It's the 10 round cap that makes me think.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Over all, I can't imagine a single knowledgeable, intelligent person, who has read and understands this bill, from caring whether or not it is continued on the basis of the whole "assault weapon" thing.

The only difference it makes, is that the law abiding citizens can now buy some certain types of weapons that are cosmetically appealing to them. They are still single-shot weapons ("semi-automatic").. and not the automatic versions that many people may be imagining an "assault weapon" might be which have been illegal since 1934 (i believe that date is right).

The criminals always had more powerful weapons.

2 issues that may be important:

1) The threaded barrel ban. Threaded barrels are usually required for effective silencers to be used. Silencers reduce the range at which a firearm discharge can be heard (in some cases to within a dozen feet or less), but also decrease the bullets velocity and in most cases accuracy over long distances. I still have not heard any viable explanation as to why any law abiding citizen would want to, or need to use a silencer, and as far as I know, they will still be highly illegal to own and operate. The only other reason I can think of needing a threaded barrel, is to add a barrel extension, for the purpose of gaining accuracy. Is there any other?

2) I would say that this 10 round magazine capacity issue, should be the main focal point of this debate. With the current rule, on a 10 round magazine capacity for a handgun, a police officer would be able to assume (to some degree) that a criminal that fires 10 shots, may likely be out of ammunition, or have to reload. The argument is that this may the officer an advantage, or opportunity to assault the criminal.

Now it would be safe to also assume that the criminals will have the larger capacity magazines anyway. Especially since they were still available to buy during the ban... Why, you might ask, were they still available? Because gun manufacturers saw this bill coming, and over produced the larger magazines and clips for popular weapons so they would be grandfathered in. You can still buy those magazines (for greatly inflated prices mind you) in stores or online. The police, were not subject to this restriction during the ban, they all used the high "cap" magazines.. sometimes taking the capacity up to 20 rounds or more in a handgun.

Unless you think cops are more concerned about a weapon that looks like an AK47, then any other weapon that is firing bullets at them, this law is probably somewhat innefective.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,770 • Replies: 32

No top replies

Just to clear up a few misconceptions:

1) Threaded barrels additionally serve the purpose of mounting devices which may reduce the felt recoil of the firearm. Moreover, the barrel did not have to be threaded to accept such devices, but merely affixed and pinned.

2) Silencers are restricted Class III by the BATF and have been since the 1930's. To obtain one requires the purchaser to submit a $200 transfer tax and a wide array of personal information to the BATF (including fingerprints), which is then approved or disapproved by them. Upon approval, the seller can then authorize the transfer of the item, which can cost anywhere from $200 to several thousand dollars, usually depending on the caliber and quality of noise reduction. The point of the legislation is not to make silencers and other items under the Class III restriction illegal outright (which would theoretically be in violation of the 2nd Amendment), but to make them so cumbersome to obtain that it is considered not worth the effort and money.

3) Anyone who has ever been in the heat of a firefight could tell you that no one who expected to survive such a battle would be sitting there behind cover COUNTING the rounds fired from his opposition. In theory, it could be done, but why? First, you'd have to assume that the weapon he/she is firing does indeed have a maximum capacity of 10 rounds in the magazine, but that instantly raises the question of whether or not there was a round in the chamber to begin with. This also applies when, assuming you have had a good look at the exact model of the gun and can, without doubt, identify how many bullets said model can hold, you conclude that a person has a high capacity magazine. Even more importantly, if you have ever fired a semiauto handgun, you would know that reloading probably takes a mere second, if that, making the whole question of counting rounds a moot point to begin with. Counting rounds is a bad idea that no self-respecting cop would practice. It would most likely get you dead.

0 Replies

I once knew a plumber with a fine workshop in his cellar who was also a gun nut. He manufactured his own silencer out of some spare piping and fitted it onto his .38 cal. S&W. Worked just fine.

My point? No criminal is going to apply for a silencer permit any more than one would apply for a license to carry. Many of the anti-gun laws are not only unenforcable -- they are ludicrous.

0 Replies

Prohibition anyone?

0 Replies

Merry Andrew,

Agreed on unenforceable gun laws and the simplicity of some such illegal firearms and accessories, but I have a bit of a problem with your anecdote. Are you meaning to say he silenced his S&W revolver???

0 Replies

.45Auto -- correct. He threaded the barrel himself, no great feat for a plumber used to threading pipe. It wasn't quite as silent as he would have liked, but it did effectively muffle the sound of the report. He had no practical use for the silencer, just wanted to see if it could be done.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew spin...must be hard to thread a .45 auto barrel with a die for pipes.
A silencer like a machine gun is agaist the law. Just as is drugs...crystal meth is the most widley drug made by crooks today..as it is easy to do.
As a good citizen you Merry Andrews should turn in that plumber into the ATF. You are the crook if you don't.

Report Illegal Firearms Activity: 1-800-ATF-GUNS (1-800-283-4867)

0 Replies

I am going to say something completly unpopular even with my own relations. I am beginning to think we should just outlaw gun ownership entirely. After all not all the admendments and laws the "founding fathers" wrote were so good that we can't ever take a second look.

However I realize that it would never happen in my lifetime.

I know the coming arguements and well, I still think it would be a good thing.

0 Replies

John Kerry -- you misunderstood me. I was addressing the A2Ker known as FortyFive Automatic. The piece in question was a .38 S&W revolver. Fortunately for me, the statute of limitations has long expired. This was back in the '70s.

revel -- why would it be a good thing to outlaw all firearms? Except when placed in the wrong hands, they do no harm in and of themselves. And the 'wrong hands' people are, by definition, law breakers who would break this law as readily as any other. I am in favor of stiffer penalties for thoughtless and careless people who leave loaded weapons within the reach of curious children or otherwise untrustworthy individuals.

0 Replies

The wrong hands might also include:

A little kid who finds daddy's gun; a despondent teenager; an angry spouse.

In other words, the people who live in the house...

0 Replies

Please read the last sentence in my post, d'Art.

0 Replies

Far enough, M.A.

0 Replies

Revel, here's one argument you might not have heard, so hear me out, if you will. If the world never had guns to begin with, it would be a much happier place....

But the (sad?) truth is that guns exist. A ban on guns will only keep them out of the hands of those who obey the law, it won't make guns magically disappear. You follow the same flawed logic as Brady, Feinstein, Schumer, and Co. by thinking that banning guns is actually going to do anything except get the good guys dead. Plus, remember what happened with the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, who operated in societies where guns were banned. Lenin himself said "One man with a gun can control 100 without." I know you think an outright ban would theoretically be a good thing, but it is, in fact, a ludicrous suggestion which has lead to disaster in the real world.

And another thing -- Merry Andrew, did you ever actually see that silenced .38 and hear it fire? The only revolver that could ever be silenced, to my knowledge, was the 1895 Nagant, because the gap between the barrel and cylinder (where a sound report could escape) actually closed up, unlike any revolver from Smith and Wesson. Hollywood would have you think otherwise, with "Desperado" being such a flick in which a silenced revolver was employed. If you didn't actually give it a look (or listen), that plumber just might have fed you a load of bs Very Happy

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

The wrong hands might also include:

A little kid who finds daddy's gun; a despondent teenager; an angry spouse.

In other words, the people who live in the house...

First, Daddy should assume the responsibility and duty of educating his children about firearms like any good parent should. Second, Daddy should assume the responsibility and duty of educating his children about firearms like any good parent should. Third, it would be quite tragic if a spouse was angry enough to use a gun on his/her loved one, but it would be the fault of the psychotic spouse, not the gun.

Consider this: too many people have very little grasp of the power they possess when holding a gun. Sure, they have a theoretical schema of the outcome of shooting someone (usually induced by what they see on TV or in video games), but the understanding is not usually to the degree of that of the effects of a more common but equally deadly instrument, such as a large knife. Why? Because you can accidentally cut yourself with a large knife, and you learn at a very early age that large, sharp knives are dangerous. You can learn of the potential danger without suffering any permanent consequences. This is markedly less so with a firearm. You shoot yourself, and you are likely to cripple or kill yourself that first time.

This is why education is key -- as I have said before, the world would be happier without guns, but guns are here to stay, so why WOULDN'T you want such education for yourself and your loved ones? Sure, keep guns out of your house, keep kids away from guns.....until your boy visits a friend's house, where HIS daddy's gun suddenly appears...

What you don't know CAN kill you. Just look at all the negligent discharge statistics, school shootings, i-didn't-know-it-was-loaded's, etc etc etc

0 Replies

.45Auto -- I saw the gun with the home-made silencer, but I never heard it fired. The man said it didn't work as well as he had hoped but that it did muffle the sound to a significant extent.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

...The man said it didn't work as well as he had hoped....

Gotcha. Didn't catch that the first time! Embarrassed

0 Replies

FortyFiveAutomatic wrote:

Revel, here's one argument you might not have heard, so hear me out, if you will. If the world never had guns to begin with, it would be a much happier place....

But the (sad?) truth is that guns exist. A ban on guns will only keep them out of the hands of those who obey the law, it won't make guns magically disappear. You follow the same flawed logic as Brady, Feinstein, Schumer, and Co. by thinking that banning guns is actually going to do anything except get the good guys dead. Plus, remember what happened with the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, who operated in societies where guns were banned. Lenin himself said "One man with a gun can control 100 without." I know you think an outright ban would theoretically be a good thing, but it is, in fact, a ludicrous suggestion which has lead to disaster in the real world.

And another thing -- Merry Andrew, did you ever actually see that silenced .38 and hear it fire? The only revolver that could ever be silenced, to my knowledge, was the 1895 Nagant, because the gap between the barrel and cylinder (where a sound report could escape) actually closed up, unlike any revolver from Smith and Wesson. Hollywood would have you think otherwise, with "Desperado" being such a flick in which a silenced revolver was employed. If you didn't actually give it a look (or listen), that plumber just might have fed you a load of bs

I have heard all the arguements and I just don't buy them. However I realize that my position is an unpopular one.

It is no consolation to a parent whose child has died because a class mate got ahold of their daddy's gun to be told "well, daddy should have known better."

Also, lets consider this. In countries where there is gun control laws that is a lot stricter than ours, what is their crime rate compared to ours? If the study done on that shows that it is around the same then I accept that gun control don't help none, on the other hand if their crime rate is less than ours, then I think that stricter gun control laws help reduce crime rates despite all the arguements of the pro gun people.

0 Replies

You're right, it's not a consolation, but education and children's access to firearms are the business of the parent. The issue in that case is not what to tell the grieving parent, but who to send to jail for negligence. Sorry, but bullshit parenting has a lot to do with school shootings.

And I'm not going to throw statistics at you, but I encourage you to check it out for yourself. Great Britain, Australia, and other areas where guns have been outright banned for private ownership have seen marked increases in violent crime. Just think about it. How would you feel about stealing from someone who lives in an area where NO GUNS are allowed? If you want an answer closer to home, just look at D.C., then compare it to, say, Houston. Or NYC, compared to Montpelier. Or L.A., compared to Las Vegas. I think you'll find that the results speak for themselves, my friend.

Edited to Add: The tragic reality of our world is that atrocities are committed, and people die. You don't ban guns because kids get shot by misguided youths any more than you lower the speed limit because people drive 60 instead of the posted 40. Of course, you would not dream of telling a grieving parent this, but think about the logic. Stiffer penalties for those who commit crimes with guns is the answer, and punishment to those parents who won't take the time to raise their children properly.

Edited further to add: Hey, Revel, check out this article I found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3710682.stm

Sad how they mention how easy it is to obtain firearms, even though they are outlawed, leaving law-abiding citizens at the mercy of armed criminals.

0 Replies

What daddy should do (I guess we're back in time when all families were under the direction of a father) and what happens are two different things.
But, if the All-Mighty Gun must be in all homes, then Daddy must be held responsible for any mishaps that occur.

Is that the idea, 45?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

It is no consolation to a parent whose child has died because a class mate got ahold of their daddy's gun to be told "well, daddy should have known better."

A related story in today's Tucson daily Star

Quote:

Shot by accident in California
By Becky Pallack
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Danielle Samaniego hopes her son's accidental death will make a difference by getting guns out of homes.

"I always told him he was going to make a change in the world," she said, "but it wasn't supposed to be like this."

Her son, Saxon Samaniego, 10, was shot by his best friend Sept. 26 as they played with a gun at a house in San Diego.

The friend's mother was preparing breakfast when it happened. And the mother's boyfriend, who is a Marine sniper, had showed the boys how to use rifles and demonstrated that they were not loaded the night before.

The first time Saxon's friend pulled the trigger, the gun made a clicking noise. The second shot killed Saxon, who wanted to be a law-enforcement officer when he grew up, said Danielle Samaniego, 30.

Saxon was a bright boy who loved skateboarding and music, and was always helping younger children at Sunday school, she said.

On Monday, she wore her son's favorite baseball cap as she made a plea to local families: "People who have guns in their houses . . . get them out. Take them out so this doesn't happen to your child. It hurts so bad."

The family noted that Saxon's 10-year-old friend, who will not be named, also is a victim. They have been in touch with that family and have sent some of Saxon's things to the boy, who is severely traumatized and is receiving counseling.

Her son's body was brought back to Tucson Sunday and a funeral is planned for 11 a.m. Wednesday at Tanque Verde Baptist Church, 2200 N. Tanque Verde Loop Road. He will be buried Wednesday at East Lawn Palms Cemetery, 5801 E. Grant Road.

The family didn't have insurance and cannot afford to pay bills for the services, said Gary Elliott, church pastor. Donations can be made to the Saxon Memorial Fund at the church address.
Source

0 Replies

It's the 10 round cap that makes me think.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know