Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[Whack-a-Mole]

@JXJohns

My rasputin guy only underscores the fact that one cannot say with any degree of accuracy that they will need X number of bullets to defend themselves. Gun advocates are typically not in the business of pushing more control FWIW, regardless of the reason.

:smack:

I typed that poorly. I hope you know what I meant and just chose to have fun with me.

As for how many bullets you need I guess what I would like to see is how many bullets, on average, you think it takes to drop most people. There are 300 million people in the US. You found one guy who can do the unthinkable. I do not believe that can be used to craft any legislative policy one way or another. At least not till you can show me that it is something you can expect to happen with any kind of regularity.

Fundamental difference between us again. I blame the killer, not the tools he used.

This is a dodge. The old meme “people kill people, not guns.” It avoids the point that a gun is a favored tool for this purpose. Further, I am not talking about taking your gun away. Just nerfing it a bit and you cannot show, so far, that this would be anything more than a minor inconvenience to you.

And I am willing to bet that a lot of people will just change their mags to hold more ammo, and I would be happy to demonstrate just how easy that 6 round mag will be changed to a standard capacity mag, thereby defying the very law that created its neutered self.

Really asking here as I do not have much experience with ammo magazines…

Are you saying an ammo magazine could not be designed that was impossible to modify enable it to carry more ammo? I’m no engineer but I can imagine ways to make it hugely impractical to do. I would hope any restriction on magazine size would mandate designs that could not be modified (if not I agree some manufacturers would put a piece of cardboard in that you could pop out in 2 seconds).

Answer this question, have you ever tried to reload a semi-auto pistol? Seriously, you push a button, the empty mag drops out and you slam another one home. One does not need to be any more savvy than to watch a shoot-em up movie to figure it out. If you ever cross the Mississippi into Iowa, let me know and I’ll take you to the range and we can shoot. I guarantee you’ll have fun and learn a thing or two.

Time enough for people to hit the ground or turn a corner or dive behind something to get away/mitigate their chances of being shot.

I told you that the easy reload sword cuts both ways. I can’t justify needing hi-cap mags, since reloads are so easy. You can’t claim that a 6 round mag will have any effect because reloads are too easy.

I am not convinced that in the situations where someone wants to repeatedly fire their gun, reload and continue firing that the reload does not count as a major inconvenience no matter how quickly it can be done. Targets will move/find cover, and you need to re-acquire your target after reloading. I have never been in a firefight but I imagine that is a substantial hiccup in your spewing bullets regimen. Not to mention how many magazines someone is willing to carry. The guy who finds his wife in bed with another guy does not need a high capacity clip when he shoots them. It is the gangbanger types in the inner city this will affect most and I cannot see them carrying 10 magazines around with them in their pockets.

So I can assume that you are actively debating limits to free speech for people with whom you either do not understand or do not agree with? If not, how many neo-nazi websites are you going to allow in order to keep your own free speech rights pure? That is about how silly I think this argument about limiting hi-cap mags is.

Huh? Not following this.

Two nights in a row now, you have given me a headache. Good night.

I find it fascinating and engaging and enlightening.

To each their own I guess. You should give up on GD if it affects you physically to debate here.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Stealth_Potato

You honestly don’t think that government attempts to crack down on the internet or other publishing and typographical equipment would violate that First Amendment? You’re kidding, right? :dubious:

Point out the right to the internet to me in the Constitution.

Have no doubt I think there would be hell to pay if the government tried to pull the plug on the internet but people had free speech for most of US history before the internet so I cannot see how the internet’s existence would be defended on free speech grounds.

And make no mistake…I am a free speech freak. All for it.

It just seems to me that you have this idea that everything is fair game for government regulation if you can just find some shred of a possible benefit in it. That whole mentality just seems so bizarre to me, and completely irreconcilable with my philosophy regarding the ultimate sanctity of the privacy and autonomy of the individual citizen. I think that’s the cause of a great deal of our inability to find common ground.

I think inability to find common ground is precisely where the government needs to step in. Someone has to balance your rights versus my rights.

I do not get the rose colored glasses thing that if government would just leave us alone we’d all be fine and have no troubles. On the face of it the notion of a minimal government is seductive. But when you work through it things get a lot more dicey. Society is hard. Conflict is incessant. It is very hard…requires Advanced Citizenship 401.

