"Assault weapons" get a lot of play I. The media following mass shootings, but the vast majority (nearly all) gun deaths are caused by handguns.
Hand guns are the problem.
Sandy Hook was a bushmaster XM15 30-magazine rifle that did the damage. Lanza had a Glock and a Sig handgun with plenty of ammo for both, but I don't believe there was evidence either was fired other than the Glock with which Lanza took his own life.
Columbine there were both sawed off shotguns and handguns not to mention pipe bombs.
Dylan Roof used a .45 handgun
Omar Mateen (Orlando) used a 30-magazine capacity .223 S&W (I believe) rifle and a glock
Sayed Farook (San Bernardino) used two AR-15 rifles and illegally modified them one to be automatic (modifications were not successful, still remained semi) and a modification to one to make it larger magazine capacity
not saying handguns don't do damage, but in mass shooting it does not seem they are weapon of choice.
handguns are not reliably accurate for anyone other than a marksman from distances of more than 15 yards or so.
rifles and shotguns, much more accurate at much further distances.
As Rob was saying about Scary Black Rifle syndrome
That looks pretty hardcore, doesn't it? All tactical 'n shit. Now look at this rifle:
Looks a lot less scary, doesn't it?
They're the same rifle, the Springfield Armory M1A, chambered in .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO. One has a bunch of extra, largely cosmetic shit on it, plus that scary black synthetic stock instead of walnut.
Here's a video of three people who could probably obtain a gun in this situation regardless if they were outlawed or not.
Notice how they entered the house with their guns already drawn. Fortunately, the lone female house-sitter had her own firearm for self-defense, imagine how loud that must have been.
You'd rather emphatically stated earlier that you're "out", so good to see that you've been reading and have re-joined us.
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences. That said, you're accurate that a confusion about weapons is fairly common. Oftentimes a deliberate conflation (typically by politicians), but also frequently, I suspect, an honest confusion. Especially by those heartbroken parents who, yes, are not firearms experts but who are genuine in their attempts to prevent more violence like that which they suffered.
But it's an important point you bring up about weapon types and nomenclature. We should be debating where the "line" is when it comes to owning firearms, as we've been doing long before Sandy Hook or Columbine. Reagan, with 86's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, effectively (one can still get them via absurdly onerous avenues) put the quash on hold-down-trigger automatic weapons, even though a literalist reading of the Constitution indisputably would allow them.
Other things we should debate: "smart gun" technology (likely the best way to cut down on accidental child deaths), more aggressive universal background checks, federalized trafficking crimes, shorter magazine capacity (Lanza's gun had, I believe, 30 rounds). There are others and all offer debatable levels of efficacy. I'm not proposing any as a panacea, but reasonable people should explore them as a means to reduce violence.
What is not helpful is a fingers-in-ears, feet-stamping opposition to sensible reforms by those who make a lot of money catering to a very small contingent which I cited above. Whose power is in part magnified via illegitimate means (that is to say, cynically fashioned Congressional districts).
however magazine capacity is something that should be reasonably debated when discussing the role of firearms in home defense, hunting, and (regrettably) mass shootings.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
however magazine capacity is something that should be reasonably debated when discussing the role of firearms in home defense, hunting, and (regrettably) mass shootings.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem.
Not bringing that up to dump everything on mental health, but a handgun with 6/7 rounds (like mine) instead of the 14/15 you used to be able to carry is a pretty reasonable start and definitely limits what any joe schmo can do.
"In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem."
Absolutely agree 100%
Being handy in a metal shop and having fun at the range is completely different from planning a mass murder.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I've spent a great deal of time in Toronto. This is the norm for most people there. Opinionated, snobby metros that have nothing good to say about anything American. America is the root of all evil.
I read where the shooter was expelled from school last year (2015) for
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
In any case, I've been round and round on this one. Go ahead and ban hi-capacity mags. I don't really have a problem with that, although it won't have any real practical effect. Watch the linked video to see why. Those are Marines, yes, but it's not rocket science. Anyone who practices it can learn a fast magazine exchange.
And let's say you want to ban external magazines altogether. Even with a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine, a proficient marksman can fire twenty or more aimed shots per minute and reload with a stripper clip in maybe four or five seconds.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
Either you possess exceedingly poor reading comprehension skills, or you didn't read what I wrote.
I don't want that (if only for selfish reasons given that I like the range), nor did I state as much anywhere on this or any other thread. In fact I wrote something directly contradictory yesterday circa east coast Jeopardy.
Nor did I assuredly advocate banning high cap magazines as a solution, only said that it's something to consider as part of making progress toward reducing gun murders.
Let me know if any of that is not clear enough for you.
As a gun owner and in general a supporter of the 2nd amendment
I do admit I find the unwillingness to compromise of the gun lobby/NRA a little frustrating. Especially when so much is state driven right now and I feel like what I had to do in MA wasn't easy, but should be a bare minimum and many states don't even have this much rigor and process around acquiring a firearm.
There are some common sense measures I think make sense that should be federally mandated. Many are mentioned. Intensive background checks to own a gun, mandatory safety training that needs to be re-certified periodically, magazine capacity limits, automatic weapon restrictions, etc.
I do understand the NRA perspective of if you give even a millimeter they'll take a foot and gradually chip away at our "freedoms", but I think that POV does them more harm than good (among their detractors) and they could make some common sense compromise that isn't even a middle ground, it's more on their side, that would be seen as true compromise comparatively speaking.
However, I still believe the knee jerk reaction to each mass killing is ill-informed, presumptive and misplaced, because IMO most mass killings would not and will not be prevented by even removing 100% (or whatever realistic percent a complete ban would get) of the legal and registered firearms.
just out of curiosity, why more restrictions on automatic weapons?
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
just out of curiosity, why more restrictions on automatic weapons?
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
I'd just close the trust loophole for automatic weapons or close the trust loophole in general.
It might have even been already closed, Obama had been trying to do it for a while through executive order. It allowed people to create trusts or incorporate and buy guns, specifically illegal guns like machine guns or other illegal gun parts like some silencers, without getting either local jurisdiction approval or even without a background check.
Hand guns are the problem.
Hand guns are the problem.
Sandy Hook was a bushmaster XM15 30-magazine rifle that did the damage. Lanza had a Glock and a Sig handgun with plenty of ammo for both, but I don't believe there was evidence either was fired other than the Glock with which Lanza took his own life.
Columbine there were both sawed off shotguns and handguns not to mention pipe bombs.
Dylan Roof used a .45 handgun
Omar Mateen (Orlando) used a 30-magazine capacity .223 S&W (I believe) rifle and a glock
Sayed Farook (San Bernardino) used two AR-15 rifles and illegally modified them one to be automatic (modifications were not successful, still remained semi) and a modification to one to make it larger magazine capacity
not saying handguns don't do damage, but in mass shooting it does not seem they are weapon of choice.
handguns are not reliably accurate for anyone other than a marksman from distances of more than 15 yards or so.
rifles and shotguns, much more accurate at much further distances.
That looks pretty hardcore, doesn't it? All tactical 'n shit. Now look at this rifle:
Looks a lot less scary, doesn't it?
They're the same rifle, the Springfield Armory M1A, chambered in .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO. One has a bunch of extra, largely cosmetic shit on it, plus that scary black synthetic stock instead of walnut.
Notice how they entered the house with their guns already drawn. Fortunately, the lone female house-sitter had her own firearm for self-defense, imagine how loud that must have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyQV2dR_tT8
Tragically, only one of these three home invaders were killed in this incident.
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences. That said, you're accurate that a confusion about weapons is fairly common. Oftentimes a deliberate conflation (typically by politicians), but also frequently, I suspect, an honest confusion. Especially by those heartbroken parents who, yes, are not firearms experts but who are genuine in their attempts to prevent more violence like that which they suffered.
But it's an important point you bring up about weapon types and nomenclature. We should be debating where the "line" is when it comes to owning firearms, as we've been doing long before Sandy Hook or Columbine. Reagan, with 86's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, effectively (one can still get them via absurdly onerous avenues) put the quash on hold-down-trigger automatic weapons, even though a literalist reading of the Constitution indisputably would allow them.
Other things we should debate: "smart gun" technology (likely the best way to cut down on accidental child deaths), more aggressive universal background checks, federalized trafficking crimes, shorter magazine capacity (Lanza's gun had, I believe, 30 rounds). There are others and all offer debatable levels of efficacy. I'm not proposing any as a panacea, but reasonable people should explore them as a means to reduce violence.
What is not helpful is a fingers-in-ears, feet-stamping opposition to sensible reforms by those who make a lot of money catering to a very small contingent which I cited above. Whose power is in part magnified via illegitimate means (that is to say, cynically fashioned Congressional districts).
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences.
You can put a larger or smaller magazine in either so it's not a functional difference.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem.
Not bringing that up to dump everything on mental health, but a handgun with 6/7 rounds (like mine) instead of the 14/15 you used to be able to carry is a pretty reasonable start and definitely limits what any joe schmo can do.
Absolutely agree 100%
Being handy in a metal shop and having fun at the range is completely different from planning a mass murder.
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
I've spent a great deal of time in Toronto. This is the norm for most people there. Opinionated, snobby metros that have nothing good to say about anything American. America is the root of all evil.
This was clearly an unstable boy with mental problems.
The question is even with that type of warning how does a parent proceed?
Quote:
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
In any case, I've been round and round on this one. Go ahead and ban hi-capacity mags. I don't really have a problem with that, although it won't have any real practical effect. Watch the linked video to see why. Those are Marines, yes, but it's not rocket science. Anyone who practices it can learn a fast magazine exchange.
And let's say you want to ban external magazines altogether. Even with a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine, a proficient marksman can fire twenty or more aimed shots per minute and reload with a stripper clip in maybe four or five seconds.
Link - ( New Window )
Either you possess exceedingly poor reading comprehension skills, or you didn't read what I wrote.
I don't want that (if only for selfish reasons given that I like the range), nor did I state as much anywhere on this or any other thread. In fact I wrote something directly contradictory yesterday circa east coast Jeopardy.
Nor did I assuredly advocate banning high cap magazines as a solution, only said that it's something to consider as part of making progress toward reducing gun murders.
Let me know if any of that is not clear enough for you.
There are some common sense measures I think make sense that should be federally mandated. Many are mentioned. Intensive background checks to own a gun, mandatory safety training that needs to be re-certified periodically, magazine capacity limits, automatic weapon restrictions, etc.
I do understand the NRA perspective of if you give even a millimeter they'll take a foot and gradually chip away at our "freedoms", but I think that POV does them more harm than good (among their detractors) and they could make some common sense compromise that isn't even a middle ground, it's more on their side, that would be seen as true compromise comparatively speaking.
However, I still believe the knee jerk reaction to each mass killing is ill-informed, presumptive and misplaced, because IMO most mass killings would not and will not be prevented by even removing 100% (or whatever realistic percent a complete ban would get) of the legal and registered firearms.
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
I'd just close the trust loophole for automatic weapons or close the trust loophole in general.
It might have even been already closed, Obama had been trying to do it for a while through executive order. It allowed people to create trusts or incorporate and buy guns, specifically illegal guns like machine guns or other illegal gun parts like some silencers, without getting either local jurisdiction approval or even without a background check.
Otherwise nothing further.
but again, I'm certainly not an expert on this but I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of gun violence is perpetrated by non-legal gun owners.
So all the banning and regulations I'm not sure what it will change, but people still scream for it.
so it's why I feel some common sense control measures might be a good step.