Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[dnno1]

If you didn't think Feinstein wasn't going for an almost complete semi-automatic firearm ban, then just look at her website:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Hopefully this plan doesn't gain any type of traction in either the Senate or House.

Looks like she wants to adopt the California AWB as federal law. From the bullet points it is clear that they are not going to ban all semi-automatics, just certain types.

 

[dnno1]

So a $50 gift card for a rifle I paid $1300 for which as of now is probably worth $3000? Where do I sign up?

Oh, by the way, I am sure that if you were barred from selling your weapon, you would gladly give it up for $200 if you needed the money.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Looks like she wants to adopt the California AWB as federal law. From the bullet points it is clear that they are not going to ban all semi-automatics, just certain types.

But the types they want to ban are ones that are the most common. There are hardly any handguns sold anymore that have less than 10 round capacity magazines. Plus, what are they going to consider military characteristics? I see this a way to start getting rid of handguns. Only handguns left will probably be revolvers and I could see them finding a way to even curtail ownership of those as well.

 

[Kable24]

Oh, by the way, I am sure that if you were barred from selling your weapon, you would gladly give it up for $200 if you needed the money.

Seldom right and wrong again little boy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Geez, 1300 dollars? Hard to believe there's a recession going on when everyone and their brother can afford to buy an AR-15.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Oh, by the way, I am sure that if you were barred from selling your weapon, you would gladly give it up for $200 if you needed the money.

Or you could just keep it. Or is the law retroactive?

 

[dnno1]

Or you could just keep it. Or is the law retroactive?

In California, it is illegal to even possess and assault weapon unless you can prove you bought it before the law was enacted.

 

[Kable24]

Geez, 1300 dollars? Hard to believe there's a recession going on when everyone and their brother can afford to buy an AR-15.

I bought that one two years ago. I've built two since then and they ran me $850 and about $1600 to finish. I've also bought other types of guns since then as well.

You can buy them for about $600 up to a few grand. My $1300 is a Colt M4 and came with a 37mm launcher.
My first one I built came out to about $800 to $850.
My second one I built is somewhat rare as it has a side charging handle and only two companies in the country make side charging AR uppers, so that one came out to $1600.

 

[Thundercrack85]

In California, it is illegal to even possess and assault weapon unless you can prove you bought it before the law was enacted.

Better keep up with the paperwork then.

 

[Phallic]

You are convoluting and disguising the issue by looking at a macro-verse of murders. What is at issue here is the fact that assault weapons are getting into the hands of the wrong people leading to mass killings. We need to address that specifically.



The telescopic or folding stock although claimed to be ergonomic also makes the weapon easier to be concealed.

Discrete Carry Kit
(for an AR-15 style weapon)

An assault riffle like an AR-15 with a telescopic site can now be concealed within a briefcase. That can be dangerous since a shooter can now move into position without ordinary people knowing his intentions. The pistol grip on the assault riffle allows the stock to line up with the riffle bore meaning less kick when the arm is fired.

Gunman Shooting from the Hip

This also allows a shooter to fire from the hip while fanning out and spraying multiple targets continuously. The bayonet lug allows for mounting a knife (bayonet) for close quarters fighting (although this is almost never needed in these instances). The hard point can also be used to mount a bi-pod which allows the shooter to fire while prone and become less visible in gun battle. The barrel shroud reduces heat from the barrel allowing the shooter to fire more rounds without burning his hands. All of these features allow a gunman to fire more rounds and/or kill more people. More rounds = more deadly



Because they are disproportionately used in crimes. Out of 310 million (and yes there are 310 million in the civilian population as of 2009 according to a Congressional Research Service report -- see the last paragraph on page 13) there were somewhere in the order of 1.5 million assault weapons. That's less than .5%, but according to your numbers these guns are used in more than 2% of the gun crimes (more than 4 times more than there are these weapons). They seem to be the weapon of choice for criminals and are a threat to law enforcement and the general public.

Gun Digest's Book of Assault Weapons
(first edition, circa 1986)

The term "assault weapon" was used by gun industry experts as early as the 1980's. In fact, Gun Digest magazine used the term in their "Book of Assault Weapons" back in 1986 and many gun dealers embraced the term as a selling point even then. That book has the following quote from the author:

The AR-15's fit the description of an assault riffle because it can be used in close range assault work, pure and simple. Furthermore, the AWB did have an affect on crime. Within the first year, after the ban, the number of crime gun traces on assault weapons dropped by 20% (twice the overall decline in the gun murder rate that year) and the murder rates were 6.7% lower than projected to be without the ban. This is coming from the National Institute of Justice. Now, the fact that violent gun crimes still occurred was due in part to the fact that there were so many large capacity magazines which were still available during the ban. There was a rise in crime involving these devices as the the use of assault weapons declined.




Shotgun jam?

[YT]y5d9NmixPjE[/YT]

Problem solved!



I am not following you. In 1994 4.8% of all gun crimes were with assault weapons. The other 95.2% were with other types of firearms that were not on the list of banned weapons.



I will agree with you on most these points, but I will disagree on your point that taking guns away from the 1% will do absolutely nothing. What it will do is prevent another columbine, or Waco. What it will do is prevent another Stockton Schoolyard massacre or another Sandy Hook. I will tell you, I don't want to see another mass shooting hit the national news cycle again, and if it takes another AWB to do that, they let's do it.

So let us break this down. Have you ever shot an AR15? Do you own one? Do you have much experience with them? I could conceal an AR15 with a fixed stock just fine. There are plenty of other ways to conceal one in such a way that wouldn't draw any attention. Banning telescoping stocks is just a comically asinine way of trying to prevent people from "concealing" the gun. I tend not to have my telescopic stock fully extended. Is it because I plan on concealing it? No. It's because it's more comfortable that way and I shoot it better. Plain and simple.

Your points on the barrel shroud and the bayonet lug are absolutely absurd. So if I choose to take a carbine course where I'll likely be shooting close to 1,000 rounds in a short period of time, I deserve to have my hands burned? Anybody who chooses to train extensively with their AR deserves to have their hands burned? Really?

In terms of attaching a bipod - give me evidence, any evidence, that attaching a bipod has been any semblance of an issue in relation to violent crime.

In terms of your pistol grip theory, you can shoot that way just fine without the pistol grip. The pistol grip is there for ergonomics, but it's not exactly impossible to shoot without it. So congrats, you've made it marginally less comfortable to shoot the gun. What good does that do again?

I suggest you read the report you posted. Even your own source states that claiming the AWB had measurable impact on violent crime is "tenuous at best," and the results generally don't support that claim. I'd read what you reference first. The FBI did its own study on this and also found that there was very little, if any impact from the law.

The fact is, if you claim that handguns are only good for jamming and the higher capacity magazines are pointless, then why should the police use them? After all, all those evil semi-automatic handguns are good for is jamming, right? Why would they move away unanimously from revolvers? Could it be because semi-automatic handguns are simply more practical and better for defensive purposes?

You forget that the Sandy Hook shooting took place in a state that already had an extension of the AWB in place. You forget that Virginia Tech, the most deadly mass shooting in US history, was done with a .22 pistol and 10 round magazines. You forget that Columbine was done during the 1994 AWB. You forget that when all is said and done, you have a better chance of being stuck by lightning than dying in a mass shooting. These are incredibly rare events - that's why they're on the news for weeks after they happen. So no, another AWB would not prevent these things from happening. I refuse to support the limiting of people's rights without a damn good reason for it. And sadly, the evidence that the AWB would do anything just isn't there.

 

[mrvlknight21]

^ more good points by Phallic.

Also, did someone say that semi automatic handguns are only good for jamming? That is laughable. Ive been in law enforcement since 1999 and a gun owner for a few years prior to that. I dont own any TYPICAL hunting guns like bolt action rifles or shotguns, almost all of my guns are and have always been semiautomatic handguns, including my issued handguns for my job.


That said, using several different semi automatic handguns, in multiple calibers since 1999, I have only had ONE jam and that was because the cheap ass firing pin broke on the gun. Thats it....probably over 20,000 rounds in that time frame (low estimate) and ONE jam.

Specifically, I own and have owned or been issued H&K, Glock, Kel-tec, Smith and Wesson, Kahr, Para-Ordnance, Springfield Armory and Sig Sauer handguns in the following calibers: .32 caliber, 9mm, .40 cal, .45 acp. and .22 LR. ONLY ONE JAM, EVER AND THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE THE FIRING PIN BROKE.

Please guys, if you have NO experience with firearms, please respect the information coming from those of us who are responsible gun owners and have experience shooting, cleaning, and properly storing firearms. I am sure that any one of us will respectfully answer any legitimate question about any particular gun or just general firearms questions. There has been WAY TOO MUCH misinformation already spread by the media, by people that I personally know, and yes, even by people in this thread about firearms. I dont mind having an honest conversation about gun control, gun safety, gun accidents, or whatever with anyone here, but please take the information from those of us who are experienced with some respect and know that we arent trying to get over on anyone.

Everyone has their own personal reasons for owning firearms, so try not to group us together and certainly not into the category of these psychos that are using guns in these mass shootings (Aurora, Sandy Hook Elem., etc). I had someone in this very forum call me "as dumb as the shooter" from the Aurora incident because I own an Ar15. That kind of stuff is ignorant, disrepectful, and will never end with either person learning anything.

 

[Paradoxium]

This whole thing reminds me of when "a certain someone" tried to debate me on encryption, by copying ideas off bizarre websites. Now he is trying to take on gun users/enthusiasts. Talk about being out of your element.

Here is a news flash, public opinion barely shifted at all on gun control. Most people know it's a political power grab. The government could arrange a weekly kindergarten shooting massacre, and opinion will barely budge. Tough ****.

 

[Phallic]

^ more good points by Phallic.

