Newtown, Ct., NRA Now Has a Real Problem

[Guest Guest]

Therein lies your problem. You dont have a problem with me calling the gun buyers gun nuts but you have a problem with me calling those that want guns out of the hands of citizens gun grabbers. I never said anything about any legislation that gained any ground, I am simply pointing out the the well stated side of those that dont want to see guns in the hands of the civilian population.

Also, yes, there are people out to get my guns. Have you even looked at Diane Feinstein's proposal yet? I own a handy collection of semi auto firearms and over the past week MANY ideas have been floated to ban those types of weapons. Every time I hear someone say "nobody is out to get your guns" all I can picture is Officer Barbrady from South Park telling the crowd to move along, there is nothing to see here. If you are not bias, have no agenda, and really want to get through this problem, maybe you should be able to see both sides of the issue or at the very least, the overall big picture.

 

 

Maybe I should have stated it differently - nobody is out to 'grab your guns' that you already own. Judging by what some people post on here, a lot of people think that is the case.

[beowulf]

Oh, ok. You are right then.

 

The thing is, with as many of the guns out there that they want to "ban", what would the "ban" do? I know one manufacturer that sold 8 months worth of production in a week. That is roughly 21,000 rifles. 21,000 brand new rifles excluding the tens of thousands on the market and the millions already in private hands. Not to mention the assemble at home ones that are sold as "parts" where only the reciever was sold through an FFL dealer. A ban would do as much to stop the violence as an ice cream cone.

All a ban would do is make people like me have big bank accounts because I would keep what I need and sell off the rest at an outrageously high price.

[Guest Otis]

Oh, ok. You are right then.

 

The thing is, with as many of the guns out there that they want to "ban", what would the "ban" do? I know one manufacturer that sold 8 months worth of production in a week. That is roughly 21,000 rifles. 21,000 brand new rifles excluding the tens of thousands on the market and the millions already in private hands. Not to mention the assemble at home ones that are sold as "parts" where only the reciever was sold through an FFL dealer. A ban would do as much to stop the violence as an ice cream cone.

All a ban would do is make people like me have big bank accounts because I would keep what I need and sell off the rest at an outrageously high price.

 

the basic idea is to have fewer semi-automatic weapons so that not everyone who thinks they might be pissed off can just grab one and start firing at crowds in a dark theater or elementary school classroom.

Some people seem to think that it won't work, but then they don't really know, do they?

Lots of people thought Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth. Turns out they didn't really know.

[Guest Guest]

Oh, ok. You are right then.

 

The thing is, with as many of the guns out there that they want to "ban", what would the "ban" do? I know one manufacturer that sold 8 months worth of production in a week. That is roughly 21,000 rifles. 21,000 brand new rifles excluding the tens of thousands on the market and the millions already in private hands. Not to mention the assemble at home ones that are sold as "parts" where only the reciever was sold through an FFL dealer. A ban would do as much to stop the violence as an ice cream cone.

All a ban would do is make people like me have big bank accounts because I would keep what I need and sell off the rest at an outrageously high price.

 

 

If the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2004 was instead permanently made into law, do you think what happened in Newtown would have happened with the gun that was used?

[Guest Otis]

So... I guess you are hear to talk about other people attempting intelligent discourse. You don't possess the necessary tools to participate.

 

Don't choke on your christmas ham.

 

When you see my alias at the top of a post, feel free to not respond. Thanks and have a safe life.

[Guest Guest]

When the government was being instituted people feared the creation of political parties that would go to extremes and then deadlock.

 

On this question and others, is the majority of people at the two extremes or in the middle if we can even define the middle.

 

If there is great middle can lawmakers realize it and represent it.

 

Then there is a question of what does the middle really believe.

 

1. We can't prohibit or grab all guns.

 

2. Gun regulation can be discussed without just the discussion being tantamount to repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

 

3. Gun control isn't the only solution to the problem.

 

4. The elimination of a class of guns, maybe including a buy back, perhaps on all semiautomatic weapons would help to manage.

 

5. There needs to be a sever limit to magazine size, three to five rounds perhaps.

 

6. Wulf can answer this, is there a way to limit ammo and still make it effective for hunting and target shooting.

 

7. All of the other points, increased security, better mental health care, a rethinking of video games which kill people and paintball which shoots people and a national discussion about violence as an American core value are also part of the discussion.

 

My fear is there isn't much of a middle, politicians would not represent it anyway, and we don't have the attention span to do much about it anyway.

 

The real protection for people who want to protect gun ownership is to have a myriad of local, state and federal laws written by the gun industry.

[beowulf]

Response to Otis and poster #329:

 

Otis,

I agree that not everyone should have access to some semi auto weapons. Perhapse if they were re-classified and sold under the same regulations as pistols in NYS then we would get somewhere. An open market took AR-15 prices from $700-$1200 all the way down to under $1000 for the higher end rifles and under $500 for the "cheap" ones. While great for the every day lawful consumer, it also makes it more obtainable by those you would rather not have access to them. Would a ban stop that? It may slow it, but it wont stop it. I think you would yield the same result if you were to make the semi-auto's harder for the every day yokel from getting them.

 

#329: Do I think if the AWB stayed in force would the CT massacre even happened? I just dont know....nobody does. There are a LOT of factors that went into that shooting that allowed it to happen. Laws were broken long before he went to that school. Would stricter controls over the Semi-autos stopped it? Again, hard to tell. If she couldnt get an AR would she have gotten an SKS? SKS's are C&R rifles so they are in a different category than AR's. The thing is, with no tools you can make an SKS accept 30 or even 40 round mags and they would be shooting a 124gr. .30 cal bullet instead of a 55gr. .223 cal bullet. I personally would rather be shot (if I am going to be shot) with a .22cal bullet vs. a .30cal bullet. I guess my point is and always has been the laws need to make sense. If you are going to regulate something, regulate it so that you protect the rights of the citizens while ensuring that those who should not have them dont get them.

[Guest Guest]

 

 

#329: Do I think if the AWB stayed in force would the CT massacre even happened? I just dont know....nobody does. There are a LOT of factors that went into that shooting that allowed it to happen. Laws were broken long before he went to that school. Would stricter controls over the Semi-autos stopped it? Again, hard to tell. If she couldnt get an AR would she have gotten an SKS? SKS's are C&R rifles so they are in a different category than AR's. The thing is, with no tools you can make an SKS accept 30 or even 40 round mags and they would be shooting a 124gr. .30 cal bullet instead of a 55gr. .223 cal bullet. I personally would rather be shot (if I am going to be shot) with a .22cal bullet vs. a .30cal bullet. I guess my point is and always has been the laws need to make sense. If you are going to regulate something, regulate it so that you protect the rights of the citizens while ensuring that those who should not have them dont get them.

 

The shooter in the Aurora, CO massacre bought an AR-15 rifle, and a high-powered drum magazine that allowed him to fire immense amounts of bullets without reloading.

 

I'm sure I could go down the list of of mass shootings in the past 18 years and find similar purchases that would not have been able to be legally made if the AWB had still been in place.

[beowulf]

 

6. Wulf can answer this, is there a way to limit ammo and still make it effective for hunting and target shooting.

 

 

 

Hmmm, I will try to give a brief overview of ammo and ballistics. I will probably create more questions than answers for you. If so, just ask and I will try to answer the best I can.

 

Lets concentrate on the AR-15 because that is what most people see when this discussion comes up.

 

AR-15's shoot the 5.56mm round. Some versions shoot the .223Remington round. The measurements for both rounds are the same. The difference between them is how they are tested and the standards they meet. Neither is "more powerful" than the other, they just meet different criteria.

The bullet (the actual projectile) is weighed in grains (gr.) and it's diameter is denoted in Caliber (SAE) or in millimeters. A bullet for an AR-15 is .224" in diameter.

 

There are many different kinds of ammo. You have soft point ammo that is designed to expand and dump all of the energy of the bullet into the target. This is what many hunters use. It is desined to kill the animal immediately so there is no suffering. Then you have hollow point ammo. This is a favorite among your target shooters. The boat tail hollow point stabilizes incredibly well and allows the target shooter to have virtually no deviation in ammo from shot to shot. This is also an incredibly important attribute to snipers who need to be able to "thread the needle" so to speak to make that life saving shot. Then you have FMJ or "ball" ammo. This ammo is the stuff you see sold in bulk packs. This ammo is degined to stay together and basically poke holes in the target. This is also the ammo that conforms to the Geneva convention for small arms. It is not designed to kill per se, it is designed to incapacitate (for body shots). A head shot is a head shot and no matter what ammo they run, it will all do the same thing. New to the market is what I call specific need ammo or designer ammo. This is the stuff that takes into account what specifically you are after (whitetail, elk, feral pigs, zombies) and is designed to expand or frag at specific points.

Within that mass of kinds of ammo you have different weights. Basically in the .224 realm you have weights from 35gr. all the way up to .90gr. You also have about a dozen different powders you can use and a half dozen kinds of primers. None of these make the round more "powerful" than the other. They are made for different kinds of rifles AND the different kinds of rifling in the barrels. Most AR's are a 1:7, 1:8, or 1:9 twist (rifling makes one complete rotation in 7", 8", or 9" of barrel length). To stabilize a .224 bullet going 3100 feet per second (fps) out of a 1:8 twist, it needs to be a heavier bullet. Anything 55gr and above. For bolt action rifles most are 1:12 or 1:14 twist. With these you run smaller weight bullets (35gr - 55gr) but with these you typically have longer barrels and you generate higher pressures driving the bullet to 3200-3400fps from the muzzle.

So, no one ammo is more powerful than the other, they just behave differently when they hit the target depending on what that target is. I dont know yet what the ammo used in CT was. By most counts it appears to be 55gr. FMJ ammo. Not what many of your avid hunters or target shooters would use. I personally use a 68gr. boat tail hollow point for target and a 74gr. ballistic tip for hunting.

All of this science goes out the window when you are shooting a high power rifle 15 feet. No matter what ammo you shoot it is going to be lethal. Even non-lethal rounds are lethal if you close the gap. I have non-lethal ammo and right on the box it say if you use it within 10 feet it is lethal.

Usually when people are talking about limiting ammo they are referring to mag capacity. If you restrict the 30, 40, 50, or 100 round mags the theory is that it will give people the chance to run during a reload or to overtake the shooter. I personally cant argue to validity of that claim. I would have to see some unbiased studies done and look at the results. I know personally I can reload within two seconds if I am wearing my rig and everything is set up to go. Doing 3-gun shoots really tunes the motor skills and develops muscle memory. I would like to see mag restrictions to 20 or less for rifle and 10 or less with pistol. This will force the stupid to quit spraying ammo and it will force those that do shoot to make their shots count.

 

Of course there is a whole LOT more to it but that is the overview. Like I said, if you have questions then ask because I could fill many pages just trying to explain all of the different dynamics to bullet ballistics and firearms.

[Guest Otis]

Response to Otis and poster #329:

 

Otis,

I agree that not everyone should have access to some semi auto weapons. Perhapse if they were re-classified and sold under the same regulations as pistols in NYS then we would get somewhere. An open market took AR-15 prices from $700-$1200 all the way down to under $1000 for the higher end rifles and under $500 for the "cheap" ones. While great for the every day lawful consumer, it also makes it more obtainable by those you would rather not have access to them. Would a ban stop that? It may slow it, but it wont stop it. I think you would yield the same result if you were to make the semi-auto's harder for the every day yokel from getting them.

 

 

 

Personally I don't think any civilians should own semi automatics. They are military grade weapons. Civilians don't need them for hunting or target practice. Wanting a weapon doesn't mean someone needs it. If people really "need" them, then they can argue that they need RPGs and flame throwers too.

 

How does enacting an assault weapon ban threaten gun owners from owning all the other guns they have?

[beowulf]

The shooter in the Aurora, CO massacre bought an AR-15 rifle, and a high-powered drum magazine that allowed him to fire immense amounts of bullets without reloading.

 

I'm sure I could go down the list of of mass shootings in the past 18 years and find similar purchases that would not have been able to be legally made if the AWB had still been in place.

 

 

You want to get rid of drum mags I will be right there next to you clapping when they sign the piece of legislation. Hell, I will bring the pen. NOBODY needs 100 round beta mags for their AR...NOBODY. Even the military doesnt use them. Same thing with the 50 round mags or the new 60 round stick mag that came out. There is simply no justification for that kind of capacity in a shoulder fired rifle.

The part of the AWB that is so incredibly STUPID is the part that concentrates more on the look of the rifle or the furnature on it vs. the actual function of the rifle. Good example, in NY you cant have a collapsable stock but you CAN BUY a bump fire stock. A collapsable stock does NOTHING to the function of the gun, it makes the stock 3.5" shorter so smaller frame people can safely and accurately shoot the rifle. A bump fire stock allows your rifle to shoot basically full auto. Go to you tube and type in bump fire and you will see what I mean.

That is why these laws are STUPID and need to be written by people who know what is what.

[beowulf]

Personally I don't think any civilians should own semi automatics. They are military grade weapons. Civilians don't need them for hunting or target practice. Wanting a weapon doesn't mean someone needs it. If people really "need" them, then they can argue that they need RPGs and flame throwers too.

 

How does enacting an assault weapon ban threaten gun owners from owning all the other guns they have?

 

Well, that is part of the problem. You look at an AR and think all AR's are the same. They arent, they may look the same but their function is very different. I have one AR I have set up for target. This gun weighs 12.3lbs empty. I can shoot one hole groups at 400 meters with it but you would be better served throwing rocks to try to kill a mall full of people as opposed to trying to use that rifle. I have another set up specifically for hunting large game (the Beowulf). It is great! I never track the deer because they drop where they are hit. It is fast, humane, and incredibly efficient. BTW, I have 3 or 7 round mags for that.....thats it!

I do have a couple M-4 style rifles but I would happily turn them over if I knew for one second it would make a difference and could in some way prevent another mass shooting. Hell if I knew it would prevent something like the CT shooting I would personally run them through the plasma cutter myself and ship the pieces to the BATFE.

[Guest Guest]

 

 

Personally I don't think any civilians should own semi automatics. They are military grade weapons. Civilians don't need them for hunting or target practice. Wanting a weapon doesn't mean someone needs it. If people really "need" them, then they can argue that they need RPGs and flame throwers too.

 

How does enacting an assault weapon ban threaten gun owners from owning all the other guns they have?

 

Assault weapons only LOOK ominous. In reality, they are less lethal than many average LOOKING hunting rifles.

This whole assault weapon debate is merely feel good rhetoric which will accomplish nothing.

We need to close loopholes in current permits and stop plea bargaining those caught with illegal guns. Those two things would accomplish far more than any ban and could be enacted within months.

[Guest Otis]

Assault weapons only LOOK ominous. In reality, they are less lethal than many average LOOKING hunting rifles.

This whole assault weapon debate is merely feel good rhetoric which will accomplish nothing.

We need to close loopholes in current permits and stop plea bargaining those caught with illegal guns. Those two things would accomplish far more than any ban and could be enacted within months.

 

I don't for one second believe that a gun that can fire off 45 rounds per minute only looks more dangerous than a single shot rifle or pistol.

 

Odd that Cho, Lanza and Holmes would choose ominous looking weapons when they knew their victims would either never see the gun or see it only for a few seconds.

 

Obviously we're not going to make much of a dent in the amount of assault weapons already in homes across the nation. Stopping the sales of more of them will make a difference in how many are out there over the course of months and years. And that just might make a difference in who's son or daughter lives or dies some day.

[Guest Guest]

 

 

I don't for one second believe that a gun that can fire off 45 rounds per minute only looks more dangerous than a single shot rifle or pistol.

 

Odd that Cho, Lanza and Holmes would choose ominous looking weapons when they knew their victims would either never see the gun or see it only for a few seconds.

