Quote:
Originally Posted by sd-bound
Making AR15's illegal is just feel good idea that will never see the light of day. If you want to propose a change that would help, work to pass legislation that restricts magazines to 10 rounds. It would not only help reduce the carnage a nut job can inflict, it's a restriction that would actually have a chance to be made into law...
|
A deterrence will greatly reduce the carnage a nut job can inflict.
Again. Reducing capacity is not a common sense thing. Its a way to curtail rights subjectively by focusing on the implement, not the individual, or the incentives that exist for them to do harm. It was proven to me by Cuomo, when I lived in NY, magazine capacity and feature bans would not do anything but make criminals out of us... It provided incentive to train to be faster in reloading... It would make no difference in 10 or 30 or 60 or 100 or 120 rounds. And here is why.
Here is why and here is where the AR is different from MOST other semiautomatic rifles.
1. It is DI gas fed. Direct Impingement.
Why does this matter?
The rifle/carbine has its own built in fail safe to protect the barrel. That would be the gas tube.
2. This system works by forcing hot gas through the front sight post/gas block, through the gas tube, to the bolt carrier to drive the bolt rearward. What does this have to do with anything?
The faster you shoot, the hotter it will get. The fail safe being the thin walled gas tube failing due to extremely hot gas and carbon fouling build up in the tube. It essentially will over heat fail and prevent the barrel from melting down.
Are there exotic materials such as titanium and certain stainless steel that can be sourced for gas tubes to deal with the heat better? Sure. What will it accomplish? It runs a while longer. Still going to suffer from carbon fouling... Which will shut the gas down to the carrier.
Unless the ammo being used burns extremely clean...
The 2 seconds or so it may take the average person to swap magazines... and fire 5 or 10 rounds at a time... It isn't going to cause anything but a prolonged shooting. You aren't getting the rifle hot enough quick enough for the gas tube to fail, or the upper to become trashed with carbon fouling to jam the bolt carrier up or hinder the trigger.
I don't support a magazine ban. Not at all. Cuomo turned me and others into a felon overnight on the basis of magazine capacity.
There are millions of magazines in circulation right here, right now.
Every month or 2 I order 100 at a time.
Want to reduce the carnage inflicted? Put a deterrence in place.
Gun free zones offer quite the incentive for these attacks.
Remove that incentive and put in place a deterrence... You have yourself a solution without infringing rights on subjective interpretation.
We have only done things one way in the history of this nation addressing these things... One way and one way only... Whenever someone else comes forward with a legitimate response it is down played as radical and crazy...
Haven't seen an armed teacher or school staff member thwart an armed intruder looking to slaughter have we? No. Because gun free zone.
To go off the rails and propose a fortress with bullet proof glass, metal detectors, xrays, TSA style security on steroids is one way. Not very realistic, quite expensive. My solution was simply to repeal gun free zones in favor of those who willingly want to participate and make a difference in the even something should occur.
As it is now...
A gun free zone, an area that a criminal or deranged individual can enter with no armed opposition, no real threat of their safety and well being, offers them quite the incentive to descend upon with their evil plans...
Revoke their incentive.
Install a deterrent.
Cameras? Xray machines? Metal Detectors? Bullet Proof glass?
Camera-So you can identify them and see them do it while they do it.
Xray/Metal Detector to bottle neck entry to buildings leaving an outside target rich environment for them?
Bullet Proof glass-Expensive but only will stop so many rounds before it fails... Maybe.
Armed presence trained to handle the threat?
No waiting for good guys with badges and guns. Good guys with guns are present in the building. And can put the scumbag down the moment they brandish or start firing.
Change lay outs of rooms? I support that. Provide a less open floor plan for an intruder.
That's how the rooms were in my highschool were laid out. You didn't open a door to an open square. You had a short hallway about 10-12 feet to walk into and then a square.
You wanted to shoot through the door? You were not hitting anything but a wall... But once you shot the glass out of the door... You could reach in and open the door from the outside... Would give just enough time to either bolt out the window, or smack the intruder with a desk or chair... We however, were instructed to lay face down on the floor. Yeah in a real incident, this kid would not have simply complied and listened to instruction. My life is more important than the gun mans. F your rules and instructions. They don't protect me...
We had lock down drills. They simply got us to be rounded up to become fish in a barrel for the gunmen. It may have evolved since I was in highschool to do something more than suck the floor and hope police arrive before the intruder did...
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.
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. That was just a comparative analogy nothing more. Comparing gangs of yesteryear to those today. MS 13 compared to the Sharks or Jets from West Side Story. Hope that clears it up. I sure wasn't expecting such a violent reaction to such a simple thing. 