I am no fan of regulation for the sake of regulation. I said earlier I did not see the AWB as a useful piece of legislation. While I agree with what they were trying to do (philosophically) the attempt was flawed on so many levels as to be a pointless exercise.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@SenorBeef

It’s interesting, I was just thinking about that. This board has turned more and more leftist over the years - it started that way, but it used to be way more balanced. Part of the issue I think is that Bush and pals alienated a whole lot of people from considering themselves right wing.

Yet in gun debates, as time goes on it seems to me that gun advocacy on these boards is getting even stronger and more popular - even as the board goes further left.

Not trying to make a point with that, just an interesting observation to me.

I think it is a few things.

Liberals* (those here anyway) have a high regard for the Constitution and how it works in our society. If the Constitution says you can have guns then you can have guns. If it is to be changed then get a new Amendment passed. That is the proper way of things and actually, believe it or not, one I agree with (although I interpret the 2nd differently than the SCOTUS does currently…I can look up the thread where I went on about that so no need to elaborate further here).

Secondly, occasionally you can get issues that makes for odd bedfellows. Guns are one such. There are plenty of liberal people who are gun owners and want their right to keep them protected as passionately as any conservative. The two might disagree on everything else but in this they stand shoulder to shoulder.

Or so it seems to me anyway. Just my $0.02.
*Conservatives here too of course but the response was about the lefties.

[Grumman]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’m no engineer but I can imagine ways to make it hugely impractical to do.

Such as?

[Magiver]

@Whack-a-Mole

This is a dodge. The old meme “people kill people, not guns.” It avoids the point that a gun is a favored tool for this purpose. Further, I am not talking about taking your gun away. Just nerfing it a bit and you cannot show, so far, that this would be anything more than a minor inconvenience to you.

The truth never gets old. Guns are not capable of killing anyone. But to answer your question, I want as many bullets as will fit into the handle of a gun. Anyone who has practiced with a gun for defense or sport would know that you go to a shooting range to practice shooting, not reloading. When training to shoot defensively you learn to fire in groups of 2 and 3. A 5 round clip would be retarded. And unless you can get some kind of agreement from criminals not to invade homes in groups of 2 or more then your logic of limiting clips to shooting one person is poorly thought out.

Responsible citizens don’t need clip limits and criminals will never adhere to them.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Grumman

Such as?

My amazing CAD (read MS Paint) mad skillz! (follow link)

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/535/magazine.jpg

Note I make no pretense at being an engineer or the ins and outs of magazine design so don’t nitpick. Just an overall idea.

[Stealth_Potato]

@Whack-a-Mole

Point out the right to the internet to me in the Constitution.

Wrong question. Where in the Constitution is authority granted to the government to forbid the operation of a communication network, whether it operates by pamphlets, electrons, or any other means you care to imagine? The answer to that question is, incidentally, where our “right” to the internet comes from. We reserve it implicitly.

@Whack-a-Mole

I think inability to find common ground is precisely where the government needs to step in. Someone has to balance your rights versus my rights.

There I disagree, for I see no need for balance. There is no conflict. My right to obtain a firearm (and a magazine of arbitrary size) does not directly affect any of your rights. Similarly, your right to buy alcohol does not directly affect any of my rights. As it happens, such freedoms make it possible for a less-than-socially-conscious individual to go out, rob a liquor store, shoot the clerk, and then drive home drunk, running over half a dozen schoolchildren in the process, but the responsibility for that lies with that individual, not you or me.

@Whack-a-Mole

I do not get the rose colored glasses thing that if government would just leave us alone we’d all be fine and have no troubles. On the face of it the notion of a minimal government is seductive. But when you work through it things get a lot more dicey. Society is hard. Conflict is incessant. It is very hard…requires Advanced Citizenship 401.

