guns: senate to vote on large magazine ban

aircooled wrote:

Javelin wrote: ..Why? Because they strung up people caught in the act in the town square on the same afternoon. Just saying...

Vigilantism and frontier justice.... what could possibly be wrong with that....

Really? The town Sheriff or Marshal hanging a guy that got caught red-handed in the act of murder is "vigilantism" or "frontier justice"?

What is served by having this E36 M3head spend 5 years on taxpayer dollars going through his trials just to take a plea bargain and avoid the death penalty?

PHeller wrote: I don't like guns because the make the playing field uneven. A guy comes after me with a knife, I'll grab a chair, or throw something at him, or outrun him. Guns require technology to defeat, technology that 99% of the population doesnt have.

I was taught a long long time ago that if you're cornered and in a fight, there is no "fair fight". It's "fight to win at all costs". I will avoid a confrontation all that I can. But once cornered, I will use any and all things at my disposal to make sure I go home in one piece. I don't give a berkeley who you think you are. You come at me with a knife, bat or any other deadly weapon, you aren't walking home.

I don't want to win a fair fight. I don't want to even be IN a fight. But I guarantee you that I will be in it to win it and if that means you get shot, well too berkeleying bad. Maybe you should have thought about that before you cornered someone into a fight.

Javelin wrote: ...Really? The town Sheriff or Marshal hanging a guy that got *caught red-handed* in the act of murder is "vigilantism" or "frontier justice"?....

Ah yes, judge jury and executioner... a time honored tradition.

Besides, when has there ever been a corrupt law enforcement official...

Eh hem... This just in...

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-grocery/KfFgHz9Y5U2ISAIt_52E3g.cspx

Joe Gearin wrote: I'm envisioning a written test that would be screened by mental health professionals---- not a test analyzed by the gun seller. Folks shouldn't have a problem waiting a few days for a gun.....right?

Would that include mental health professionals like, say, Major Nidal Hasan? Ted Bundy was a psych major, too, wasn't he?

Oh, and you wouldn't mind a waiting period for, oh, exercising your first, fourth, or fifth amendment rights, would you?

Here is the problem with these "common sense" laws, such as the magazine limitations, and Assault Weapons Bans:

1. 30 rounds for an AR or AK is standard capacity, that is what the gun was designed from the start to hold. Thirty round magazines are not high capacity. If a handgun was designed to accept magazines that hold 17 rounds, guess what? That's the standard capacity. Somewhere along the line, gun control advocates picked the arbitrary number of 10 as the standard capacity for all semi-automatic weapons. This is false.

2. Statistics regarding Assault Weapons and their use in crime are hard to come by, mainly because there is no clear definition of what an assault weapon is.... it's a made up phrase. The statistics that are available indicate that weapons that were banned under the first AWB which expired in 2004 account for 0.2% of violent crime. You read that right, those scary death-dealing, murder-machines with their high-capacity magazines account for less than one quarter of one percent of violent crime.

3. According to the FBI's 2010 violent crime statistics, the number of people who were murdered literally at the hands of another person - beaten, punched, kicked - was over DOUBLE that of the number of people who were murdered using a rifle of any action type, including semi-auto with their evil hi-cap mags, single shot, bolt action, lever action. 363 vs. 745.

4. FBI stats indicate a Police Officer is twice as likely to be murdered with his own gun than with an assault weapon.

5. The number of murders committed using a legally owned fully automatic weapon since they began counting? One. A police officer in Dayton, Ohio in the 1980's used his personal full-auto weapon to murder an informant.

6. The most common caliber used in violent gun crimes? .38 special. Second most common: .357 magnum. Both of which are most commonly used in revolvers, NOT in high capacity semi automatic pistols.

If assault weapons are actually the least used firearm in violent crime, what about banning them is "common sense"?

It's not common sense, it's the incremental regulation of firearms with the ultimate endgame being the total banning, and confiscation of, all civilian owned firearms. The same names that pop up during these debates; Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy, Bloomberg - have ALL gone on record making it perfectly clear that this is their ultimate goal. "Common Sense" gun laws are a mere stepping stone.

This amendment to ban high cap magazines is troubling in many ways. First, it's just stupid. The statistics don't back up the need for any legislation. Second, read it again: the proposed amendment calls for a ban on the sale, transfer, and POSSESSION of any magazine over ten rounds. Are they planning to confiscate the mags currently in civilian hands? Will we be monetarily compensated for the seizure of our private property? If this amendment is passed and becomes law, regardless of your opinion on the civilian ownership of "high capacity" magazines, are you comfortable with the legal precedent that the gov can seize private property without consent or compensation?

