Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D/NY) To Introduce Extended Magazine Ban.

[nismaratwork]

Is it possible to have a discussion with you without the condescension? You ask a question then berate the answer. There is no perfect analogy to owning a suppressor. But there is no good reason to ban them. The current laws are adequately restrictive. There isn't an epedemic of murders, outside of the movies, to where a suppressor was used. Until I'm personally being an *** towards you, be nice. :)

Now that's one of the first sensible arguments you've made here. (<--- THAT is condescending... not disagreeing completely with your point, position and approach. That said, SCOTUS has already clearly ruled, even with its most conservative thinker (Scalia), that gun rights have limits.

Oh, and I chose a suppressor PRECISELY because we'd have to talk about... a suppressor. I'm tired of people weaseling out of these debates with a lateral move, or a false analogy. I find it telling that such a constraint reduces the conversation to, "Because I have the right!", "it's entertaining", and essentially... because you want it. I'm curious, if suppressors were legal to own, I think the main consequence would be that they would less risky to manufacture and distribute. If there ever were undesired results, well, as is the case with compact automatic pistols, and compact sub-machine guns... good luck getting them off the streets... right?

Hell, part of the point that keeps being made implicitly is that if extended magazines are banned, the first response would be to hoard them, and by extension that leads to distribution. Obviously the only real point of control is the supply, and like the Fed changing buying or selling T-Bills, it's a slow reaction.

Clearly there are people who want the right to bear arms, AND have a fetishistic desire to press that right to its logical absurdities.

Al68: No you shouldn't, and I wouldn't call it ignorance. It means something other than what I applied it to, because Mech matched the form of the paste-response that often emerges. In terms of content, it's just a block of text copied from one site to another, usually passed off as somehow original. It's sometimes used for posts that look like copypasta (as in the image) of endless quote-dissection and the mirror-mirror effect.

 

[nismaratwork]

The very definition of irony considering the intent of the bill.

No, that would be a splurge of buying guns and clips in the wake of a shooting. I mean, if a bunch of people at a safeway in AZ weren't packing heat, it wasn't for lack of opportunity in the law.

If it's more of the militia vs. government notion, then irony might be a guy decked out like Rambo just being crushed under the treads of an M1 Abrams. Again, I'd suggest that you look at the role of militias in the context of the time... it implied responsibility, and not free usage either. People can read the constitution aloud again if they like, but our laws have a lot more to do with evolving jurisprudence from the states on up. Your other post is almost completely about gun ownership, not this specific issue.

Oh, and I don't trust people, I just don't care if they crash on a bike going at 160. If you're on a bike and choose to do that, you take the risks... maybe those genes didn't need passing on. I know few riders would do that on an open road... in fact, I know none who would. I'm so tired of your straw men... do you ever just sit back and marvel at the sheer volume of your logical fallacies and substance-less rhetoric?

Why do you want or need a 33 round clip? The consensus among gun owners here seems to be that they are unreliable and hard to conceal, and therefore undesirable compared to other options. I'd ask what on Earth you think it is you're fighting for here, because this is government, not an exercise on paper. I'd also ask, but I'm afraid you'd answer, and I really hoped I was done replying to you a page ago.

 

[drankin]

Now that's one of the first sensible arguments you've made here. (<--- THAT is condescending... not disagreeing completely with your point, position and approach. That said, SCOTUS has already clearly ruled, even with its most conservative thinker (Scalia), that gun rights have limits.

Oh, and I chose a suppressor PRECISELY because we'd have to talk about... a suppressor. I'm tired of people weaseling out of these debates with a lateral move, or a false analogy. I find it telling that such a constraint reduces the conversation to, "Because I have the right!", "it's entertaining", and essentially... because you want it. I'm curious, if suppressors were legal to own, I think the main consequence would be that they would less risky to manufacture and distribute. If there ever were undesired results, well, as is the case with compact automatic pistols, and compact sub-machine guns... good luck getting them off the streets... right?