No, I’m not of the opinion that simple non-intervention will make everything peaches and sunshine. However, I still believe that non-intervention is and must always be the default stance, until a compelling need shows that granting the government some power would be both advantageous and not a violation of the rights of individuals. Once some power is ceded to the government, it is all but impossible to recall it – civil liberties, once degraded, are not easily restored. Government is a necessary evil, but it has tremendous inertia. Are you surprised, then, that we gun owners get offended when others suggest (casually, and without understanding) that we be shackled by more and more government intervention, regulations that we will probably never be able to reverse, even if they prove impotent?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Magiver

The truth never gets old. Guns are not capable of killing anyone. But to answer your question, I want as many bullets as will fit into the handle of a gun. Anyone who has practiced with a gun for defense or sport would know that you go to a shooting range to practice shooting, not reloading. When training to shoot defensively you learn to fire in groups of 2 and 3. A 5 round clip would be retarded. And unless you can get some kind of agreement from criminals not to invade homes in groups of 2 or more then your logic of limiting clips to shooting one person is poorly thought out.

Responsible citizens don’t need clip limits and criminals will never adhere to them.

Seems to me you should train with the weapon as it is available. If it comes in 6-round mag capacity then train with that.

And where did 5-rounds come from? I posited 6-rounds and that is a nice and neat multiple of 2 & 3.

Robbers invading homes in groups of two or more? How often does that happen? Why aren’t six shots enough to dissuade them? Are most robbers motivated to fight through an armed homeowner shooting at them to get the TV? Hang around and have a good old fashioned shoot-out and wait for the cops to arrive?

As far as criminals not adhering to it that is a sweeping statement. Certainly some would dodge it and get hi-cap magazines (e.g. mob hitmen) but how and why do you think a significant number of gang bangers will bother? Why take the risk of adding (say) 5 years to your sentence (over and above the gun and drug charge) when the cops catch you dealing and find a hi cap mag on you?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Stealth_Potato

Wrong question. Where in the Constitution is authority granted to the government to forbid the operation of a communication network, whether it operates by pamphlets, electrons, or any other means you care to imagine? The answer to that question is, incidentally, where our “right” to the internet comes from. We reserve it implicitly.

Maybe you’re right.

However a more apt analogy (for what we are on about here) would not be the government unplugging the internet but rather saying all users are limited to 1 Mb/sec bandwidth when previously you had the option for a 5 Mb/sec speed.

There I disagree, for I see no need for balance. There is no conflict. My right to obtain a firearm (and a magazine of arbitrary size) does not directly affect any of your rights. Similarly, your right to buy alcohol does not directly affect any of my rights. As it happens, such freedoms make it possible for a less-than-socially-conscious individual to go out, rob a liquor store, shoot the clerk, and then drive home drunk, running over half a dozen schoolchildren in the process, but the responsibility for that lies with that individual, not you or me.

I am on about saving lives. We have a right to the pursuit of “life” and although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution I expect it would be the easiest thing to fall under the 9th Amendment.

As for your hypothetical, banning alcohol caused more and worse problems than it solved. Sucks maybe but the pragmatic solution is to live with the possibility of drunk drivers running over kids.

Again this is not about making someone not have a gun. It is about reasonable restrictions to make our world a bit safer. Getting shot is a BIG deal. Having to reload your gun a bit more often is a minor inconvenience. No one has yet put forth a convincing, realistic and likely to happen with some regularity argument of when having more bullets is necessary with a legal use of your gun.

No, I’m not of the opinion that simple non-intervention will make everything peaches and sunshine. However, I still believe that non-intervention is and must always be the default stance, until a compelling need shows that granting the government some power would be both advantageous and not a violation of the rights of individuals. Once some power is ceded to the government, it is all but impossible to recall it – civil liberties, once degraded, are not easily restored. Government is a necessary evil, but it has tremendous inertia.

I agree.

Are you surprised, then, that we gun owners get offended when others suggest (casually, and without understanding) that we be shackled by more and more government intervention, regulations that we will probably never be able to reverse, even if they prove impotent?

Surprised? Nope. I see this on the abortion debate. Both sides are loathe to cede any ground because neither side will give up. Give them the first inch and they will fight for the second inch.

I get it.

It sucks however that (for the sake of argument) good ideas, useful ideas, beneficial ideas are cast aside out of hand because an opposing side can not abide any erosion of their position.

