Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

hey, now you're understanding ....... we wrap a free society in basic laws of behavior ....... if someone wants to breach those laws (like drunk driving) then that's on them, isn't it ? we don't ban the auto's and drinks

Funny thing is, you're arguing against yourself and you aren't even aware...oh, again....for the billionth time, NONE of my proposals in these threads attempt to ban guns....not one.

 

[Stealthycat]

it's almost as if you didn't know that some schools had armed teachers already....how can that be?

its like ya'll didn't know there were armed schools .... ya'll have fought it so hard and reality is, its already in places. Truth is, society had everything in place to stop this Cruz killer and what failed wasn't the NRA and it wasn't law abiding citizens either.

I read some cute memes today you'd like

instead of banning guns in the US, lets first ban them in a city like Chicago or DC and see how it goes

in Florida, the FBI failed, 3 officers failed, school authorities failed and somehow its the NRA's fault

 

[Stealthycat]

I love that you are now in favor of altering someone else's 2nd amendment rights....can't make this #### up   

I've thought about it for weeks and like I said, I'd consider it IF we change other things too. Today's youth is killing their own classmates, eating tide pods, did you read the stats I gave about something like 12% of teachers were violently threatened etc? maybe, just maybe, today's youth is the problem

hell, its better to take their rights away when they're the core problem then to take away NRA member's right when we don't commit murders and crimes like they do !

 

[GROOT]

https://www.facebook.com/Blade.city/videos/1862445623766929/?hc_ref=ARSZiFIthdzpEmtTaMNk9oF6k41pR024CLkbHE41j75w4AQdpTGAQjIlL6laBQBitVQ

thoughts? not pro or con

 

[Mister CIA]

I've thought about it for weeks and like I said, I'd consider it IF we change other things too. Today's youth is killing their own classmates, eating tide pods, did you read the stats I gave about something like 12% of teachers were violently threatened etc? maybe, just maybe, today's youth is the problem

hell, its better to take their rights away when they're the core problem then to take away NRA member's right when we don't commit murders and crimes like they do !

Maybe, just maybe, the problem is bad parents (I include you).

 

[KCitons]

In 1994, semi-automatics and large capacity magazines were banned by the FAWB. In the time since, we didn't have a slippery slope banning more and more guns. Instead, the act expired in 2004 and we're back further than we were when it passed. The slippery slide turned into a pendulum, or teeter totter if you will.

Although nobody ever mentions this. Just that if we allow any regulation of guns whatsoever, we're going to careen to full seizure of guns. Inevitably.

Actually it didn't ban semi auto rifles. It ban what they deemed to be an assault rifle.

Criteria of an assault weapon[edit]

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[16]

A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.

An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an assault weapon under federal law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines 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  

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor

Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator

Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Detachable magazine.

 

[KCitons]

which included many semi-automatic weapons. I normally score fairly high for pedanticism, but I'll concede the gold here.

I just want you to be accurate when you make your statements. For those that think you may want to ban all semi autos, including deer rifles that have been around for 50 years, it may make a difference. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

look at the evidence - this generation is violent, hateful, mean and they're killing each other in school shootings - this isn't a middle aged NRA member problem, this is a today's youth problem

if you want to focus on the problem, lets do it - and the problem is the youth of today. Want to regulate their Constitutional Right from 18 to 21? Ok, lets do that because they're proving irresponsible and incapable of handling adult things like guns, voting, driving etc right ? That IS what is being said right?

You could have just said "no". 

 

[Dedfin]

Is it a slippery slope that we have gone from a dude loading a musket to weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute?

This reminds me.  I want an M134 Minigun.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

All good ideas, but I’d think it’s impossible to regulate ammunition like that.  Too many reloaders. 

Regulating magazine capacity considering standard size calibers.  Sure, some reloaders can get a bit more umph per round, but not an appreciable amount..  You could use joules or some other measure.

