• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NY State *passes* most restrictive weapons ban ever after being rushed to a vote.

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,485
33
86
They get whatever is available. 17-19 rounds they don't need to get aftermarket stuff because that's a ton of ammo already.

Lanza shot himself when first responders arrived. Others like Columbine are like hostage situations, but others you see police arriving within minutes.

Then, slowing down rate of fire and reloads helps.
How do you slow down the rate of fire and reload, without causing someone trying to defend themselves a greater chance of failing? Even as common as they've been lately, the death toll is way too low to be screwing over responsible gun owners for it, who may protect themselves, their children, or even perfect strangers, with a semi-automatic pistol or rifle.

And no, rate of reloads really doesn't matter. That's entirely your unwillingness to accept reality. Mass murders are against people without guns, themselves. Unable to meet the threat, the killer will be able to take his time reloading. We know this from postal incidents. We know this from Columbine. We know this from VT. We know this from Sandy Hook. Et cetera.

P.S. see the um...well, I'd use a blink tag if I had it. The vast majority of these shooters stop, whether by up and stopping, or commuting suicide, as soon as someone that may be a threat shows up to the scene.
 
Last edited:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
No, I'm right. Factory settings for the remington 750 is 4+1. Factory setting for AR15 is 30


That makes no sense whatsoever.

The AR-15 has no factory magazine setting, and there are umpteen AR-15 manufacturers and at least two different operating systems.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
How do you slow down the rate of fire and reload, without causing someone trying to defend themselves a greater chance of failing? Even as common as they've been lately, the death toll is way too low to be screwing over responsible gun owners for it, who may protect themselves, their children, or even perfect strangers, with a semi-automatic pistol or rifle.

And no, rate of reloads really doesn't matter. That's entirely your unwillingness to accept reality. Mass murders are against people without guns, themselves. Unable to meet the threat, the killer will be able to take his time reloading. We know this from postal incidents. We know this from Columbine. We know this from VT. We know this from Sandy Hook. Et cetera.

P.S. see the um...well, I'd use a blink tag if I had it. The vast majority of these shooters stop, whether by up and stopping, or commuting suicide, as soon as someone that may be a threat shows up to the scene.
Practically every instance of self-defense I ever read doesn't include a reload. THe intimidation factor of a gun firing is enough to scare off or disable any attacker. Only if you're like a drug lord would this really be important. For most citizens, a six shooter is overkill for self-defense.

At Ft. Hood, the only time the shooter was vulnerable was when he was reloading, and that was when they tried to stop him. He didn't have to reload that often because he had 20 rds. He specifically looked for the largest capacity gun he could find.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,541
16
0
At Ft. Hood, the only time the shooter was vulnerable was when he was reloading, and that was when they tried to stop him. He didn't have to reload that often because he had 20 rds. He specifically looked for the largest capacity gun he could find.
They failed to stop him when he was reloading. He was eventually stopped by someone with a gun. "civilian police Sergeant Mark Todd arrived and shouted commands at Hasan to surrender. Todd said: 'Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired.' The two exchanged shots, and Hasan was felled by five shots from Todd, who kicked the pistol out of his hand and put handcuffs on him as he fell unconscious." -wikipedia

Something else he looked for was a gun free zone. Like almost all these mass shootings, the shooter looked for a gun free zone. Maybe we should ban or restrict gun free zones.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Practically every instance of self-defense I ever read doesn't include a reload. THe intimidation factor of a gun firing is enough to scare off or disable any attacker. Only if you're like a drug lord would this really be important. For most citizens, a six shooter is overkill for self-defense.

At Ft. Hood, the only time the shooter was vulnerable was when he was reloading, and that was when they tried to stop him. He didn't have to reload that often because he had 20 rds. He specifically looked for the largest capacity gun he could find.
Stop making crap up.

Hasan had 30 round mags for his FiveSeven.

People tried to stop him, but not because he was reloading.

Hasan was shot during an exchange of fire, he was not reloading. He was stopped by a good guy with a gun.

There's no evidence that reloading or not reloading played a part in the incident as far as I know.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
Besides all that Hasan should have been reported and dealt with long before he got that far.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
By all accounts Hasan reloaded lots of times, and was never stopped until armed opponents showed up.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,485
33
86
Practically every instance of self-defense I ever read doesn't include a reload. THe intimidation factor of a gun firing is enough to scare off or disable any attacker.
No, it is not. If someone had to fire shots, the intimidation factor didn't work. It's a good thing to have, and try to make use of before shooting, but it the intimidation factor is not sufficient.
Only if you're like a drug lord would this really be important. For most citizens, a six shooter is overkill for self-defense.
Practically, but not all. Sometimes they miss, sometimes it isn't enough.

