Collapsible stock, removable pistol grip, there are other distinctions.
There are a lot of versions of weapons that no one needs and only exist for military and/or police purposes. Also known as "assault".
You are talking about the bullshit from the 94 assault weapons ban. None of that actually had any effect what so ever on the functionality of the firearm. In 1994 an assault weapon was one with a detachable magazine and two or more of the following
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
These are all cosmetic features. The guy would have had some, all or none of them, and none of it would have affected his magazine capacity. Have we even confirmed he was using a 100 round drum? Do not usually see those outside of bad Fps and action movies anyway.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
The point is that a guy with a handgun, or a knife/sword/whatever would be incapable of shooting/stabbing 70 people in less than five minutes.
I don't think wide legal policy should be made based on a single event.
An old guy accidentally drove into a pedestrian area a few years ago in Calgary. Ran down 30 or 40 people. Perhaps old people should not be allowed to drive at all?
Legal policy shouldn't be influenced by events that happen in the territory those laws govern?
And that is a horrible analogy. Setting aside that fact, no, old people shouldn't be barred from driving at all. But they should go through criteria to ensure it is safe for them to do so. And, oh look. We do that.
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
If you don't understand how much more lethal being able to fire 65-100 rounds in a minute or so (again, per the police chief of Aurora yesterday) without having to stop and reload is compared to being able to fire 8/12/24 from a handgun or hunting rifle I don't know what to tell you.
Raynaga on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The point is that a guy with a handgun, or a knife/sword/whatever would be incapable of shooting/stabbing 70 people in less than five minutes.
I don't think wide legal policy should be made based on a single event.
An old guy accidentally drove into a pedestrian area a few years ago in Calgary. Ran down 30 or 40 people. Perhaps old people should not be allowed to drive at all?
Legal policy shouldn't be influenced by events that happen in the territory those laws govern?
And that is a horrible analogy. Setting aside that fact, no, old people shouldn't be barred from driving at all. But they should go through criteria to ensure it is safe for them to do so. And, oh look. We do that.
So do it for guns. But don't ban them.
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
How can anyone think it is absolutely neccessary to own a gun?
Unless you live in a war zone.
It's not necessary. It is not necessary to own a car, or computer, or golf clubs.
All can be weapons. All have been used as weapons. What's your point?
If your point is that a car, a computer or a golf club are on the same level as a gun when used as a weapon against another person then I guess I already made my point.
The point is that a guy with a handgun, or a knife/sword/whatever would be incapable of shooting/stabbing 70 people in less than five minutes.
I don't think wide legal policy should be made based on a single event.
An old guy accidentally drove into a pedestrian area a few years ago in Calgary. Ran down 30 or 40 people. Perhaps old people should not be allowed to drive at all?
Legal policy shouldn't be influenced by events that happen in the territory those laws govern?
And that is a horrible analogy. Setting aside that fact, no, old people shouldn't be barred from driving at all. But they should go through criteria to ensure it is safe for them to do so. And, oh look. We do that.
So do it for guns. But don't ban them.
The plan I posted a couple pages ago before I was called crazy by Detharin in no way suggested a ban; just a responsible level of clearance before owning a deadly weapon.
And also liability insurance, because I personally feel like if what you own was designed to kill things, and there is the chance you could accidentally harm people with it, the victims (and the gun owner) needs to be shielded from the kind of catastrophic financial harm that comes from people getting shot.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
In a crowded theater filled with people wearing bane cosplay, filled with smoke from canisters AND fucking dark, it is pretty easy to understand why MORE BULLETS IN THE AIR is a huge mistake.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
. Have we even confirmed he was using a 100 round drum? Do not usually see those outside of bad Fps and action movies anyway.
The police chief cited the 100 magazine drum as an item the gunmen used in the press briefing yesterday.
Weird, ill assume its true but taking it with a grain of salt. Not because i doubt he could get one, but you do not really see them around that often. They are rumored to be rather unreliable in the best of times last i heard. High capacity magazines is usually just people bitching about glocks.
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
I think it is also not valid to argue with some ancient laws like the militia act of 1794. It's not that them injuns are going to raid your border town every weekend.
Being a native German, I don't go around propagating some of our old laws and there are reasons for that. Common sense, etc...