At any rate if we set the irfle limit at not more than 20 rounds in any magazine and used the force for standard .223 round as the standard of force that could be generated we would be allowing rifles, when loaded, no matter the loading system to be able to generate 40,000 joules of energy or about 36,000 foot pounds of energy. Then we could extrapolate a magazine standard for a .308 which has more force per round so it would have less rounds, it could have a magazine of 12 or fewer , and a 30.06 could have a magazine of 9 or fewer.  If some reloaders had a load that was a bit higher we would still be restricting their number of rounds.  We would essentially be constructing a force limit equalizing, essentially, the force deliverable by any one magazine in any rifle, and we would be setting limits on rounds that are less than where they are today.  This gets us away from discussing features, or folks pet rifles and allows all sorts of things, but more limited than today, and it limits potential tomorrow as different configurations are brought on line.

We would pick a similar force allowable for shotguns and another for handguns.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

See, if we just concentrate on banning AR 15's I could still have my SIG Sauer sig 16G2 Patrol in .308. Now that one comes standard with a 20 round mag, but one can still get higher capacity mags.  Will this be captured by an AR 15 ban?  Certainly it is strikingly similar to an AR 15 but may not technically be one.  By concentrating on names, brands, platforms or features we run into snags, but saying any rifle or carbine system can only be loaded to 40,000 joules or less caps this bad boy off at a 12 round mag.  Trust me Tim, and others.  If you think the standard AR 15 is scary, this things will make you pee yourself.  (Now I knw, some will argue this is an AR 15 chambered in a larger caliber, but some would argue not.   If you want to limit force, killing ability, it needs to be done through the loading system and setting a top amount of force, equal across different systems may make sense.

 

[Henry Ford]

Regulating magazine capacity considering standard size calibers.  Sure, some reloaders can get a bit more umph per round, but not an appreciable amount..  You could use joules or some other measure.

At any rate if we set the irfle limit at not more than 20 rounds in any magazine and used the force for standard .223 round as the standard of force that could be generated we would be allowing rifles, when loaded, no matter the loading system to be able to generate 40,000 joules of energy or about 36,000 foot pounds of energy. Then we could extrapolate a magazine standard for a .308 which has more force per round so it would have less rounds, it could have a magazine of 12 or fewer , and a 30.06 could have a magazine of 9 or fewer.  If some reloaders had a load that was a bit higher we would still be restricting their number of rounds.  We would essentially be constructing a force limit equalizing, essentially, the force deliverable by any one magazine in any rifle, and we would be setting limits on rounds that are less than where they are today.  This gets us away from discussing features, or folks pet rifles and allows all sorts of things, but more limited than today, and it limits potential tomorrow as different configurations are brought on line.

We would pick a similar force allowable for shotguns and another for handguns.

Maybe my math is way off. A 36 grain that travels 2700 fps is between 5-600 foot pounds of energy, right? 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

what?

they're taking guns to school and killing their classmates, eating tide pods etc .........

Making generalizations based on a few outliers is the way fools try to make sense of the world.

 

[msommer]

Maybe my math is way off. A 36 grain that travels 2700 fps is between 5-600 foot pounds of energy, right? 

Man, you guys have got to go metric.....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

See, if we just concentrate on banning AR 15's I could still have my SIG Sauer sig 16G2 Patrol in .308. Now that one comes standard with a 20 round mag, but one can still get higher capacity mags.  Will this be captured by an AR 15 ban?  Certainly it is strikingly similar to an AR 15 but may not technically be one.  By concentrating on names, brands, platforms or features we run into snags, but saying any rifle or carbine system can only be loaded to 40,000 joules or less caps this bad boy off at a 12 round mag.  Trust me Tim, and others.  If you think the standard AR 15 is scary, this things will make you pee yourself.  (Now I knw, some will argue this is an AR 15 chambered in a larger caliber, but some would argue not.   If you want to limit force, killing ability, it needs to be done through the loading system and setting a top amount of force, equal across different systems may make sense.

