Gun Control

[chitoryu12]

The problem with the "destructive device" definition is that it's completely arbitrary when it comes to shotguns. The USAS-12 in semi-auto was declared a destructive device, but the Saiga-12 wasn't despite being almost identical in many ways. The Striker is only unique by a 12 round magazine, which the Kel-Tec KSG and UTS 15 both exceed while not being legally any different from typical firearms AND being released in a much more left-wing time period. It's not exactly fast to reload either, since you need to insert a shell into each chamber (like a Colt Single Action Army) and on the older versions actually wind the cylinder. It only has 3 rounds more than a typical shotgun with an extended magazine tube and a round in the chamber as well.

It's quite apparent that it was regulated not because of its capabilities or design, but because of its scary appearance. The exact same legislation during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that tried to ban heat shields, folding stocks, and pistol grips.

[The Illusive Man]

The exact same legislation during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that tried to ban heat shields, folding stocks, and pistol grips.

The Striker is only unique by a 12 round magazine, which the Kel-Tec KSG and UTS 15 both exceed while not being legally any different from typical firearms AND being released in a much more left-wing time period. It's not exactly fast to reload either, since you need to insert a shell into each chamber (like a Colt Single Action Army) and on the older versions actually wind the cylinder. It only has 3 rounds more than a typical shotgun with an extended magazine tube and a round in the chamber as well.

Interesting, are you sure that the purpose of such legislation was not to make handling guns more difficult?


I almost though the Saiga12 was an assault rifle for a moment!

[chitoryu12]

It's typically no more difficult to handle a weapon with a traditional stock than an "assault weapon". Also, heat shields and barrel shrouds serve a very practical purpose: they keep you from burning your hand on a hot barrel after firing. Considering that even target shooters and plinkers typically fire dozens of rounds at a time, actually having something to protect your hand is a good idea. Not to mention the infamous "it's a shoulder thing that goes up" answer when one of the AWB supporters was asked what a barrel shroud was. As for collapsible and folding stocks, many backpackers or people who drive in rural areas use rifles or shotguns with folding stocks to make it easier to store the weapon (the Kel-Tec SU-16 is very popular among hikers, since you can fold the whole gun in half and store it in your bag), while stocks that can be adjusted for length make it easier for shooters to adjust the weapon to their size.

Moreover, it does absolutely nothing to regulate the lethality of guns. The Ruger Mini-14 has none of the scary "assault weapon" features of a typical AR-15, and looks very much like a regular hunting rifle. But it does the exact same thing as an AR-15 and has magazines of the same capacity. Nobody who was writing the bill was concerned at all with learning about the weapons they were trying to regulate. They exclusively saw scary looking features and tried to ban them.

As for the magazine ban, it's completely arbitrary. 30 rounds isn't "high capacity." It's normal capacity for a STANAG magazine. Moreover, how is someone with a 10 round mag less deadly than one with a 30 round mag? It takes about two seconds for someone who's not very good with guns to reload a handgun or rifle with a detachable magazine. Someone who practices their reloading skills can have the gun ready to fire in under a second. It's an arbitrary number that does nothing about the millions upon millions of "high capacity" magazines on the market and in the hands of private shooters. Really, the only mags that suffered a bad price increase during the 1994 bill were rare drums for AKs and Thompsons, and their price is still so high that even collectors and enthusiasts have to drop hundreds of dollars.

Oh, and the idea people have about pinning full size magazines or modifying them in a way that makes them the same size as a 30 rounder but restricts them to 10 rounds? They're still trying that in Canada. It takes a few seconds of examination and a few minutes of work to modify the mags back to factory standard.

[rookie]

I almost though the Saiga12 was an assault rifle for a moment!

There's no rear sight, the mag is disproportional, and the butt stock appears to be way heavier than it needs to be for a rifle.

[Distind]

It takes about two seconds for someone who's not very good with guns to reload a handgun or rifle with a detachable magazine. Someone who practices their reloading skills can have the gun ready to fire in under a second.

I have to ask what exactly you're saying here.

Someone with can swap out a magazine from their hand to their gun in 2 seconds, or go through the process of retrieving the new magazine and loading it to the gun in 2 seconds?

Most people I know take 5 seconds to find their damn keys, with a lanyard. Either having a magazine in a proper secured pouch You'd have to unfasten the pouch, snag the magazine, and get the magazine from the pouch location to the ammo port. Assuming they can walk and chew gum at the same time ejecting the old magazine and letting it fall while getting the new one, letting it fall rather than retrieving it. Probably longer for your typical idiot who's just stuffed a few magazines in their pocket as they'd have to fumble around for it.