 

Obviously we're not going to make much of a dent in the amount of assault weapons already in homes across the nation. Stopping the sales of more of them will make a difference in how many are out there over the course of months and years. And that just might make a difference in who's son or daughter lives or dies some day.

 

Single shot rifle? Ah, you think banning ALL semiautomatic weapons will help. How do you propose rounding up the tens of millions weapons already out there?

I am not a gun nut but that will never happen. That effort alone would cause more carnage than a thousand mass shooting. It is a stupid idea and would put law abiding citizens in far more danger from the lawless who possess those very weapons.

People like you need to go to church and pray instead of clouding debates of realistic solutions.

[beowulf]

Otis, I can see what you are saying but you are a little wrong.

 

If I were to place a WASR-10 on the table and a BAR next to it and ask you what is more deadly you would more than likely pick the WASR-10 because it looks exactly like an AK-47. The BAR looks like grandpas hunting rifle. The WASR shoots a 7.62x39mm round while the BAR shoots a .300 Win Mag. The 7.62x39 round will go through a couple car doors without any problems. The .300Win mag will go through a couple houses.

[Guest Otis]

Single shot rifle? Ah, you think banning ALL semiautomatic weapons will help. How do you propose rounding up the tens of millions weapons already out there?

I am not a gun nut but that will never happen. That effort alone would cause more carnage than a thousand mass shooting. It is a stupid idea and would put law abiding citizens in far more danger from the lawless who possess those very weapons.

People like you need to go to church and pray instead of clouding debates of realistic solutions.

 

Please.

 

A reenacted ban doesn't mean " rounding up the tens of millions weapons already out there". But then you knew that. Throwing more BS into the debate only keeps the focus off what's really important...saving more lives of kids and movie goers.

 

"More guns=more safety".......Right?

Funny how that never really works.

[beowulf]

More laws = less guns ..........Right?

Funny how that never really works.

[Guest Otis]

More laws = less guns ..........Right?

Funny how that never really works.

 

Ok. Tell what DOES work in many other countries that have a fraction of the weapons murder rates we have.

 

Does anyone really believe it's because we no longer have any ethics or moral compass in America, or it's multiculturalism or one of the other dozen lame excuses?

[Guest Guest]

Other countries never had the right to own firearms and never possessed 300 million either. Apples and oranges. There is no possible way firearms can ever be banned in this country. People are buying them up like crazy. You can't get anything. They are all sold out.

 

No respect for human life is the bottom line in all of these tragedies.

[Guest Guest]

Other countries never had the right to own firearms and never possessed 300 million either. Apples and oranges. There is no possible way firearms can ever be banned in this country. People are buying them up like crazy. You can't get anything. They are all sold out.

 

No respect for human life is the bottom line in all of these tragedies.

 

The NRA is the bottom line in these tragedies. They have been pushing for more sales and less restrictions for decades. They are responsible for these idiots being able to get these assault rifles.

[Guest Guest]

Assault rifles are already banned because they are fully auto. Many democrats don't have any working knowledge of firearms nor the NRA except those democrats who have managed to escape the plantation.

 

"Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church."

 

The NRA doesn't cause people to go out and murder others. I wish every law abiding citizen had a gun.

[Guest Guest]

Assault rifles are already banned because they are fully auto. Many democrats don't have any working knowledge of firearms nor the NRA except those democrats who have managed to escape the plantation.

 

"Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church."

 

The NRA doesn't cause people to go out and murder others. I wish every law abiding citizen had a gun.

 

More guns = more gun violence. Let me know if you need help with the math.

 

[Guest Guest]

I'm not saying the unlawful and misuse of firearms doean't happen, but where is Mexico? It has almost the strictest gun laws in the world and look at it. Guns are everywhere.

 

The USA was founded on blood and violence and that continues up until this day.

 

We are a violent nation and guns are never going away, especilly with the hundreds of millions already in circulation.

[Guest Guest]

We are a violent nation and guns are never going away, especilly with the hundreds of millions already in circulation.

 

Thanks to the NRA.