I kind of think this was Rubio's point, though he didn't do it as in depth as you. The questioner's response was well ban the ~200 gun types that fit the AR class and start there, but I think Rubio's implication was that other gun types would just come into play and banning the 2000+ types would never fly. I have no idea how many gun types/models would come into play using what you have here but it doesn't sound unreasonable.

 

[Righetti]

See, if we just concentrate on banning AR 15's I could still have my SIG Sauer sig 16G2 Patrol in .308. Now that one comes standard with a 20 round mag, but one can still get higher capacity mags.  Will this be captured by an AR 15 ban?  Certainly it is strikingly similar to an AR 15 but may not technically be one.  By concentrating on names, brands, platforms or features we run into snags, but saying any rifle or carbine system can only be loaded to 40,000 joules or less caps this bad boy off at a 12 round mag.  Trust me Tim, and others.  If you think the standard AR 15 is scary, this things will make you pee yourself.  (Now I knw, some will argue this is an AR 15 chambered in a larger caliber, but some would argue not.   If you want to limit force, killing ability, it needs to be done through the loading system and setting a top amount of force, equal across different systems may make sense.

I have no idea what any of this means but it sounds more informed than the “ban the AR15” thing.   

The article from the guy working in the ER who explained that the organs of the victims were obliterated to the point them could never be repaired made sense.   He said that a “normal” gun shot would leave a reasonable chance of recovery but that the gun shots of the AR15 came at such force that it left the organs unrecognizable.   So I’d be ok with something that kept organs basically intact

I’d have to guess the guy protecting his house or shooting a deer for sport should be good with that.  

 

[Short Corner]

Making generalizations based on a few outliers is the way fools try to make sense of the world.

That and concluding that something that is not 100% effective is ineffective.

 

[The Commish]

its like ya'll didn't know there were armed schools .... ya'll have fought it so hard and reality is, its already in places. Truth is, society had everything in place to stop this Cruz killer and what failed wasn't the NRA and it wasn't law abiding citizens either.

I read some cute memes today you'd like

instead of banning guns in the US, lets first ban them in a city like Chicago or DC and see how it goes

in Florida, the FBI failed, 3 officers failed, school authorities failed and somehow its the NRA's fault

Attack that straw man with an intensity unknown to mankind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Outside the straw man argument about it being the fault of the NRA, there are exactly zero sentences here that apply to me.  I've even posted links about the areas of the country where teachers voluntarily carry with community support.  Your echo chamber of one is doing you no favors, but I can't pull you out of it.  You have to walk out on your own.

You can continue engaging people who don't want to take your guns with your "you can't take my guns" safety blanket, but it's illogical and not even remotely productive.  I can only assume you do this because that's all you've got.  I bet you're REALLY pissed that the "right" is making this kid out to be a victim of the "system" aren't you?  I bet that chaps your ### real good don't it?  They're doing whatever they can to take the spotlight off guns.  ####, even you are now up for taking peoples' second amendment rights away  

 

[The Commish]

I've thought about it for weeks and like I said, I'd consider it IF we change other things too. Today's youth is killing their own classmates, eating tide pods, did you read the stats I gave about something like 12% of teachers were violently threatened etc? maybe, just maybe, today's youth is the problem

hell, its better to take their rights away when they're the core problem then to take away NRA member's right when we don't commit murders and crimes like they do !

Today's adults are killing their own too at a much higher clip.  This is completely illogical.

From where I stand and what I am observing from a MUCH larger sample size than the fringe, our "youth" are doing better things for this country than my generation did at their age.  I'm proud of them as a whole.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Maybe my math is way off. A 36 grain that travels 2700 fps is between 5-600 foot pounds of energy, right? 

580. 

Trying to figure out what cartridge you are describing.  At 36 grains this would be a very light .223.  At that weight I would anticipate that round moving at 3700 fps.