I can see a lot of people managing 2 seconds if the magazine is sitting next to the rifle itself, but I don't see it as a realistic time in any situation the laws would be concerned with. Plus reloading does a wonderful job of showing intent to kill someone rather than being panic fire that some how managed to hit someone.

Even just assuming five seconds, five seconds can be a lot of time when someone is keyed up from being shot at.

[Askold]

I almost though the Saiga12 was an assault rifle for a moment!

There's no rear sight, the mag is disproportional, and the butt stock appears to be way heavier than it needs to be for a rifle.

a) In several "AK-style weapons" the rear sight is pretty far up front of the gun. Do you see that silvery rail thing on top of the Saiga? The back of that is the typical position of the rear sight. The front sight is typically at the front of the barrel (raised high enough to be on level.) The reason for the rear sight being so far up the gun is that the cover has a tendency to move so it would not be an ideal position for sights.

Since Saiga is a shotgun I believe that the sights are simply that grey rail. Shotguns rarely have precise sights unless you plan to fire slugs with them.

b) The mag is not disproportional. That is a shotgun and the shotgun shells would not fit into a smaller magazine.

c) What do you mean with that comment about the butt stock? That is the standard size buttstock. There are aftermarket parts that would let you add a folding or a collapsible stock (which has the benefit of letting you adjust the length of the butt stock for your personal preferences) if you want though.

[rookie]

I know all of that, Askold. Shotgun sights are much different than rifle sights as rifles are more precise. For a rifle, even an assault rifle, the rear sights are still further back. The mag is disproportional for a rifle. And, again, for a rifle the butt stock is a bit heavier than necessary. For a shotgun, you want that to take up some of the recoil.

[Damen]

I have to ask what exactly you're saying here.

Someone with can swap out a magazine from their hand to their gun in 2 seconds, or go through the process of retrieving the new magazine and loading it to the gun in 2 seconds?

Most people I know take 5 seconds to find their damn keys, with a lanyard. Either having a magazine in a proper secured pouch You'd have to unfasten the pouch, snag the magazine, and get the magazine from the pouch location to the ammo port. Assuming they can walk and chew gum at the same time ejecting the old magazine and letting it fall while getting the new one, letting it fall rather than retrieving it. Probably longer for your typical idiot who's just stuffed a few magazines in their pocket as they'd have to fumble around for it.

I can see a lot of people managing 2 seconds if the magazine is sitting next to the rifle itself, but I don't see it as a realistic time in any situation the laws would be concerned with. Plus reloading does a wonderful job of showing intent to kill someone rather than being panic fire that some how managed to hit someone.

Even just assuming five seconds, five seconds can be a lot of time when someone is keyed up from being shot at.

I actually tried a quick magazine change from both my AR-15 and my 1911 not too long ago and had my father timing me. Now, as much as I love firearms, I have next to never tried a fast mag change for the simple reason that I've never had a reason to try it; all my shooting is done at the range where I can take my time. So, this go around I gave myself all of six practice runs before I started getting timed.

Using my AR, I had one empty mag in the rifle and one sticking out of my jeans pocket. I was able to drop the old mag from the rifle, reach down and retrieve the new magazine, insert it, slam the bolt closed and return to a firing stance in just under two seconds. I was able to repeat this with a comparable time using my 1911 as well.

Now, granted, this was in a zero stress environment and that time would be reduced if I was actually firing, but what I also must point out is that when a person initiates a shooting, they are not surprised by the sudden gunfire so they are not as badly affected as those who are reacting to the threat.

In any case, this was my experience. Take from it what you will.

[Distind]

You also know a lot more about guns than most people. Though I would admit figuring for someone competent with firearms would be quite different. I have no problem believing you can manage it, perhaps I'm assigning a wrong group of 'most people' when I read his post.

[chitoryu12]

You also know a lot more about guns than most people. Though I would admit figuring for someone competent with firearms would be quite different. I have no problem believing you can manage it, perhaps I'm assigning a wrong group of 'most people' when I read his post.

A woman who was a victim of a restaurant shooting in Texas spoke in front of legislators back in the 90s in favor of concealed carry laws. She stated that the proposed magazine bans were completely useless because the shooter ran his gun dry multiple times and it took mere seconds for him to slap the next mag in. There was barely enough time to even run for the exit before he reloaded, and the woman's father was shot and killed as he attempted to charge him. He still had ammo remaining when he committed suicide after being wounded by the police.

I have now responded to your anecdotes of "people taking 5 seconds to get their keys" with real life documentation of a shooting. Your entire justification of said anecdotes was "The people who will go out shooting are dumb and have no dexterity, and I know this because blah."

[Stormwarden]

My view on it is that a lot of responsible gun owners tend to practice the hell out of things like this, for several reasons:

1) If it came to a self-defense situation, the other person won't just sit there and let you reload.