Here, on the SDMB in Great Debates I like to think we talk past that. That we try to hash out this or that notion. It may well be a good idea will never see the light of day because of the realities of the world and politics. Doesn’t mean we cannot try to assess this or that notion on its merits alone.

[Magiver]

@Whack-a-Mole

Seems to me you should train with the weapon as it is available. If it comes in 6-round mag capacity then train with that.

The ones I train with come with 17+1 clips. Have you even looked at guns on the internet to see what they come with so you know what already exists (by the millions). Clips of 10 rounds would be on the low side of what is available (9mm)

@Whack-a-Mole

And where did 5-rounds come from? I posited 6-rounds and that is a nice and neat multiple of 2 & 3

OK, that would be 2 rounds before reloading versus 6 in a 17 clip.

@Whack-a-Mole

Robbers invading homes in groups of two or more? How often does that happen?

In my area that would be close to 100%. The only exception I can think of recently was a woman who was murdered by a single assailant while trying to stop him from raping her son.

There is no rational reason to limit clip size. Even if by some fairytale scenario all the normal clips of 10 to 20 rounds disappeared and future clips were prevented from entering the black-market it would only mean that a criminal carries multiple guns.

[E-Sabbath]

@JXJohns

I’ve already told you that I can convert a low-cap mag to a hi-cap mag with no more specialized tools that a dremel and a screwdriver. It does not take a CNC machine with AUTOCAD to make hi-cap mags.

Aw, heck, using my Mossberg as an example, I can convert it to an illegal high-capacity shotgun by removing one screw, tilting it until a wooden dowel falls out, and replacing said screw.

[JXJohns]

@Whack-a-Mole

:smack:

I typed that poorly. I hope you know what I meant and just chose to have fun with me.

It was late, I assume now that you meant to say that gun CONTROL advocates don’t exploit tragedy to push for new laws. Either I am still read you wrong, or you are completely obtuse, or you haven’t kept track of your own US Rep Bobby Rush and his introduction of HR 45, the Blair Holt Gun Control bill. That was last month…

As for how many bullets you need I guess what I would like to see is how many bullets, on average, you think it takes to drop most people. There are 300 million people in the US. You found one guy who can do the unthinkable. I do not believe that can be used to craft any legislative policy one way or another. At least not till you can show me that it is something you can expect to happen with any kind of regularity.

There is no way to tell. That is the point I have been trying in vain to make. First, one has to assume that concerning the “6” rounds in a mag, that the shooter actually hits the bad guy. Then if the bad guy is whacked out on scooby snacks, all bets are off. Suffice it to say, if one shoots another in the face, with a large enough caliber gun, and it penetrates their skull between their top jaw and their nose, the perp will drop immediately. Imagine an equilateral triange with 2" sides with its base resting just above the top jaw of the perp. There is your target. I’m a pretty good shot, but that is about impossible with a pistol. That’s about the only guarantee that you can use to craft legislation.

This is a dodge. The old meme “people kill people, not guns.” It avoids the point that a gun is a favored tool for this purpose. Further, I am not talking about taking your gun away. Just nerfing it a bit and you cannot show, so far, that this would be anything more than a minor inconvenience to you.

It’s a truth that you can argue around all day but in the end it is still so. If I load a gun and set it on a table my front porch, without human interaction, that gun will never fire. The gun control crowd always wants to minimize this aspect of the equation and I am glad to see you are following suit. You might be surprised as to how many gun owners would back efforts to reduce violence that did not include banning their own hobbies. Something to think about.

Really asking here as I do not have much experience with ammo magazines…

That is obvious, and yet you want to continue arguing the point. I have tried explain the reality of the situation but for some reason that’s not quite good enough.

Time enough for people to hit the ground or turn a corner or dive behind something to get away/mitigate their chances of being shot.

Dude, seriously I don’t know what else there is to say. I have tried to explain the trivial nature of the mag change. I’ve provided videos of how quick it can be done. IT IS NOT A DIFFICULT THING TO DO. Go rent a copy of the movie Heat. Tell me how hard it looks to reload.

I am not convinced that in the situations where someone wants to repeatedly fire their gun, reload and continue firing that the reload does not count as a major inconvenience no matter how quickly it can be done. Targets will move/find cover, and you need to re-acquire your target after reloading. I have never been in a firefight but I imagine that is a substantial hiccup in your spewing bullets regimen.