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Oh, I do understand that. I just honestly don't much care. The benefit of this guy not having been able to go out and purchase something that lets him shoot 100 bullets without a reload outweigh the benefits of using them in sport, in my mind. I was thinking there was something I was missing on why such a thing would be allowable, which is why I asked originally why on earth anyone would need to be able to do that in a regular setting. There wasn't an answer provided beyond "Its fun/easy at the range" which, for me, doesn't cut it.
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
In a crowded theater filled with people wearing bane cosplay, filled with smoke from canisters AND fucking dark, it is pretty easy to understand why MORE BULLETS IN THE AIR is a huge mistake.
Rationally speaking, sure. But America has seen too many John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies. You need a powerful argument to overcome that kind of heroism naivete.
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The plan I posted a couple pages ago before I was called crazy by Detharin in no way suggested a ban; just a responsible level of clearance before owning a deadly weapon.
And also liability insurance, because I personally feel like if what you own was designed to kill things, and there is the chance you could accidentally harm people with it, the victims (and the gun owner) needs to be shielded from the kind of catastrophic financial harm that comes from people getting shot.
Ehhhhhh, this I disagree with.
I have been shooting for 25 years. I have been driving for 15. I have been in 3 accidents in those 15 years, one of them major. Only one (A minor fender bender) was my fault, and resulted in no damage to the other persons car.
I have never been involved with, nor witnessed, an injury accident with a gun. Require a safety course and a license. Insurance doesn't seem like it will accomplish much.
The specific specific laws? Google it. Short answer you could no longer manufacture or import a fully automatic firearm made after 1984. All existing ones were registered and those are the only ones that are allowed. These days a "cheap" fully auto starts around 5 grand, and just goes up from there. That is not to mention the fees to transfer, or the paperwork involved. Heck you can get a M79 grenade launcher if you want one. Will cost a mint, and even if you can find someone to sell you the grenades would cost a 200 dollar tax stamp to transfer apiece.
Paying $5k for something means you're rich? Really?
How did it infringe my freedoms? Well for one unless I am rich I cannot own a fully automatic firearm, same with society as a whole. There are still legal ways to fire them, and they are a blast to shoot. Society has not been made safer by banning them and we are still having the same argument today as we were then.
So you can't own one, but you can still find a legal way to use one end enjoy firing it. So what's the problem?
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
Because for one, in this instance the shooter was armored and a concealed pistol would have done very little, assuming this imaginary armed civilian was calm and focused enough with a clear line of sight to accurately take out the shooter rather than contribute to the civilian casualties? :rotate:
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
Reload time, mainly.
When a gunman has to stop shooting, they are a target capable of being taken down by non-lethal force (tackle them, for instance).
If someone can fire 100 rounds off before they have to stop shooting, they have a much larger window of time in which to kill without challenge.
And the first person to say that "if someone else in the theater was armed..." gets punched across the internet by me.
:^:
If you're talking about tackling a reloading gunman, you're well into the same bullshit speculative territory as "If someone else in the theater was armed..." You're just doing it without guns.
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
Reload time, mainly.
When a gunman has to stop shooting, they are a target capable of being taken down by non-lethal force (tackle them, for instance).
If someone can fire 100 rounds off before they have to stop shooting, they have a much larger window of time in which to kill without challenge.
And the first person to say that "if someone else in the theater was armed..." gets punched across the internet by me.
:^:
If you're talking about tackling a reloading gunman, you're well into the same bullshit speculative territory as "If someone else in the theater was armed..." You're just doing it without guns.
My thing isn't that it would give someone time to tackle him, rather that it would give people more time to escape safely and would reduce the carnage per second ratio.
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
Are we assuming the "someone else" is an untrained civilian with no credentials to carry other than the second amendment?
I mean, if we're going to keep equating guns and cars, then this is like complaining the price of a Ferrari infringes on my freedoms and is a detriment to society as a whole so someone please sell me an Aston Martin for $1 thanks.
gundam470 on
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Exactly. What I've been saying 3 pages ago. You can go and buy a tactical nuke for all I care, but keep it locked away at the shooting range and only fire it there. People who do target shooting for a sport can be organized so that the ammo is transported to the event by a ref or that the ammo is kept on the ranges at all times.
The thing is when it comes to "why we do what we do" we rather have to look at the laws of the time. Saying guns were only for white land owning males is not correct. At the time guns were for every male because sometimes you needed a huge mass of people to grab their guns and get somewhere right fucking now. Times change. War, war never changes. Seriously though in 100 years we may not even need infantrymen anymore due to forever war style suits, drone strikes, and whatever else we come up with.