Hell, part of the point that keeps being made implicitly is that if extended magazines are banned, the first response would be to hoard them, and by extension that leads to distribution. Obviously the only real point of control is the supply, and like the Fed changing buying or selling T-Bills, it's a slow reaction.

Clearly there are people who want the right to bear arms, AND have a fetishistic desire to press that right to its logical absurdities.

.

Your point is vague to me. Can you summarize? Preferably without condescending references to anothers post.

 

[turbo]

The very definition of irony considering the intent of the bill.

Just google on "pre-ban" components of "assault rifles" to see how idiotic this can be. Got a little semi-automatic .223 carbine? If it has a folding stock, a flash-hider, or a bayonet lug, or a pistol-grip? It might be illegal for you to own. Why?

What the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know is that almost every semi-automatic hunting rifle is far superior to these "assault rifles" in stopping-power and accuracy. The anti-gun nuts are attacking mostly cosmetic features. My father's 40+ year old Remington 742 (chambered for .30-06) is far superior in stopping-power, accuracy, and reliability to any of the assault weapons (automatic or semi-automatic) that are currently used by ground-troops in most of the world.

.30-06 is the gold standard for military shooting competitions at long range. It used to be the .45-70, but things change. People who follow news feeds and who have short-term memory and no historical context tend to jump to some irrational conclusions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not true. Supressors with disks or fibers that contact the slug can effect the ballistics. Supressors with baffles, etc that do not contact the slug do not degrade accuracy. Early in the 1900s, many major gun manufacturers offered threaded barrels with matching "silencers". You need to pay $200 to the ATF for a permit to possesses one, and still some states won't allow you to use it, even if you own it legally.

I personally disagree; you're adding yet another point of failure or error in a fundamentally disposable item. If we're talking ballistics here, I'm not a fan without taking anything else into consideration.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...Which is ironic, as nobody is rushing to invade Montana; Red Dawn was a movie. It's also ironic, because it's just that attitude and behaviour that's made an otherwise unremarkable state a HUGE blip on the federal radar! Oooohhh, that last bit never gets old, I always laugh at the absurdity.

edit: I'd add it seems that the cows are the only sane creatures in Montana. Maybe they should be given the vote?

Just in case anybody out there has not looked at the act (Chapter 205 in Title 30, of the Montana Code Annotated, if you want to read it word for word), it basically allows any accessory, or ammo for a fire arm to be produced and sold only in the state of Montana to state residents. As for guns, they can only fire one bullet per pull of the trigger, it also limits the size of the weapon (safely operated/transported by one person) and caliber (nothing over 1.5 inches), only sold in the state of Montana to legal residents of the state, and any accessory/gun must have a made in Montana label clearly etched/stamped in a prominent metal part.

Face it this law was not really about guns but it was about state rights. If something is made in a state and only sold to residents of that state, then the federal government has no say in the matter.

Also if you are worried about gun toting lunatics stay out of Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, as those states have passed a law that mirrors the MFFA, and watch out in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, as these states are looking to do the same.

As for the cow reference it was more of a crack at the world wide beef markets, so would you kindly keep the snide comments to your self, as I'm starting to wonder about you sanity.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. — Sigmund Freud

 

[nismaratwork]

Just google on "pre-ban" components of "assault rifles" to see how idiotic this can be. Got a little semi-automatic .223 carbine? If it has a folding stock, a flash-hider, or a bayonet lug, or a pistol-grip? It might be illegal for you to own. Why?

What the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know is that almost every semi-automatic hunting rifle is far superior to these "assault rifles" in stopping-power and accuracy. The anti-gun nuts are attacking mostly cosmetic features. My father's 40+ year old Remington 742 (chambered for .30-06) is far superior in stopping-power, accuracy, and reliability to any of the assault weapons (automatic or semi-automatic) that are currently used by ground-troops in most of the world.

.30-06 is the gold standard for military shooting competitions at long range. It used to be the .45-70, but things change. People who follow news feeds and who have short-term memory and no historical context tend to jump to some irrational conclusions.