I took for my calculations, if I remember, a 65 grain bullet moving at 3200fps.  Of course we are talking yesterday and I was indulging so I am no longer sure.  My point was this. Folks want to limit the lethal force any of us can carry into public.  Folks are stuck on the standard AR 15 platform, because, well, media indoctrination trumps knowledge.  Not wanting to fight that, and going with the flow I made a presumption.  The presumption was lets reduce the standard mags capacity from 30 to 20 rounds for that configuration.  This gives us the progress many desire, less lethality readily available walking around in public.  We then, quite artificially declare the amount of lethal energy in that weapon the maximum amount of lethal energy we will tolerate.  We then extrapoloate that to other calibers to set magazine maximums for those weapons. We declare we will tolerate, as I said, about 40,000 joules of lethal energy or 36,000 foot pounds, nothing more.  Then, because we still don't want spraying of bullets, and because the .22 is uniquely low in energy we also have as a maximum mag capacity, regardless of energy, 20 rounds.

 

[timschochet]

Ditkaless Wonders and a few other posters have made arguments against banning the AR-15 which essentially come down to one point: there are other weapons which will remain legal which are just as lethal or more lethal, so banning AR-15s will have no effect. 

I don’t find this argument compelling at all. For one thing I don’t think most of these crazies involved in mass shootings are such gun experts that they know about all of these alternatives. The AR-15 is incredibly popular. If it’s banned these nuts are not going to seek out deadly alternatives, they’re more likely to purchase the easiest weapon they can get their hands on. We already know this to be true because during the ten years the AR-15 was previously banned, mass shootings went down, and the most infamous one, Columbine, involved handguns because the killers couldn’t get their hands on AR-15s. Thus, lives were saved.

But the argument fails on the logic as well. If the AR-15 is a dangerous weapon that shouldn’t be owned by private citizens, then that is a fact regardless of what contradictions it might create. 

 

[Snorkelson]

I've thought about it for weeks and like I said, I'd consider it IF we change other things too. Today's youth is killing their own classmates, eating tide pods, did you read the stats I gave about something like 12% of teachers were violently threatened etc? maybe, just maybe, today's youth is the problem

hell, its better to take their rights away when they're the core problem then to take away NRA member's right when we don't commit murders and crimes like they do !

Except in Las Vegas, among others. 

 

[jonessed]

Except in Las Vegas, among others. 

Paddock wasn’t an NRA member.

 

[msommer]

Ditkaless Wonders and a few other posters have made arguments against banning the AR-15 which essentially come down to one point: there are other weapons which will remain legal which are just as lethal or more lethal, so banning AR-15s will have no effect. 

I don’t find this argument compelling at all. For one thing I don’t think most of these crazies involved in mass shootings are such gun experts that they know about all of these alternatives. The AR-15 is incredibly popular. If it’s banned these nuts are not going to seek out deadly alternatives, they’re more likely to purchase the easiest weapon they can get their hands on. We already know this to be true because during the ten years the AR-15 was previously banned, mass shootings went down, and the most infamous one, Columbine, involved handguns because the killers couldn’t get their hands on AR-15s. Thus, lives were saved.

But the argument fails on the logic as well. If the AR-15 is a dangerous weapon that shouldn’t be owned by private citizens, then that is a fact regardless of what contradictions it might create. 

I think the argument holds merit in that you can set limits for the combination of muzzle velocity, weight of round, ability to fire rapidly (to cover semiautomatic, bump stock etc), ability to fire for a long time (number of rounds in magazine) to come at something resembling a score for "lethality". With such a score you could set a line, below a standard ar15 shooting 5.56mm rounds from a 30 round magazine as the point where a weapon is no longer allowed for civilians. 

Would it be practical? Dunno

 

[Snorkelson]

Paddock wasn’t an NRA member.

No, but you can’t point the finger at just students shootings in schools. The NRA simply supports their rights to own whatever gun they can get their hands on. 

 

[timschochet]

OK, so let’s get back to principles. Here is what I would like to see happen: 

1. Universal background checks- no loopholes. 

2. A national gun registry. 

3. Banning AR-15s and other assault rifles. 

Now, with regard to the accusation that unckeyherb made against me, I am open to compromise. Specifically, if we enacted the first of these, that would be a very big deal. It wouldn’t have a big effect on mass shootings IMO, but I believe it would have a significant effect on reducing gun violence in general. So if we (myself and anyone reading this on the other side) were in charge, perhaps we could reach a deal. 

But sadly we are not in charge. And as I’ve pointed out, the Republican Party is unwilling to compromise on ANY of this. Until they do, I will continue to push for all 3 points. Might as well; it’s a very rare occurrence in that for once the public seems to agree with me. 

 

[Snorkelson]

Paddock wasn’t an NRA member.

After rereading this i bolded the wrong part, and it’s confusing.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I tkaless Wonders and a few other posters have made arguments against banning the AR-15 which essentially come down to one point: there are other weapons which will remain legal which are just as lethal or more lethal, so banning AR-15s will have no effect. 

I don’t find this argument compelling at all. For one thing I don’t think most of these crazies involved in mass shootings are such gun experts that they know about all of these alternatives. The AR-15 is incredibly popular. If it’s banned these nuts are not going to seek out deadly alternatives, they’re more likely to purchase the easiest weapon they can get their hands on. We already know this to be true because during the ten years the AR-15 was previously banned, mass shootings went down, and the most infamous one, Columbine, involved handguns because the killers couldn’t get their hands on AR-15s. Thus, lives were saved.

But the argument fails on the logic as well. If the AR-15 is a dangerous weapon that shouldn’t be owned by private citizens, then that is a fact regardless of what contradictions it might create. 

You completely missed my argument.  And I do mean completely.  If you read carefully I have solved all of the arguments against your point.  All of them.  Instead of trying to believe I am refuting you, you might read more carefully and then thank me for providing you a far stronger argument than you have been able to generate from anecdotal evidence and polling data.

 

[timschochet]

I think the argument holds merit in that you can set limits for the combination of muzzle velocity, weight of round, ability to fire rapidly (to cover semiautomatic, bump stock etc), ability to fire for a long time (number of rounds in magazine) to come at something resembling a score for "lethality". With such a score you could set a line, below a standard ar15 shooting 5.56mm rounds from a 30 round magazine as the point where a weapon is no longer allowed for civilians. 

Would it be practical? Dunno

I think you’re falling into the trap they set of trying to have a consistency to any proposed gun bannings. It’s a trap because they can always find a way to prove that you’re inconsistent. 

Let’s just ban AR-15s for now. Simple and sends a message. If other guns become popular that are just as deadly or more deadly, we ban them later. 

 

[msommer]

I think you’re falling into the trap they set of trying to have a consistency to any proposed gun bannings. It’s a trap because they can always find a way to prove that you’re inconsistent. 

Let’s just ban AR-15s for now. Simple and sends a message. If other guns become popular that are just as deadly or more deadly, we ban them later. 

I think you re confusing me with someone arguing for a gun ban. @The Commish and I have a set of suggestions that do not include banning anything. They have been linked to a couple of times already

 

[timschochet]

You completely missed my argument.  And I do mean completely.  If you read carefully I have solved all of th earguments against your point.  All of them.  Instead of trying to believe I am refuting you, you might read more carefully and then thank me for providing yu are far stronger argument than you have been able to generate from anecdotal evidence and poling data.

I don’t want to hash this out with you, because I really don’t want to get into a discussion about how lethal the AR-15 is compared to other weaponry. I don’t care about those details.

if you are on my side on this, I apologize. But being on my side means that you’re in favor of banning the AR-15. Is that your viewpoint? 

 

[timschochet]

I think you re confusing me with someone arguing for a gun ban. @The Commish and I have a set of suggestions that do not include banning anything. They have been linked to a couple of times already

No I get that. I’m trying to convince you that we should ban the AR-15. I agree with most of your proposals and the Commish, but I find this one important too. 

I should add that banning the AR-15 is important as an easy to understand political statement. It gets students to march, people to protest, people to vote- much more so than most other proposed gun restrictions. Like “America out of Vietnam!” its an idea that everybody can understand and most people are for. It’s important, in all political campaigns, to choose ONE unifying idea that everybody on your side can get behind-IMO, this should be that one.