Fuck how do you fight a tyrannical government that piggybacks a nanobot onto some weird anti time particle so that it goes back in time, nests in your mother, and murders the sperm that would have been you leaving the second fastest as the victor of The Great Race, your mother edition.
That does not mean the laws should be casually discarded with little cause because they might not seem to be as important now as they used to be. Frankly those Canadians might try something any day now.
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
Are we assuming the "someone else" is an untrained civilian with no credentials to carry other than the second amendment?
That's not how licenses to carry weapons work, to be fair. You have to receive training and such to be allowed to carry a weapon in public, not to mention being allowed to concealed carry a weapon.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
Reload time, mainly.
When a gunman has to stop shooting, they are a target capable of being taken down by non-lethal force (tackle them, for instance).
If someone can fire 100 rounds off before they have to stop shooting, they have a much larger window of time in which to kill without challenge.
And the first person to say that "if someone else in the theater was armed..." gets punched across the internet by me.
Moreover, I can't recall ever reading or hearing about an armed gunman who opened fire on a crowd and was promptly put down by a regular person there who also happened to be armed. Does this actually happen much at all?
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
Reload time, mainly.
When a gunman has to stop shooting, they are a target capable of being taken down by non-lethal force (tackle them, for instance).
If someone can fire 100 rounds off before they have to stop shooting, they have a much larger window of time in which to kill without challenge.
And the first person to say that "if someone else in the theater was armed..." gets punched across the internet by me.
wait
so we're discounting a person using a firearm to protect themselves in such a situation but saying we could tackle them?
tackle the guy with multiple weapons who is fucking indiscriminately shooting people???
are you serious??
Picture me, waving my arms and jumping up and down to get your attention.
The issue isn't "Oh, we would have time to tackle them!" the issue is that less bullets in the air without pause is more time for people to escape, and less people getting hit in the amount of time before they do. How is this hard to understand?
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Exactly. What I've been saying 3 pages ago. You can go and buy a tactical nuke for all I care, but keep it locked away at the shooting range and only fire it there. People who do target shooting for a sport can be organized so that the ammo is transported to the event by a ref or that the ammo is kept on the ranges at all times.
Uh, what? So I need to go find a shooting range that is a mile long? What the fuck?
I do long range precision and have participated in competitions. I used to practice at my uncle's farm before I moved north. I have yet to see any kind of range, indoor or outdoor, that does longer than 1000 meters. The notion that long range precision needs to be capped is ridiculous.
Paying $5k for something means you're rich? Really?
So you can't own one, but you can still find a legal way to use one end enjoy firing it. So what's the problem?
Cost. See we are back to only the rich get to do it. Yes paying five grand for a small lump of metal that shoots bullets faster than a much cheaper lump of metal for your hobby puts you in the "rich hobby" category. Sure maybe you saved up, maybe you make a fuckton of money. I do not know a lot of poor people who can afford a 5k lump sum on a hobby item, that will cost around 30 bucks to hold a trigger down for 2 seconds. Or I can spend 50-100 bucks to do that at a range that rents machine guns.
That is pretty expensive as far as hobbies go.
Detharin on
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Exactly. What I've been saying 3 pages ago. You can go and buy a tactical nuke for all I care, but keep it locked away at the shooting range and only fire it there. People who do target shooting for a sport can be organized so that the ammo is transported to the event by a ref or that the ammo is kept on the ranges at all times.
Uh, what? So I need to go find a shooting range that is a mile long? What the fuck?
I do long range precision and have participated in competitions. I used to practice at my uncle's farm before I moved north. I have yet to see any kind of range, indoor or outdoor, that does longer than 1000 meters. The notion that long range precision needs to be capped is ridiculous.
I have also said in my initial post, if you want to shoot at a private range, that is fine, but you should have a permit for that and make sure safety precautions are in order. Guns should still be safely locked away when not shooting, etc.
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
Reload time, mainly.
When a gunman has to stop shooting, they are a target capable of being taken down by non-lethal force (tackle them, for instance).
If someone can fire 100 rounds off before they have to stop shooting, they have a much larger window of time in which to kill without challenge.
And the first person to say that "if someone else in the theater was armed..." gets punched across the internet by me.
wait
so we're discounting a person using a firearm to protect themselves in such a situation but saying we could tackle them?
tackle the guy with multiple weapons who is fucking indiscriminately shooting people???
are you serious??
