3 3
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, billeisele said:

So we're back to the same old issue. Since "assault weapon" is not an officially defined term, what do you think the attributes are that define an assault weapon?

One thing is magazine size.  There was a study after the AWB years ago, and here's what the authors concluded about holding magazine size to 10 rounds or less:

" . . . using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years. . . .

A new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

So that's a way to get a small but significant decrease in mass shootings, by heeding just one aspect of the 1994 assault weapon ban.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billvon said:

And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years. . . .

Sorry, Bill. That is one of the fallacies of the liberal argument for banning AW - based on the magazine size. It takes less than 3 seconds for the average civilian to change out the magazine and keep firing and the pros less than 2 seconds. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q-QVBQVYTA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2_qo5_wSa8

 Your side needs to get some actual weapons' experts to effect legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Sorry, Bill. That is one of the fallacies of the liberal argument for banning AW - based on the magazine size. It takes less than 3 seconds for the average civilian to change out the magazine and keep firing and the pros less than 2 seconds. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q-QVBQVYTA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2_qo5_wSa8

 Your side needs to get some actual weapons' experts to effect legislation. 

LCM= large Capacity Magazine

"Between 1990 and 2017, there were 69 high-fatality mass shootings. Attacks involving LCMs resulted in a 62% higher mean average death toll. The incidence of high-fatality mass shootings in non–LCM ban states was more than double the rate in LCM ban states; the annual number of deaths was more than 3 times higher. In multivariate analyses, states without an LCM ban experienced significantly more high-fatality mass shootings and a higher death rate from such incidents.

Conclusions. LCM bans appear to reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.

The recent spate of gun massacres in the United States has re-energized the debate over how to prevent such tragedies.1 A common response to high-profile acts of gun violence is the promotion of tighter gun legislation, and there is some evidence that laws imposing tighter restrictions on access to firearms have been associated with lower levels of mass shootings.2 One proposal that has received renewed interest involves restricting the possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs).3–5 This raises an important question: what has been the impact of LCM bans on high-fatality mass shootings?"

There have actually been a couple studies similar to this. Sometimes the shooter pauses to reflect on what they are doing after one magazine is empty. Sometimes they fumble and have issues changing magazines due to the stress of the situation. Other instances have shown that the shooter couldn't recall how to chamber an new round from a fresh magazine. These are generally not skilled shooters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Sorry, Bill. That is one of the fallacies of the liberal argument for banning AW - based on the magazine size. It takes less than 3 seconds for the average civilian to change out the magazine and keep firing and the pros less than 2 seconds. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q-QVBQVYTA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2_qo5_wSa8

 Your side needs to get some actual weapons' experts to effect legislation. 

Hi Keith,

And in that short amount of time, someone could tackle or otherwise disrupt the killing.

That is why I advocate for a gun to be able to only hold one cartridge at a time; it gives someone that small, but effective, amount of time to do something.

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Sorry, Bill. That is one of the fallacies of the liberal argument for banning AW - based on the magazine size. It takes less than 3 seconds for the average civilian to change out the magazine and keep firing and the pros less than 2 seconds. 

No doubt.  Nevertheless, per the study, reducing magazine size has a noticeable effect on mass shootings.

I think this is one case where actual experience with an "assault weapon" ban is important to consider, and overrides theoretical considerations on how one might get around it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Actual weapons experts are almost all against any legislation at all. Slippery slope and all that ya know.

A very inaccurate statement.  I know many young veterans from this war that are not only weapons experts, but have become Democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

A very inaccurate statement.  I know many young veterans from this war that are not only weapons experts, but have become Democrats. 

Buddy, you left a lot to unpack with that statement much of which isn't comforting to the majority of Americans who are paying for those young veterans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Sorry, Bill. That is one of the fallacies of the liberal argument for banning AW - based on the magazine size. It takes less than 3 seconds for the average civilian to change out the magazine and keep firing and the pros less than 2 seconds. 

 

So only really slow, incompetent owners need high capacity magazines, then.  OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Wooosh . . .and, the pendulum swings. 

And the more tension that's built up in the pendulum, the farther it'll swing when released.

There will be a swing; it's the nature of human organizations. It's just a matter how how far, and when.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And the more tension that's built up in the pendulum, the farther it'll swing when released.

There will be a swing; it's the nature of human organizations. It's just a matter how how far, and when.

Morning. No argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Sorry, Joe. You've lost me.

But are these newly minted Democrats Liberals? Do they support any gun control legislation at all? Perhaps now when they can see they were a part of the greatest experiment in socialism in our history the idea of the public dole suddenly seemed, for some strange reason, somewhat less offensive?  

No matter, the real problem is the stand alone assertion that they became Democrats with no conclusion as to why. Of course we know why, it's because like the majority of our soldiers, they were Republican. Not coincidentally, they were also more likely to be Christians. 
 
In plain language, that means they do not truly represent America. And that is what I find discomfiting about your statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

The "whoosh" is on you.  You just gave a very good reason why high capacity magazines are unnecessary for even average owners, let alone competent ones.

My point being that every time the Dems start down the AWB/LCM path rather than meaningful legislation that protects both the people and the 2nd - are guilty of just dusting off some old legislation that results in the pendulum swinging back to the right. Do you really want to do something about the problem or just keep doing the same old thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But are these newly minted Democrats Liberals? Do they support any gun control legislation at all?

They do. They have seen not only the ravages of war, but the social outcomes. 

Quote

Perhaps now when they can see they were a part of the greatest experiment in socialism in our history the idea of the public dole suddenly seemed, for some strange reason, somewhat less offensive?  

"Public Dole/socialism experiment?" They have jobs, kids, part of the community, mission for helping others. I'm not trying to be dense here, but I'm really having trouble understanding this. At some point, Jerry had an "awakening" and went from rep to dem, why can they not?

37 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

No matter, the real problem is the stand alone assertion that they became Democrats with no conclusion as to why. Of course we know why, it's because like the majority of our soldiers, they were Republican. Not coincidentally, they were also more likely to be Christians.

That is an assumption on your part. We have many long talks. They bring their kids to my house for movie night and we go talk. They are very well-versed in the democratic platform. Yes, they were republicans and yes; most were Christians. They lost faith in both. Many are not even agnostic, but full-on atheist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, billvon said:

One thing is magazine size.  There was a study after the AWB years ago, and here's what the authors concluded about holding magazine size to 10 rounds or less:

" . . . using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years. . . .

A new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

So that's a way to get a small but significant decrease in mass shootings, by heeding just one aspect of the 1994 assault weapon ban.

 

I've not seen this data, thanks. Unfortunately it raises more challenges.

Let's assume the data is true. Does it mean the bad guys practice more, carry more than one gun, switch to other weapons, etc? The first two solutions somewhat negate the smaller mag capacity. The idea that it causes one to pause and think may hold true in some cases. I'd like to get a psychological experts thought on that. Granted, a typical long gun is quite lethal at longer ranges but in most cases that is not what occurs in mass shootings, they are close range incidents.

So, why not use the common semi auto shotgun with 00 buckshot. Most hold five shells and some hold more. A shell has 9 - 12 pellets with an effective range of 40 - 60 yards. These type guns are more lethal than an AR when used by a typical shooter, less accurate aim is still effective.

And then the pistols. The majority of semi auto pistols have mag capacities greater than 10. I'm aware of one that holds 21 rounds, and that's a standard mag contained within the pistol grip (not an extended mag).

Four concerns/thoughts are that if mags greater than 10 rounds were banned, then what?

- How in the heck do they get them off the street? The bad guys will keep them.

- Is it just for scary looking rifles or does it include pistols?

- If the bad guys switch to shotguns then what?

- Where does it end?

I asked the question earlier - Are we focusing on the wrong thing? To me, it seems that the solution is not so much the inanimate object but the bad guys. Is there an effective way to manage access without causing other undue consequences? And at the same time making tweaks to the objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, billeisele said:

I've not seen this data, thanks. Unfortunately it raises more challenges.

Let's assume the data is true. Does it mean the bad guys practice more, carry more than one gun, switch to other weapons, etc? The first two solutions somewhat negate the smaller mag capacity. The idea that it causes one to pause and think may hold true in some cases. I'd like to get a psychological experts thought on that. Granted, a typical long gun is quite lethal at longer ranges but in most cases that is not what occurs in mass shootings, they are close range incidents.

So, why not use the common semi auto shotgun with 00 buckshot. Most hold five shells and some hold more. A shell has 9 - 12 pellets with an effective range of 40 - 60 yards. These type guns are more lethal than an AR when used by a typical shooter, less accurate aim is still effective.

And then the pistols. The majority of semi auto pistols have mag capacities greater than 10. I'm aware of one that holds 21 rounds, and that's a standard mag contained within the pistol grip (not an extended mag).

Four concerns/thoughts are that if mags greater than 10 rounds were banned, then what?

- How in the heck do they get them off the street? The bad guys will keep them.

- Is it just for scary looking rifles or does it include pistols?

- If the bad guys switch to shotguns then what?

- Where does it end?

I asked the question earlier - Are we focusing on the wrong thing? To me, it seems that the solution is not so much the inanimate object but the bad guys. Is there an effective way to manage access without causing other undue consequences? And at the same time making tweaks to the objects.

Consider how low capacity magazines may have affected the outcome of the Vegas mass shooting. I’m generally pro second amendment, but that one event made me willing to compromise on magazine capacity. I doubt the shooter could have achieved anywhere near the same number of casualties if he only had shotguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Consider how low capacity magazines may have affected the outcome of the Vegas mass shooting. I’m generally pro second amendment, but that one event made me willing to compromise on magazine capacity. I doubt the shooter could have achieved anywhere near the same number of casualties if he only had shotguns.

In my statement I said, "a typical long gun is quite lethal at longer ranges but in most cases that is not what occurs in mass shootings." The word "most" was to exclude Las Vegas where a shotgun definitely would not have been as lethal. In that case, yes, smaller mags may have made a difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

So, why not use the common semi auto shotgun with 00 buckshot. Most hold five shells and some hold more. A shell has 9 - 12 pellets with an effective range of 40 - 60 yards. These type guns are more lethal than an AR when used by a typical shooter, less accurate aim is still effective.

Nope, the AR is more lethal.

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

And then the pistols. The majority of semi auto pistols have mag capacities greater than 10. I'm aware of one that holds 21 rounds, and that's a standard mag contained within the pistol grip (not an extended mag).

Like this one?

spacer.png

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Four concerns/thoughts are that if mags greater than 10 rounds were banned, then what?

- How in the heck do they get them off the street? The bad guys will keep them.

- Is it just for scary looking rifles or does it include pistols?

- If the bad guys switch to shotguns then what?

- Where does it end?

I asked the question earlier - Are we focusing on the wrong thing? To me, it seems that the solution is not so much the inanimate object but the bad guys. Is there an effective way to manage access without causing other undue consequences? And at the same time making tweaks to the objects.

You have the idea that young white men who have grudges against society, women, classmates. Can all go to "get a high capacity from the bad-guys.com" site. That everything is readily accessible if banned. As if the bad guys operated a nearby Walmart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

I've not seen this data, thanks. Unfortunately it raises more challenges.

Let's assume the data is true. Does it mean the bad guys practice more, carry more than one gun, switch to other weapons, etc?

That would be interesting to research.  But in the short term, we know it reduces deaths during mass shootings, for whatever reason.

About 25 years ago I got my hands on an old rig with blast handles.  It was instructive to try to pull them from different angles and see how they worked (and didn't work.)  And you could make the same argument for disregarding blast handles that Bigun made for disregarding the reduction in shootings.   It takes less than a second for the average person to align a blast handle correctly.  It is not at all difficult.  I am sure my 6 year old could figure it out even faster than that.

But in actual use they caused problems, so we switched to a different system.  And in actual real world experience, limiting magazine size reduces deaths during mass shootings.  One such actual result is worth a thousand opinions on what criminals MIGHT do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3