and legal aspects of what you seem to trying to do.

7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
Your disdain for currently lawful gun owners who may engage in civil disobedience regarding the criminalization of currently good and lawful actions is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:28 PM

80. The big question, does it have the ability to kill a lot of people??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motley13 (Reply #80)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 01:32 PM

83. All civilian repeating firearms have the ability to kill a lot of people if misused.

Almost none of them actually are so used. Most gun deaths are single-shot incidents, and most gun homicides involve small, concealable, lowish-capacity handguns, almost always illegally possessed at the time of use.

In the state of Massachusetts (subject of the OP), there were over 1300 murders 2007-2014; all rifles combined accounted for only 7 of them, per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #83)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 03:17 PM

84. There should be no civilian repeating firearms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #84)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 03:25 PM

86. Then don't own any.

But mentally competent adults with clean records have the right to choose for themselves, not only here in the USA, but also in Canada, Europe, and even the UK.

Repeating firearms have been mainstream since the 1830s for handguns and 1860s for rifles. There are about a third of a billion of them in U.S. homes, and we'll keep them, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #84)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 01:47 AM

89. Do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

Last edited Mon Aug 8, 2016, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

There should be no civilian repeating firearms

Even Japan and the UK allow repeating firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #84)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 09:47 AM

91. And with one sentence........


...........you demonstrate how Democrats ineptly alienate shit-tons of voters each year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #84)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 10:59 AM

92. There should be no repeating...

...of dumb ideas either but here you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Original post)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:59 PM

102. And these "violent idiots", as you term them:

1) Except in rare cases, the majority of shooters are not walking around wearing signs that identify them as potential hazards, and

2) This does nothing to address the "idiot owners", my term, who leave guns in purses that are easily accessible to their small children, or

3) The drunken idiots who use their guns in a moment of drunken rage, or

4) the angry spouses who use guns to end an argument, or

5) the abused and bullied children who take easily available guns from home to school, or

6) the 20,000 or so suicides who use the available gun.

And whether you "like" firearms or not, a one shot rifle would allow hunters to hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #102)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 01:08 PM

103. Hunting?

And whether you "like" firearms or not, a one shot rifle would allow hunters to hunt.

Where does the Constitution say anything about hunting? Further more, a one-shot rifle doesn't allow for a follow-up shot, meaning that more wounded animals would die slowly and painfully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #103)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 01:13 PM

104. Hunting and self defense are the prime reasons that I have seen cited

as the necessity for owning and carrying guns.

As to your follow up shot scenario, in our family experience of hunting, a shot animal does not stand around, it runs. So you can reload and follow. Unless you are hunting with a front loader, reloading is quite fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #104)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 01:55 PM

105. True but irrelevant.

Hunting and self defense are the prime reasons that I have seen cited

as the necessity for owning and carrying guns.

Neither one is cited in the Constitution.

As to your follow up shot scenario, in our family experience of hunting, a shot animal does not stand around, it runs. So you can reload and follow. Unless you are hunting with a front loader, reloading is quite fast.

It may or may not "run fast," and a follow-up shot may be possible even when the animal runs. Reloading might be "quite fast," but nowhere near as fast as a follow-up shot with (in order of increasing speed) a bolt-action, lever-action, or semi-auto repeater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #102)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:10 PM

115. Then maybe...

 

1) Except in rare cases, the majority of shooters are not walking around wearing signs that identify them as potential hazards...


Then maybe attacking this problem from angle of the shooter, is the wrong angle to begin with. Maybe attacking it from the angle of potential targets would make better sense, since most places DO have signs and characteristics that would identify them as potential targets.

Let me guess: That's not gun control enough.

6) the 20,000 or so suicides who use the available gun.


What gives you the right to have any say in whether people commit suicide or not, irrespective of whether they use a gun?

And whether you "like" firearms or not, a one shot rifle would allow hunters to hunt.