Picture me, waving my arms and jumping up and down to get your attention.
The issue isn't "Oh, we would have time to tackle them!" the issue is that less bullets in the air without pause is more time for people to escape, and less people getting hit in the amount of time before they do. How is this hard to understand?
i think you are severely underestimating how long it takes to reload.
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Exactly. What I've been saying 3 pages ago. You can go and buy a tactical nuke for all I care, but keep it locked away at the shooting range and only fire it there. People who do target shooting for a sport can be organized so that the ammo is transported to the event by a ref or that the ammo is kept on the ranges at all times.
Uh, what? So I need to go find a shooting range that is a mile long? What the fuck?
I do long range precision and have participated in competitions. I used to practice at my uncle's farm before I moved north. I have yet to see any kind of range, indoor or outdoor, that does longer than 1000 meters. The notion that long range precision needs to be capped is ridiculous.
I...don't think anyone said that? At least I didn't. I don't care if you have some ammo at your house. Hell, give whatever long range weapon you're using a five round clip or something. You can fire single shots to practice long range. You don't need a hundred round drum to practice that, do you?
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
In a crowded theater filled with people wearing bane cosplay, filled with smoke from canisters AND fucking dark, it is pretty easy to understand why MORE BULLETS IN THE AIR is a huge mistake.
Rationally speaking, sure. But America has seen too many John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies. You need a powerful argument to overcome that kind of heroism naivete.
Really, anyone that makes the "man, someone with a CCW coulda stopped him EASY" has obviously never had a CCW because they would've failed the mandated safety course by being an idiot.
Poor visibility, choking and irritating smoke filling the room, a panicked screaming mob going every which way and a target wearing body armor including a ballistic helmet.
Oh yeah, some Billy Badass with a 38 snub is gonna make all kinds of difference there. Maybe add a few more dead innocents to the mix when they create a crossfire with the shooter.
To be honest though, you have to address the "what if someone else had a gun?" argument, because the NRA and their surrogates will be pushing that angle heavily.
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think )
Are we assuming the "someone else" is an untrained civilian with no credentials to carry other than the second amendment?
That's not how licenses to carry weapons work, to be fair. You have to receive training and such to be allowed to carry a weapon in public, not to mention being allowed to concealed carry a weapon.
It drastically changes by state, so you can't really make that argument. Some don't require permits. Some only require a basic safety class and being a certain age. And the states that do require certain criteria be met, often have no luxury of discretion.
I also don't know of any states that make you actually fire a gun before getting a permit. It's almost always limited to a few hours in a classroom, and many are even foregoing that in favor of online classes.
EDIT: To clarify, what I mean by 'luxury of discretion' is, that if you meet all the criteria set out by the state, but fill out all the paperwork while talking about how nice it would be to gun down some of them brown people you see everywhere, at no point could they say 'woah now, we've made a huge mistake'
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Where is a gun range going to securely store tens of thousand of dollars of my equiptment and that of, say, the 1000 regular competitors in my local area? What about the casual competitors? What about when I travel to other states? What about practice? What about ranges that don't have buildings or staff?
This seems to work in countries where shooting is a sport confined to a fraction of the super-rich. I think Greece does it this way. This just wouldn't work in the US, from logistics alone. I don't think you have any concept of the scale of gun ownership in the United States, nor that for every gun, there's probably 5 or 6 of these scary big magazines (depending on what you define as 'big').
EDIT: I'm not even saying this is bad idea. I'm saying you'd need a public-works project the size of the interstate highway system to implement it.
I also don't know of any states that make you actually fire a gun before getting a permit. It's almost always limited to a few hours in a classroom, and many are even foregoing that in favor of online classes.
Texas, for one. You have to pass a shooting course at various distances. Typically good instructors will scream in your face the entire time. Because if you can't handle a firearm when someone is yelling at you, you shouldn't be carrying one in public.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I pretty much agree with all the posters saying that gun control is a red herring here. America's gun ownership is not hugely different from Canada's, but we have fuckloads more crime. I don't think control will help with most of that. The problem is that we have a pretty violent, hate-filled culture that really needs fixing.
Though I guess I don't really know how one would fix that either so... yeah.
One thing that actually can be done is for movie theaters to ban weapons on their premises and set up metal detectors at the entrance. But then you have the movie theater on the hook for the metal detector and an armed guard to man it during hours of operation.
