California Democrats Look To Ban All Semi-Auto Rifles W/ Magazines

[BoberFett]

In an actual fire fight, an opponent could reasonably judge your magazine capacity and return fire safely, the moment you have to reload. Performing a reload while under heavy counter fire permits the opponent to maintain some tactical momentum. The larger the your magazine, the rarer the chance for your opponent to gain tactical advantage.

What opponent? What counter fire? The people that want to limit magazine size are the same people who want to be sure the victims are not armed.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The video states several times that magazine capacity is extremely important in a firefight, yet you claim, "essentially, he's claiming because at the range the mag size makes no difference, it makes no difference for somebody using the gun in a firefight." Do you seriously not see the blatant contradiction?

firefight != mass shooting scenario

 

[BoberFett]

firefight != mass shooting scenario

Didn't you know? Gun nuts wear web gear with dozens of spare magazines everywhere they go, just in case they run into a prolonged firefight.

 

[sao123]

you have a vivid imagination.

But to humor you, that hasn't happened. Instead, the psychos seem to be doing these shootings for the sensation of shooting another person.

logically, if they truly wanted to maximize the body count, they'd plant bombs and then try to get away so they could plant more bombs. They'd start shooting only when caught.

that doesn't happen.

instead, these guys go in shooting and then often will commit suicide. This is more about some expression of rage with each pull of the trigger.

erm... Wait a minute... What was that?
It doesnt happen?

 

[desura]

Serious question:

Let's pretend it all goes to hell, etc.

Wouldn't bolt-action rifles be enough to mount resistance?

Seriously. Guerilla warfare, you basically pick away at the exposed enemy. So sniping is done more. So is planting bombs.

That's kind of what they did in Iraq. I don't recall reading many stories about the Jihadis attacking the Americans head-on carrying AK47's.

And as we've seen in Libya and Syria, in these civil wars you're going to have elements of the establishment going to the rebel side and helping supply arms. When the establishment is unified against you...then you're probably a crazy person like the Boston bombers.

 

[BoberFett]

Serious question:

Let's pretend it all goes to hell, etc.

Wouldn't bolt-action rifles be enough to mount resistance?

Seriously. Guerilla warfare, you basically pick away at the exposed enemy. So sniping is done more. So is planting bombs.

That's kind of what they did in Iraq. I don't recall reading many stories about the Jihadis attacking the Americans head-on carrying AK47's.

And as we've seen in Libya and Syria, in these civil wars you're going to have elements of the establishment going to the rebel side and helping supply arms. When the establishment is unified against you...then you're probably a crazy person like the Boston bombers.

So what you're recommending is that to be more effective, serial killers should use bolt action rifles and pick people off from a distance? :hmm:

 

[Venix]

firefight != mass shooting scenario

Yes, I know, that's my point. Please re-read __Rick__'s post and my rebuttal. He's the one conflating mass shootings and firefights.

The point of the video is that magazine capacity is very important for defending against armed assailants (firefight), but almost entirely irrelevant when shooting unarmed targets (mass shooting). Therefore, limiting magazine capacity only harms law-abiding firearm owners.

 

[desura]

Yes, I know, that's my point. Please re-read __Rick__'s post and my rebuttal. He's the one conflating mass shootings and firefights.

The point of the video is that magazine capacity is very important for defending against armed assailants (firefight), but almost entirely irrelevant when shooting unarmed targets (mass shooting). Therefore, limiting magazine capacity only harms law-abiding firearm owners.

Not when you dig into the details of the mass shootings that take place. Magazine limits absolutely matter for public safety.

As I've explained earlier...there are two types of mass shootings. In one, you run in really fast and shoot as many people as you can before being tackled or people run away or police arrive. In the second, you basically trap people in a building and kill them over a long period of time.

Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, Hasan are in the first category.

Breivik, Cho, Columbine are in the second.

Limiting magazine sizes definitely helps with the first. CA's ban on detachable would undoubtably reduce the deadliness of both categories.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Yes, I know, that's my point. Please re-read __Rick__'s post and my rebuttal. He's the one conflating mass shootings and firefights.

The point of the video is that magazine capacity is very important for defending against armed assailants (firefight), but almost entirely irrelevant when shooting unarmed targets (mass shooting). Therefore, limiting magazine capacity only harms law-abiding firearm owners.