Push a button
Insert a new mag
No advanced degree required

Not to mention how many magazines someone is willing to carry. The guy who finds his wife in bed with another guy does not need a high capacity clip when he shoots them. It is the gangbanger types in the inner city this will affect most and I cannot see them carrying 10 magazines around with them in their pockets.

Cite? Isn’t that the game you like to play? Show me proof that gangbangers don’t carry extra mags. Give me a cite as to how many times is preferred to shoot one’s spouse and their lover. Can’t do it? Of course not. Another ridiculous request that cannot be fulfilled.

I find it fascinating and engaging and enlightening.

To each their own I guess. You should give up on GD if it affects you physically to debate here.

I find your inability to obtain the slightest clue about the hardware in which you want to legislate of out existence, troubling. I find repeating common knowledge facts about the way guns work, and your inability or unwillingness to accept said facts, akin to someone driving a 3" nail into my temple. This is especially true after I have spent the evening dealing with my three toddlers. I’m refreshed now and ready to circle jerk for another hour before basketball practice.

[E-Sabbath]

@Whack-a-Mole

:smack:
As for how many bullets you need I guess what I would like to see is how many bullets, on average, you think it takes to drop most people. There are 300 million people in the US. You found one guy who can do the unthinkable. I do not believe that can be used to craft any legislative policy one way or another. At least not till you can show me that it is something you can expect to happen with any kind of regularity.

Twenty or forty with multiple shooters, some of whom will empty their magazine and slap in another and not even notice, judging from the news.

Abner Louima

Shooting of Sean Bell

And these are trained professionals.

[JXJohns]

@Whack-a-Mole

My amazing CAD (read MS Paint) mad skillz! (follow link)

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/535/magazine.jpg

Note I make no pretense at being an engineer or the ins and outs of magazine design so don’t nitpick. Just an overall idea.

Many pistol mags are now made of plastic. So much for welding. Plus they need to have the ability to be disassembled for maintenance or repair. Smarter folks than us designed mags to comply with the 94 ban. Then we got them, filed off the spot welds, removed the limiter blocks, and then but the mags back on the shelf and did not commit any crimes with them.

A special version of an AK 47 was created to only accept 10 round mags ad to skirt import laws. Here is a site with pictures explaining how to mill the metal away to allow the rifle to use 30 round mags. Note the requirement of only a dremel tool to do so.

[brazil84]

It is the gangbanger types in the inner city this will affect most and I cannot see them carrying 10 magazines around with them in their pockets.

I would guess that most shootings involving inner city gangbangers occur at point blank range; that a few shots are fired; and that the shooter then flees. I doubt that there are very many OK Coral type shootouts. Don’t have a cite, it’s just my general impression.

But the thing is this: a pound of theorizing is worth a miligram of empirical evidence. The reality that one can construct reasonable argument for why some gun control law should or should not work. The real test is whether crime goes down or not.

In the United States, there have been lots and lots of different gun control laws passed. As far as I know, none of them has resulted in a significant reduction in crime. So the position your in is a bit like Lucy with the football. You can argue until you are blue in the face about why you won’t pull the ball away, but history strongly suggests that you will.

In any event, if gun control advocates were reasonable, they would first advocate that most gun control laws – the ones which do not work – be repealed. Then we could discuss whether a large capacity magazine ban is worth trying.

[JXJohns]

@Whack-a-Mole

… As far as criminals not adhering to it that is a sweeping statement. Certainly some would dodge it and get hi-cap magazines (e.g. mob hitmen) but how and why do you think a significant number of gang bangers will bother? Why take the risk of adding (say) 5 years to your sentence (over and above the gun and drug charge) when the cops catch you dealing and find a hi cap mag on you?

Criminals break the law. If they were concerned about incarceration, they wouldn’t.

[JXJohns]

@Whack-a-Mole

… I am on about saving lives. We have a right to the pursuit of “life” and although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution I expect it would be the easiest thing to fall under the 9th Amendment.

Then go ban swimming pools and recreational swimming. You’ll save far more lives in a year.