Maybe if we ignore the nuts on both sides, and let the people who know and RESPECT firearms legislate issues of gun control. Pistol grips... that was such a joke. Remember however, that a hunting rifle takes SOME practice to use with any skill, and I'd argue that as you add range and firing rate, it can be a lot. What scares people about assault rifles is that they think they're spraying weapons... which we know they're not. A mini Uzi, an old Mac 10... what place do they have in a civilian's hands? You can defend yourself without cutting the intruder in half...

 

[turbo]

I personally disagree; you're adding yet another point of failure or error in a fundamentally disposable item. If we're talking ballistics here, I'm not a fan without taking anything else into consideration.

You should bring in some research to bolster that view.

Certainly, Remington and Winchester did not subscribe to the view that their supressors were disposable accessories that would have a very limited life-time or would contribute to the degradation or safety of the firearms to which they were attached. Do a bit of research, and then come back and make blanket pronouncements.

 

[nismaratwork]

Just in case anybody out there has not looked at the act (Chapter 205 in Title 30, of the Montana Code Annotated, if you want to read it word for word), it basically allows any accessory, or ammo for a fire arm to be produced and sold only in the state of Montana to state residents. As for guns, they can only fire one bullet per pull of the trigger, it also limits the size of the weapon (safely operated/transported by one person) and caliber (nothing over 1.5 inches), only sold in the state of Montana to legal residents of the state, and any accessory/gun must have a made in Montana label clearly etched/stamped in a prominent metal part.

Face it this law was not really about guns but it was about state rights. If something is made in a state and only sold to residents of that state, then the federal government has no say in the matter.

Also if you are worried about gun toting lunatics stay out of Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, as those states have passed a law that mirrors the MFFA, and watch out in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, as these states are looking to do the same.

As for the cow reference it was more of a crack at the world wide beef markets, so would you kindly keep the snide comments to your self, as I'm starting to wonder about you sanity.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. — Sigmund Freud

It's good to quote a man who's theories have been largely replaced, and who formulated the bulk of them with the aid of copious amounts of cocaine. I should add, there wasn't much that he didn't think was a sign of some sexual dysfunction. Oh Freud, such a mixed bag.

So... you're worried about my sanity because I made a snide comment... yeah, that's usually the first sign of impending madness, along with profuse sweating, erythema... wait... no... that's anticholinergic toxidrome... never mind!

Anyway, I'd say a guy who feels a heartbeat away from being able to get his hands on an arsenal should have thicker skin. If jokes make you doubt someone's sanity, maybe gun ownership isn't for you. As for Montana law, I'm aware of it, as is the ATF which is why such a relatively unpopulated state is watched like a hawk.

Oh, and I'm not worried about lunatics... statistics clearly show that nearest and dearest will kill you first, and after that your own poor judgment in the form of crime, or other poor choices. Machismo self-defense fantasies involving extended clips, machine guns and silencers aside... very few murders are random, or even committed by strangers. You know that, right? I think you should, since you have access to so much ammunition and so little of what I'd call common sense when it comes to gun ownership.

 

[drankin]

Weeelp, this thread is going down the toilet. We're ready when you are, Evo.

 

[nismaratwork]

You should bring in some research to bolster that view.

Certainly, Remington and Winchester did not subscribe to the view that their supressors were disposable accessories that would have a very limited life-time or would contribute to the degradation or safety of the firearms to which they were attached. Do a bit of research, and then come back and make blanket pronouncements.

I take a different view. The reality is that they degrade far more rapidly than advertised, which you're welcome to research as well. I used a suppressor as a specific example for a number of reasons, including my incorrect assumption that there would not be much support for them.

The fact is that any suppressor, muzzle brake and flash guard changes the dynamics of the escaping gasses, and alters the flight of the bullet. You can compensate, but as the suppressor degrades it's just a useless barrel extension that no long offers much in the way of reduced volume. As I said, you're adding another point of failure for no benefit other than "entertainment" and not wanting to use basic range safety (hearing protection at all times on an active range, if not on, then available) FOR WHAT.

Obviously I haven't given a primer on suppressors, or we'd be talking about what suppressor on what gun, and whether or not the bullet us supersonic or not. CONTEXT.