But the video makes some critical assumptions right? Doesn't matter what side you're on, you have to admit this video isn't really slam dunk evidence of anything. It assumes that a mass shooter is shooting as fast as he can pull the trigger. Maybe in the beginning when you're in a crowded room. But people run. They hide. Your first couple will be easy pickings. So showing showing similar times, great, only if your aim is to shoot as fast as you can.

The video doesn't deal with live targets. Don't you think the thoughts going through a killer will change if he didn't have to worry about reloading so often? When shooting a 100 round drum, don't you think he wouldn't worry about a round or two extra going in someone? So if someone's running across the room to the exit, he might put a round or two or three into him before switching to another fleeing victim. You think he'll expend a couple extra rounds when he's limited to 10? It might be a round before seeing the victim fall and then he moves onto another target. Let's not even forget this is assuming 100% accuracy.

Let's not even mention that the video has the magazines ready right next to the shooter. Do people walk into shootings like that? The VT shooter had a bag of ammunition, and while you can certainly carry some on hand, it's also likely that he needed to fumble through his bag at a certain point for more rounds. Do you really think mass shootings also have the ideal reload situation? Then the shooters also get more desperate as time goes on. It becomes a frantic search for the targets. Time starts ticking as the clock counts down til when law enforcement shows up. I'm sure SOME of it has some mental strain on the shooter.

I don't disagree that limiting magazine capacity will limit defensive capabilities. It's certainly an issue we need to look at, and I agree it's a great argument against limiting magazine capacities.

However, acting like magazine size has ZERO effects on a mass shooter is ridiculous. If you give a shooter enough time with a bolt action rifle in a room of 100 people, he can shoot all of them and kill them all. Give him a AK with a 100 round drum and he can do it much faster.

There's no "video" out there that can show you these things, but these basic psychological responses to magazine size is pretty self evident.

 

[desura]

I'd argue that since the primary effect of a weapon in a self-defense situation is intimidation, magazine size restrictions won't affect self-defense at all.

Magazine sizes only really matter with targets that don't get intimidated, i.e. wolves in the 19th century.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I'd argue that since the primary effect of a weapon in a self-defense situation is intimidation, magazine size restrictions won't affect self-defense at all.

Magazine sizes only really matter with targets that don't get intimidated, i.e. wolves in the 19th century.

unless the assailant isn't intimidated.

Yes, I know, that's my point. Please re-read __Rick__'s post and my rebuttal. He's the one conflating mass shootings and firefights.

The point of the video is that magazine capacity is very important for defending against armed assailants (firefight), but almost entirely irrelevant when shooting unarmed targets (mass shooting). Therefore, limiting magazine capacity only harms law-abiding firearm owners.

sorry, misread what you posted :\

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'd argue that since the primary effect of a weapon in a self-defense situation is intimidation, magazine size restrictions won't affect self-defense at all.

Magazine sizes only really matter with targets that don't get intimidated, i.e. wolves in the 19th century.

The primary purpose of a weapon being used in self defense is to disable an attacker or attackers. The number of rounds required to disable the attacker or attackers depends on the accuracy of the person firing the weapon.

 

[desura]

unless the assailant isn't intimidated.
\

That's your paranoia talking.

 

[BoberFett]

unless the assailant isn't intimidated.

If the guy didn't have those extended mags, those kindergartners totally would have rushed him while he was swapping mags.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Serious question:

Let's pretend it all goes to hell, etc.

Wouldn't bolt-action rifles be enough to mount resistance?

Seriously. Guerilla warfare, you basically pick away at the exposed enemy. So sniping is done more. So is planting bombs.

That's kind of what they did in Iraq. I don't recall reading many stories about the Jihadis attacking the Americans head-on carrying AK47's.

And as we've seen in Libya and Syria, in these civil wars you're going to have elements of the establishment going to the rebel side and helping supply arms. When the establishment is unified against you...then you're probably a crazy person like the Boston bombers.

This will come as a shock to you but banning "assault weapons" as you call them won't stop people from having them, in fact the people who continue to keep theirs guns might as well get the good stuff if it is all illegal anyways.

There are plans readily available online for 9mm submachine guns capable of firing more than 1,000 rounds per minute that can be manufactured with less than $100 worth of parts available at your local hardware supply store. If you get your wish expect to see those popping up all over the place, they are easy to make an completely untraceable.

 

[moonbogg]

Serious question:

Let's pretend it all goes to hell, etc.