Yeah, and as long as just one book, just one printing press, is allowed, the first amendment remains intact, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #115)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:48 PM

125. Responding tp your signature line rather than your post:

If that small percent could be identified that might be reasonable. But as shooting after shooting shows, except in very rare circumstances, shooters are generally not obvious problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #125)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:02 PM

127. Although major cities have had plenty of success identifying the small percent responsible

for 70-80% of the gun violence.

That is a LOT of incidents where the ID of the shooter (and often the victim) are obvious enough - they just need to be dealt with effectively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #127)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:11 PM

129. I added a bit to your response.

Although major cities have had plenty of success identifying the small percent that they believe will be responsible
for 70-80% of the gun violence.

But of the 30,000 or so gun homicides each year,

There are, on average, 2,000 gang-related homicides each year, according to 2007 through 2012 data from the National Youth Gang Center. Comparatively, there are around 15,500 murders in the United States each year.


https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-gang-related-deaths-occur-year-81d438d69ed97cc6

Now I am no mathematician, nor am I a statistician, but 2,000 deaths out of 15,000 deaths works out to far less than 70-80% of homicides being gang related.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #129)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:26 PM

132. I thought there were like 8-10,000 gun homicides a year?

"According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US"
2014 = 8,124

2,000 gang-related is closer to 25%.
Yet there is more to it then that - in Chicago alone..."nearly 3,000 people were shot in 2015" - much more then then the 2,000 national number you sited. And if they know who will be responsible 70-80% of the time?!? Good news!!

SO not sure how many of the various cities' incidents are gang related. Drugs are a big factor too (though may be often related)

"In Newark, drug trafficking, particularly of marijuana and prescription pills, is the main cause of the uptick in gun violence, said Eugene Venable, director of the Newark Police Department. He also said the recent removal of state police, who had been stationed in the city to assist the local police, was to blame in part for the shooting increase."

*******************************

"In {Chicago} of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for much of the violence, Mr. Johnson said, and all of them are on what the department calls its Strategic Subject List.

So far this year, more than 70 percent of the people who have been shot in Chicago were on the list, according to the police, as were more than 80 percent of those arrested in connection with shootings."

**********************

"This isn’t unique: in Cincinnati, less than 1 percent of the city’s population was responsible for 74 percent of homicides in 2007.
...
Americans need to think beyond guns, and to confront the underlying social and economic problems that cause gun violence. Programs like these are proving it is possible to significantly reduce gun deaths without new gun-control measures — and without breaking the bank."

********************
"Miles Wernick, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology, created the algorithm. It draws, the police say, on variables tied to a person’s past behavior, particularly arrests and convictions, to predict who is most likely to become a “party to violence.”

“We are targeting the correct individuals,” Police Super Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”

********************
{various articles quoted}


Sure obviously lots of offenders will not so identifiable, but at least in many locals, it is known who will be responsible 70-80% of the time. Lots of incidents can be prevented before they occur through various programs, policing and legislator action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #129)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 10:55 PM

139. Around 75%-90% of murderers have prior arrest records,

depending on what data set you look at. The Chicago police department puts it at 87% of murderers had prior arrest records in Chicago, presumably not counting other jurisdictions.

http://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf

The Federal BJS puts the nationwide number at 74%.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

Keep in mind that "gang violence" typically refers to gang warfare, not to all criminal violence perpetrated by people affiliated with gangs.

Here are some more stats to keep in mind when discussing outlawing the most popular rifles in U.S. homes:

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2014 (FBI)

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 11,961
Handguns............................ 5,562 (46.5%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,052 (17.2%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,610 (13.5%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,567 (13.1%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 660 (5.5%)
Shotguns.............................. 262 (2.2%)
Rifles................................ 248 (2.1%) [/font]

Rifles are consistently the least misused of all weapons, usually accounting for less than 300 of the nation's 12,000 murders annually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #125)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:39 PM

136. Imagine that. N/T

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread