WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[Popeman38]

OK so you would ban things that have never been used in mass killings and already require extensive licensing (suppressors), and things that will have no effect (hi cap mags), but collapsible butt stocks are OK because you like them?

I'm not trying to slam you too hard because you do raise some good points, but you seem to have been caught up in the "do anything even if it does nothing" mentality.

Flash suppressors were part of the 1994 AWB, but that expired. Some states still ban them, but in many flash suppressors are perfectly legal.

[martytheman]

Just out of curiosity... those of you who are all for a ban, Which of these 3 rifles below are more deadly than the others? and why?

1) Bushmaster ar15


2) ak-47


3) Remington 700 tactical

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Marty, to me those all look like machine guns. That might be the wrong term, but they seem to rapidly fire bullets. If it were completely up to me, they would all be banned. I would live in a world that allowed an individual to keep one gun in his or her home. It could be a pistol or shotgun, but would be the type that would need to have bullets loaded manually after firing no more than 10 shots.

I know that will never happen, but that's the only type of gun I could see being needed to protect one's home or go hunting (which, to me, are the only legitimate reason you would need access to a gun at your house). Individuals could own as many guns as they wanted to overall for recreational purposes, but would have to keep them at a firing range along with the ammunition. People would also have the option not to own any guns and just rent them at a range like many people rent golf clubs.

So, in my sheltered world, all of those might belong to you but they'd be stored at a firing range and you could play with them there.

[twa]

the 700 is sweet....and deadly fun

[DjTj]

Ban silencers, flash suppressors, hi cap mags, the selling of thousands of rounds at a time (per purchase), bayonettes, but not collapsable buttstocks. I have short arms (think T-rex) when it comes to shooting, I need that flexibility. It's just terrible that the actions of the few have such backlashes on the many. But in order to eliminate these tragedies, as well as many others, we need to take a first step. Health care reform and structuring a working regulation plan will be the heavy hitters when it comes to catastrophe mitigation, but will also take the longest to get squared away. We should also invest, heavily, into ourselves. Instead of sending money to other countries, we should send it to downtown (name a random city that has a bad neighborhood) and try to promote positive things. Society will heal and get better. Then I can buy that AR-15 chambered 7.62 and not be glared at. I'll just be a collector - not a pundit for massacres.

Thanks. That sounds very reasonable, and I think it's likely that most of what you list here will be implemented on a federal level in the next year.

Sure. Improved background checks. Laws to ensure guns are stored safely away from children and the mentally ill. And I would even support some form of "middle" classification for ARs and other similar weapons with higher standards than handguns and other common weapons and special license weapons like full auto/machine guns. Limits on magazine capacity do nothing. A person can change mags in about 2 seconds. All a killer needs to do is carry more mags. ANd that's not counting the hi cap mags that are out there now and are not going to go away.

I think that laws about the storage of guns would likely need to occur at the state level. A special classification for high-velocity / high-caliber semi-automatics would make sense to me.

Earlier in this thread, I said that even if a 2-second magazine change only slowed down a killer and saved one life, it seems worth it to me. I don't know what the downside is.

And with any regulation, we would face the problem with existing guns. But the fact that a law fails to solve a problem 100% doesn't seem like a reason to do 0%.

[zoony]

Just out of curiosity... those of you who are all for a ban, Which of these 3 rifles below are more deadly than the others? and why?

1) Bushmaster ar15
http://a248.e.akamai.net/origin-cdn....os/90140-2.jpg

2) ak-47
http://www.krebscustom.com/RawPhotos/2-20-07/AK101K.jpg

3) Remington 700 tactical
http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/46363.jpg

The 700 will be the most accurate from long range. It is a bolt action and hence more accurate. However it's rate of fire is much slower than a semi auto. But if its a 7mm a 500 yard shot with accuracy is not out of the question. Even farther if you're gifted.



The AK is a 7.62mm, so probably the largest caliber, though with less powder than most Remington 700 rounds which tend to be large caliber with lots of powder. A 7.62 is a larger projectile traveling slower. Accuracy on an AK is probably half what it is on a Remington 700 ceterus perebus However being semi auto, rounds can be cycled as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The ar15 is a 5.59 caliber but with a lot of powder. So a small projectile traveling quickly. Semi auto like the AK. Marines are accurate at 500 yards but a more realistic number for most is 250 yards

So, to answer your question which is the most deadly, need a lot more info about the situation.

[abdcskins]

Yeah man, guns are so cool. Like super fun. They cause so much damage. Feel like a real trooper holding one.

[Mad Mike]

Flash suppressors were part of the 1994 AWB, but that expired. Some states still ban them, but in many flash suppressors are perfectly legal.

I think there is a difference between a muzzle break which reduces flash and a suppressor which reduces flash and sound. As I understand Muzzle breaks are legal in many states but "suppressors" require a special federal license. For those who would ask why anyone would need suppressor (silencer to most people), Guns are LOUD. In close quarters such as inside your house when you are trying to defend your family, it can be helpful if you don't make them or yourself deaf.

[zoony]

Yeah man, guns are so cool. Like super fun. They cause so much damage. Feel like a real trooper holding one.

Something I learned from zoony, is in a matter where stupid and useless is already well-represented (on any side), it's good to step in and tell a poster who drops by with an "offering" like this to not post again in this thread. So you are told.

abcdskins, you're told too

[Mad Mike]

Yeah man, guns are so cool. Like super fun. They cause so much damage. Feel like a real trooper holding one.

Ah, Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. Now here's an ice cream. Go sit in the corner with the other children.

[zoony]

I think there is a difference between a muzzle break which reduces flash and a suppressor which reduces flash and sound. As I understand Muzzle breaks are legal in many states but "suppressors" require a special federal license. For those who would ask why anyone would need suppressor (silencer to most people), Guns are LOUD. In close quarters such as inside your house when you are trying to defend your family, it can be helpful if you don't make them or yourself deaf.

Muzzle brakes are a must on many caliber a of guns and an important safety feature in many cases

That said, I'm unsure why anyone would need a flash suppressor for civilian use. But, these things do not add to the lethality of a weapon and can be fabricated in a garage in 20 minutes. Unsure what making hem illegal would do.

[PleaseBlitz]

AR style weapons and larger magazines are flying off the shelves nationwide. Prices have ballooned on Ebay and other sites online.

ETA: The State of Virginia is reporting record breaking numbers of background checks.

Looks like mass murders are good for business

This should not surprise anyone. The fictional Obama-ban that was definitely forthcoming (according to gun sales folks, who are totally honest all the time) has been driving sales for 4 years now, even though Obama has pretty stridently avoided the topic until just recently. Gun sales are driven to a large degree by fear. Now that there is really going to be some legislative action, people gotta get them some guns while they can.

And the fact of the matter is, EVERYTHING is good for business for someone. Name any event that has ever occurred, and somebody found a way to make it profitable. 9/11 (just as a top of head example) was GREAT for BestBuy because people were afraid to fly. So they didnt fly for vacation that year. So they used that money on TV's and **** from BestBuy.

Of course, BestBuy didn't contribute to 9/11, whereas here, well, you know.

Edit: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012...KEYWORDS=ruger

Gun Stocks Rise Even as Pressure from Obama Mounts

Shares of gun makers are rising Wednesday even as President Barack Obama outlined plans that could lead to sweeping changes in the gun industry.

Smith & Wesson Holding Corp, SWHC +7.19% Cabela's CAB +5.75% and Sturm Ruger RGR +7.46% are up today, reversing some of the losses in the aftermath of Friday’s shooting at a Connecticut elementary school that left 20 children and six adults dead.

Obviously the rise is temporary and is driven by the short-term sales that are going to happen.

[Jumbo]

We keep hearing this. None of these other things are Constitutionally protected. You want to start comparing restrictions on Constitutional rights, please show me a right that has more laws on the books to regulate than the 2nd. It isn't close.

<edit "stuff">

We just can't get away from this being a "2nd amendment sink or swim" framing. Ok.

Just taking you're comment with any argument, at what point do you think that given large segments of society having repeated interest in such restrictions for decades and obtained some changes via legal process, would you decide that said society (overall) believes the 2nd is not being either "lived" or interpreted to its best purpose, and that their call for more restrictions should be examined for efficacy but without fear that it's going to destroy even a broad "gun friendly" (relatively at least) interpretation of the 2nd? If the answer is "At no point" I think that's fine, I just like getting it up front.

I do tend to find that many (not all) people who are "very-2nd-alert" (to use a phrase) will argue over merits of a specific restriction's structures, challenging if it really helps what it's intended to help (an always appropriate exercise in and of itself, of course). But I often get an impression (and inaccuracy in impression is not a weakness of mine) that it wouldn't matter what the argument was, they just don't want to budge and it ends up as deflection more than debate. The same is already seemingly apparent in the "mental health" angle. I am happy to see some on the "gun friendly" side here break these molds, at least at times (like you, sacase, Redskins Diehard, and twa, and I count myself).

I also find that for all the caterwauling about what's already been done to "restrict the 2nd", there seems little shortage of many of the individuals and families in civilian America being armed like (or better than) a small police force.

It seems to me that just as the Constitution itself yields to amendments in the process of greater understanding, or significant new circumstance, or changes of social structure, so can any governing decree. It's should never be capricious or easy, but it does and should happen.

For people open to more restrictions on firearms as part of attempts to change the "culture of violence", I don't think it's pragmatic to think that energy spent on the group that's very seriously worried about the 2nd amendment being "tossed out" is strategically useful.

I think that as with abortion laws and gay marriage laws (or women's voting and slavery laws in the past), such will need to get put in place "over" the resistance of groups that simply will remain adamantly opposed no matter what the arguments (which is their right). That's the system.

Hopefully (to me), just as some issues of the past once rejected by significant numbers of "ordinary citizens" have become more accepted over many many years, so to will other changes.

[Mad Mike]

The 700 will be the most accurate from long range. It is a bolt action and hence more accurate. However it's rate of fire is much slower than a semi auto. But if its a 7mm a 500 yard shot with accuracy is not out of the question. Even farther if you're gifted.

The AK is a 7.62mm, so probably the largest caliber, though with less powder than most Remington 700 rounds which tend to be large caliber with lots of powder. A 7.62 is a larger projectile traveling slower. Accuracy on an AK is probably half what it is on a Remington 700 ceterus perebus However being semi auto, rounds can be cycled as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The ar15 is a 5.59 caliber but with a lot of powder. So a small projectile traveling quickly. Semi auto like the AK. Marines are accurate at 500 yards but a more realistic number for most is 250 yards

So, to answer your question which is the most deadly, need a lot more info about the situation.

Ding. The correct answer is.... it depends on the tactical situation.

But I will say that the AR is the most flexible. Good range, accuracy and power. Making it the most deadly in the most situations.

[Jumbo]

abcdskins, you're told too

I was just going to do that

You young guys are so fast.