That's the only thing I can think of that would rationally have affected the outcome in this particular case.
Posts
You are talking about the bullshit from the 94 assault weapons ban. None of that actually had any effect what so ever on the functionality of the firearm. In 1994 an assault weapon was one with a detachable magazine and two or more of the following
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
These are all cosmetic features. The guy would have had some, all or none of them, and none of it would have affected his magazine capacity. Have we even confirmed he was using a 100 round drum? Do not usually see those outside of bad Fps and action movies anyway.
It's not necessary. It is not necessary to own a car, or computer, or golf clubs.
All can be weapons. All have been used as weapons. What's your point?
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Legal policy shouldn't be influenced by events that happen in the territory those laws govern?
And that is a horrible analogy. Setting aside that fact, no, old people shouldn't be barred from driving at all. But they should go through criteria to ensure it is safe for them to do so. And, oh look. We do that.
If you don't understand how much more lethal being able to fire 65-100 rounds in a minute or so (again, per the police chief of Aurora yesterday) without having to stop and reload is compared to being able to fire 8/12/24 from a handgun or hunting rifle I don't know what to tell you.
So do it for guns. But don't ban them.
If your point is that a car, a computer or a golf club are on the same level as a gun when used as a weapon against another person then I guess I already made my point.
The police chief cited the 100 magazine drum as an item the gunmen used in the press briefing yesterday.
:^:
The plan I posted a couple pages ago before I was called crazy by Detharin in no way suggested a ban; just a responsible level of clearance before owning a deadly weapon.
And also liability insurance, because I personally feel like if what you own was designed to kill things, and there is the chance you could accidentally harm people with it, the victims (and the gun owner) needs to be shielded from the kind of catastrophic financial harm that comes from people getting shot.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So then, why would that not have been a good thing? (I can take a punch or two, I think
In a crowded theater filled with people wearing bane cosplay, filled with smoke from canisters AND fucking dark, it is pretty easy to understand why MORE BULLETS IN THE AIR is a huge mistake.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Weird, ill assume its true but taking it with a grain of salt. Not because i doubt he could get one, but you do not really see them around that often. They are rumored to be rather unreliable in the best of times last i heard. High capacity magazines is usually just people bitching about glocks.
Being a native German, I don't go around propagating some of our old laws and there are reasons for that. Common sense, etc...
Oh, I do understand that. I just honestly don't much care. The benefit of this guy not having been able to go out and purchase something that lets him shoot 100 bullets without a reload outweigh the benefits of using them in sport, in my mind. I was thinking there was something I was missing on why such a thing would be allowable, which is why I asked originally why on earth anyone would need to be able to do that in a regular setting. There wasn't an answer provided beyond "Its fun/easy at the range" which, for me, doesn't cut it.
Rationally speaking, sure. But America has seen too many John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies. You need a powerful argument to overcome that kind of heroism naivete.
Ehhhhhh, this I disagree with.
I have been shooting for 25 years. I have been driving for 15. I have been in 3 accidents in those 15 years, one of them major. Only one (A minor fender bender) was my fault, and resulted in no damage to the other persons car.
I have never been involved with, nor witnessed, an injury accident with a gun. Require a safety course and a license. Insurance doesn't seem like it will accomplish much.
Paying $5k for something means you're rich? Really?
So you can't own one, but you can still find a legal way to use one end enjoy firing it. So what's the problem?
Because for one, in this instance the shooter was armored and a concealed pistol would have done very little, assuming this imaginary armed civilian was calm and focused enough with a clear line of sight to accurately take out the shooter rather than contribute to the civilian casualties? :rotate:
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
If you're talking about tackling a reloading gunman, you're well into the same bullshit speculative territory as "If someone else in the theater was armed..." You're just doing it without guns.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
My thing isn't that it would give someone time to tackle him, rather that it would give people more time to escape safely and would reduce the carnage per second ratio.
Are we assuming the "someone else" is an untrained civilian with no credentials to carry other than the second amendment?
Exactly. What I've been saying 3 pages ago. You can go and buy a tactical nuke for all I care, but keep it locked away at the shooting range and only fire it there. People who do target shooting for a sport can be organized so that the ammo is transported to the event by a ref or that the ammo is kept on the ranges at all times.
Fuck how do you fight a tyrannical government that piggybacks a nanobot onto some weird anti time particle so that it goes back in time, nests in your mother, and murders the sperm that would have been you leaving the second fastest as the victor of The Great Race, your mother edition.
That does not mean the laws should be casually discarded with little cause because they might not seem to be as important now as they used to be. Frankly those Canadians might try something any day now.
wait
so we're discounting a person using a firearm to protect themselves in such a situation but saying we could tackle them?
tackle the guy with multiple weapons who is fucking indiscriminately shooting people???
are you serious??
That's not how licenses to carry weapons work, to be fair. You have to receive training and such to be allowed to carry a weapon in public, not to mention being allowed to concealed carry a weapon.
Moreover, I can't recall ever reading or hearing about an armed gunman who opened fire on a crowd and was promptly put down by a regular person there who also happened to be armed. Does this actually happen much at all?
Picture me, waving my arms and jumping up and down to get your attention.
The issue isn't "Oh, we would have time to tackle them!" the issue is that less bullets in the air without pause is more time for people to escape, and less people getting hit in the amount of time before they do. How is this hard to understand?
Uh, what? So I need to go find a shooting range that is a mile long? What the fuck?
I do long range precision and have participated in competitions. I used to practice at my uncle's farm before I moved north. I have yet to see any kind of range, indoor or outdoor, that does longer than 1000 meters. The notion that long range precision needs to be capped is ridiculous.
Cost. See we are back to only the rich get to do it. Yes paying five grand for a small lump of metal that shoots bullets faster than a much cheaper lump of metal for your hobby puts you in the "rich hobby" category. Sure maybe you saved up, maybe you make a fuckton of money. I do not know a lot of poor people who can afford a 5k lump sum on a hobby item, that will cost around 30 bucks to hold a trigger down for 2 seconds. Or I can spend 50-100 bucks to do that at a range that rents machine guns.
That is pretty expensive as far as hobbies go.
I have also said in my initial post, if you want to shoot at a private range, that is fine, but you should have a permit for that and make sure safety precautions are in order. Guns should still be safely locked away when not shooting, etc.
i think you are severely underestimating how long it takes to reload.
I...don't think anyone said that? At least I didn't. I don't care if you have some ammo at your house. Hell, give whatever long range weapon you're using a five round clip or something. You can fire single shots to practice long range. You don't need a hundred round drum to practice that, do you?
Really, anyone that makes the "man, someone with a CCW coulda stopped him EASY" has obviously never had a CCW because they would've failed the mandated safety course by being an idiot.
Poor visibility, choking and irritating smoke filling the room, a panicked screaming mob going every which way and a target wearing body armor including a ballistic helmet.
Oh yeah, some Billy Badass with a 38 snub is gonna make all kinds of difference there. Maybe add a few more dead innocents to the mix when they create a crossfire with the shooter.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
It drastically changes by state, so you can't really make that argument. Some don't require permits. Some only require a basic safety class and being a certain age. And the states that do require certain criteria be met, often have no luxury of discretion.
I also don't know of any states that make you actually fire a gun before getting a permit. It's almost always limited to a few hours in a classroom, and many are even foregoing that in favor of online classes.
EDIT: To clarify, what I mean by 'luxury of discretion' is, that if you meet all the criteria set out by the state, but fill out all the paperwork while talking about how nice it would be to gun down some of them brown people you see everywhere, at no point could they say 'woah now, we've made a huge mistake'
Where is a gun range going to securely store tens of thousand of dollars of my equiptment and that of, say, the 1000 regular competitors in my local area? What about the casual competitors? What about when I travel to other states? What about practice? What about ranges that don't have buildings or staff?
This seems to work in countries where shooting is a sport confined to a fraction of the super-rich. I think Greece does it this way. This just wouldn't work in the US, from logistics alone. I don't think you have any concept of the scale of gun ownership in the United States, nor that for every gun, there's probably 5 or 6 of these scary big magazines (depending on what you define as 'big').
EDIT: I'm not even saying this is bad idea. I'm saying you'd need a public-works project the size of the interstate highway system to implement it.
Texas, for one. You have to pass a shooting course at various distances. Typically good instructors will scream in your face the entire time. Because if you can't handle a firearm when someone is yelling at you, you shouldn't be carrying one in public.
Though I guess I don't really know how one would fix that either so... yeah.
That's the only thing I can think of that would rationally have affected the outcome in this particular case.