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.
One must realize that the amount of propaganda and misinformation spread around on this subject is vast.
No doubt "rate of fire" and "mag capacity" are important metrics in terms of how many bullets a shooter can release in a given time period.
However, there are many other metrics - chief amount them:
1. The Bullets - of course there are many variations on the .223 ammo, but the whole idea of this system was a very fast (powerful) small bullet that tumbles and "dances" once it hits just about anything. If you read about many of the Vegas deaths, they were from ONE bullet at that distance - and, the bullet may have hit the forearm of the victim. But it didn't stop until it entered them again (some 2 or 3 times) and then liquified their livers and bumped their spines.
2. Aim - Having an "Assault Style" rifle gives a fairly high degree of accuracy in addition to the mag, rate of fire and ammo.
It would seem to me that the control of ammo is as...or more...important than many other aspects. If the .223 bullet just went through the persons forearm, that would be preferable to making a smoothie out of a large part of their important organs.
Those who have interest can find plenty of information online including videos that show what the .223 round does to ballistic gel (used to simulate a human). That tiny bullet often makes fist sized damage to a human body....or worse.
IMHO, controlling the more deadly forms of this ammo (or any ammo) could cut down the damage in mass shootings by 50% or more. That would be a start.
I agree with the basic premise that most recent mass shooters seem to have bought their guns and ammo recently - if that is the case, such regulations might still allow some new owners to buy guns, but maybe limit them to weaker ammo or whatever.
Note - anyone who says gun regulation does not work:
"Massachusetts had the lowest gun death rate in the country in 2015, newly released federal data shows, and advocacy groups on Tuesday attributed the state's ranking to its tough firearm laws"
Also note, I have a residence in that state and neighbors with guns. In fact a large gun range is in the hollow right near our house. So it's not like "guns are banned", but we do have an assault weapons ban. Of course, lots of people will tell you that has nothing to do with the lowest gun death rate in the USA.....but if one has an ounce of reason, they know differently. Good laws help..a LOT. And, despite a large population, notice that no Constitutional cases have been brought against the state. One can only assume what MA. does passes muster.
There was never a speed limit on horses when the Framers wrote.
They never saw cars.
Yet you accept new laws governing the safe speed to operate a car and DUI laws.
Why not rules to safely and responsible be a gun owner.
There are said laws on the books...
Brandish a weapon to threaten or intimidate-Felony Menacing.
Shoot someone, attempted murder. Felony.
Leaving a weapon within the reach of a child. You are responsible for the outcome, felony Child Neglect/endangering the welfare of a minor.
Kill someone, felony.
What laws are you assuming I don't support or endorse other than your childish feeble ban?
Brandish a weapon to threaten or intimidate-Felony Menacing.
Shoot someone, attempted murder. Felony.
Leaving a weapon within the reach of a child. You are responsible for the outcome, felony Child Neglect/endangering the welfare of a minor.
Kill someone, felony.
What laws are you assuming I don't support or endorse other than your childish feeble ban?
All good ideals. But not the solution to any problems since we are discussing the damage done - and these do nothing except punish AFTER the damage is done.
Reasonable solutions which STOP the damage from being done in the first place might be a better topic of discussion. I'm fairly certain that, here in Florida, if you brandish - and just claim you felt "not in a safe place" the law or at least the authorities will often be on your side.
I don't think I'd vote for Feinstein's gun ban bill, and it would never get a majority of votes if it came to the citizens voting.
Don't forget, ultimately we the citizens decide if a law is to be obeyed or not. And if nobody obeys it, its not really a law, is it?
All good ideals. But not the solution to any problems since we are discussing the damage done - and these do nothing except punish AFTER the damage is done.
You DO realize that's essentially how ALL laws work, no?
Do laws against DUI prevent DUI? Do laws against breaking and entering prevent breaking and entering? Do laws against pedophilia prevent pedophilia? Or do they all just punish after the damage is done?
All of the above is exactly why even though it's illegal in all 50 states for a convicted felon to have a gun, they have guns anyway in Chicago, Baltimore, Camden, Compton, etc. This may come as a shock to some of you, but... criminals don't obey laws.
No he wouldn't, Trump is a lot smarter than those who want to ban something to address a problem called "Mental Illness". Banning a type of weapon will not fix the problem. If something were proposed to prevent those with mental illnesses from buying anything that's deemed as "a weapon", then he would sign it, as long as it addresses ONLY those with a mental illness and can be dangerouns, and not those with a condition nowhere near mental illnesses, which was done in recent years. Although I'm not sure if that'll completely stop the problem of mass killings because there's no guarantee it'll stop them from resorting to other means.
My wife and I both own handguns for personal protection. I feel every American should have the right to defend themselves and their homes.
I will have to say though, I don’t agree with regular citizens being allowed to purchase assault weapons designed for mass destruction and casualties. Weapons such as should be strictly for law enforcement and military.
We've got lots of threads arguing the pros and cons of bans so let's not go there please. My question is this:
If a new Assault Weapons ban (say Feinstein's proposed ban, put out after the Vegas shooting) were to pass in the House and Senate and ended up on Trump's desk, would he sign it?
My gut says Trump would, even though he promised to stand up for the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because he's Trump. The guy built his billion dollar empire by telling people what they wanted to hear and then doing what's profitable to him regardless. He has an extensive track record of screwing over people time and time again in business but some how we've forgotten that.
I think Trump would deal, and use signing a ban as a negotiating chip to get something he wants from Democrats. What do you think?
No. That is a non starter. He could not face the repudiation from his minority "base"; he lives for their adulation at the rallies. It will take a President with some actual character and integrity to finally address this issue and to pass common sense gun laws. Sure isn't going to be Trump. This is is just a rhetorical question we all know the answer.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
I agree, an AW ban will not solve the problem... but when have legislators been good at solving problems?
Not my question though... would Trump ultimately throw gun owners under the bus for political gain even though he claims to be their champion?
I think he'd throw anybody under the bus to stroke his own pathetically needy ego.
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.
