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.
Well just start with reduced magazine size, for example. Will not have any effect at all. I have seen the studies on CD.
I always forget the singular focus typically encountered in these gun threads, typically by the usual characters, but with all due respect, that article touches on a good deal more than magazine size, much that I would think provides more the balance of consideration and analysis that many gun enthusiasts even promote, the more reasonable gun enthusiasts anyway. For starters, here's what the article offerred for consideration about magazine size that is not exactly the panacea gun enthusiasts like to suggest gun control advocates think it is.
"A ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines might also make some difference to the lethality of mass shootings. The best rough estimate for a long-term impact of the ban, researcher Chris Koper suggested, might be a 1% reduction in shootings, or 650 fewer people shot per year. That effect would only begin to be seen after many years, once the US’s existing stock of large capacity magazines is used up. From a public health perspective, even a marginal reduction could be worth it, Koper argued, since the medical and social cost of a single gunshot injury is substantial."
True or not to whatever extent, as I have commented many times, I have little optimism there is any satisfying way to reduce gun violence in America and certainly not without an entire host of efforts combined, most of which do NOT have anything to do with removing guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans, also as noted in the article.
Until the gun control freaks address the inner city gangs where most murders are committed, no one will take them seriously. Instead, they concentrate on trying to take guns from those who have committed no crimes. If all legal gun owners gave up their guns, the murder rate would change very little. In fact, it might increase, because few people would be able to defend themselves and criminals would have no fear of running into an armed person.
Not sure you read the article beyond the headline or actually gave it any real consideration. Can't say I'm surprised, but lots of "freaks" are addressing this issue as well. Also noted in the same article...
Urban, gang-related violence: the Boston ceasefire strategy
Chicago, Oakland, New Orleans, Detroit: decades of gun violence have had a devastating impact on some of the country’s economically struggling neighborhoods.
The violence, rooted in segregation, unemployment, mass incarceration, and the “war on drugs”, can seem like a hopeless and intractable problem. But decades of justice department-funded research has identified several promising strategies for reducing gun violence – not over the long term, but immediately, in a matter of months.
Cities that have done in-depth analyses of their gun violence problem have found something surprising: the majority of violence is driven by a very small number of young men. In Oakland, for instance, just 1,000 members of a few active street groups were responsible for most of the city’s homicides. The violence was not fueled by turf wars or drug business, for the most part, but by long-running feuds and arguments among loose groups of young men engaged in other illegal activities.
Communicating directly with these young men – and offering both assistance and intense law enforcement attention – led to an immediate drop in violence. This “ceasefire” or “focused deterrence” strategy, first launched in Boston in 1996, requires coordination between police departments, prosecutors and community members in the neighborhoods most affected by violence.
Owning the Smith & Wesson MP15 (Smith & Wesson's AR15); and the Fabrique Nationale FN PS90; I would rate them as follows: These are both civilian rifles and only semi-automatic.
The S&W MP15 and FN PS90 are both equally accurate:
I would give the S&W MP15 easier to change magazines: The FN PS 90 requires allot of practice.
I would give the FN PS90 more maneuverable in close quarters since it is small in overall length then the AR15 even with the stock fully collapsed.
I have only ever punched paper targets so I can speak to the takedown power of either one.
The AR15 platform has multiple manufactures making both ammunition and add on accessories for the AR15: The FN PS90 only has a few manufactures making ammunition for it.
The FN PS90 is designed from the operator up, a totally ambidextrous right out of the box rifle, it has linear design, and it ejects the brass by use of gravity, it just drops the brass straight down; since it has a linear design it would also allow the shooter to be lying prone with a full magazine, a task that is a little bit more difficult with the AR15.
I would give the AR15 platform a definite edge in it's versatility and its configurations. the AR15 with the multiple rails it can support allows the connection of more devices then the FN PS90 does, unless you get the after market frame for the FN PS90
It would be a really tough choice as to which one is the overall better rifle. I like them both!!
Let's be honest, shall we? The opportunity to go on about guns like this for gun enthusiasts is perhaps second only to the love of shooting them. The want to intelligently and rationally consider the pros/cons of gun control in an objective manner (without all the usual childish insults) pales in comparison.
That said, there are SOME gun enthusiasts who are able to have an intelligent adult conversation about this subject just like SOME can generally talk politics in the same way. Just a little too rare in this forum to waste too much time trying is all...
" but I'm certainly tired of reading the same old circle of comments and insults to nowhere."
Considering you are one of the biggest offenders of this type of posting, I'm NOT surprised you object it from others.
If anyone wants proof, go back and read some of the other threads on guns.
There's that circle I'm talking about, and considering you are one of the biggest offenders unable to move on with something a bit more substantive, more circling it is! In fact here it seems the suggestion we go backwards instead.
From bad to worse but also not altogether atypical of these gun threads to nowhere...
How many time do they have to be debunked before people realize how losided their "polls" are and how liberal they are?
PEW is not perfect, of course not, but they are among the better respected research centers, often cited by advocates on both sides of many political issues. Still, as I have also always argued, they are but one point of reference among many that MUST be considered if any fair evaluation of varied sources of data is to be had.