Contact your Senators and Representatives. Stay vigilant.

tifosi2k2 wrote: Here is the problem with these "common sense" laws, such as the magazine limitations, and Assault Weapons Bans: 1. 30 rounds for an AR or AK is standard capacity, that is what the gun was designed from the start to hold. Thirty round magazines are not high capacity. If a handgun was designed to accept magazines that hold 17 rounds, guess what? That's the standard capacity. Somewhere along the line, gun control advocates picked the arbitrary number of 10 as the standard capacity for all semi-automatic weapons. This is false. 2. Statistics regarding Assault Weapons and their use in crime are hard to come by, mainly because there is no clear definition of what an assault weapon is.... it's a made up phrase. The statistics that are available indicate that weapons that were banned under the first AWB which expired in 2004 account for 0.2% of violent crime. You read that right, those scary death-dealing, murder-machines with their high-capacity magazines account for less than one quarter of one percent of violent crime. 3. According to the FBI's 2010 violent crime statistics, the number of people who were murdered literally at the hands of another person - beaten, punched, kicked - was over DOUBLE that of the number of people who were murdered using a rifle of any action type, including semi-auto with their evil hi-cap mags, single shot, bolt action, lever action. 363 vs. 745. 4. FBI stats indicate a Police Officer is twice as likely to be murdered with his own gun than with an assault weapon. 5. The number of murders committed using a legally owned fully automatic weapon since they began counting? One. A police officer in Dayton, Ohio in the 1980's used his personal full-auto weapon to murder an informant. 6. The most common caliber used in violent gun crimes? .38 special. Second most common: .357 magnum. Both of which are most commonly used in revolvers, NOT in high capacity semi automatic pistols. If assault weapons are actually the least used firearm in violent crime, what about banning them is "common sense"? It's not common sense, it's the incremental regulation of firearms with the ultimate endgame being the total banning, and confiscation of, all civilian owned firearms. The same names that pop up during these debates; Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy, Bloomberg - have ALL gone on record making it perfectly clear that this is their ultimate goal. "Common Sense" gun laws are a mere stepping stone. This amendment to ban high cap magazines is troubling in many ways. First, it's just stupid. The statistics don't back up the need for any legislation. Second, read it again: the proposed amendment calls for a ban on the sale, transfer, and POSSESSION of any magazine over ten rounds. Are they planning to confiscate the mags currently in civilian hands? Will we be monetarily compensated for the seizure of our private property? If this amendment is passed and becomes law, regardless of your opinion on the civilian ownership of "high capacity" magazines, are you comfortable with the legal precedent that the gov can seize private property without consent or compensation? Contact your Senators and Representatives. Stay vigilant.

Good job with all the facts and figures. Looks like you took far more time to do this than I could have invested today. Thanks for a factual account of things rather than heresay.

Conquest351 wrote: Eh hem... This just in... http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-grocery/KfFgHz9Y5U2ISAIt_52E3g.cspx

Thank God there are still some folks around with brains and balls at the same time.

In reply to tifosi2k2:

How dare you bring the government's own findings into this and show how ridiculous banning high capacity magazines is. This has nothing to do with actual and logical stats and more to do with jumping on the band wagon of my peers.

If someone broke into my house and had a gun, I would rather throw a chair at him, run, or really concentrate on making him be nice with mind control.

Bobzilla wrote: Ever shot a full auto weapon? I have. You really can't control it and keep it on target. If his intention was to just let a lot of rounds loose and not hit anythign, than a full-auto would be perfect. If his intention was to kill and maim as many as possible, a semi auto is more capable and more manageable. Plus, it will burn through his limited supply of ammo slower so he can kill/maim more.

I've never shot a full-auto weapon, but this only makes sense. People have a hard enough time keeping on-target when firing a semi-auto quickly, enough that it's a nationally recognized sport.

Plus, even 600rpm / say 20 rounds = 2 second burst, most of which are off-target unless you've practiced a lot.

But full auto weapons are scary, and a lot of metal flying nearby tends to make one dive for cover, so as a suppressive weapon, they're great.

How about this. Don't expect the gov't to rush in and save you. It is your right and duty to defend yourself and family. I don't expect the gov't through laws or law enforcement to do it for me and neither should you.

PHeller wrote: I just want to know what you purpose to do about 14 people getting killed in movie theatre?

Absent a time machine, absolutely nothing other than ensuring that the perpetrator does not get the chance to do it again. (Preferably by short drop and sudden stop - that's an option in Colorado, right?)

What we have here is a statistical outlier. It doesn't make sense to worry about those when there are more likely issues to deal with. "Freedom isn't free" doesn't mean the support our troops stickers cost $15 each.

it is bothersome that the law will only really affect the law-abiding person, not the guy who is willing to bend or break the law. You know that there will be an underground no matter what the new rules are.
I went to a gun show over the weekend and there was already post-colorado pricing. In other words, the prices have just gone up.
I have been concentrating on carry guns until now but I am going to start looking for good deals on BIG guns.

I've been pondering buying a gun or two, I guess I'd better get busy.