Unlike you, I need to see a compelling need for them not to have that option, before I am willing to support changes to the laws to try to save an infinitesimal number of people (not all those mass murdered: all those that might have survived if the killer had to reload once or twice more), in a rare event, by implementing restrictions that have no evidence towards their efficacy. In cases like Virgina Tech, Sandy Hook, and Columbine, that would have made no difference, because most of them didn't even bother with high capacity magazines. In those cases, they kept plenty of reloads handy, and tended to reload before they actually needed to (probably so that no one would hear a dry fire and get any ideas, but that's just my guess). Some have used high capacity magazines, but interestingly, the really deadly ones were the ones that didn't.

Mass killers already have a history, that spans nearly 15 years off the top of my head, but maybe longer, of doing just fine with small magazines. The time it takes to reload is minimal, and the attention to the weapon needed to reload is minimal. The evidence just isn't there.

At Ft. Hood...
Ninja'd by BladeVenom! What he said.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
349
126
Practically every instance of self-defense I ever read doesn't include a reload. THe intimidation factor of a gun firing is enough to scare off or disable any attacker. Only if you're like a drug lord would this really be important. For most citizens, a six shooter is overkill for self-defense.

At Ft. Hood, the only time the shooter was vulnerable was when he was reloading, and that was when they tried to stop him. He didn't have to reload that often because he had 20 rds. He specifically looked for the largest capacity gun he could find.
Karmy I not only agree with you but I'd like to go one step further. Nearly all successful self-defenses didn't even need live fire rounds loaded. Numerous homes have been defended by a simple gunshot that didn't hit the assailant, or just by cocking the hammer, or racking the pump of a shotgun.

My point is, the only lawful ammunition to own should be blank ammunition. The NRA and gun nuts in general have indoctrinated these idiot gunowners into thinking they need to practice their shooting and always "aim center mass" when the large majority of burglars are assailants flee the moment they see or hear the presence of a gun. Self-defense can be accomplished with blanks, and I see no other reason to own live ammunition other than to kill people.

I won't be completely unreasonable though, there are some farm people that are too fucking lazy to build a fence so they feel it's their right to kill innocent animals if they go on their property. So they get 5 years to build a goddamn fence before they have to surrender their live ammunition as well.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
39
5
71
Karmy I not only agree with you but I'd like to go one step further. Nearly all successful self-defenses didn't even need live fire rounds loaded. Numerous homes have been defended by a simple gunshot that didn't hit the assailant, or just by cocking the hammer, or racking the pump of a shotgun.

My point is, the only lawful ammunition to own should be blank ammunition. The NRA and gun nuts in general have indoctrinated these idiot gunowners into thinking they need to practice their shooting and always "aim center mass" when the large majority of burglars are assailants flee the moment they see or hear the presence of a gun. Self-defense can be accomplished with blanks, and I see no other reason to own live ammunition other than to kill people.

I won't be completely unreasonable though, there are some farm people that are too fucking lazy to build a fence so they feel it's their right to kill innocent animals if they go on their property. So they get 5 years to build a goddamn fence before they have to surrender their live ammunition as well.
This is quite possibly the most insane gun post I've ever read. I would love to see you deal with a real criminal and a real gun using your blank ammunition. I would also like to see this magical fence of yours that stops all animals from going through and isn't astronomically unaffordable and impractical in the case of anything larger then a couple of acres.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,485
33
86
This is quite possibly the most insane gun post I've ever read. I would love to see you deal with a real criminal and a real gun using your blank ammunition. I would also like to see this magical fence of yours that stops all animals from going through and isn't astronomically unaffordable and impractical in the case of anything larger then a couple of acres.
Please calibrate your sarcasm meter. I got a great smirk out of it, personally.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
39
5
71
Please calibrate your sarcasm meter. I got a great smirk out of it, personally.
I did too actually. Apparently skipping a few posts combined with some of the other crazy things I've read in the past few weeks made me actually believe he was serious about that lol.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Please calibrate your sarcasm meter. I got a great smirk out of it, personally.
IDK, guy might be serious. posted same crap earlier.

These anti gun nuts cannot be reasoned with.

There brains do not take logic, all the see is Gun = BAD.