 

[nismaratwork]

Weeelp, this thread is going down the toilet. We're ready when you are, Evo.

Ready hours ago... obviously it's not possible to discuss any change in gun laws here without one or the other lunatic fringe hijacking the thread. Usually both. Locking has my vote.

 

[WhoWee]

Weeelp, this thread is going down the toilet. We're ready when you are, Evo.

Going?

 

[drankin]

Going?

:) Waaait foor iit...

 

[turbo]

This thread was started (ostensibly) with a (knee-jerk, IMO) declaration to ban extended hand-gun magazines. Why? What would such a ban accomplish? Grand-standing on the shirt-tails on a public tragedy might play well to the "believers" back home, but what is the result? Adults should come to the fore and express themselves, IMO

 

[WhoWee]

:) Waaait foor iit...

If I might have a final word - this is not a reactive or knee jerk piece of legislation - this is an example of someone trying to use a terrible event to advance their personal agenda.

 

[nismaratwork]

If I might have a final word - this is not a reactive or knee jerk piece of legislation - this is an example of someone trying to use a terrible event to advance their personal agenda.

It's that TOO... everything done in congress could be described as that, minus the knee-jerk.

@others: If you want to see the thread die, I have advice that can't fail! Stop Posting, stop reading.

edit: My first sentence in the opening post of this thread:

Unlike other discussions which have taken place in the public discourse about guns, this is a valid concern. I'm not interested in the politics of it, and yes, I realize people are doing this for political points.

It's like memories fade by the page.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This thread was started (ostensibly) with a (knee-jerk, IMO) declaration to ban extended hand-gun magazines. Why? What would such a ban accomplish? Grand-standing on the shirt-tails on a public tragedy might play well to the "believers" back home, but what is the result? Adults should come to the fore and express themselves, IMO

This is what I've been saying the whole time. There's no evidence backing up the need to ban extended magazines in handguns, this back-burner legislation has been introduced (under the guise of a knee-jerk reaction) in hopes of further limiting personal freedoms.

 

[Al68]

Obviously I haven't given a primer on suppressors, or we'd be talking about what suppressor on what gun, and whether or not the bullet us supersonic or not.

And the fact that the effectiveness of suppressors is not the way it is depicted in movies. If you believe what you see in movies, you'd think one could screw on a suppressor the size of a roll of quarters on a 9mm and someone in the other room wouldn't even hear it. That's nowhere close to the ballpark of reality. Reality is that a pillow is far more effective than a screw-on suppressor.

As far as fully automatic weapons, it should be obvious that far less people would have been killed/injured had Loughner's glock been fully auto. Unlike in the movies, a 30 round clip doesn't last long in full auto, and accuracy suffers, to say the least. Especially with a light handgun used by a shooter unaccustomed to full auto. Most of the rounds probably would have gone way over the heads of the intended victims.

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

 

[mugaliens]

Unlike other discussions...

Ok I'll have to take your comments in reverse order. Just the logic of things. (shrugs)

I believe that people should be allowed to own a handgun, but I don't see the need for extended clips, and I'm yet to hear anyone claim they need it to hunt...

Well, it's certainly not an issue with respect to hunting! I've never expending more than two rounds downrange while hunting.

When it comes to carrying a firearm for personal protection, however, I used to believe six rounds was enough, but events around town have indicated otherwise, particularly a few extended confrontations in which a few dozen rounds were expended. Thus, I carry a full 16-round clip, as well as a spare magazine. When I head downtown, I add two more magazines.

I really hope I never have to use it! Still, might I ask what you pay for auto and home insurance each year? I sincerely think you hope it never comes time to collect on that, either, but you pay it just the same.

It's prudence. Some people ask me why I carry at all. I think the simplest answer is that I'd rather not be a victim.

...why anyone except a soldier or MAYBE a police officer to have over 30 rounds in a single clip.

Ten rounds, or thirty...

What matters most is that when responding to the threat, we don't run out. Thus, those of us who carry tend to carry whatever may be required.

