Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-USSR) to introduce assault weapons ban

[Titty Meat]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press that she will introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...ay-Of-Congress

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by O.city

I think they said most were shot 3-11 times each.

I was raised around guns, have alot of experience around hunting rifles and shotguns, but not much at all around any AR. I'm just curious as to why these always seem to happen with these weapons.

An AR is no different that most rifles. It's hard to say why these are so often used. Popularity would be the one IMO.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

How many of these killings have been committed with .50 cal guns?

Anytime I've fired a Desert Eagle .5...the entire gun ends up above my head with both hands on the gun.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It's not inappropriate to react to tragedy with potential solutions to prevent future tragedies.

It's usually better to base policy on rational thought than it is to have knee-jerk, emotional reactions to rare tragedies.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's usually better to base policy on rational thought than it is to have knee-jerk, emotional reactions to rare tragedies.

See I don't like the end of your statement. Yes, they are rare. But how many does it take when you need to take some kind of action?


They seem to occurring more frequently.

Now, yeah it is a knee jerk, but I definitely think something needs to be done. This isn't something we should just live with the fact that it happens but it's a rare occurring thing, so just hope it doesn't happen to you.

[LOCOChief]

Ok you classify a type of weapon as being illegal to own. Law abiding citizens hand them over, what happens next? I always get stuck at this point.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

See I don't like the end of your statement. Yes, they are rare. But how many does it take when you need to take some kind of action?


They seem to occurring more frequently.

Now, yeah it is a knee jerk, but I definitely think something needs to be done. This isn't something we should just live with the fact that it happens but it's a rare occurring thing, so just hope it doesn't happen to you.

That's the thing - the 'something'. Nobody has an answer that isn't both too narrowly tailored AND overly broad.

Ban the AR if you want - I'm going to have no problems pulling this off with a decent Springfield. So they're you're way overly broad (taking the guns out of the hands of the 99.9% of responsible owners) while also being so narrowly tailored as to not accomplish the stated purpose of preventing killings like those that occurred in Connecticut.

You could limit magazine lengths if you wanted to, but then you're just making the AR less desirable for this sort off thing while still not speaking to my original point - I could do this without one.

An interesting solution could be eliminating high capacity, removable mags. A friend of mine has a rifle that is similar to mine, but the rounds load internally. So he gets his five shots, but rather than load a new mag, he has to hand-load five additional rounds. It takes a fair amount of time to individually load each round and under high stress you'd likely just end up jamming up the rifle. If you were to do that, you've not done much to diminish the utility of the hunting rifle, but you have made it a less effective mass-killing machine. Then again, his gun is a pain in the ass to clear a jam and maintain. I'd be pretty damn annoyed if I had no choice but to use that type of rifle going forward.

Oh, and we're still at "what would have stopped me from putting .40 cal pistol rounds into them?"

So there you go. Eliminate the AR because it's scary looking. Then eliminate removable mags. Finally, ban handguns.

Now you've finally made it a fair amount more difficult to kill children. The 12 gauge would probably wind up the weapon of choice at that juncture, and you and I can buy one of those from Wal-Mart for a couple hundred bucks. Take the plug out and I can get 5 rounds into one. Then again, a shotgun loads pretty quickly and can sweep the street for you. If I needed to get 5 more shells into a basic 870 express, I could have that done in under 10 seconds. Would that be enough to make a difference? Hell, who knows?

But we've essentially butchered the 2nd Amendment to find out. In so doing I've lost a hobby that I enjoy a great deal and have invested a lot of money into (target shooting).

At some point, don't I matter? Is it worth dicking me, average Joe Citizen, over because of the off chance that a gun wielding maniac with a 12 gauge would've been stopped before he had a chance to reload?

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by O.city

No you don't need an AR.

But doesn't having one make it easier? Aren't they more efficient.

no, and they are not.

The difference between an AR and a non-assault rifle is one looks like a black metal scary death machine, and one looks like a good old-fashioned, wholesome american rifle with wood finish.

I don't want an AR, just because they look ugly.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by O.city

I think they said most were shot 3-11 times each.

I was raised around guns, have alot of experience around hunting rifles and shotguns, but not much at all around any AR. I'm just curious as to why these always seem to happen with these weapons.

That AR uses little .226 bullets which are sometimes survivable. You almost have to shoot multiple times.

If you have a .45 handgun, one shot would probably do it every time.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by LOCOChief

Ok you classify a type of weapon as being illegal to own. Law abiding citizens hand them over, what happens next? I always get stuck at this point.

1) You make criminals out of people like me.

I'm not just going to give the government my guns back. I'm not a "I need it to protect my home" guy - I went to law school and have 200 lbs of noisy dog in my house for that. I'm in a nice enough neighborhood that I find it highly unlikely I'm going to need to kill an intruder anytime soon.

That said, I simply enjoy shooting. It's cathartic and it's a skilled exercise that I enjoy being good at. I purchased them legally. Registered them legally and have been an otherwise model citizen.

I'm not going to just turn them over because a bunch of hyperventilating career opportunists found a way to score cheap political points.

So regardless of what else happens, this will immediately create a new class of criminal.

[teedubya]

Here are some numbers,

Purchases of 2012:

450 Million Hollow Point Ammo - Homeland Security
750 Million High Powered Ammo - Homeland Security
200 Million Sniper Rounds - Homeland Security
174 Thousand Hollow Point Ammo - Social Security Administration
85 Thousand Hollow Point Ammo - US Forest Service
187 Thousand other Ammo - US Forest Service
40 Thousand Hollow Point Ammo - National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

So why would Homeland Security suddenly need well over 1 billions rounds, 450 million of which are Hollow Point?

In 2012 we've had multiple "mass shootings", increased mainstream talk of Gun laws, taking away of our Guns etc all the while Government agencies are loading up!

Being the conspiracy theorist that I am, this raises eyebrows...

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's the thing - the 'something'. Nobody has an answer that isn't both too narrowly tailored AND overly broad.

Ban the AR if you want - I'm going to have no problems pulling this off with a decent Springfield. So they're you're way overly broad (taking the guns out of the hands of the 99.9% of responsible owners) while also being so narrowly tailored as to not accomplish the stated purpose of preventing killings like those that occurred in Connecticut.

You could limit magazine lengths if you wanted to, but then you're just making the AR less desirable for this sort off thing while still not speaking to my original point - I could do this without one.

An interesting solution could be eliminating high capacity, removable mags. A friend of mine has a rifle that is similar to mine, but the rounds load internally. So he gets his five shots, but rather than load a new mag, he has to hand-load five additional rounds. It takes a fair amount of time to individually load each round and under high stress you'd likely just end up jamming up the rifle. If you were to do that, you've not done much to diminish the utility of the hunting rifle, but you have made it a less effective mass-killing machine. Then again, his gun is a pain in the ass to clear a jam and maintain. I'd be pretty damn annoyed if I had no choice but to use that type of rifle going forward.

Oh, and we're still at "what would have stopped me from putting .40 cal pistol rounds into them?"

So there you go. Eliminate the AR because it's scary looking. Then eliminate removable mags. Finally, ban handguns.

Now you've finally made it a fair amount more difficult to kill children. The 12 gauge would probably wind up the weapon of choice at that juncture, and you and I can buy one of those from Wal-Mart for a couple hundred bucks. Take the plug out and I can get 5 rounds into one. Then again, a shotgun loads pretty quickly and can sweep the street for you. If I needed to get 5 more shells into a basic 870 express, I could have that done in under 10 seconds. Would that be enough to make a difference? Hell, who knows?

But we've essentially butchered the 2nd Amendment to find out. In so doing I've lost a hobby that I enjoy a great deal and have invested a lot of money into (target shooting).

At some point, don't I matter? Is it worth dicking me, average Joe Citizen, over because of the off chance that a gun wielding maniac with a 12 gauge would've been stopped before he had a chance to reload?

At the chance of stopping or prohibiting something like last Friday from happening, would you say it isn't worth it?

This is where I'm at. I can't really say one way or another. If I have to give up a hobby for something like this to not happen again, ok.

But I'm not at the point where I think giving up that hobby will stop something like this from happening.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by O.city

See I don't like the end of your statement. Yes, they are rare. But how many does it take when you need to take some kind of action?


They seem to occurring more frequently.

Now, yeah it is a knee jerk, but I definitely think something needs to be done. This isn't something we should just live with the fact that it happens but it's a rare occurring thing, so just hope it doesn't happen to you.

Why shouldn't we just live with it (with a little heightened awareness, of course)? It is rare.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

1) You make criminals out of people like me.

I'm not just going to give the government my guns back. I'm not a "I need it to protect my home" guy - I went to law school and have 200 lbs of noisy dog in my house for that. I'm in a nice enough neighborhood that I find it highly unlikely I'm going to need to kill an intruder anytime soon.

That said, I simply enjoy shooting. It's cathartic and it's a skilled exercise that I enjoy being good at. I purchased them legally. Registered them legally and have been an otherwise model citizen.

I'm not going to just turn them over because a bunch of hyperventilating career opportunists found a way to score cheap political points.

So regardless of what else happens, this will immediately create a new class of criminal.

This is also my sticking point.

I don't shoot semi auto, I have but don't regularly, but I do regularly use my 20 gauge shotgun to shoot a quail or two, or my 12 gauge to kill a gobler or a damn armadillo tearing up mine and dads bermuda in the back yard, or my 7 mag to (rarely, as I bow hunt more and like it more) kill a deer or "kill" some targets.

But, it seems to me there should be a way to separate who is fit to own guns and who isn't. I jsut haven't figured that out yet.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Why shouldn't we just live with it (with a little heightened awareness, of course)? It is rare.

Terrorist attacks are rare too, live with those?

I just think or feel that if we should explore any way to stop or atleast severely limit the chance of these happening.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by alnorth

That AR uses little .226 bullets which are sometimes survivable. You almost have to shoot multiple times.

If you have a .45 handgun, one shot would probably do it every time.

This is an interesting demonstrative:

7.62 vs. 5.56 vs. a 9mm



The 5.56 is for all intents and purposes a .223 round. Look at it compared to the humble 9mm. The 9mm is a significantly larger round. And if you talk to a soldier, many of them will not carry a 9mm because of the lack of stopping power.

The old soldiers scream to this day about the conversion from the 7.62 to the 5.56 round. You look at the shell and you see why. The 5.56 round just isn't that damaging a round. It's almost universally reviled among soldiers who's job is killing people.

The AR is not a terribly effective weapon for killing people. Why do people use it? Because they're ****ing crazy, that's why. Crazy is attracted to scary looking things and intimidation. The AR is undeniably scary.

But in the absence of an AR, they're going to go get a semi-auto rifle that makes a hell of a lot bigger hole. I can't find a good .223 vs. 30.06 comparison, but this is close:



The .308 is a comparable round (far right) - it's freakin' dwarfs the .223 (far left, with a 30-30 in the middle). The politicians are going to keep screaming about how "The AR isn't designed for killing deer!" and nobody's going to bother asking why. The answer is straightforward - it isn't very good at killing stuff. Period.