Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

More self defense advice from our illustrious Vice President:

“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semi-automatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ough-the-door/

I am convinced, that Biden has handled firearms, maybe once or twice in his life, if at all; because he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. One of the cardnal rules of firearms saftey

BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT.

Fire through the door indeed. What an idiot.

There are three things I find scary with Biden, and i'm not sure which is worse.
1.) That he gives out such stupid moronic advice to the entire nation.
2.) That he knows nothing about guns, yet is in charge of Obama's "Gun control task force"
3.) That he was put into office to begin with.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

I think you're being overly critical. There is no set pace for firing, there will always be variations in the speed with which one pulls the trigger. As for quick changing magazines they also didn't show them using doubled or tripled up mags either so maybe they weren't as slow as they could have simulated it but it wasn't as fast either. Besides except for the "rush them while they're reloading" test this wasn't a speed contest but a comparison of time differences in reloading different size magazines.

It scales somewhat but the differences aren't that great. Yes a less practiced and/or scared person will take a little longer to reload but that's a lot bigger issue to those defending themselves than it is to someone who is on a killing rampage. They tend to be cool and methodical and they are prepared for a fight.

There are over 30 million standard and high cap mags out there in American hands already that they know of and I believe there are way more that they don't. Either way limiting magazine size will limit the firepower of a victim not the aggressor.

In a sense you are right, it is not that big of a deal. But the difference was pretty damn noticeable to me. By my count of the pace of shots, he was shooting twice as fast on average with the smaller magazines, compared to the large one, and he did it with both weapons used. If that was a scientific study (which they were kind of presenting it as one) its a confound so serious it throws out all the results from that shooter. It also was a speed test, as they were timing not the reloading, but the entire sequence.

I never argued that limiting mag size is a solution. I just don't like it when I see stuff like I did in the video. As it looked to me like he did it purposely (not sure if this was conscious or not on his part), which will automatically make me suspicious and question it.

I also agree with your mag argument, would be very difficult to eliminate even half of them.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Smaller magazines, or "mags" for short. (ill explain why the word is important below). Now as to the instructor firing faster, you have to remember that this guy is a prrofessional shooter. He shoots for time. He reloaded faster because he tried harder then he normally does. The best comparison was the woman who was not a pro shooter.

I agree, the female shooter was a far better example, her fire rates were pretty consistent. What you said still doesn't explain why he shot faster and scored times with a very significant difference (he was faster on the smaller mags in total time by a very large margin). Statistically I would expect variance, but not on that level (the difference was so large I actually found it hard to kept watching).

The point in the portion where they were shooting the different magazine sizes wasn't to show how many bullets they could get off in a time period, but how much time it took to fire X number of rounds with magazine changes, all other variables being equal except for the skill of the shooter.

As for access to mags, If one doesn't have all the tacticool gear like a Molle vest and other assorted chest rigs, all you really need is a bag slung over your shoulder like a bandoleer bag. Reach in, and grab one, it doesn't take much time.

I think it would be slower than using tactical gear, as you have to fish around for a mag, and grab it the right way up or reorient it after pulling it out, unless the bag had mag pockets sewn in. Both are slower than grabbing a mag from the bench in front of you.

Back to clips. Whenever someone says something like, "They should do away with high capacity clips that hold 30 bullets" I laugh my ass off.

Ya, I actually do know the difference and what a clip actually is, and yes a 30 round stripper clip is quite silly. I was rushed for time and just wrote the first word that came to mind. We all knew what I meant.


Anyhow I am not saying their point is invalid, just pointing out some issues I noted with the video. I also agree that Biden's statements are moronic. As for gun control, I'm still pretty neutral, I see merits in both arguments.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

In a sense you are right, it is not that big of a deal. But the difference was pretty damn noticeable to me. By my count of the pace of shots, he was shooting twice as fast on average with the smaller magazines, compared to the large one, and he did it with both weapons used. If that was a scientific study (which they were kind of presenting it as one) its a confound so serious it throws out all the results from that shooter. It also was a speed test, as they were timing not the reloading, but the entire sequence.

I think the take away here is that to an experienced shooter, changing magazines does not impose a significant time penalty. He can and will just shoot a bit faster with little or no corresponding loss of aim.

There is a much larger difference when it's an inexperienced shooter which would be exacerbated by fear and stress but considering the Newtown, Sikh temple, Aurora and Columbine shooters all practiced with their weapons extensively before committing their crimes so I can't see how a magazine ban would hinder them in any significant way.

Most of them were armed with more than one firearm too so the"New York reload" method was within their capabilities as well.

[Dowly]

The only thing that struck my eye in the video was the "tackle the attacker" scene.
Especially when the woman was shooting, the guy didnt even make an effort
to reach her while she was reloading.

[Feuer Frei!]

Assault Weapons definition, a list of 157 Rifles, and after defining what is actually considered illegal, everything is perfectly legal and dandy. IF you are an agent of the law.
Policemen (incl. campus police), military and former Policemen are all exempt.
Not former military though, because Fenstein stated in this video:
that Veterans might be incapable of rational thought.

It seems, after a stupid 100 pages of listing exempt weapons from the bill that it's sole purpose is to attempt to shut down any and all criticisms.

Example at hand would be the Iver Johnson commemorative shotgun:


or the Shilo Sharps 1874 Rifle:


How they can be classed as Assault Rifles is beyond me

Also making the cut are hand-made double barrel shotguns, which can be very expensive, a few thousand dollars at least.

Also the SKS, dirt cheap Russian weaponry, with a holding capacity of a massive 10 rounds :



But it seems, not all is lost because the Bill finishes on a very high and positive note, describing the brilliant use of tax-payer's dollars to buy high capacity magazines from the citizenry.

Good work Fenstein, good work.

Here is the Bill, in it's entirety:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...f-69e69f517fb4

Happy reading.

[Red October1984]

This makes me sick. Like I actually get a bad feeling in my stomach when I think about it.

Guns aren't the problem. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN!?!?!?!?!

[GoldenRivet]

these politicians are morons... every single one of them. especially that feinstein horses ass.

i wont post my true feelings on her here

but i think that considering i own an SKS, AK47, AR15 and Sig M400 among about 60 other such long rifles and various pistols you can pretty much guess my position.

[Feuer Frei!]

Fret not, gun owners, after clearing the Senate panel 10 to 8, it still has to be brought to the full Senate.
Unlikely it will pass.
A vote on the bill is expected sometime mid April.
Stiff resistance by Democrats and some Republicans.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Stiff resistance by Democrats and some Republicans.

Shouldn't that be the other way round?

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Fret not, gun owners, after clearing the Senate panel 10 to 8, it still has to be brought to the full Senate.
Unlikely it will pass.
A vote on the bill is expected sometime mid April.
Stiff resistance by Democrats and some Republicans.

I hope it doesn't pass...but with the re-election of Obama....anything could happen.

With him building Homeland Security into his little private army and everything.... I don't know what will happen.

[Oberon]

Guns - check
Obama - check
Democrat - check
Republican - check
Conspiracy - check
Communism - Dammit!

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Guns - check
Obama - check
Democrat - check
Republican - check
Conspiracy - check
Communism - Dammit!

Stop...

You are reminding me of my History Teacher...but she won't admit to anything. You can tell though the way that she forces Liberal views down our throats every day.

She talks about how great Harry S. Truman and Obama are and loves conspiracies. We learned more about conspiracies of the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, the entire war against the Germans and the entire Korean War. She doesn't teach what actually happened. I learned more from 5 minutes on Wikipedia than I did in an hour in History Class. Oh...and did I mention that she also said that nobody cares about dead soldiers?

Just the other day, I was absent for a doctor appointment and made it back just in time for the tail end of her lesson on the Cuban Missile Crisis about Soviet Submarine B-59.

I ALMOST destroyed her entire lesson. I easily could have. She was talking about how the sub "dived real deep where the surface naval ships couldnt find it below this thing where the water makes it to where they cant find the sub"

THERMAL LAYER! It's where the water changes temperature and refracts sound waves. I know that isn't common knowledge...but when you are teaching a lesson about Submarines....you can at least know the correct name for depth charges, periscopes, THERMAL LAYERS!, and basic naval terms.


Then, she says "The surface naval ships used sonar to freak the guys in the sub out." She obviously had no idea what Sonar is. Friday, she was talking about the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident where the USS Maddox exchanged fire with the North Vietnamese Torpedo Boats....well...use your imagination on how it went. When she started talking about shooting guns at radio signals....I just laid my head down and took a short nap.

She hates me cause I corrected her more than a few times during the WW1, WW2, and Korean War chapters. I even brought in a Declassified CIA report on the Warsaw Pact in the Korean War... She just looked at me and said "ohhh.....cool...."

And she went right back to teaching conspiracy theories about Korea. Sometimes, I'll ask a question that challenges her theories and she says "Thats a reeallly good question!" and just continues.


Sorry if I derailed the thread...but I can't stand History Class. It's horrible.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Communism - Dammit!

Don't get ahead of yourself. The thread is young yet.

[August]

Communism. Now that your little game is done can we go back to the threads subject?

[Sailor Steve]

Sure, until the 346th thread on gun control, when the subject gets banned along with several people over topic spamming.

Besides, my little game is more fun.

Or is it more fun to say "Feinstein is an idiot" over and over and over again?