Also, did someone say that semi automatic handguns are only good for jamming? That is laughable. Ive been in law enforcement since 1999 and a gun owner for a few years prior to that. I dont own any TYPICAL hunting guns like bolt action rifles or shotguns, almost all of my guns are and have always been semiautomatic handguns, including my issued handguns for my job.


That said, using several different semi automatic handguns, in multiple calibers since 1999, I have only had ONE jam and that was because the cheap ass firing pin broke on the gun. Thats it....probably over 20,000 rounds in that time frame (low estimate) and ONE jam.

Specifically, I own and have owned or been issued H&K, Glock, Kel-tec, Smith and Wesson, Kahr, Para-Ordnance, Springfield Armory and Sig Sauer handguns in the following calibers: .32 caliber, 9mm, .40 cal, .45 acp. and .22 LR. ONLY ONE JAM, EVER AND THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE THE FIRING PIN BROKE.

Please guys, if you have NO experience with firearms, please respect the information coming from those of us who are responsible gun owners and have experience shooting, cleaning, and properly storing firearms. I am sure that any one of us will respectfully answer any legitimate question about any particular gun or just general firearms questions. There has been WAY TOO MUCH misinformation already spread by the media, by people that I personally know, and yes, even by people in this thread about firearms. I dont mind having an honest conversation about gun control, gun safety, gun accidents, or whatever with anyone here, but please take the information from those of us who are experienced with some respect and know that we arent trying to get over on anyone.

Everyone has their own personal reasons for owning firearms, so try not to group us together and certainly not into the category of these psychos that are using guns in these mass shootings (Aurora, Sandy Hook Elem., etc). I had someone in this very forum call me "as dumb as the shooter" from the Aurora incident because I own an Ar15. That kind of stuff is ignorant, disrepectful, and will never end with either person learning anything.

Just wanted to say I appreciate what you all in law enforcement do in keeping society safe. I know it tends to be a thankless job :-p

And I would love to help educate some here who have less experience with firearms in areas that they may be less knowledgeable in. Gun control tends to be an emotional issue, and the misinformation out there tends to result in poorly written and poorly conceived legislation being passed - legislation that tend to both unreasonably restrict law abiding citizens' rights as well as not prevent crime in a meaningful way.

Gun owners tend to be defensive because every time a shooting like this takes place, many anti-gun people immediately turn to us as if we were the ones who pulled the trigger ourselves. The emotion makes sense and is reasonable, but before anything drastic is done it's important to take a deep breath and take a hard look at the facts.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, the use of the term "assault weapon" seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people. You also see people in the media misuse the term "assault rifle" constantly. A lot of times which I think is rather deliberate.

Not that you can hold the media accountable. They'd be out of a job if you did.

 

[Paradoxium]

A kabar is an assault weapon too

 

[dnno1]

2 Rocket Launchers Turned In During LAPD Gun Buyback (PHOTOS)
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/12/rocket_launchers_lapd_gun_buyback.php

 

[Arc-Light]

2 Rocket Launchers Turned In During LAPD Gun Buyback (PHOTOS)
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/12/rocket_launchers_lapd_gun_buyback.php

SCORE.....anyways my two cents.....there are a lot of amendments that need to revised or gone...this is one of them..silly really when you think this was written hundreds of years ago during a specific time when it was needed.......not anymore.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

2 Rocket Launchers Turned In During LAPD Gun Buyback (PHOTOS)
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/12/rocket_launchers_lapd_gun_buyback.php

Not a big deal since those are just inert military training launchers. No real danger to the public.

 

[Thundercrack85]

SCORE.....anyways my two cents.....there are a lot of amendments that need to revised or gone...this is one of them..silly really when you think this was written hundreds of years ago during a specific time when it was needed.......not anymore.

Yeah, it's not like people still need to protect themselves anymore.

 

[Kable24]

Not a big deal since those are just inert military training launchers. No real danger to the public.

I see them for sale real cheap at gunshows. They are nothing more than show pieces. I think the last one I saw they wanted $140 for it.

 

[wiegeabo]

Way for the blogger to really overhype it.

"OMFG people had rocket launchers!!!"


"...but the police said they're non-functional and not uncommon." *buried on page 3*


Come to think of it, that probably qualifies him to be a journalist these days.

 

[Phallic]

Yeah, it's not like people still need to protect themselves anymore.

We've evolved past barbaric things like self defense. A woman who allows an attacker to have his way with her is morally superior to a woman who uses an evil gun to defend herself.

At least that is what I've been told over and over again by anti-gun folks.

 

[Phallic]

@ Webfoot Hero

Are you currently at U of O?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I see the right to personal self-defense as one of the most fundamental human rights. To that end, I think every (sane) human being should be allowed to keep and bear some kind of arm. In the Middle Ages, that was a sword. In the days of the Revolution that was a flintlock (or smallsword). Today it is a semiautomatic.

So, I'll always support at least some personal interpretation of the second amendment.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

@ Webfoot Hero

Are you currently at U of O?

Nope, graduated.