benEzra
benEzra's JournaliGun says they won't introduce it until mandates are off the table.
The New Jersey and California legislatures pretty much carpet-bombed the "smart-gun" industry into oblivion even before it got off the ground. We'll see if the startups can recover from that, and from the bad rap they got from shady pro-mandate, pro-remote-disabling companies that have previously gotten the headlines.
Uh, yes. I just checked. Jonathan Mossberg runs a small startup (iGun), not O.F. Mossberg.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanmossberg77The two companies are not affiliated in any way.
Jonathan Mossberg did indeed work for O.F. Mossberg & Sons from 1988 to 2000, and before that he was a VP for Uzi America, but iGun is a small startup unaffiliated with O.F. Mossberg. According to O.F. Mossberg & Sons, "Mr. Jonathan Mossberg is not an employee, representative, or affiliate of O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., nor is iGun Technology Corp. an affiliate of O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. The opinions and comments expressed by Jonathan Mossberg are his own, and do not reflect those of O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc."
I imagine they could market their product as a drop-in modification for existing shotguns, including Mossbergs, if they so chose (say as a drop-in trigger pack and buttstock); from the pics on the iGun website, it looks like their prototype trigger module is installed in an O.F. Mossberg semiautomatic. It would conceptually be an easy drop-in for an AR-15 as well, due to its modularity.
"Cop-killer bullets" and "hollowpoints" are opposite concepts.
So-called "cop-killer bullets" were very hard nonexpanding, pointed-tip handgun bullets designed for police, to penetrate sheet metal and glass without deforming; they were restricted out of fear that they might allow a handgun to penetrate soft body armor that would otherwise be rated to stop that caliber of handgun.
Hollowpoints are relatively soft, fragile bullets designed to open up like a parachute to make them penetrate *less*, thereby transferring more energy to the target and reducing the risk of overpenetration/ricochet. This coincidentally reduces their ability to penetrate soft body armor somewhat.
Except that the gun control lobby's top priority is to ban the *least* misused guns.
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]
Consider that the next time someone demands a ban on the most popular rifles in U.S. homes.
These are guns that are civilian-legal in *Canada*, and are used in less than 1 murder/year in MA
despite being some of the most popular civilian target rifles in U.S. homes. This is not a moderate position.
Healey just turned a hell of a lot of Dems in Massachusetts into criminals.
She says she will use her "prosecutorial discretion" not to prosecute them...for now.
I don't see how this is going to hold up in court (the actual rules Healey's office has belatedly issued don't clarify anything, except to reinforce the fact that nobody in Healey's office knows beans about civilian guns), and it won't save any lives whatsoever. What it *does* do is give downticket Dems a black eye nationwide.
Boston Herald: Maura Healey shoots Dems in foot with gun grab
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/hillary_chabot/2016/08/chabot_maura_healey_shoots_dems_in_foot_with_gun_grab
Attorney General Maura Healey’s controversial assault weapons crackdown has become yet another political land mine threatening the Bay State’s already shaken Democratic Party as it seeks to mount a serious 2018 challenger against Republican Gov. Charlie Baker.
In deeply blue Massachusetts, the Democratic Party is turning into its own worst enemy.
“There are a lot of Democrats who aren’t happy with her decision, but they don’t want to come out against one of the party leaders,” said state Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), one of 58 lawmakers who signed onto a letter opposing Healey’s ban.
What I've been saying for a long time.
This move was based on fundamentalist idealogy, not public safety. Massachusetts had 1,301 total murders 2007-2014; only 7 of those (0.5 percent) involved *any* style of rifle. That's fewer than one per year, on average, in the entire state.
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.
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.
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.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,148
