Assault Rifle

[jimmyjazz 46130]

5 minutes ago, Heavy 6 said:

 

“Compromise” meaning one side gives and the other takes? Fuck that.

 

LOL.  How's this?  "Tighter restrictions are probably on the horizon.  Come to the table with honest, reasonable points of discussion and be part of the solution, or don't, and be pissed at how much more restrictive it gets for you."

That's called COMPROMISE.  

[RomaVicta 30016]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Hey cool another "well actually, it's a magazine not a clip" thread.

Thank you for sparing me reading the rest of this semantics seminar.  I assume the aim is to prove that assault rifles don't actually exist.

The world desperately needs more sophistry.

[Heavy 6 68]

LOL.  How's this?  "Tighter restrictions are probably on the horizon.  Come to the table with honest, reasonable points of discussion and be part of the solution, or don't, and be pissed at how much more restrictive it gets for you."
That's called COMPROMISE.  

“I will fuck you in the ass but use lube instead of going in dry.”

[TwiceHorn 31535]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

If you are limited to 5 rounds in your magazine, you better hope you have perfect aim under stress should you ever be faced with a real life self defense situation - especially one that involves multiple assailants.

The whole focus on number of rounds in a magazine is misguided IMO. 

I'm way ahead of you, holmes.  I didn't say anything about pistols.

[BB65 480]

Until the government get their shit together this is the only gun control I can support.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

If you are limited to 5 rounds in your magazine, you better hope you have perfect aim under stress should you ever be faced with a real life self defense situation - especially one that involves multiple assailants.

The whole focus on number of rounds in a magazine is misguided IMO. 

I agree 5 rounds is too low. 10-15 seems reasonable and I think that’s what past legislation in some states have proposed.

I don’t think the mag limit is misguided.  I think it’s a good compromise to avoid banning certain classes of firearms altogether.  

I’ll reiterate that the goal in reducing magazine capacity is to reduce the amount of carnage someone can inflict in a short period of time and follows the same logic as restrictions on acquiring fully automatic firearms.

You have you as yourself, would the Pulse, Las Vegas, or Parkland shooters been able to kill more or less people with 10 round magazines? 

Would there have been more or less carnage if they were weilding fully auto AR-15s? 

It doesn’t take a genius to assume these factors make a noticeable difference in the body count.

[Ben Tobin 374]

1 hour ago, BB65 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Both of these firearms shoot the same  cal ammo, at the same rate of fire. Both are semi automatic .22 caliber rifles made by the same manufacturer. Accessories can be bought to make the top firearm look like the bottom. The accessories do not change the action. The larger magazine will fit both rifles

 

 

 

 

Maybe so, but one is a kids toy and one is badass

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

What effect did the previous assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 have on gun owners? Serious question, I don't know all the details. 

 

[BB65 480]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I agree 5 rounds is too low. 10-15 seems reasonable and I think that’s what past legislation in some states have proposed.

I don’t think the mag limit is misguided.  I think it’s a good compromise to avoid banning certain classes of firearms altogether.  

I’ll reiterate that the goal in reducing magazine capacity is to reduce the amount of carnage someone can inflict in a short period of time and follows the same logic as restrictions on acquiring fully automatic firearms.

You have you as yourself, would the Pulse, Las Vegas, or Parkland shooters been able to kill more or less people with 10 round magazines? 

Would there have been more or less carnage if they were weilding fully auto AR-15s? 

It doesn’t take a genius to assume these factors make a noticeable difference in the body count.

This all depends on how many magazines the shooter is carrying. It takes less than 3 seconds to change an empty mag to a pre-loaded mag.

[JBJ 3665]

The deadliest shooting ever featured 10-round magazines.  The shooter had 15-round magazines in his bag but didn't use them.

 

I think the magazine limit is not misguided in theory.  I don't think it will have a demonstrable impact.

[bad_teammate 13224]

33 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

So you want to ban the vast majority of handguns and revolvers too because they are semiauto? 

Sure. (Also, I think we should ban ALL handguns. No citizens or police with handguns. Everyone with long guns only.)

I know guns well enough to understand what aspects of their function are genuinely useful to mass killers and which are not. What matters more than anything is, to hijack game terminology, DPS (damage per second). If I  have to physically chamber each round and have to replace my mag after 5 shots, way more kids are going to get clear of the scene than if I can put 30 rounds on target without any physical act to chamber each round.

If I can't kill or grievously wound a deer with one shot and I need to spray it down to hunt properly, then I need to practice more before I go out hunting.

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The deadliest shooting ever featured 10-round magazines.  The shooter had 15-round magazines in his bag but didn't use them.

 

I think the magazine limit is not misguided in theory.  I don't think it will have a demonstrable impact.

I agree. The deeper problem is the action of the gun.

Magazine size restriction is simply a compromise point.

14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Yep.  Sheet metal and springs.  That is what magazines are made from.  Sheet metal and a spring.  Obviously so advanced in manufacturing as to be beyond the mediocre capabilities of the meek pubic to produce on their own....

Good luck getting a reliable extended mag from Cleetus's workshop lol

Edited March 30, 2018 by bad_teammate
more to say because I'm dumb and awful

[TwiceHorn 31535]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I agree 5 rounds is too low. 10-15 seems reasonable and I think that’s what past legislation in some states have proposed.

I don’t think the mag limit is misguided.  I think it’s a good compromise to avoid banning certain classes of firearms altogether.  

I’ll reiterate that the goal in reducing magazine capacity is to reduce the amount of carnage someone can inflict in a short period of time and follows the same logic as restrictions on acquiring fully automatic firearms.

You have you as yourself, would the Pulse, Las Vegas, or Parkland shooters been able to kill more or less people with 10 round magazines? 

Would there have been more or less carnage if they were weilding fully auto AR-15s? 

It doesn’t take a genius to assume these factors make a noticeable difference in the body count.

Again, I didn't say pistols.  Perhaps I should have said long gun instead of rifle, but I meant to exclude shotguns and handguns from my definition.

Right now, the firearm bugbear is "assault rifle," which we have already established as an utterly meaningless term.  The Assault Weapon Ban was an incomprehensible, loophole-riddled pile of shit that didn't affect anything.

Would a ban on semi-auto rifles with magazine capacity exceeding five change anything?  I don't really know, but it's clean, neat and drives right at the heart of the perceived problem, if not the real one.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, BB65 said:

This all depends on how many magazines the shooter is carrying. It takes less than 3 seconds to change an empty mag to a pre-loaded mag.

It takes less than a second to kill someone with a rifle.

[DixonHur 11367]

30 minutes ago, SDG said:

Why, because you don’t like the topic?  Don’t click.  

No, because the topic already exists ..it's erstwhile called the "Gun Control" thread.

[bernorange 8363]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

...

You have you as yourself, would the Pulse, Las Vegas, or Parkland shooters been able to kill more or less people with 10 round magazines? 

Would there have been more or less carnage if they were weilding fully auto AR-15s? 

It doesn’t take a genius to assume these factors make a noticeable difference in the body count.

Actually, I suspect the answers to your questions are not as intuitive as you as assuming.

Full auto rifles are very inaccurate.  They are really good at wasting ammo.  They are not so great at hitting targets.

I'd love to see some hard data on how magazine size might affect, within a given time frame, total shots on target during simulations where a shooter is prepared with extra loaded magazines.  I suspect the average difference isn't going to be as dramatic as you are assuming.

[BB65 480]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

Actually, I suspect the answers to your questions are not as intuitive as you as assuming.

Full auto rifles are very inaccurate.  They are really good at wasting ammo.  They are not so great at hitting targets.

I'd love to see some hard data on how magazine size might affect, within a given time frame, total shots on target during simulations where a shooter is prepared with extra loaded magazines.  I suspect the average difference isn't going to be as dramatic as you are assuming.

Which is why the military teaches to shoot with fully auto weapons in three round bursts

[bad_teammate 13224]

4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Actually, I suspect the answers to your questions are not as intuitive as you as assuming.

Full auto rifles are very inaccurate.  They are really good at wasting ammo.  They are not so great at hitting targets.

m16 3-round burst is there for a reason, yep

The image of John Rambo accurately spraying down crowds with a SAW is silly, yes. Of course, controlling it with a bipod is not as silly.

Edited March 30, 2018 by bad_teammate

[BabaYaga 15320]

1 minute ago, Heavy 6 said:

 

“I will fuck you in the ass but use lube instead of going in dry.”

 

Yep.  Gun owners.  Those lawful gun owners committing next to no crimes.  That buy their gun through legal means.  Have been THE ONLY ones compromising.  Year after year.  Bill after bill.  We have thousands of pages on laws on the books today.  Thousands.  But lets layer on more.  And by all means lets definitely not examine similarities between night clubs, theaters, schools, college campuses, and even military bases....all experiencing tragedy, all from different platforms (pistols, rifles, and even bolt guns)....and ignore the GLARING common denominator:  all occurred in gun free zones, where the assailant knew the victims were unprotected and unable to defend themselves.  