That's the end of their thought process. Oh some will claim there's more, but all the do is continue to rationalize their simplistic idiocy
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,057
61
91
I love the "more time to rush the shooter" argument that gun grabbers give in regards to magazine bans.

Anyone expressing this opinion clearly believes that action should be taken to stop an active shooter. Ironically enough, a having a firearm of your own is the most effective action.

Statistics back this up which is why concealed carry rights have skyrocketed during the past 20 years. Congrats New York on passing a law to help increase violent crime in your state!
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
I guess the police rarely get shot at or attacked. They have guns, and everyone knows it. The intimidation factor of the gun must mean that attacks on police officers and security guards are rare.

Attacks on armored cars must be nonexistent, those guys are definitely packing and ready for a fight.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
I guess the police rarely get shot at or attacked. They have guns, and everyone knows it. The intimidation factor of the gun must mean that attacks on police officers and security guards are rare.

Attacks on armored cars must be nonexistent, those guys are definitely packing and ready for a fight.
Actually, it does mean they're attacked a lot less than they would be without their weapons.

But in any case, come on. For a criminal, attacking a cop or an armored car can have various benefits. Attacking an armed civilian when you're looking for an easy score? Not so much.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
That makes no sense whatsoever.

The AR-15 has no factory magazine setting, and there are umpteen AR-15 manufacturers and at least two different operating systems.
In fact, the Army originally used 20 rounders when the XM-16 was first adopted. then they found out 30 rounds were better than 20.

Yet I don't hear any cries of limiting magazines to 20 rounds. Apparently 20 is still too scary a number, although ironically enough it's the one magazine limit that could actually have a good chance of passing (namely because because it wouldn't affect most handguns).
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Practically every instance of self-defense I ever read doesn't include a reload.
You will see the same with Police yet they still like 15 in the clip and one in the pipe. The problem with the small magazine logic is that none of the mass shootings have ever ended during a reload and the Columbine shootings were mostly from a pistol with 10 round clips.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
You will see the same with Police yet they still like 15 in the clip and one in the pipe. The problem with the small magazine logic is that none of the mass shootings have ever ended during a reload and the Columbine shootings were mostly from a pistol with 10 round clips.
I read an eyewitness account of the Aurora shooting (in the freaking New York Times of all places), where a lady said shell casings were landing in front of her face. Which means she was within several feet of the attacker. She also mentioned "when he ran out, he calmly reloaded and kept firing".

So yeah, the whole "well you can charge him when he reloads!" argument is armchair generalship at its worst. In a real situation of that variety, the vast, vast, VAST majority of people will be too shocked to do jack shit.
 

schmedy

Senior member
Dec 31, 1999
999
0
76
I read an eyewitness account of the Aurora shooting (in the freaking New York Times of all places), where a lady said shell casings were landing in front of her face. Which means she was within several feet of the attacker. She also mentioned "when he ran out, he calmly reloaded and kept firing".

So yeah, the whole "well you can charge him when he reloads!" argument is armchair generalship at its worst. In a real situation of that variety, the vast, vast, VAST majority of people will be too shocked to do jack shit.
For sure on that, most people wouldn't rush a person with a knife or even intervene in a fight or mugging I bet, best case they may try and yell or call the police.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,157
207
106
One more thing to point out in the debate over round count. Many of the mass shooting murderers had BODY ARMOR on them. What does that mean? Well say you are the good guy with a 5 or 6 round revolver. You aim center mass and let fly with all your shots. You see the bad guy stumble backwards, look down, realize he has a few bruisies but hasn't been hurt and now turns to YOU with an empty gun and mows your ass down. All because it is not easy to notice in the thick of a crisis situation someone wearing body armor under some heavy clothing. Which means you just got yourself screwed.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
One more thing to point out in the debate over round count. Many of the mass shooting murderers had BODY ARMOR on them. What does that mean? Well say you are the good guy with a 5 or 6 round revolver. You aim center mass and let fly with all your shots. You see the bad guy stumble backwards, look down, realize he has a few bruisies but hasn't been hurt and now turns to YOU with an empty gun and mows your ass down. All because it is not easy to notice in the thick of a crisis situation someone wearing body armor under some heavy clothing. Which means you just got yourself screwed.
Armed people haven't stopped these things from occurring hardly ever, let alone needing a bigger clip because of body armor.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,637
6
81
Armed people haven't stopped these things from occurring hardly ever, let alone needing a bigger clip because of body armor.
With more people being armed every day the chances are going up that they will...CCW holders have being growing exponentially of late.

That's also ignoring that most of these incidents have happened in "gun free" zones;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY