autoidiodyssey Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I understand the arguments that these laws may not make that much difference. And I hear the slippery slope argument. And I get that this will inconvenience those who already own guns. But still nobody has told me why it's absolutely necessary to be able to buy one of the guns that will be banned by this law. Why do you need a banned assault weapon? How do you define need? Who gets to decide what you or I need? Something that one person considers necessary another might find trivial and vice versa. Personally I lean towards allowing law abiding citizens to own and do what they want. Obviously precautions must be taken to keep dangerous things out of the hands of people who would use them to harm others. The fact that someone uses something to commit a crime should have no impact on my ability to legally own and use that item. "Need" should not be a determining factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I like the theory. I strongly suspect that it's completely unenforceable, though. Only time it will ever come up is after something bad has happened. Like, after this latest school shooting, does it really help to file misdemeanor charges against the woman whose guns were used? I think that, if it would truly result in people being more responsible with their legally-owned guns, it would be a great thing. But I only see it being invoked after something bad has happened. I agree. Like someone said though, most firearm deaths aren't by these mass shootings. Sadly many people who believe themselves to be safe gun owners keep their guns unlocked or in the open. Hell, my dad used to keep his hunting rifles just leaning up against the wall of his bedroom closet. Sure penalties would only come up after something bad has happened, but gun owners tend to be a pretty lawful bunch and just having a law on the books that requires safe storage will go a long way to preventing accidents and thefts IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You do of course realise that an M-16 .223 (which that pic is not) is only slightly larger than a .22, the difference is that it uses a 30.06 casing fir high velocity and range. BTW, that .223 will tear you to pieces. Oh, and we were trained to use it in semi-automatic mode, and when we used full-auto it was in three round bursts. Blasting through an entire magazine on full auto is for suppressive fire and guys who think they're Rambo.The version you are talking about doesn't even have a "full-auto" option. But the M4A1 does have a automatic option and is used by lots of people that are actually trained how to employ it. The auto was replaced with burst for the conventional army because regular soldiers would waste ammunition. But for people that have training beyond the BRM of basic training and the semi-annual trip to the qual range it is actually a pretty effective weapon.---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 07:54 PM ---------- So, does anybody think that their restrictions on magazine capacity will have any effect at all, other than being a massive PITA for current owners? (And, maybe, some money for the manufacturers of special, "NY only" magazines?) Have any effect on what? I don't think it will have any effect on the frequency of this.(nor will a restriction on flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, or pistol grips). I am 50-50 on it having an effect on the magnitude of the damage. It would take minimal practice/training to minimize the difference in "shots per minute" using 7,10,20,30 round magazines. I'm not sure if this would have an unanticipated effect of a shooter being more careful with the bullets they have. In the case of Aurora the super duper magazine that the ******* used actually jammed as they are prone to do and probably LIMITED the damage. I am not sure what capacity magazines were used in Ft. Hood and VaTech. But those were pistol incidents so I am not sure if you were talking about those as well. Bottom line is a magazine change is not a time consuming act for someone with even moderate practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Bill has been signed. Yahoo: N.Y. Gov. Cuomo signs tough new gun bill into law New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is signing a tough and sweeping new gun control bill into law late Tuesday.The bill limits magazines to seven bullets; increases penalties for gun crimes; gives the state more power to take away guns from mentally ill people; and bans semi-automatic rifles and handguns that have a "military-style feature," such as a bayonet lug. The ban goes into effect immediately. People who already own such guns are grandfathered in but must register them with the state. New York is the first state to pass a gun law since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., sparked a national debate on gun violence. Guess they didn't want some other state to get the publicity before they did. I support more restrictions on guns. But I kinda got a bad feeling about this one. Feels like it's being rammed through by exploiting a tragedy. Although I can also see the argument that we need some better laws, and that, because the "gun lobby" is so powerful, ramming something through by exploiting tragedy is the only way anything will ever be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyron Biggums Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--ZoI45PNyrQ/UL7K5E60QyI/AAAAAAAABWw/RQBkQqj2AGA/s1600/richard-kiel-mr-larson-in-happy-gilmore.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Have any effect on what? I don't think it will have any effect on the frequency of this.(nor will a restriction on flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, or pistol grips). I am 50-50 on it having an effect on the magnitude of the damage. It would take minimal practice/training to minimize the difference in "shots per minute" using 7,10,20,30 round magazines. I'm not sure if this would have an unanticipated effect of a shooter being more careful with the bullets they have. In the case of Aurora the super duper magazine that the ******* used actually jammed as they are prone to do and probably LIMITED the damage. I am not sure what capacity magazines were used in Ft. Hood and VaTech. But those were pistol incidents so I am not sure if you were talking about those as well. Bottom line is a magazine change is not a time consuming act for someone with even moderate practice. Pretty sure a extended mag caused a jam at the Gifford shooting as well I agree it might actually encourage more efficiency and possibly worse additions net to useless imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Question: Should this gun be banned?http://www.impactguns.com/data/default/images/catalog/535/sw_%20811062.jpg M&P 15-22 .22LR 16", 6-POSITION STOCK, 10 ROUND MAG, CALIFORNIA COMPLIANT No. According to my interpretation of the 2nd amendment the government should supply them to each tax adult in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autoidiodyssey Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Bill has been signed. Yahoo: N.Y. Gov. Cuomo signs tough new gun bill into law Guess they didn't want some other state to get the publicity before they did. I support more restrictions on guns. But I kinda got a bad feeling about this one. Feels like it's being rammed through by exploiting a tragedy. Although I can also see the argument that we need some better laws, and that, because the "gun lobby" is so powerful, ramming something through by exploiting tragedy is the only way anything will ever be done. From what I have read normally bills in New York have to sit for 3 days to allow legislators and the public read them. In this case they invoked an emergency clause that allowed them to pass it in one day. I'm sure the timing of this, coming the day before Obama gives his speech about what he wants to do with guns, is purely coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The version you are talking about doesn't even have a "full-auto" option. But the M4A1 does have a automatic option and is used by lots of people that are actually trained how to employ it. The auto was replaced with burst for the conventional army because regular soldiers would waste ammunition. But for people that have training beyond the BRM of basic training and the semi-annual trip to the qual range it is actually a pretty effective weapon. I am familiar with with the fact that it doesn't have a full auto option, I am also aware that according to some pro-gun people nothing can be considered an assault rifle unless it has a full-auto option...which is absurd considering the change over to the burst option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No. According to my interpretation of the 2nd amendment the government should supply them to each tax adult in the US. I'm so glad you're not in a position to make these decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No. Nothing will work. So why try anything. We're content with the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No. Nothing will work. So why try anything. We're content with the status quo. The status quo seems to be improving things http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/15/jon-stewart-sandy-hook Once you strip away the raw emotionalism of the carnage at Sandy Hook, or the Aurora theater, or Columbine, or Luby’s, or whatever, you’re left with a series of inconvenient truths for gun-control advocates: Over the past 20 years or so, more guns are in circulation and violent crime is down. So is violent crime that uses guns. Murders are down, too, even as video games and movies and music and everything else are filled with more fantasy violence than ever. For god’s sake, even mass shootings are not becoming more common. If ever there was a case to stand pat in terms of public policy, the state of gun control provides it (and that’s without even delving into the fact that Supreme Court has recently validated a personal right to own guns in two landmark cases). It’s probably always been the case but certainly since the start of 21st century, it seems like we legislate only by crisis-mongering and the results have not been good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Correlation does not imply causation. I can just as easily cite that Roe v. Wade 40 years ago, prevented a whole generation of unwanted children from being born therefore reducing crime rates across the board. And that's why murders and violent crime are down. Ludicrous? Probably, but not any more than violent crimes and murder being down because of the deterrent factor of more armed Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Ludicrous? Probably, but not any more than violent crimes and murder being down because of the deterrent factor of more armed Americans. Those killed never commit another crime ....and castle laws have led to more justifiable homicides it's only stupid if it don't work (see Chicago) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I am familiar with with the fact that it doesn't have a full auto option, I am also aware that according to some pro-gun people nothing can be considered an assault rifle unless it has a full-auto option...which is absurd considering the change over to the burst option.The civilian version of the M-16, the AR-15, DOES NOT have a burst option. It is only semi-automatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Need has no bearing on rights I have a right to drive in public streets (assuming I have a valid license) I don't need to drive a tank down Main Street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 they gonna take my tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The civilian version of the M-16, the AR-15, DOES NOT have a burst option. It is only semi-automatic. *sigh*.......yes I know that....the WHOLE point I was making that has subsequently been diverted down this frackin' rabbit hole is that we trained on the "assault rifle" M-16 (the one with full auto because that is apparently what defines assault rifle) on semi-automatic 95% of the time. We went one night in our training on full auto. On semi-auto I was able to drop 37 out of 40 targets from 75 yards out to 300 yards with very little difficulty. Again I repeat we used SEMI-AUTO to train daily, and to qualify on our "assault rifles". As such this whole fascination with the semantics over what is or isn't an assualt rifle is nothing more than one giant absurdity used to distract from the reality that someone can kill a lot of people with a semi-auto rifle with a 15 round magazine and still have that rifle not be classified as an "assault rifle" because it doesn't shoot full auto. I was trained to kill people quickly on semi-auto and some would pretend that because a rifle isn't avaiable in full auto the it isn't a threat. I can be just as affective with the Bushmaster from Wal*Mart as I was trained to be with my Army issued assault rifle. It is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I am familiar with with the fact that it doesn't have a full auto option, I am also aware that according to some pro-gun people nothing can be considered an assault rifle unless it has a full-auto option...which is absurd considering the change over to the burst option. It didn't seem that you were familiar with the fact that many of the M4's in use now do have the "full auto" option. I was just clarifying that it is not a case of an across the board elimination of those weapons. They are just restricted to people that were a little more proficient. There are plenty of "anti-gun" people that have no idea what "semi-auto" actually means. "Assault rifle" has got to be the most foolish classification of anything. Especially as it currently defined. A flash suppressor....nothing to do with anything. A bayonet lug...even less to do with anything. A collapsible stock...in these cases I suppose it could assist in concealment prior to but really no effect during the actual incidet(I'm sure you are familiar with the fact that having the weapon "fit" the shooter is more important at that point and anyone with any size to them likely would not fire with a fully collapsed stock) I'd love for someone to actually explain what the "assault weapon" ban actually accomplishes outside of giving a politician an opportunity to sign some legislation and pretend like he/she is "doing something". The magazine capacity component(which I see as different than a "weapon type" ban) could have some impact. It will likely slow down the untrained/unpracticed shooter. As counter-intuitive as it may seem to the casual participant in this thread. It is very likely that a way to decrease the carnage would be to REQUIRE 100 round drum magazines and only give the option for firing on automatic. The shooter would hit their target with the first shot and then miss everything else until the magazine misfed...which wouldn't take that long. ---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 07:03 AM ---------- *sigh*.......yes I know that....the WHOLE point I was making that has subsequently been diverted down this frackin' rabbit hole is that we trained on the "assault rifle" M-16 (the one with full auto because that is apparently what defines assault rifle) on semi-automatic 95% of the time. We went one night in our training on full auto. On semi-auto I was able to drop 37 out of 40 targets from 75 yards out to 300 yards with very little difficulty. Again I repeat we used SEMI-AUTO to train daily, and to qualify on our "assault rifles". As such this whole fascination with the semantics over what is or isn't an assualt rifle is nothing more than one giant absurdity used to distract from the reality that someone can kill a lot of people with a semi-auto rifle with a 15 round magazine and still have that rifle not be classified as an "assault rifle" because it doesn't shoot full auto. I was trained to kill people quickly on semi-auto and some would pretend that because a rifle isn't avaiable in full auto the it isn't a threat. I can be just as affective with the Bushmaster from Wal*Mart as I was trained to be with my Army issued assault rifle. It is stupid.sigh...so in the classification of "assault rifle" since we seem to be hung up on this label...in the training what did you learn about collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors? What role do they play?---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 07:06 AM ---------- *sigh*.......yes I know that....the WHOLE point I was making that has subsequently been diverted down this frackin' rabbit hole is that we trained on the "assault rifle" M-16 (the one with full auto because that is apparently what defines assault rifle) on semi-automatic 95% of the time. We went one night in our training on full auto. On semi-auto I was able to drop 37 out of 40 targets from 75 yards out to 300 yards with very little difficulty. Again I repeat we used SEMI-AUTO to train daily, and to qualify on our "assault rifles". As such this whole fascination with the semantics over what is or isn't an assualt rifle is nothing more than one giant absurdity used to distract from the reality that someone can kill a lot of people with a semi-auto rifle with a 15 round magazine and still have that rifle not be classified as an "assault rifle" because it doesn't shoot full auto. I was trained to kill people quickly on semi-auto and some would pretend that because a rifle isn't avaiable in full auto the it isn't a threat. I can be just as affective with the Bushmaster from Wal*Mart as I was trained to be with my Army issued assault rifle. It is stupid.sigh...so in the classification of "assault rifle" since we seem to be hung up on this label...in the training what did you learn about collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors? What role do they play? How many targets would you have hit if you took that stuff away? I bet there wasn't even a collapsible stock on your weapon. The whole discussion of "assault weapons" is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 It sigh...so in the classification of "assault rifle" since we seem to be hung up on this label...in the training what did you learn about collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors? What role do they play? How many targets would you have hit if you took that stuff away? I bet there wasn't even a collapsible stock on your weapon. The whole discussion of "assault weapons" is stupid. I'm just quoting this last section. I've repeated my thoughts on the fact that banning assault weapons is going to do little to curb gun violence in the US which is by far and away committed by handguns. I was also rebuffing the absurdity of the objection raised by more than a few pro-gun folks who want to limit the definition of assault rifle to rifles that have the potential for shooting fully automatic as if that were even the primary mode for using an assault rifle. I agree that some of the characteristics that have been listed to define assault rifles seem very arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than the insistence that the defining characteristic must be a full auto capability. In the end if we in this country are not talking about handguns, then we aren't interested in a serious discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martytheman Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I was going to say... if you shoot someone with a .22 MOST of the time it doesn't go in and out like larger rounds will... it'll either get into a vein or artery and ride it for a while or it'll bounce around inside the body.I'd much rather be shot in the leg with a .45 than a .22. ballistics, how do they work again?? Do you have any idea of the kinetic energy a round from a .45 to your leg would bring vs a .22? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm assuming this thread has also turned into the debate about Obama's gun control initiative? Anyway, I'm thinking that O fully expects the AWB portion of this legislation to eventually get removed so that the R's feel as though they have "won" something. I'm definitely fine with fixing the background check loopholes and the anti-trafficking portions of this proposal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I read over the 23 executive actions Obama made and not one of them would have stopped the shootings in CT. Actually a lot of them sound like fluff pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Yes, people are not allowed to buy military-style tanks because they will destroy the roads if driven on them. We are not allowed to drive rocket-powered cars because they go to fast and shoot a ball of flaming gas at cars behind them.If a V8 engine is somehow found to make cars significantly more dangerous then yes, of course we should ban them. There is no constitutional right to own whatever car you want. ---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 01:36 PM ---------- Are the guns that "evil people" use for mass murder different from the guns that "good people" use for self-defense? To perpetrate a mass murder, an automatic or semiautomatic rifle with a high-capacity drum is probably the most effective weapon. To stop a murderer, a shotgun might be best or a concealed handgun that the attacker can't see. Or a well-placed sniper round. A lot of people are pointing out inconveniences that this law will cause for gun owners. But I don't see anyone pointing out a need for the guns that are being banned. On top of that, you do have to register your car yearly in most states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I read over the 23 executive actions Obama made and not one of them would have stopped the shootings in CT. Actually a lot of them sound like fluff pieces. You do of course realize that we don't take legal action to stop one crazy person, or base law on a single isolated event, they are the exceptional circumstances which cannot be prevented (case in point the Ft Knox shooter). These actions are taken to help curb the 11,000 OTHER gun related deaths each year. And that quite frankly is the LAST time I'm going to point that out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.