[EastTexan 662]

45 minutes ago, SDG said:

Why, because you don’t like the topic?  Don’t click.  

 

Dixon, btm, jj and the rest had rather have threads about banning Red Ryder BB guns. Got to get to the bottom of this hand wringing.

[BabaYaga 15320]

9 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Actually, I suspect the answers to your questions are not as intuitive as you as assuming.

Full auto rifles are very inaccurate.  They are really good at wasting ammo.  They are not so great at hitting targets.

I'd love to see some hard data on how magazine size might affect, within a given time frame, total shots on target during simulations where a shooter is prepared with extra loaded magazines.  I suspect the average difference isn't going to be as dramatic as you are assuming.

We have that data.  We have a decade worth of it - from '94-'04 with the failed Brady Bill:

"Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after...."It made no discernible difference. There is no statistically significant effect."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Actually, I suspect the answers to your questions are not as intuitive as you as assuming.

Full auto rifles are very inaccurate.  They are really good at wasting ammo.  They are not so great at hitting targets.

I'd love to see some hard data on how magazine size might affect, within a given time frame, total shots on target during simulations where a shooter is prepared with extra loaded magazines.  I suspect the average difference isn't going to be as dramatic as you are assuming.

I saw this argument coming and it all depends on the circumstances.  

If you’re shooting at a large groups of targets bunched together at relatively close range (as many mass shooters do), fully auto is much more devastating than semi automatic.

At mid to long range where more precision is required, fully automatic makes a nominal difference, if any.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I saw this argument coming and it all depends on the circumstances.  

If you’re shooting at a large groups of targets bunched together at relatively close range (as many mass shooters do), fully auto is much more devastating than semi automatic.

At mid to long range where more precision is required, fully automatic makes a nominal difference, if any.

Sorry dude, none of this makes any sense.  Not sure why we're talking full auto anyway as they are already effectively banned and haven't been used in any sort of mass killing in the US in recent history.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sorry dude, none of this makes any sense.  Not sure why we're talking full auto anyway as they are already effectively banned and haven't been used in any sort of mass killing in the US in recent history.

I know, I got distracted by Bern.  I brought the fully automatic issue up as the rationale for limiting magazine capacity.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Assault Weapon Ban was an incomprehensible, loophole-riddled pile of shit that didn't affect anything.

Bullshit it didn't affect anything.  Here are mass shootings broken down in decades to weigh the time frames equally:

1985-1994:  18 events, 158 fatalities (1.6 events per year, 12.5 fatalities per year, 7.8 fatalities per event)

1995-2004:  16 events, 101 fatalities (1.6 events per year, 10.1 fatalities per year, 6.3 fatalities per event)

2005-2014:  36 events, 299 fatalities (3.6 events per year, 29.9 fatalities per year, 8.3 fatalities per event)

2015-present:  27 events, 258 fatalities (8.3 events per year, 79.4 fatalities per year, 9.6 fatalities per event)

 

If you can't see at the very least the correlation with the Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004), then I can't help you.

Edited March 30, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[TwiceHorn 31535]

As you tacitly admit, correlation =/= causation and the consensus of studies on both sides of the issue indicate that it was ineffectual, which is hardly surprising because it was so full of loopholes.  Note the relative paucity of rifles and "assault weapons."

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[BabaYaga 15320]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Bullshit it didn't affect anything.  Here are mass shootings broken down in decades to weigh the time frames equally:

1985-1994:  18 events, 158 fatalities (1.6 events per year, 12.5 fatalities per year, 7.8 fatalities per event)

1995-2004:  16 events, 101 fatalities (1.6 events per year, 10.1 fatalities per year, 6.3 fatalities per event)

2005-2014:  36 events, 299 fatalities (3.6 events per year, 29.9 fatalities per year, 8.3 fatalities per event)

2015-present:  27 events, 258 fatalities (8.3 events per year, 79.4 fatalities per year, 9.6 fatalities per event)

 