I too have questioned certain information about demographics, trends and all manner of varied information that PEW provides on everything from religion to crime rates and rarely can I find anything that refutes what PEW informs that isn't some sort of blog garbage with an obvious agenda to pursue.
All that said, again to the request for some substance, if you can provide the name of a better source of research, I'd like to know what it is, and if there is a certain statistic or point of fact provided by PEW that you deem incorrect, I'd like to know what it is and why you feel the information is incorrect, ideally with some -- any -- point of reference we might be able to alternatively consider.
Otherwise, not much better to do with your peanut gallery complaints like this one but disregard if having a better informed exchange is the idea!
the ar-15 is no different from any other semi auto hunting rifle that accepts a magazine. It is a very commonly used rifle, the most common in the u.s. It is used widely for hunting, target shooting, competition, and home defense. It scares urban, liberal/progressives, because they have no experience with them, and fear all guns.
There's that circle I'm talking about, and considering you are one of the biggest offenders unable to move on with something a bit more substantive, more circling it is! In fact here it seems the suggestion we go backwards instead.
From bad to worse but also not altogether atypical of these gun threads to nowhere...
Let's be honest, shall we? The opportunity to go on about guns like this for gun enthusiasts is perhaps second only to the love of shooting them. The want to intelligently and rationally consider the pros/cons of gun control in an objective manner (without all the usual childish insults) pales in comparison.
That said, there are SOME gun enthusiasts who are able to have an intelligent adult conversation about this subject just like SOME can generally talk politics in the same way. Just a little too rare in this forum to waste too much time trying is all...
We already have TONS of Gun Control laws on the Federal, State, and Local level. Most of them are UN Constitutional yet activist courts uphold them. For a RIGHT enumerated in the Constitution, not to be infringed, it certainly has a lot of infringements. CA, NY, NJ, MA, CT, RT, HI, and others are specific examples on the state level.
Utter nonsense you say? LMAO, And would you care to respond with some actual facts and knowledge in refuting it, or should all good people just take your word for it, even knowing better? Since you are obviously an expert on the subject and have probably built more precision firearms in various platform than I please do enlighten us as to the specific reasons my post was utter nonsense.
Which parts of it do you find to be particularly ignorant regarding my experiences with the AR platform? Oh, but hey, don't get to technical on me, and start explaining in to much detail why the AR cannot be a precision shooting firearm. You know what I mean, technical jargon like the "little flippy thing on the side" or "the button that makes the box drop out" and other firearms terms that would just go over my head.
Fact of the matter is you are in way over your pay grade here. In all humility, I have been building and shooting various types of firearms for a LONG time. 1911 pistols and AR 15s have been my focus for a while now. So, I am honestly quite interested to hear what your rationale is behind saying my post is utter nonsense. Surely you must be capable of breaking it down for me. After all, if you know enough to claim the post is utter nonsense you must certainly be able to point out technical specifics.
Perhaps you have a degree in mechanical engineering, physics or some such related field that grants you a more vast array of knowledge regarding the AR 15 than a simple builder and shooter like me. Since you can without even knowing any design specifics for my rifles you can flatly and absolutely state that I'm just full of Sh** as to the levels of accuracy they are capable of.
Fact is,my 5.56/223 AR will outperform my Son's Rem VTR in 22 250 shot for shot. Especially in lengthy strings. That VTR is no slouch, but it likes to be swabbed out after three strings to maintain the MOA. My AR can hold steady for a lot more rounds fired. Maybe you could explain to poor ignorant me why that is? Or are terms like ballistic coefficient, sectional density and velocity to much for my brain to handle?
Truly and verily I am looking forward to you taking me to school here. Ive never met up with anyone who was so knowledgeable about firearms that they can just flat call BS on the capabilities of any given firearm without even knowing any of the specifications on it. You have a singular gift sir. Guys like Carlos Hathcock, Jeff Cooper, Massad Ayoob, Hell John M Browning himself would be clamouring to worship at your alter.
So, have at it man. I yield the floor to you and await with baited breath to see your explanations as to why my post is "utter nonsense." So lets hear it. Pull out those technical stops and regale us with your unsurpassed knowledge of firearms. Cuz I'm saying your reply to the post in question is utter and complete nonsense and I'm a darin' you to prove otherwise.
The argument in your post is simply dull. That device was designed primarily as an assault weapon for relatively close in combat. It is capable in even a semiautomatic version of a high rate of fire with a relatively large ammunition load. Paddock demonstrated its capability very well as did Mateen and Johnson. The fact that you choose to assemble a relatively long barreled version to hunt coyotes in no way changes the design intent.
I am an electrical engineer with decades of experience in designing and controlling mechanisms. I also learned to shoot in the 50s and served in the US Army in that decade. I suspect I can still strip an M1 or M1 carbine. I am reasonably familiar with the modern guns though neither an expert nor hobbyist. I may well chose to get a concealed weapons permit one of these years.
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.