 

[Stealthycat]

Maybe, just maybe, the problem is bad parents (I include you).

if that makes you feel better, ok

 

[Stealthycat]

This reminds me.  I want an M134 Minigun.

if its legal and you can legally buy it - doesn't bother me one bit

 

[Guest]

I doubt Congress would ever enact anything that elegant, but I do think that's a good direction for the conversation to go if Congress was to ever pass something.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

 don’t want to hash this out with you, because I really don’t want to get into a discussion about how lethal the AR-15 is compared to other weaponry. I don’t care about those details.

if you are on my side on this, I apologize. But being on my side means that you’re in favor of banning the AR-15. Is that your viewpoint? 

No, since I don't know what you mean by that and when it comes time to write the legislation that is a major problem.  Now I do now what magazine size limits mean, and I do now what force is, as defined by physics terms and I have suggested a new standard for writing this kind of legislation which does not depend on pistol grips or bayonet mounts or folding stocks or other irrelevancies.  Instead I have gone directly to the heart of the matter, lethal force as defined by force that anyone can carry regardless of make, model, style or caliber. I have not eliminated the AR 15 as that comes, potentially, with real costs.  I know you like your argument that we have not destroyed their value, but your interpretation of the takings clause is, to put it bluntly, individually unique and will not fly.  My method allows the weapons to be retained, but it tames those weapons.  It eliminated buy back cost, and it does allow the extremist to feel that they have a #### ton of fire power in their own homes so that they may not oppose your efforts while curbing those extremist when they hit our streets.  It also provides a marvelous opportunity to prosecute violators and thereby take from those felons their weapons and their rights to own them. Best of all, it eliminates The Nancy Pelosi's or Barbara Boxers, or, forgive, the Timschochet's of the world from drafting legislation on a subject on which you all seem to steadfastly refuse to educate yourselves technically.  Reading countless opinion pieces and feeling strongly about a matter is no basis for drafting technical legislation.  Education on the subject matter is.  For close to ten years now I have tried to lead you to this obvious solution so that you could find it for yourself.  I finally tired and decided to give you the answer.  Too bad, because had you won this knowledge for yourself lead by the socratic method to it you would have had something more your own.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

His point is that your side is dumb. That you hear Ferrari and say we need to ban fast cars and Ferrari's are fast. Ban Ferrari's. That there's ways of looking at acceleration and top speed to have a systematic way to look at things, regardless if it says Ferrari or not. 

I don't completely understand his post, but think I do enough to get what he's going at. A bullet can travel at a certain force: Mass X Acceleration. Long rifled barrels get bullets moving faster. One of the things about the AR-15 is how lethal the bullets are, from the Atlantic article I posted yesterday. Each bullet comes out with say 6x more force than a bullet from a handgun. So instead of boring a little tunnel through your chest cavity, it completely blows it up. So each bullet/round out of an AR-15 will represent 6x as much energy as a bullet from a handgun. So he's saying you take an arbitrary-ish number. And say guns can't shoot, on one magazine, more than that amount of force. With a hard cap on magazine size so people don't pew pew pew pew pew all over the place.

So the point was understandable.  Good.  When one is writing under the influence of pineal gland extract an peyote one can never know if one is making sense.

 

[Guest]

Sign me up for the max lethality movement.

 

[timschochet]

His point is that your side is dumb. That you hear Ferrari and say we need to ban fast cars and Ferrari's are fast. Ban Ferrari's. That there's ways of looking at acceleration and top speed to have a systematic way to look at things, regardless if it says Ferrari or not. 

I don't completely understand his post, but think I do enough to get what he's going at. A bullet can travel at a certain force: Mass X Acceleration. Long rifled barrels get bullets moving faster. One of the things about the AR-15 is how lethal the bullets are, from the Atlantic article I posted yesterday. Each bullet comes out with say 6x more force than a bullet from a handgun. So instead of boring a little tunnel through your chest cavity, it completely blows it up. So each bullet/round out of an AR-15 will represent 6x as much energy as a bullet from a handgun. So he's saying you take an arbitrary-ish number. And say guns can't shoot, on one magazine, more than that amount of force. With a hard cap on magazine size so people don't pew pew pew pew pew all over the place.

I get the point Matthias. I reject it. Focusing on the AR-15 is not dumb. It’s incomplete, and simplistic, but unfortunately we live in a world where the public is attracted to simplicity. 

If DW and I were in charge of things I would listen to his details a lot more. He is an extremely smart, extremely thoughtful and reasonable guy (not to mention erudite!) and I think that together we could come up with some comprehensive ideas that we could both get behind. But we are not in charge and I find the status quo intolerable. If banning the AR-15 is simple and inconsistent and imperfect, so be it. It’s at least movement in the right direction. 

 

[Guest]

I get the point Matthias. I reject it. Focusing on the AR-15 is not dumb. It’s incomplete, and simplistic, but unfortunately we live in a world where the public is attracted to simplicity. 

If DW and I were in charge of things I would listen to his details a lot more. He is an extremely smart, extremely thoughtful and reasonable guy (not to mention erudite!) and I think that together we could come up with some comprehensive ideas that we could both get behind. But we are not in charge and I find the status quo intolerable. If banning the AR-15 is simple and inconsistent and imperfect, so be it. It’s at least movement in the right direction. 

So for banning a name, you're willing to not accomplish of trying to actually reduce the lethal nature of the guns on the street, piss off the gun lobby by giving them a public black eye, incite the mockery of the gun folks who say, "You just banned the wrong thing, idiot", and spent all of your political capital for anything new to happen in the next 5 or more years.

We're not trying to symbolically save people, Tim.

 

[Guest]

We need more reason and rationality in policy debates, not less.

 

[Henry Ford]

580. 

Trying to figure out what cartridge you are describing.  At 36 grains this would be a very light .223.  At that weight I would anticipate that round moving at 3700 fps.

I took for my calculations, if I remember, a 65 grain bullet moving at 3200fps.  Of course we are talking yesterday and I was indulging so I am no longer sure.  My point was this. Folks want to limit the lethal force any of us can carry into public.  Folks are stuck on the standard AR 15 platform, because, well, media indoctrination trumps knowledge.  Not wanting to fight that, and going with the flow I made a presumption.  The presumption was lets reduce the standard mags capacity from 30 to 20 rounds for that configuration.  This gives us the progress many desire, less lethality readily available walking around in public.  We then, quite artificially declare the amount of lethal energy in that weapon the maximum amount of lethal energy we will tolerate.  We then extrapoloate that to other calibers to set magazine maximums for those weapons. We declare we will tolerate, as I said, about 40,000 joules of lethal energy or 36,000 foot pounds, nothing more.  Then, because we still don't want spraying of bullets, and because the .22 is uniquely low in energy we also have as a maximum mag capacity, regardless of energy, 20 rounds.

Yes, I’m concerned because with those calculations I believe that a .223 36 grain hollow point gets a 60+ round magazine

 

[jonessed]

Great.  We should pass incomplete and simplistic laws because people are too simple-minded for anything else.  

No wonder we can’t fix Congress.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

 Yes, I’m concerned because with those calculations because I believe that a Remington .223 36 grain hollow point gets a 60+ round magazine

Frankly, I don't think it does because that load travels at 3750 fps not 2700fps as you have calculated, but that problem is solved by the second part of the legislation, mentioned above, that nobody gets more than 20 round magazines, regardless.  (Because even though I don't think it falls apart at the .223, it does fall apart at the .22 which I readily recognized.  Also, in the end this standard is artificial.  I just happened to pick the platform and the round that is causing the current fuss and used it to establish a standard.  It is no more sensible than any other standard based on physics.  The point was to get the discussion out of the realm of the public's imagination and down to some absolute standards that were relatively consistent in the physical world. 

We want to reduce lethality and to confiscate and buy back a limited number of magazines, not weapons.

 

[timschochet]

So for banning a name, you're willing to not accomplish of trying to actually reduce the lethal nature of the guns on the street, piss off the gun lobby by giving them a public black eye, incite the mockery of the gun folks who say, "You just banned the wrong thing, idiot", and spent all of your political capital for anything new to happen in the next 5 or more years.

We're not trying to symbolically save people, Tim.

My view is that once the political will for a banning is in place a more complex agreement will be worked out, perhaps with some of the ideas that DW has proposed. But until the public votes in politicians pledged to ban the AR-15, none of this is going to happen. DWs ideas don’t have a chance in hell because Republicans currently in power are unwilling to rock the NRA boat. In order to change this, we have to have a political campaign based on a simple message- ban the AR-15. When that message starts to win elections, then and only them will Republicans start offering compromises, and then perhaps we can institute some of DWs ideas instead of an actual ban. But for now at least, we should push for the ban. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Frankly, I don't think it does because that load travels at 3750 fps, but that problem is solved by the second part of the legislation, mentioned above, that no body gets more than 20 round magazines, regardless.

We want to reduce lethality and to confiscate and buy back a limited number of magazines, not weapons.

I’m sorry, I completely missed that last bit.  Thanks. 

 

[jamny]

So for banning a name, you're willing to not accomplish of trying to actually reduce the lethal nature of the guns on the street, piss off the gun lobby by giving them a public black eye, incite the mockery of the gun folks who say, "You just banned the wrong thing, idiot", and spent all of your political capital for anything new to happen in the next 5 or more years.

We're not trying to symbolically save people, Tim.

Exactly. Passing something symbolic and ineffective would only push the problem back years. It would not solve anything.

 

[Henry Ford]

My view is that once the political will for a banning is in place a more complex agreement will be worked out, perhaps with some of the ideas that DW has proposed. But until the public votes in politicians pledged to ban the AR-15, none of this is going to happen. DWs ideas don’t have a chance in hell because Republicans currently in power are unwilling to rock the NRA boat. In order to change this, we have to have a political campaign based on a simple message- ban the AR-15. When that message starts to win elections, then and only them will Republicans start offering compromises, and then perhaps we can institute some of DWs ideas instead of an actual ban. But for now at least, we should push for the ban. 

I need you to understand that “Ban the AR15” is the liberal equivalent of “Build the Wall”

 

[Politician Spock]

I need you to understand that “Ban the AR15” is the liberal equivalent of “Build the Wall”

"Revoke the 2nd Amendment" is the liberal equivalent of "Build the Wall"

"Ban the AR15" is a compromise. 

 

[msommer]

His point is that your side is dumb. That you hear Ferrari and say we need to ban fast cars and Ferrari's are fast. Ban Ferrari's. That there's ways of looking at acceleration and top speed to have a systematic way to look at things, regardless if it says Ferrari or not. 

I don't completely understand his post, but think I do enough to get what he's going at. A bullet can travel at a certain force: Mass X Acceleration. Long rifled barrels get bullets moving faster. One of the things about the AR-15 is how lethal the bullets are, from the Atlantic article I posted yesterday. Each bullet comes out with say 6x more force than a bullet from a handgun. So instead of boring a little tunnel through your chest cavity, it completely blows it up. So each bullet/round out of an AR-15 will represent 6x as much energy as a bullet from a handgun. So he's saying you take an arbitrary-ish number. And say guns can't shoot, on one magazine, more than that amount of force. With a hard cap on magazine size so people don't pew pew pew pew pew all over the place.

And than will mean that a gun named ar-16 (or something) that is except in colour identical to the AR 15 will be banned also. Or a Sig MPX or whatever that is similar to an AR15 in firepower/lethality.

Could it be enacted? It's less of a knee jerk reaction than "ban the ar-15" and less of a band aid so it likely has no chance in hell. Nor IMHO does the "ban ar-15s"