Knurled wrote:

PHeller wrote: I just want to know what you purpose to do about 14 people getting killed in movie theatre?

Absent a time machine, absolutely nothing other than ensuring that the perpetrator does not get the chance to do it again. (Preferably by short drop and sudden stop - that's an option in Colorado, right?) What we have here is a statistical outlier. It doesn't make sense to worry about those when there are more likely issues to deal with. "Freedom isn't free" doesn't mean the support our troops stickers cost $15 each.

Exactly. The usual suspects cruising the Sunday morning news shows screaming for more gun control in the name of "saving lives" are, frankly, full of E36 M3. In 2010 "Homicide", according to the CDC, wasn't even in the top 15 causes of death for Americans.

If this debate were really about saving lives, we would be talking about TSA style check points at the entrances and exits to theaters, restaurants, and shopping malls. But, we aren't because that would be too inconvenient. It's much more convenient to set arbitrary limits on firearms to create - not real safety mind you - but the ILLUSION of safety. Kind of like those "No Guns" signs you see at the entrance of movie theaters - oh, wait............. E36 M3, you mean those don't work?

moparman76_69 wrote: How about this. Don't expect the gov't to rush in and save you. It is your right and duty to defend yourself and family. I don't expect the gov't through laws or law enforcement to do it for me and neither should you.

Just because.

T.J. wrote: I've been pondering buying a gun or two, I guess I'd better get busy.

Buy it, burn a few thousand rounds getting comfortable with it then keep it by your bed and rest comfortably.

Clearly more laws are the answer. I know this because I work in a city that has more gun laws then it has people, sometimes we pass the same law again just because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling. They must work because there were atleast two days this week where noone was shot and it's already friday

tifosi2k2 wrote: 2. Statistics regarding Assault Weapons and their use in crime are hard to come by, mainly because there is no clear definition of what an assault weapon is.... it's a made up phrase.

Maybe this will clear things up for you

moparman76_69 wrote: How about this. Don't expect the gov't to rush in and save you. It is your right and duty to defend yourself and family. I don't expect the gov't through laws or law enforcement to do it for me and neither should you.

Indeed. Justice Stevens, who was in the majority in DeShaney v. Winnebago County has said:

the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

Now, I'll admit that this was a case of child abuse, not a shooting spree, but it seems pretty clear; the supreme court said cops are not REQUIRED to try to save you. It is great that they usually do, but in CT there was a case where the police decided to NOT try to save people (entering the home would have been difficult/dangerous) and innocents were tortured and killed because of that decision.

Add to this the response time after calling 911. When we called for help during a potential home invasion, the police took 27 minutes to arrive. Lots of bad things can happen in that time.

Until the police take control of the situation, you are responsible for the safety of your family.

Growed up in Zoo york. Still have the shotgun thanxyaverymuch.

JoeyM wrote: Until the police take control of the situation, you are responsible for the safety of your family.

So why don't I have the right to tell the police to berkeley off I've got it under control when they arrive?

If you have it under control in your house they call the coroner and ask you a few questions

Bobzilla wrote:

yamaha wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: I have my Indiana LTCH, and I still have to wait 7 days at times because the federal background check cannot be completed quickly.

Fun fact: In Missouri, you can walk in, pay, and walk out with a gun in hand. No wait period. Still a background check, of course. After this law was instituted, there was no change in violent crime that could be attributed to the change.

Long arm, I'm sure that's possible. Handgun? No. The Brady Bill prohibits that.

I can even with handguns Bob......I've only had to wait more than that business day one time. And that was due to the agency being closed before I arrived at the shop. If you are there between 8am and 5pm, don't have a common name(which you do, whereas I'm the only one in the US with my name), and pass their check, you can walk in and out with a handgun in a day.

You know how many crazy Robert Millers there are? A TON! No, seriously... .father and I have same first and last names, middle being different. When I was a teenager we had 4 of us on the same rural route (only my father and I, obviously, related). One was a bank president, the other had been re-committed to Central State Mental Hospital and my father and I. We liked to think we fell in the middle of that spectrum!

I can do the same here in Texas, just do a background check and pay the monies. If you have a chl permit you don't have to do a background check, they just put your chl number in for the approval.

rotard wrote: The problem with these kinds of laws is that the type of person that is going into a movie theater to kill people isn't interested in any laws.

So, I get this argument. But think about it. Couldn't this be used as an argument to pretty much get rid of any law? It just kinda seems like a cop out to me. "Hey, people are gonna brake the law anyhow, so we might as well give up".

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

It's more, people who break this law aren't going to care, so why punish people who actually obey the law because some wont?

It's like saying "Because this guy was going 105 when he slammed into this bus full of children nobody can own a car that does over 55."

Penalizing people who didn't do anything wrong when someone else did is berkeleying horseE36 M3.