If you can't see at the very least the correlation with the Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004), then I can't help you.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you do know during your timeline the definition of "mass shooting" was redefined in a way to almost double the occurrences.  Violent crime rates have been declining steadily since 1991.  Violent crime is down 51% and property crime down 43%   As are your fatality numbers off.  There was more than 200 homicides during that time.  Further, those increases occurred in ages 55 and greater.   Gun homicides are down 49% since 1993 and victimization with a firearm (assault, robbery, etc.) is down 75%....while gun ownership rates have skyrocketed!  Over 430 million guns and five trillion rounds of ammunition in circulation right now.   BTW:   "Changes in rates of homicide and suicide for treatment and control states were not significantly different, except for firearm suicides among persons aged 55 years or older (-0.92 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.43 to -0.42). This reduction in suicides for persons aged 55 years or older was much stronger in states that had instituted both waiting periods and background checks (-1.03 per 100,000; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.47) than in states that only changed background check requirements (-0.17 per 100,000; 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.75)."

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Correlation is not causation, but you cannot equally assert that there is no causation represented in those data.  And no, "both sides" do not agree that it was ineffectual.  You can cherry pick opinions all you want, but that doesn't render them universal.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you do know during your timeline the definition of "mass shooting" was redefined in a way to almost double the occurrences.  Violent crime rates have been declining steadily since 1991.  Violent crime is down 51% and property crime down 43%   As are your fatality numbers off.  There was more than 200 homicides during that time.  Further, those increases occurred in ages 55 and greater.   Gun homicides are down 49% since 1993 and victimization with a firearm (assault, robbery, etc.) is down 75%....while gun ownership rates have skyrocketed!  Over 430 million guns and five trillion rounds of ammunition in circulation right now.   BTW:   "Changes in rates of homicide and suicide for treatment and control states were not significantly different, except for firearm suicides among persons aged 55 years or older (-0.92 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.43 to -0.42). This reduction in suicides for persons aged 55 years or older was much stronger in states that had instituted both waiting periods and background checks (-1.03 per 100,000; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.47) than in states that only changed background check requirements (-0.17 per 100,000; 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.75)."

Those data are for mass shootings.  My numbers are not off.

[BabaYaga 15320]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Those data are for mass shootings.  My numbers are not off.

When you redefine mass shootings they are...

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Furthermore, these numbers are self-consistent, and were specifically tallied as to exclude homicides associate with other crimes . . . robbery, gangs, etc.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

When you redefine mass shootings they are...

Nobody redefined mass shootings in that data, for fuck's sake.  Those data are for incidents in which 4 or more victims were killed not in conjunction with more conventional crimes.  The data are self-consistent.  Stop trying to deflect, you're wrong.

[JBJ 3665]

 

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right now, the firearm bugbear is "assault rifle," which we have already established as an utterly meaningless term.  The Assault Weapon Ban was an incomprehensible, loophole-riddled pile of shit that didn't affect anything.

The problem is that "assault rifle" does have a decent technical meaning even if it is somewhat fluid.  Anastatis (?) posted a good definition earlier.  It is easier to give examples than to give a technical description, but I'll try:

It's a long-barrel, magazine-fed, intermediate-caliber, select-fire rifle.

The M16 is an assault rifle, the M4 is not, the Mk14 is not.  The M249 can meet the description above but it is not because it is capable of being belt-fed.

But that's the only the technical term.  There's a general term that refers to magazine-fed rifles and isn't particularly clear beyond that.  Some people would consider the Mini14 an assault rifle, many wouldn't.  I would guess that the top-selling AR variation has the same specs as the Mini14.

But I do agree that the term just muddles the conversation.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

With the gun legislation debate, we first have to come to an agreement on the attainable goals of legislation.

For me, it’s pretty simple.  Reduce the amount of casualties from senseless gun violence/shootings without adversely impacting law abiding gun owners.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

Consistent with just about everything I have read about the AWB:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Consistent with just about everything I have read about the AWB:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

 

 

Which completely disregards the effect of the AWB on mass shootings, which happen to be escalating at an alarming rate.  But you knew this.

[DixonHur 11367]

35 minutes ago, EastTexan said:

 

Dixon, btm, jj and the rest had rather have threads about banning Red Ryder BB guns. Got to get to the bottom of this hand wringing.

I think it's hilarious that you think I'm anti-gun for suggesting this thread already exists as the "Gun Control" thread.  

My problem isn't with whether or not assault style rifles should be legal.  My problem with the thread is that it's a duplicate.

But I guess when you have a hammer for a brain everything looks like a nail. Amiright?

[Biff Tannen 45734]

What is a horseshoe?  What does a horseshoe do?  Are there any horse socks?

[Gatorubet 30309]

Brady definition was stupid. 