As for the police, I'm not sure what the standard load is, but I think they carry 16 in their carry weapon, plus two more 16-round mags on their left hip. I usually carry less than that, but it's not like I go around blazing it away! I don't think we'd be having this conversation if I did!

Several people have asked me why I carry at all. I have difficulty figuring out why anyone wouldn't? Weight? Sure! About three pounds! Not too much fun lugging that weight around.

Has anyone heard the expression, "when seconds count the police are just minutes away?" Seriously, most folks don't like thinking about it, but most deadly encounters are over in less than a minute. Yes, they're quite rare, and stats indicate it'll be perahaps 18 to 50 years before I may ever encounter a need to use my firearm. I sincerely hope that day never comes! But, I carry because someday it be necessary, and I'd prefer not to be a victim.

So, with all due respect to Frank, frankly, I'd much rather not be a victim. I think his politics are quite backwards.

 

[nismaratwork]

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

(bold and snip mine) It reduces the chances that you'll be hit because you were what was being aimed at... lovely logic. Essentially you're hoping that someone misses you in a crowd... well... there's a decent chance that someone else is going to catch that lead for you. The shooter could also over-compensate, or change buck into drift... which should already know.

And the fact that the effectiveness of suppressors is not the way it is depicted in movies. If you believe what you see in movies, you'd think one could screw on a suppressor the size of a roll of quarters on a 9mm and someone in the other room wouldn't even hear it. That's nowhere close to the ballpark of reality. Reality is that a pillow is far more effective than a screw-on suppressor.

As far as fully automatic weapons, it should be obvious that far less people would have been killed/injured had Loughner's glock been fully auto. Unlike in the movies, a 30 round clip doesn't last long in full auto, and accuracy suffers, to say the least. Especially with a light handgun used by a shooter unaccustomed to full auto. Most of the rounds probably would have gone way over the heads of the intended victims.

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

A pillow? Yeah, and a plastic bottle will act as a mediocre suppressor. If someone has a gun and a pillow against you... it's over; there's no comparison. Talk about believing what you see in movies!... remember that you're talking about a mythical, "SILENCER", which doesn't exist! The only quiet guns are designed from the GROUND UP, to eliminate a slide; after all the sound of the mechanics of a decent handgun isn't exactly the quietest thing on earth; although the point is that most won't say, "that's a gunshot!".

Where fully automatic weapons are concerned, you're making a straw man by assuming that ANYONE, but a fool with no experience would just hold the trigger down and go for it. Fully automatic action, as you know, ALSO vies you the ability to fire what we BOTH know we're supposed to: controlled bursts. I'll ask you personally; other than an honest to god sniper, or a skilled sentry, is there ANYTHING as casually effective as the ability to minimize the effect of recoil through a 3-round burst?

I have no idea if that would actually matter; people can modify guns, and this guy practiced a LOT and didn't need fully automatic fire (as most don't, except for cover... right?) to do what he did. I could make an argument that Giffords would be dead if hit with a burst, but that's true of mm in any direction so that would just be disingenuous. Again, this was never meant to be about owning specific weapons: other countries make a wider array of what Americans consider to be "powerful" weapons available to its citizenry, but they're not killing each other within several TIMES the rate we do. Obviously the device isn't the PRIMARY problem, but that doesn't mean in a country that's not GUN happy, but TRIGGER happy... well it doesn't mean that we shouldn't put some limits in place.

I'd say those limits matter a lot more if we're also going to be more liberal in allowing people to buy at gun shows, and the like. EVERY citizen has the constitutional right to bear arms, except where their own actions or mental health have been extreme compared to the vast majority of the country. Those same citizens however, do not seem to take FULL responsibility along with that legal right, to keep their guns in a manner that's sensible, use them in that same fashion, and not just sell them to GOK who!

 

[nismaratwork]

Ok I'll have to take your comments in reverse order. Just the logic of things. (shrugs)

Well, it's certainly not an issue with respect to hunting! I've never expending more than two rounds downrange while hunting.

I'm glad, but not surprised... do you see yourself as the average citizen when it comes to experience with firearms, and your attitude towards them? You're exceptionally responsible, former military member; that should count for something when it comes to getting whatever kind of gun license your state makes available. (assuming all other criteria are met)

When it comes to carrying a firearm for personal protection, however, I used to believe six rounds was enough, but events around town have indicated otherwise, particularly a few extended confrontations in which a few dozen rounds were expended. Thus, I carry a full 16-round clip, as well as a spare magazine. When I head downtown, I add two more magazines.

First, I'm sorry that you live somewhere that such encounters occur. Emotions aside, I note that you carry a 16 round clip, and AFAIK you can carry so many magazines that you can no longer walk.

I really hope I never have to use it! Still, might I ask what you pay for auto and home insurance each year? I sincerely think you hope it never comes time to collect on that, either, but you pay it just the same.

To go along with the metaphor; sure I'll buy you insurance that covers fire, accident, flood, tornado, theft, etc... I'll even take your money for Zombie insurance! How much do you want to insure your home and car for? Obviously we're going to assess the value of both, and then assign said value.

To leave the metaphor: Carry that gun, carry it with 16 in the clip and one it the chamber if you're feeling like a gambling man! I'd recommend that, for home protection, a shotgun is by far the most effective weapon, if you don't already have one. Relying on marksmanship when roused by intruders would be unfortunate!... as admittedly unlikely as that is.

So... I'm not disputing your legal or even practical right to bear arms, but your extreme scenario... did it call for sustained and inaccurate fire in a civilian area?! Somehow I guess that EXTENDED firefight is the keyword, and aimed-shots were your tactic... I don't see you, as you've described yourself and act, firing recklessly.

It's prudence. Some people ask me why I carry at all. I think the simplest answer is that I'd rather not be a victim.

I hope the same prudence that has you carrying a handgun (not a bad thing), also has you aiming your shots. In a scenario in which you have cover, and multiple magazines in a civilian area of the USA, I'm still not seeing anything like the need for an extended magazine, or even the desire. You're carrying concealed for self-defense... 33 round magazines are anything but 'stealthy'. I'd guess you also don't want to risk spring failure (also practical), or to attract constant attention.

Ten rounds, or thirty...

What matters most is that when responding to the threat, we don't run out. Thus, those of us who carry tend to carry whatever may be required.

I carry my P229, and I'm not sure that I've ever owned less than half a dozen magazines. I don't carry more than a spare, but that's from my experience and where I live. I've never, until this discussion, talked to someone WITHIN the USA, not involved in a criminal enterprise, who lived somewhere they felt the need to carry 4 spare magazines. I respect your prudence, but your atypical nature and situation means that it's hard to generalize from your experience. You have a full military career behind you; something that few (including myself... 20 years... that's really the full run unless you're going for full bird Col.) people in this country can claim.

The irony is that... you're probably the last person who'd need or want 30 rounds in one clip... in an SA action pistol... for self defense, hunting, or target. To answer your question: it matters because it confers an advantage ONLY on someone who relies on a very brief window to surprise... unless I'm missing a use. If you REALLY want to, I even support you wearing a bandolier of magazines if you want, although I think that's essentially a sign saying, "Rob and kill me! I have weapons, ammo, and if you shoot me with a rifle from the nearest apartment or roof, you get to keep it all!" That's how I'd feel at least, but hey...

As for the police, I'm not sure what the standard load is, but I think they carry 16 in their carry weapon, plus two more 16-round mags on their left hip. I usually carry less than that, but it's not like I go around blazing it away! I don't think we'd be having this conversation if I did!

Between 12-18 rounds for police, depending on which guns they use, or are allowed to use. The rest... of course you're not blazing away, and it's by blazing away from that point of surprise that is really the only use for an extended PISTOL clip to so many rounds. Oh... I assume that PART of why you carry extra magazines is why I do: not just running out, but if one fails...

Several people have asked me why I carry at all. I have difficulty figuring out why anyone wouldn't? Weight? Sure! About three pounds! Not too much fun lugging that weight around.

No argument; if you had been in the crowd in AZ, or the people there lived the rhetoric of, "we're all packing heat, and know how to use it!", then while some bystanders may well have been hit by blue on blue, I doubt even that from multiple sources could lead to the number of casualties seen in this event.

They didn't though, and while they shouldn't have to... those seconds you're about to mention in the next sentence...

Has anyone heard the expression, "when seconds count the police are just minutes away?" Seriously, most folks don't like thinking about it, but most deadly encounters are over in less than a minute. Yes, they're quite rare, and stats indicate it'll be perahaps 18 to 50 years before I may ever encounter a need to use my firearm. I sincerely hope that day never comes! But, I carry because someday it be necessary, and I'd prefer not to be a victim.

Good! I... don't disagree with any of that. I'd add that most encounters result in a high % of misses/hits, as the firefight you were in may go a long way to illustrating. More lead flying for a longer time, is not a good thing; engagement should be ended promptly, take cover and return fire (your situation), or flee. (with flee being first according to most state laws... no comment... some are absurd. Oh, I need to backpedal a few paces while being shot at... great.)

So, with all due respect to Frank, frankly, I'd much rather not be a victim. I think his politics are quite backwards.

Frank is what he is... a US senator... read: politician... and if he breaths before he considers what it does for his chances at re-election, I'd be shocked. His reasoning for his legislation stinks, and the actual legislation shouldn't be written in the heat of emotion, but the principle of limits on how many bullets are a trigger's pull from flight without even swapping your clip... maybe the source isn't the issue.

I kind of loathe W., but I wouldn't ignore him if he told me that my car was on fire.

 

[Jack21222]

My springfield 9mm has a 16 round clip. If this law passes, does that mean I'm stuck with it? I was considering selling it because I'm broke, and I might be moving to a different state for grad school in 18 months.

If this law passes and I'm not allowed to sell it, and I'm moving to a state that won't allow me to keep it, what can possibly be done with it? I can't just throw it in a landfill. I guess I can give it away to the police. Seems like a horrible waste of money though.

I think setting the limit to 10 is far too low, if only because that's lower than what many, if not most, guns come standard with.

 

[nismaratwork]

My springfield 9mm has a 16 round clip. If this law passes, does that mean I'm stuck with it? I was considering selling it because I'm broke, and I might be moving to a different state for grad school in 18 months.

If this law passes and I'm not allowed to sell it, and I'm moving to a state that won't allow me to keep it, what can possibly be done with it? I can't just throw it in a landfill. I guess I can give it away to the police. Seems like a horrible waste of money though.

I think setting the limit to 10 is far too low, if only because that's lower than what many, if not most, guns come standard with.

I think 16 is reasonable in my view... hence the need for THIS law to be scrapped. The concept isn't bad in my view. I think most would argue that 12 is average, with 16-18 being the usual "extended" clip for anything but a fully automatic pistol.

 

[CAC1001]

So on this bit about the silencers we see in movies being totally fake (I have heard this before), so that scene in the film "Air Force One" where the evil Secret Service agent turns around and shoots the other three SS agents with a silencer-equipped pistol is totally fake...? (the pistol would have been much louder?).

 

[nismaratwork]

So on this bit about the silencers we see in movies being totally fake (I have heard this before), so that scene in the film "Air Force One" where the evil Secret Service agent turns around and shoots the other three SS agents with a silencer-equipped pistol is totally fake...? (the pistol would have been much louder?).

I haven't seen the movie, but usually in them you'll hear (laugh if you like!) a "thppt" kind of sound. In reality, if you're using a gun with a slide (virtually non-revolvers), the action of the the slide, re-cocking, etc... is added. The "thhppt" sound is actually pretty accurate for a gun made without a slide, for a silencer. A .22 in that configuration could be extremely quiet. Of course for a sniper that can be very useful, but the trade-off is big: no supersonic ammo. I mean, if you're bullet is busting its little n-wave, it doesn't matter much that you're using even a mythical silencer... that "crack" is very distinct.

I think the point to remember is that the use suppressors are USUALLY put to is not the one depicted in movies; they are not a means of killing silently. One thing they ALL do very well however, is to make a gunshot sound like something OTHER than a gunshot, unless you're familiar with the real-world acoustics. They can be crucial in gaining an element of surprise when even a trained sentry (not ours) might mistake suppressed fire for something other than what it is.

For a criminal the uses are MUCH broader, because the feasibility to using a .22 or other low mass, low velocity round at close range is possibly desirable. The need for silence isn't there, but masking the nature of a gunshot to simply "noise", well... that's a pretty amazing advantage. The fact that it's not used much is a testament to the frank stupidity and machismo of many armed gangs and criminals.

edit: Ever pull back the slide of a 9mm and releae it in the manner so often seen in tv/movies? That is a very similar noise.

 

[CAC1001]

I haven't seen the movie, but usually in them you'll hear (laugh if you like!) a "thppt" kind of sound.

That's how it sounds, here is the scene (1:30 - 1:48):

I think the point to remember is that the use suppressors are USUALLY put to is not the one depicted in movies; they are not a means of killing silently. One thing they ALL do very well however, is to make a gunshot sound like something OTHER than a gunshot, unless you're familiar with the real-world acoustics. They can be crucial in gaining an element of surprise when even a trained sentry (not ours) might mistake suppressed fire for something other than what it is.

When you say "not ours," who do you mean?

 

[nismaratwork]

That's how it sounds, here is the scene (1:30 - 1:48):

OK, no that sound would JUST be the sound of the bullet leaving the barrel, assuming it was a 9mm, 10mm (light load if you're on a plane!) or less. In reality you'd hear a very rapid "clack-click" that varies from gun to gun.

When you say "not ours," who do you mean?

I mean that the USA Military (ask Mugaliens or someone else who's served if you care to check) generally trains very well, and doesn't let their sentries become so lax. In addition, when you add the ability to use a modern shot-tracker, even at night?... Tough to surprise the US military when they're in the field and encamped. I think that's why you see so many security personnel dying at checkpoints, and those successful attacks being locals driving a car/truck bomb as fast as possible through as much security as possible. An embassy might survive that, but a make-shift base can only do so much.

 

[mheslep]

This entire idea is mind numbingly stupid as a response to this act, or if this a political calculation by Lautenberg and the like it is equally cynical. Where is the bill proposal from Senator Whoever to actually do something that would have stopped this act? For instance, make the rules for the commitment of the mentally unstable, now nearly useless, workable; or in lieu of commitment revoke their ability to buy firearms or even get a get a driver's license.

 

[nismaratwork]

This entire idea is mind numbingly stupid as a response to this act, or if this a political calculation by Lautenberg and the like it is equally cynical. Where is the bill proposal from Senator Whoever to actually do something that would have stopped this act? For instance, make the rules for the commitment of the mentally unstable, now nearly useless, workable; or in lieu of commitment revoke their ability to buy firearms or even get a get a driver's license.

Of course it's a political move by Lautenberg... that doesn't mean that the kernel of a good idea isn't there.

 

[mheslep]

Of course it's a political move by Lautenberg... that doesn't mean that the kernel of a good idea isn't there.

Back to the gun issue, ignoring the actually useful elsewhere.

 

[nismaratwork]

Back to the gun issue, ignoring the actually useful elsewhere.

What?

 

[WhoWee]

When it comes to concepts like common home defense, civil chaos following a disaster like Katrina [recall the cops that almost lost control of their own building to roving bands of thugs!], an oppressive government out of control, or foreign invaders, it is counter-productive to limit the effectiveness of weapons.

Perhaps we should expand this to workers put in harms way along the border?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17087113

"Mexican gunman fires across border toward U.S. highway workers"

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps we should expand this to workers put in harms way along the border?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17087113

"Mexican gunman fires across border toward U.S. highway workers"

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, even tangentially?

 

[WhoWee]

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, even tangentially?

I'm in agreement with Ivan - when he posted
"it is counter-productive to limit the effectiveness of weapons. ".