Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1)the past four years under Pres. Obama have been a non-stop gun buying frenzy. Dealers say that the main limitiing factor when it comes to sales has been not being able to get enough product. Guns last a long time. There are so many guns out there now, it's going to take decades before there is a dent in availability.
2)Sen. Feinstein is already saying that she will exempt over 900 guns from the ban. Frankly, a gun is a gun is a gun. Most of what makes it dangerous resides in the cartridge, not the action type (e.g. semi-auto vs. bolt action) or whether it is colored black. It's like banning Corvettes then expecting that people will no longer be able to drive from LA to SF. They still will, just in a different vehicle. They all get you from point a to point b.
3)In 1934 we effectively banned true assault rifles with the National Firearms Act. Did mass killers say, "Oh noes, I can't get the exact same gun that I seen on TV, the full auto version. Guess I'll just call off my school shooting." No. They just settled for a semi-auto version, and lived their nightmare anyway. Do people seriously think it's going to work any differently this time? A gun is a gun is a gun.
4)The core of the 1994 ban, and the newly proposed ban, is to limit magazines (not "clips" as DiFi continues to erroneously call them) that hold more than 10 cartridges (not "bullets" as she again errouneously continues to call them). This limit is of little import, becase a mass killer can just carry multiple mags, and after 10 shots change to a new mag. With a little practice this can be done very quickly. Fast Mag Change AR-15 - YouTube
4) Frankly, the assault weapon ban of 1994 was crafted by morons. It banned guns with two or more "assault features." So your gun could have a a bayonet lug or a folding stock, but not both. Either it's too deadly for public consumption or it's not. The "two or more" concept showed that these gun control types are about as intelligent as linoleum tile. It's as if the Volstead Act allowed drinking scotch or vodka, just not both.
Dianne Feinstein, after decades of doing this, still doesn't know the correct terms for what she wants to ban. She once swept a crowd with an AK-47 she was holding (finger on trigger, no less) violating the most basic rules of gun safety. TonyRogers.com | Sen. Feinstein Warns About Self-Aware Rifles Springing To Life
And as Mayor of SF she had a super-rare concealed carry permit for her .38, claiming that she needed it to protect herself from all the gun nuts.
I suppose it it is possible to get effective legislation from an idiot legislator, but it doesn't seem likely. In many cases they have no idea of what they are trying to ban.
1)the past four years under Pres. Obama have been a non-stop gun buying frenzy. Dealers say that the main limitiing factor when it comes to sales has been not being able to get enough product. Guns last a long time. There are so many guns out there now, it's going to take decades before there is a dent in availability.
2)Sen. Feinstein is already saying that she will exempt over 900 guns from the ban. Frankly, a gun is a gun is a gun. Most of what makes it dangerous resides in the cartridge, not the action type (e.g. semi-auto vs. bolt action) or whether it is colored black. It's like banning Corvettes then expecting that people will no longer be able to drive from LA to SF. They still will, just in a different vehicle. They all get you from point a to point b.
3)In 1934 we effectively banned true assault rifles with the National Firearms Act. Did mass killers say, "Oh noes, I can't get the exact same gun that I seen on TV, the full auto version. Guess I'll just call off my school shooting." No. They just settled for a semi-auto version, and lived their nightmare anyway. Do people seriously think it's going to work any differently this time? A gun is a gun is a gun.
4)The core of the 1994 ban, and the newly proposed ban, is to limit magazines (not "clips" as DiFi continues to erroneously call them) that hold more than 10 cartridges (not "bullets" as she again errouneously continues to call them). This limit is of little import, becase a mass killer can just carry multiple mags, and after 10 shots change to a new mag. With a little practice this can be done very quickly.
4) Frankly, the assault weapon ban of 1994 was crafted by morons. It banned guns with two or more "assault features." So your gun could have a a bayonet lug or a folding stock, but not both. Either it's too deadly for public consumption or it's not. The "two or more" concept showed that these gun control types are about as intelligent as linoleum tile. It's as if the Volstead Act allowed drinking scotch or vodka, just not both.
Dianne Feinstein, after decades of doing this, still doesn't know the correct terms for what she wants to ban. She once swept a crowd with an AK-47 she was holding (finger on trigger, no less) violating the most basic rules of gun safety. TonyRogers.com | Sen. Feinstein Warns About Self-Aware Rifles Springing To Life
And as Mayor of SF she had a super-rare concealed carry permit for her .38, claiming that she needed it to protect herself from all the gun nuts.
I suppose it it is possible to get effective legislation from an idiot legislator, but it doesn't seem likely. In many cases they have no idea of what they are trying to ban.
Can't blame Feinstein for wanting a CCW- she was on the scene at SF City Hall when Milk and Moscone were murdered, and took over as mayor. That doesn't make her a hypocrite, it makes her smart.
So you are of the "There is NOTHING we can do, so don't even try" school?
I disagree. I know it will be hard as hell, but we have to try to make some common-sense reforms.
It isn't hard to come up with several that could be effective. We could, for example, limit legal possession of semi-autos to the home or business, for personal defense. Or limit the capacity of rifles and handguns, through mandatory retro-fitting, if necessesary, to accept only 5 and 10 rd mags. Then, limit the legal number of mags, or ammo one can possess. Close the gun show loophole too, so every purchaser has to pass background. Instate a two week waiting period for ALL firearms purchases. Modify guns so oly the owner can fire them, through microchip technology. Offer cash, via a national gun buy-back program, to help reduce the number of weapons in circulation. Then, make sure those guns get DESTROYED, not re-sold.
Hopefully, public-minded law makers from both parties, with the assistance of firearms experts, can work together for meaningful new laws and controls.
Newtown is critical mass, some kind of turning point. Nothing like getting 20 six yr olds shot to pieces to galvanize the public, and even the most chicken-**** Republican or blue dog Dem into action.
Gurbie, to address your question So you are of the "There is NOTHING we can do, so don't even try" school?
I think we need to DO a bunch of stuff. But attacking the guns does zero to deal with causation. The Gun didnt CAUSE the shooting. We need to desperately have a national discussion that leads to policy change and new law that deal with the CAUSE of these things.
Banning Assault weapons really will do very little good. (actually they arent assault weapons it just sounds good to call them that.)
So you are of the "There is NOTHING we can do, so don't even try" school?
No I am of the 'let's try something that might actually work' school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie
Newtown is critical mass, some kind of turning point. Nothing like getting 20 six yr olds shot to pieces to galvanize the public, and even the most chicken-**** Republican or blue dog Dem into action
Agreed, which is why we need to focus on actual solutions, not bs, partisan, score-settling measures that will distract from actual solutions and eventually get more six-yr-olds shot to pieces.
Gurbie, to address your question So you are of the "There is NOTHING we can do, so don't even try" school?
I think we need to DO a bunch of stuff. But attacking the guns does zero to deal with causation. The Gun didnt CAUSE the shooting. We need to desperately have a national discussion that leads to policy change and new law that deal with the CAUSE of these things.
Banning Assault weapons really will do very little good. (actually they arent assault weapons it just sounds good to call them that.)
Regardless of what you do, you'll never completely remove the chance of a mass shooting in this country. So yes, work hard to reduce them by attacking causation, increasing awareness, etc. That still won't get you to zero. The next step is getting rid of this semi-auto, military type weapons and high capacity mags. This will help minimize the carnage by forcing the shooter to use a weapon with less killing potential (i.e. lower rate of fire, less rounds before reload). Now the pro-gun crowd will scream "but they'll just use something more deadly!" Will they? Fully-auto weapons are banned in this country, but are available on the black market just like we're told high-cap mags and assault weapons will be. How many of these mass shooters utilized fully-auto weapons? Columbine, VTech, DC Snipers, Arizona, Aurora, Oregon, Newtown... all used firearms that were easily obtained and sold legally all across this country. An AWB may not have prevented any of these shootings, but it certainly may have decreased the body count. Saving one 1st graders life is worth giving up weapons that serve no practical purpose in our society.
Well OP, Sen Carolyn McCarthys husband died in a tragedy from a gun nut on the LIRR. She also resided in my hometown. I would never choose to call a victim of gun violence an idiot legislator.
McCarthy's political career began because of tragedy. On a December night in 1993, a gunman boarded a Long Island Rail Road train and opened fire. McCarthy's husband was one of five killed and her only son, Kevin, was critically injured.
Well you the OP has proven yourself wrong with your own post. There have been no crimes comitted with legal full auto weapons so the control worked. Second if you do the same to semi autos there is no where to go but much slower actions, bolt pump lever ect. So by your own admission it will have a positive impact.
To me the math is pretty simple. (And I own guns.)
If a mass killer has to reload every five or six rounds - there's a greater chance of taking him out before he can kill umpteen people.
An assault rifle ban and a limit on clip size would go a long way towards minimizing these horrors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