 

What would be more effective would be a criminalization of high capacity mags.  A 'mere possession' crime like weapons with no serial number.  The "...my cold fingers" crowd can join their buddies in prison if they don't turn them in.   I'm thinking a mandatory 2 year sentence would be good, with 10 years for a second offense.     Couple it with a buy-back program and a reward system for tipsters (read: ex wives) to turn folks in.

If you could only fire five rounds at at time, AR sales would fall pretty heavily. 

  

[TwiceHorn 31535]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Which completely disregards the effect of the AWB on mass shootings, which happen to be escalating at an alarming rate.  But you knew this.

Don't buy it.  Complex issue.  http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/feb/23/ted-deutch/did-mass-shootings-increase-200-percent-assault-we/

[TwiceHorn 31535]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Brady definition was stupid. 

 

What would be more effective would be a criminalization of high capacity mags.  A 'mere possession' crime like weapons with no serial number.  The "...my cold fingers" crowd can join their buddies in prison if they don't turn them in.   I'm thinking a mandatory 2 year sentence would be good, with 10 years for a second offense.     Couple it with a buy-back program and a reward system for tipsters (read: ex wives) to turn folks in.

If you could only fire five rounds at at time, AR sales would fall pretty heavily. 

  

I'd be curious what the effect would be, yes.  I don't think you could easily politically restrict mag cap on pistols, I think it's doable on rifles.  And agree that there might have to be a criminal penalty for possessing larger mags.  I'd make it a misdemeanor for first offense and getting into serious felony for a felon or repeat offender.

[BabaYaga 15320]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody redefined mass shootings in that data, for fuck's sake.  Those data are for incidents in which 4 or more victims were killed not in conjunction with more conventional crimes.  The data are self-consistent.  Stop trying to deflect, you're wrong.

Calm your tits.  Take a deep breath.  And understand that your metric of 4+ (first defined by the Gun Violence Archive) victims is a modern metric.  Congress didn't even use this definition until 2013 and systematic data about such incidents was not collected until 2012 (which, BTW is 3+, not four for "mass killing", then labeling mass shooting as a type of mass killing).   First, you are fabricating a trend based upon a small sample size:  specifically Vegas (58), Orlando (49), VT (32), Sandy (27) and 1st Baptist (26).  No statistician would support this conclusion.  Causation or correlation.    Further, these shootings go back to the 40's.  But there has been no official data that can be tracked back through history as inferences are collected ex post facto.  Using this flawed process, even then.  We can track fatalities (in the aggregate), and we see there are 816 deaths from '82 to '18.  23 a year.  Now compare that to homicide and suicide numbers?

[Brian Fantana 6690]

I lost interest in having this retarded argument after some dork on a Tech board tried to argue with me that .22 caliber and .223 caliber NATO rounds were the same. Gun nuts have zero interest in good faith arguments. They will browbeat you with technicalities until they're blue in the face.

[Heavy 6 68]

I lost interest in having this retarded argument after some dork on a Tech board tried to argue with me that .22 caliber and .223 caliber NATO rounds were the same. Gun nuts have zero interest in good faith arguments. They will browbeat you with technicalities until they're blue in the face.

Technicalities like banning the shoulder thing that goes up.

[Anastasis 23485]

Cops need to have their mag size limited before I do.

 

 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30309]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'd be curious what the effect would be, yes.  I don't think you could easily politically restrict mag cap on pistols, I think it's doable on rifles.  And agree that there might have to be a criminal penalty for possessing larger mags.  I'd make it a misdemeanor for first offense and getting into serious felony for a felon or repeat offender.

Ten might be the magic number, the more I think of it.  That leaves most pistols alone - or retrofitable.   Hand guns like my 9mm Ruger have a 17 and ten round capacity mag.   So that law does not render it worthless.  Revolvers would be fine.   So ten is a compromise.   And I thought about a misdemeanor, but if it was not a gut punch lose your job thing, many of the gun folks I know would risk it.   With a loss of voting rights and a two year stay in federal pound-you-in-the-ass-prison, the pressure not to ruin the family over a ten versus 30 round mag would be far greater.

[SDG 3319]

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I lost interest in having this retarded argument after some dork on a Tech board tried to argue with me that .22 caliber and .223 caliber NATO rounds were the same. Gun nuts have zero interest in good faith arguments. They will browbeat you with technicalities until they're blue in the face.

Well. Technically they are very close to the same caliber (you can fire 22 through a 223 barrow.). 