Wouldn't bolt-action rifles be enough to mount resistance?

Seriously. Guerilla warfare, you basically pick away at the exposed enemy. So sniping is done more. So is planting bombs.

That's kind of what they did in Iraq. I don't recall reading many stories about the Jihadis attacking the Americans head-on carrying AK47's.

And as we've seen in Libya and Syria, in these civil wars you're going to have elements of the establishment going to the rebel side and helping supply arms. When the establishment is unified against you...then you're probably a crazy person like the Boston bombers.

Agreed. If it ever came to that like it did in Syria, we would stand no chance in any kind of formal conflict. It would be guerilla style and bolt actions should be fine for that (as far as I can tell). The problem is, once they ban semis, what do you think they will go for next? There is no end to what they want banned. They want ALL firearms gone forever. They will get us down to single shot bolt rifles and then claim that even those are too dangerous for a civilized society. Semi handguns will be long gone by then.

 

[Fenixgoon]

That's your paranoia talking.

nope, that's reality talking. not everyone is afraid to fight and/or die, and not everyone is going to care about throwing away their life.

especially the people who are likely to be committing violent crimes.

 

[desura]

nope, that's reality talking. not everyone is afraid to fight and/or die, and not everyone is going to care about throwing away their life.

especially the people who are likely to be committing violent crimes.

Name a real life case.

The only ones I know of is George Zimmerman, who fired *one* shot and Bernard Goetz, who would have killed all 4 (as opposed to wound) if he had more than 6 bullets.

 

[desura]

This will come as a shock to you but banning "assault weapons" as you call them won't stop people from having them, in fact the people who continue to keep theirs guns might as well get the good stuff if it is all illegal anyways.

There are plans readily available online for 9mm submachine guns capable of firing more than 1,000 rounds per minute that can be manufactured with less than $100 worth of parts available at your local hardware supply store. If you get your wish expect to see those popping up all over the place, they are easy to make an completely untraceable.

Banning them will stop the wrong people from having them.

All the mass shooters bought their weapons legally, and so used the max firearm allowable by law. In other words, if the law were so easy to circumvent, we'd see more murders and mass shootings using machine guns, or rocket launchers, or grenades, or other illegal weapons.

This doesn't happen because those weapons are illegal, and the few that are around are prohibitively expensive. But if they were legal and easily available, they'd definitely be used to kill people.

 

[Venix]

But the video makes some critical assumptions right? Doesn't matter what side you're on, you have to admit this video isn't really slam dunk evidence of anything. It assumes that a mass shooter is shooting as fast as he can pull the trigger. Maybe in the beginning when you're in a crowded room. But people run. They hide. Your first couple will be easy pickings. So showing showing similar times, great, only if your aim is to shoot as fast as you can.

The video doesn't deal with live targets. Don't you think the thoughts going through a killer will change if he didn't have to worry about reloading so often? When shooting a 100 round drum, don't you think he wouldn't worry about a round or two extra going in someone? So if someone's running across the room to the exit, he might put a round or two or three into him before switching to another fleeing victim. You think he'll expend a couple extra rounds when he's limited to 10? It might be a round before seeing the victim fall and then he moves onto another target. Let's not even forget this is assuming 100% accuracy.

Let's not even mention that the video has the magazines ready right next to the shooter. Do people walk into shootings like that? The VT shooter had a bag of ammunition, and while you can certainly carry some on hand, it's also likely that he needed to fumble through his bag at a certain point for more rounds. Do you really think mass shootings also have the ideal reload situation? Then the shooters also get more desperate as time goes on. It becomes a frantic search for the targets. Time starts ticking as the clock counts down til when law enforcement shows up. I'm sure SOME of it has some mental strain on the shooter.

I don't disagree that limiting magazine capacity will limit defensive capabilities. It's certainly an issue we need to look at, and I agree it's a great argument against limiting magazine capacities.

However, acting like magazine size has ZERO effects on a mass shooter is ridiculous. If you give a shooter enough time with a bolt action rifle in a room of 100 people, he can shoot all of them and kill them all. Give him a AK with a 100 round drum and he can do it much faster.

There's no "video" out there that can show you these things, but these basic psychological responses to magazine size is pretty self evident.

I agree that there's certainly the potential for different behavior based on magazine size. But I'm completely unconvinced that it would have any measurable impact on the deadliness of a mass shooting. Analysis of past shootings supports this; there is no correlation between magazine capacity and casualties.

The main point of the video was to disprove the absurd claim that a shooter can be rushed and disarmed while he's swapping magazines. Of course, the whole topic is absurd--instead of discussing ways to reduce or prevent mass shootings, the focus is on how to make them marginally less effective.

 

[desura]

I agree that there's certainly the potential for different behavior based on magazine size. But I'm completely unconvinced that it would have any measurable impact on the deadliness of a mass shooting. Analysis of past shootings supports this; there is no correlation between magazine capacity and casualties.

The main point of the video was to disprove the absurd claim that a shooter can be rushed and disarmed while he's swapping magazines. Of course, the whole topic is absurd--instead of discussing ways to reduce or prevent mass shootings, the focus is on how to make them marginally less effective.

*citation needed*

Secondly, tightening mental health requires a comprehensive background check, so if someone is turned away at a gun store due to a mental health flag, he doesn't just go to some guy he finds in the classifieds.

Which is opposed by the NRA.

absent that, you'd need to involuntarily detain more people, which is more an infringing on liberty than limiting some gun selections.

 

[shortylickens]

I hope this passes. And when violent crime doesnt drop, I hope they go more extreme. Until the populace is begging to have their guns back.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I agree that there's certainly the potential for different behavior based on magazine size. But I'm completely unconvinced that it would have any measurable impact on the deadliness of a mass shooting. Analysis of past shootings supports this; there is no correlation between magazine capacity and casualties.

The main point of the video was to disprove the absurd claim that a shooter can be rushed and disarmed while he's swapping magazines. Of course, the whole topic is absurd--instead of discussing ways to reduce or prevent mass shootings, the focus is on how to make them marginally less effective.

By comparing different mass shootings? You can't compare mass shootings and the gun used. If anything the venue, the targets, the shooter him/herself, etc all play a role. The best we can do is guess. Unfortunately it does come down to what-ifs and a bit of guessing. I don't think you can point at a VT and say that it was the most deadly mass shooting that was done in the US and thus pistols > machine gun. I mean really? People point to the Tucson case and say that larger magazine doesn't mean anything. It's just one example. On the other hand you see people point to Tucson and the tackling of the shooter as an example that it can be done, and now people seem to think reload = get tackled. It's just ONE example.

Unless mass shootings come by the dozens each day, I don't think we have enough data to say much about weapons and shooter behavior. It's only analysis and guesswork.

 

[sourn]

That's ridiculous. For starters, these shooters would instead be forced to use smaller capacity less powerful guns. If/when the shooting happened, the death toll would be lower.

Could Lanza have killed so many if he had just a 1911? I doubt it.

But even allowing for your ridiculous scenario where a shooter just *has* to use an AR15 to kill people and the AR15 is only available at gun ranges...I'd rather him shoot up a gun range than shoot up an elementary school or a mall. At least at the gun range you guys can reasonably fight back, right?

Anyways, my proposal allows plenty of opportunity for "sport" shooting while allowing for reasonable self-defense and hunting, while making any shootings that occur less deadly due to the lower capacity of the weapons available outside of gun ranges.

I expect to hear lots of insults instead of point-by-point rebuttals.

Are you on crack? Do you think these kids are wearing vests at school?

Give me a 9 and w/e magazines I can hold and I could easily prove that to be bullshit.

The sad part about all this you don't care about the kids that just get shot from random shootings (which are far more) nope you only care about that nasty looking rifle. You're a tool.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Banning them will stop the wrong people from having them.

All the mass shooters bought their weapons legally, and so used the max firearm allowable by law. In other words, if the law were so easy to circumvent, we'd see more murders and mass shootings using machine guns, or rocket launchers, or grenades, or other illegal weapons.

This doesn't happen because those weapons are illegal, and the few that are around are prohibitively expensive. But if they were legal and easily available, they'd definitely be used to kill people.

No one bothers to use smgs now because you have to make one which isn't worth the effort or risk compared to using a regular handgun. On the other hand when a homemade smg and revolver are both illegal and the smg is easier to acquire obviously they will use the smg.

You people need to accept the fact that you can write whatever the hell you want on a piece of paper but that doesn't make it reality. The war on drugs hasn't stopped anyone from getting drugs and your war on the second amendment isn't going to stop anyone from getting guns.

Since you hate America so much why don't you leave, the UK has all the gun control you could ever want.