As for your hypothetical, banning alcohol caused more and worse problems than it solved. Sucks maybe but the pragmatic solution is to live with the possibility of drunk drivers running over kids.

What a hypocrite. Ban alcohol and you’ll save all of those thousands that currently die from health reasons or drunk driving. How many beers are you willing to drink knowing that people are dying so that you can do so. :rolleyes:

Having to reload your gun a bit more often is a minor inconvenience.

OH MY GOD, did you just admit that reloading is a minor inconvenience? Do you finally get it? Do you finally see that slamming home another 6 rounds takes less time that it took to type this?

It sucks however that (for the sake of argument) good ideas, useful ideas, beneficial ideas are cast aside out of hand because an opposing side can not abide any erosion of their position.

I fall in that category. You see that you do as well correct?

[DSeid]

Whack-a-Mole,

I say this as someone who has often argued for some gun control … if you are about saving lives then the AWB is not where the money is.

Lives will be saved most by actually enforcing the laws we got and it is tragic that they are so poorly actually enforced. Could they be improved some to further reduce strawman purchases and to reduce the ease with which criminal gets guns from those who have purchased them legally? I am sure they could. But what good would it do to pass more laws that are poorly enforced?

The so-called assault weapons are the sexy target but it is the cheap handgun sold illegally by someone who bought it legally or stolen from some idiot who couldn’t be bothered to store it securely that kills most people.

[Bobotheoptimist]

@Whack-a-Mole

It sucks however that (for the sake of argument) good ideas, useful ideas, beneficial ideas are cast aside out of hand because an opposing side can not abide any erosion of their position.

Since I’ve yet to see any good, useful, or beneficial ideas, I don’t understand how you can make this statement. If anyone comes up with a good useful beneficial idea I would be excited to hear it. Ignorant scare tactics thought up by the Brady Campaign devoid of data but full of emotional appeals, on the other hand, are cast aside out of hand because they are ignorant and designed to appeal to the ignorant.

Learn something about the devices before telling a bunch of people who live and breathe this stuff how difficult a reload is or how evil a small caliber semi automatic rifle is.

[Todderbob]

@Whack-a-Mole

Great that you have fun with your guns (really).

But for you to engage in your fun some 100,000 people a year have to get injured for it.

Personally I find that a poor tradeoff.

But there’s no evidence that banning guns reduces violent crimes, or death rates from violent crimes.

You also fail to factor in how many people are saved by firearms every year.
It would be as if I spoke to a doctor and he said he enjoyed being a doctor, I respond; *Great that you have fun with your job (really).

But for you to engage in your fun some 1,200,000 people a year have to get injured for it.

Personally I find that a poor tradeoff.*

Yeah, what I said is true - 1.2 million people a year are injured due to medical malpractice/incompetence, but waaay more are saved.

@Whack-a-Mole

I am not maintaining that lower cap mags will abolish crime. Indeed it probably won’t see any fewer crimes committed at all. What it will do, I think, is diminish the number of people who get shot and I think that is a good thing to strive for.

How would it diminish the number of people shot? Only a very few crimes are committed with pistols with high cap mags, and almost zero with rifles.

@Whack-a-Mole

And yeah, you will have the occasional nutbag who arms himself to the hilt and goes on a rampage. The VAST majority of crimes are nothing like that however and lower cap mags may have an impact.

The vast majority of crimes are already committed with low cap magazines, small, concealable pistols with 5-8 shots.

@Whack-a-Mole

I agree. And if they have less bullets to shoot then less chance of hitting someone. Sure they can reload but that takes time. Even if just a few seconds that is a few seconds people can dive behind something or to the ground or whatever.

And yet most stories I read about say, “She thought the fight had stopped, she went to her window and he was done reloading…”

@Whack-a-Mole

Again, where in the Constitution does it give you rights to a hi cap magazine?

Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to paper?

Alexander Hamilton:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?My emphasis.

Your rights are not limited by the bill of rights, the bill of rights is only a selection of them.

@Whack-a-Mole

I am a big fan of the spirit of the law but my time on these boards suggests to me it is the letter of the law that counts. I wish it were otherwise but seems to be the case unfortunately.

So, if by the letter of the law, you could kill someone, would you? Even though it violated the spirit of the law?