Btw 223 is not a NATO round.

if you’re gonna argue gun control technicalities are important or you run the risk of enacting stupid laws that don’t make a difference.  

[Brian Fantana 6690]

2 minutes ago, SDG said:

Well. Technically they are very close to the same caliber (you can fire 22 through a 223 barrow.). 

Btw 223 is not a NATO round.

if you’re gonna argue gun control technicalities are important or you run the risk of enacting stupid laws that don’t make a difference.  

This is exactly what I'm talking about btw. I (and everyone fucking else on the planet) know they're close to the same caliber. I also understand the NATO round is a derivation and not exactly the same. Thanks for literally making my point for me.

[Heavy 6 68]

Ten might be the magic number, the more I think of it.  That leaves most pistols alone - or retrofitable.   Hand guns like my 9mm Ruger have a 17 and ten round capacity mag.   So that law does not render it worthless.  Revolvers would be fine.   So ten is a compromise.   And I thought about a misdemeanor, but if it was not a gut punch lose your job thing, many of the gun folks I know would risk it.   With a loss of voting rights and a two year stay in federal pound-you-in-the-ass-prison, the pressure not to ruin the family over a ten versus 30 round mag would be far greater.

Good brainstorm coming up with ideas of infringing civil liberties, guys.

[El Diablo 4232]

10 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

You are.

Military assault rifles are essentially illegal.  Civilian "assault rifles" (there really isn't such a thing) function no differently than hunting rifles.  They just look scary.  The 1994 assault rifle ban defined scary looking features and said you can have some but not all.  Your choice.  So to make a model legal manufacturers had to do something like take away the bayonet mount or the folding stock.  But so it would still look cool they'd weld the folding stock instead of putting on a regular stock.

But these guns are designed to have parts changed.  You can buy different barrels and use one to hunt coyotes and another to hunt bear.  The one for deer is also good for people, but the one for coyotes or bear work too.  If you don't like your stock you can change it.

Think of a car.  The basic Camaro is legal.  The sport model with pin stripes, a fire decal, a number on the side and a different muffler looks much "tougher" and is deemed a hot rod and illegal.  You can put a fire decal on.  Or a number.  Or whatever.  You just can't do three scary features.  Only two.  But the cars go the same speed.  They function identically.  And they are much less of a race car than mom's S Mercedes.  And unless you know an awful lot about cars you can't tell whether a given Camaro is deemed a hot rod under the law.  And a little tweek will make an illegal one legal or a legal one illegal.  Maybe a little fire decal is ok but not a big one.  Or a decal of a hornet is illegal but a decal of a bluebird is ok.  You have to have a degree in hot hod law to know.  And it has nothing to do with changing deaths due to traffic accidents.

The kind of Camaro that is a real race car is illegal to drive on the street.  It doesn't have headlights, tail lights, turn signals, air bags and a zillion other things.  It functions differently too.  It goes much faster.  Hell it doesn't even use the same kind of fuel.

Saying that putting a number and a fire decal on a stock Camaro makes it a hot rod or a NASCAR stock car is silly.  It's just used to fool soccer moms that Dem politicians are addressing the traffic death problem by banning hot rods.  Every time somebody gets killed the TV guy starts talking about hot rods.  That's not a hot rod.  That's a PT Cruiser with custom hub caps.  And it doesn't go as fast as mom's Cadillac.

What's a hot rod?  And what does it have to do with traffic deaths?

Why did you ignore the part of his post that was an actual response?

[TwiceHorn 31535]

28 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Ten might be the magic number, the more I think of it.  That leaves most pistols alone - or retrofitable.   Hand guns like my 9mm Ruger have a 17 and ten round capacity mag.   So that law does not render it worthless.  Revolvers would be fine.   So ten is a compromise.   And I thought about a misdemeanor, but if it was not a gut punch lose your job thing, many of the gun folks I know would risk it.   With a loss of voting rights and a two year stay in federal pound-you-in-the-ass-prison, the pressure not to ruin the family over a ten versus 30 round mag would be far greater.

They say that criminalizing conduct (that wasn't previously criminal) is the only time criminal laws have a deterrent effect.  For you and me, I think a misdemeanor first offense with no criminal record would do the trick.  For the incorrigible types, it's got to be worse, like federal felon in possession of firearm laws (which still don't have much deterrent effect).

So five for a rifle mag, 10 for a pistol?  That's cool.  Leave speedloaders alone for wheel guns?

And yeah, I'm with Anastasis, cops play by the same rules.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn