Sooooo, uhhhhhhhh

Strizzo wrote: but the reality is they're trying to make the definition so wide as to ban nearly all guns that are not bolt, lever, slide, or pump action.

slightly off topic... but imo the sound of a pump action is my favorite choice for home defense.

Quiet house.. night time... somebody breaks in. It's a very distinct sound when you grab a pump action shotgun and cock it. If I were the would be thief/intruder I wouldn't stick around to press my luck after hearing that.

...back to banned gun ramblings.

In reply to xflowgolf:

Also slightly off topic......you should hear the BOOM before the action's sound being RACKED(not cocked)

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to mad_machine: Violent crime has been on the decline since or before the end of the Brady bill. Do you expect violent crime will decline at a faster rate if it is reinstated?

I think realistically and rationally (I know, I know), what they are trying to do with the "Assault Weapons" ban is not necessarily reduce crime, but to potentially reduce the severity of mass killings. (obviously this has wandered considerably in many cases) I guess what I am saying is, if they wanted to make a somewhat reasonable argument, that would be the case.

AR (as noted) are not used much in crimes, but are the obvious weapon of choice in mass killings. An AR with a 100 round snail clip will do a LOT more damage in a crowded mall then a 5 shot semi_auto shotgun / rifle. Either way, people will die though, just a matter of how many.

That said, the large capacity magazine thing makes the most sense here, of course...

...although eliminating large capacity magazines might have some effect on mass killings, the simple fact of the matter is that there have to be an insane number of them in distribution currently. So any ban would take MANY MANY years to have any noticeable effect, especially considering the run on them that will happen if they are banned (which has already happened once I believe).

In reply to aircooled:

Do tell, how many rounds did the aurora shooter get off with his AR pattern with the drum magazine?

IIRC, it was two or three rounds before it was out of action. He did the bulk with a damned scattergun.

In reply to mad_machine:

I see no reason to have FA weapons either. I see no reason to ban them either though. I prefer SA. Have you ever shot a fully automatic weapon. Unless it's bolted in place, accurate shooting is next to impossible unless you know what you're doing, and lets be honest, the average person is not going to be able to handle it.

A while back, in front of my guard shack there was a shooting with a FA AK-47 (it was probably stolen and modified). 30 rounds were fired, 2 hit the subject, he recovered at the hospital. FA weapons are fun to shoot, but junk for accuracy for the most part.

I sense we are of the same mind with some confusion or minor disagreement in the middle.

i've shot one full auto rifle, an AR either converted or an M16 select fire with a can. the guy was shooting in the next lane at the indoor range i used to go to, i had stepped back to watch him tear through a couple mags of .22lr with one of the drop-in conversions. after a couple he handed me a mag and a bottle of .22 and said "you load it you can shoot it" even with the low-power .22lr, it was hard to keep muzzle rise down, i can't imgine how difficult it would be with .223.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to mad_machine: I see no reason to have FA weapons either. I see no reason to ban them either though. I prefer SA. Have you ever shot a fully automatic weapon. Unless it's bolted in place, accurate shooting is next to impossible unless you know what you're doing, and lets be honest, the average person is not going to be able to handle it. A while back, in front of my guard shack there was a shooting with a FA AK-47 (it was probably stolen and modified). 30 rounds were fired, 2 hit the subject, he recovered at the hospital. FA weapons are fun to shoot, but junk for accuracy for the most part. I sense we are of the same mind with some confusion or minor disagreement in the middle.

indeed, I think so as well.

To be brutally honest.. a shooter walking into a mall with a couple of 9mm handguns and a couple of reload clips could do a LOT of death and injury in a short time just due to the panic that would spread. They would not even need to be extended clips, just the ones that came with the gun when it rolled down the assembly line

I hope this isn't too tangential to the original topic, and isn't meant as a political post at all; but I don't understand why the focus after a mass killing is always 'ban the guns' and 'reform gun control': and we never seem to hear 'reform the way we deal with mental illness'.