2) A slip up at a critical moment could get someone (you, possibly others) killed.

Like a lot of other things, practice makes perfect. As an example, I would want to practice this in case the first clip (or cylinder if I go with a revolver) doesn't stop the bear. Let me make it clear: I REALLY don't want to be in that predicament, and I will take every precaution against it, but where I am, the possibility is there when I'm out and about.

[chitoryu12]

My view on it is that a lot of responsible gun owners tend to practice the hell out of things like this, for several reasons:

1) If it came to a self-defense situation, the other person won't just sit there and let you reload.

2) A slip up at a critical moment could get someone (you, possibly others) killed.

Like a lot of other things, practice makes perfect. As an example, I would want to practice this in case the first clip (or cylinder if I go with a revolver) doesn't stop the bear. Let me make it clear: I REALLY don't want to be in that predicament, and I will take every precaution against it, but where I am, the possibility is there when I'm out and about.

To follow, someone who's making plans for a rampage is probably going to practice. The Columbine shooters even taped themselves practicing with their guns (straw purchased by a girl from the school) beforehand, so they actually knew how to line up the sights properly. It also helped that they were attacking a place where they could be 100% positive that none of their victims would be armed even if they were willing to fight back.

[QueenofHearts]

Except columbine had armed guards on the day of the massacre. Likewise, no mass shooting has ever been stopped by a "good guy" with a gun.

[chitoryu12]

Except columbine had armed guards on the day of the massacre. Likewise, no mass shooting has ever been stopped by a "good guy" with a gun.

If you look at where mass shootings take place, you'll find that the vast majority take place in an area where guns are banned (or there's exactly one or two people in the entire building who HAVE a gun, in this case a typical school resource officer). I should also point out that the deputy at Columbine wasn't wearing his glasses when he attempted to shoot, which is utterly baffling for anyone who plans on going anywhere with a loaded weapon. He also exchanged gunfire for a short time before stopping to call for backup, and allowed Harris and Klebold to continue their rampage 100% unimpeded.

I could go on about how you chose a biased source for your "NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys" article, or how a number of the links in the article that I tried to use to find their sources simply lead back to OTHER articles on the site which has links that go to OTHER articles, or how some of the cases they picked (like the principal who was forced to run to his vehicle to retrieve his weapon during the shooting because he was banned from carrying it on school property) actually demonstrate a problem with their reasoning, or how some of the cases they give don't even count as mass shootings (shooting three or four specific people and walking out or committing suicide, which most people would just count as three counts of murder instead of lumping it in with Aurora), or how they used a case where the bad guy was armed with a semi-automatic rifle and body armor and thus couldn't be stopped by a man shooting him in the chest with a concealed handgun (which is not exactly an everyday situation for CCL holders), or their use of graphs that have their own in-house watermark instead of any citation for their numbers and have links that (again) lead to OTHER articles on their site.....but I'll let others look into that.

If you want an example of a mass killing that involved no gunfire at all, look at the Akihabara Massacre in Japan. In a nation where firearms are under extremely tight scrutiny, a man killed 7 and injured 10 with nothing but a truck and a knife, both items that almost any of the mass shooters would have access to. According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar attacks have occurred between 1998 and 2007 (can you recall 67 attempted mass shootings in the United States in the past 10 years?). Exactly 7 years before Akihabara, a school janitor killed 8 children and seriously wounded 13 others and two teachers with a kitchen knife; the total number of casualties is only 3 lower than the Sandy Hook death count (excluding the shooter and his mother, which he murdered earlier). Sarin gas attack in Japan? 13 deaths, over 1100 injured, 50 of whom suffered long-term effects. A previous attack on the Tokyo Metro killed 8 and injured 144. The impure sarin used in the attack can be made by a chemist who simply has the right ingredients and recipe, and the method of attack is as simple as dropping a plastic bag full of the liquid on the floor, stabbing it a few times with your umbrella, and walking off.

But clearly, guns are the problem. Japan's certainly NEVER suffered massive amounts of casualties to killing sprees.

[SugarfreeJazz]

After reading the provided link about Columbine, as far as the glasses go, you're making a few leaps here in regard to how Gardner was affected. "Jim Shults, a Colorado-based former SWAT trainer and critic of the Columbine response, said the glasses may not be significant." The guard was also able to give a detailed description of Harris despite the many yards between them including slight body movements (Klebold was not present).

An attempt to track down Gardner's prescription, came up empty outside of a few guesses on forums even in regard to him being nearsighted or having a stigmatism. Additionally, one can have prescription glasses and not have vision impaired enough to interfere with aiming a gun sight at a target, even at a distance. That considered, it doesn't seem as though there is enough information to make a proper determination, only assumptions. Which don't help support the argument one way or the other.