I have to walk by half a dozen obviously mentally ill homeless people on my way to work every day (and when I say obviously I mean they're deep in conversation with someone on a barbie play cell phone). We just don't have solid systems in place to test (early), educate, treat, and support people with issues, even though every study I've seen shows that it ends up saving money if you deal with them proactively rather than as homeless / ER cases.

fromeast2west wrote: I hope this isn't too tangential to the original topic, and isn't meant as a political post at all; but I don't understand why the focus after a mass killing is always 'ban the guns' and 'reform gun control': and we never seem to hear 'reform the way we deal with mental illness'. I have to walk by half a dozen obviously mentally ill homeless people on my way to work every day (and when I say obviously I mean they're deep in conversation with someone on a barbie play cell phone). We just don't have solid systems in place to test (early), educate, treat, and support people with issues, even though every study I've seen shows that it ends up saving money if you deal with them proactively rather than as homeless / ER cases.

while also trying not to go too political, it is because those who wish to ban guns didn't decide that they wanted to ban guns because of sandy hook or aurora or even columbine, they have always wanted to disarm the "common people" despite themselves and their families being protected by armed security, or even owning/carrying guns for defense themselves (feinstein had a CHL and carried a pistol for personal protection at the same time she was pushing for the first assault weapons ban). the truth is that these people, who always wanted to take all guns away , have been waiting for an appropriate tragedy in order to exploit the emotions of the situation, so that they could rally enough support to shred the constitution a little more.

fromeast2west wrote: I hope this isn't too tangential to the original topic, and isn't meant as a political post at all; but I don't understand why the focus after a mass killing is always 'ban the guns' and 'reform gun control': and we never seem to hear 'reform the way we deal with mental illness'. I have to walk by half a dozen obviously mentally ill homeless people on my way to work every day (and when I say obviously I mean they're deep in conversation with someone on a barbie play cell phone). We just don't have solid systems in place to test (early), educate, treat, and support people with issues, even though every study I've seen shows that it ends up saving money if you deal with them proactively rather than as homeless / ER cases.

You need to go back to the early 80s and President Ronald Reagan. In reforming the mental health institution a LOT of people who could not handle the real world were thrown out on the streets... and it has only gotten worse from there

mad_machine wrote:

fromeast2west wrote: We just don't have solid systems in place to test (early), educate, treat, and support people with issues, even though every study I've seen shows that it ends up saving money if you deal with them proactively rather than as homeless / ER cases.

You need to go back to the early 80s and President Ronald Reagan. In reforming the mental health institution a LOT of people who could not handle the real world were thrown out on the streets... and it has only gotten worse from there

That's actually the latter end of the second wave of de-institutionalization. The first wave started in the 1950s. The second started in the 1970s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization#United_States

In reply to mad machine: you've reached the point of cqb.....point of it is, at close range handguns and shotguns are going to be multiples more effective than any rifle that fires a rifle cartridge.

Go ahead, ban semi auto's.......ill just carry 6 revolvers like the old man from boondock saints

fromeast2west wrote: I hope this isn't too tangential to the original topic, and isn't meant as a political post at all; but I don't understand why the focus after a mass killing is always 'ban the guns' and 'reform gun control': and we never seem to hear 'reform the way we deal with mental illness'. I have to walk by half a dozen obviously mentally ill homeless people on my way to work every day (and when I say obviously I mean they're deep in conversation with someone on a barbie play cell phone). We just don't have solid systems in place to test (early), educate, treat, and support people with issues, even though every study I've seen shows that it ends up saving money if you deal with them proactively rather than as homeless / ER cases.

Put your tinfoil hat on and ask "In who's interest is it to capitalize on tragedy by banning an armed populace if the root of the issue isn't guns themselves?". Follow up questions might include "Who the berkeley are these shiny happy people at the airport with the scanners?" or "How can executive orders supercede the Bill of Rights?".

Carry on.

fromeast2west wrote: I hope this isn't too tangential to the original topic, and isn't meant as a political post at all; but I don't understand why the focus after a mass killing is always 'ban the guns' and 'reform gun control': and we never seem to hear 'reform the way we deal with mental illness'. I have to walk by half a dozen obviously mentally ill homeless people on my way to work every day (and when I say obviously I mean they're deep in conversation with someone on a barbie play cell phone). We just don't have solid systems in place to test (early), educate, treat, and support people with issues, even though every study I've seen shows that it ends up saving money if you deal with them proactively rather than as homeless / ER cases.

It just brings the issue back to the forefront, so gun haters have a way to take guns away again. No, they aren't bad people, yes, they think their doing a good thing for the country. I'm pretty sure they think crime will just cease to exist.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: "Who the berkeley are these shiny happy people at the airport with the scanners?"

Just me. I wanted to see your hootus.

N Sperlo wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: "Who the berkeley are these shiny happy people at the airport with the scanners?"

Just me. I wanted to see your hootus.

If it weren't for these meddling do-gooders and their "laws" I'd be walking around with it out all the time.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: "Who the berkeley are these shiny happy people at the airport with the scanners?"

Just me. I wanted to see your hootus.

If it weren't for these meddling do-gooders and their "laws" I'd be walking around with it out all the time.

Eric Clapton wrote a good song about you.

just remember.. the ones you want to ban all guns are the same ones that gave the UK that silly law that makes it illegal to defend yourself in a fight, breakin, or assault

xflowgolf wrote:

Strizzo wrote: but the reality is they're trying to make the definition so wide as to ban nearly all guns that are not bolt, lever, slide, or pump action.

slightly off topic... but imo the sound of a pump action is my favorite choice for home defense. Quiet house.. night time... somebody breaks in. It's a very distinct sound when you grab a pump action shotgun and cock it. If I were the would be thief/intruder I wouldn't stick around to press my luck after hearing that. ...back to banned gun ramblings.

That's why I specifically chose a bolt action because it's an unmistakeable sound. I'd rather work the action, the noise scares them away and I never fire a shot.

Curmudgeon wrote:

xflowgolf wrote:

Strizzo wrote: but the reality is they're trying to make the definition so wide as to ban nearly all guns that are not bolt, lever, slide, or pump action.

slightly off topic... but imo the sound of a pump action is my favorite choice for home defense. Quiet house.. night time... somebody breaks in. It's a very distinct sound when you grab a pump action shotgun and cock it. If I were the would be thief/intruder I wouldn't stick around to press my luck after hearing that. ...back to banned gun ramblings.

That's why I specifically chose a bolt action because it's an unmistakeable sound. I'd rather work the action, the noise scares them away and I never fire a shot.

Or it tells them where you are and that you aren't quite ready yet. The first thing I want a break-n-enter to hear is a loud boom.

Uh, no. Once they hear that noise the ol' Curmudgeon is ready to finish the job.

My favorite GTFOML gun:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

xflowgolf wrote:

Strizzo wrote: but the reality is they're trying to make the definition so wide as to ban nearly all guns that are not bolt, lever, slide, or pump action.

slightly off topic... but imo the sound of a pump action is my favorite choice for home defense. Quiet house.. night time... somebody breaks in. It's a very distinct sound when you grab a pump action shotgun and cock it. If I were the would be thief/intruder I wouldn't stick around to press my luck after hearing that. ...back to banned gun ramblings.

That's why I specifically chose a bolt action because it's an unmistakeable sound. I'd rather work the action, the noise scares them away and I never fire a shot.

Or it tells them where you are and that you aren't quite ready yet. The first thing I want a break-n-enter to hear is a loud boom.

Now that we're armed, this is something I don't yet understand. Does the guy have to be coming at you, or just in your house? Obviously not running away. I am in SC, so rules are a bit more in favor of the homeowner here, obviously. Do you tell the guy to leave before throwing hollow points into the air? Anyone have any guideline that they've heard/made up?

In reply to tuna55:

Ask your sheriff or state attorney general. State makes the rules.

tuna55 wrote: Now that we're armed, this is something I don't yet understand. Does the guy have to be coming at you, or just in your house? Obviously not running away. I am in SC, so rules are a bit more in favor of the homeowner here, obviously. Do you tell the guy to leave before throwing hollow points into the air? Anyone have any guideline that they've heard/made up?

No idea. I just know that if for some reason I have the upper hand on an intruder who was not deterred enough by dogs and motion sensing flood lights to stay away... I'm not giving up my position by making a metric ton of noise until he is on his back.