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

Puddle Jumper

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,835
1
0
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.
Weren't most of the reports of body armor just ignorant witnesses/journalists assuming an evil black tactical vest was armor?
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
This rushing gunman stuff is fantasy. I saw a link to a is yesterday abou teaching a female teacher to disarm an armed male. It's total f**king nonsense. When a gunman is on the loose if you aren't armed the smartest thing to do is run and hide, period.

I'm interested does anybody have links on how many shots are fired in average in a self defense situation? I really think NY's law breaches the 2nd A most directly by compromising the ability to self-defend. This lack of defense, comparatively, is also why precisely police will not have to be shbjected to this new law.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
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;)
I'm not ignoring anything, the pseudo crime stopper fantasy I need more rounds for my imaginary conflicts is silly.

I don't agree with the magazine legislation but I'm not using scenarios that don't really happen to argue it.

This is a constitutional issue period, all of the speculative fantasy scenario crap
Is pretty worthless really. But I'm sure it's fun to day dream about for some.
 

Puddle Jumper

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,835
1
0
For Lanza I think that was true...but Aurora he definitely was wearing body armor
That's what I was thinking, I knew there was a lot of talk about the Aurora shooter having armor but the reports on Sandy Hook and Lanza have been so inconsistent I wasn't sure what actually went on.

From what I remember reading certain loads/types of 5.7mm ammo are restricted due to the rounds effectiveness at penetrating armor. If that is is the case would that round still be a better choice for a ccw gun capable of dealing with body armor provided you went with the best available ammo permitted for it?
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,637
6
81
I'm not ignoring anything, the pseudo crime stopper fantasy I need more rounds for my imaginary conflicts is silly.

I don't agree with the magazine legislation but I'm not using scenarios that don't really happen to argue it.

This is a constitutional issue period, all of the speculative fantasy scenario crap
Is pretty worthless really. But I'm sure it's fun to day dream about for some.
You may call it fantasy but it's a possibility to prepare for...a remote possibility but it's still there. Personally I don't think body armor should be available to civilians without good reason, there's really no rational argument to be made for it IMHO.
That's what I was thinking, I knew there was a lot of talk about the Aurora shooter having armor but the reports on Sandy Hook and Lanza have been so inconsistent I wasn't sure what actually went on.

From what I remember reading certain loads/types of 5.7mm ammo are restricted due to the rounds effectiveness at penetrating armor. If that is is the case would that round still be a better choice for a ccw gun capable of dealing with body armor provided you went with the best available ammo permitted for it?
Not really, you can't get the stuff that will penetrate so you want a big heavy round that will cause the most damage through the armor, a .45 to the chest will break ribs unless they also have a trauma plate...in which case not much is gonna hurt them outside of a rifle round
 

Pantoot

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2002
1,764
30
91
He doesn't count LEO's...he's referring to CCW holders which would be the reference to magazine capacity
Even so, I would say the logic behind allowing an LEO the larger magazine should also apply to a CCW holder.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,637
6
81
Even so, I would say the logic behind allowing an LEO the larger magazine should also apply to a CCW holder.
I would agree, if it's justified for LEO to carry hi-cap mags the same should apply to CCW's as well.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
You may call it fantasy but it's a possibility to prepare for...a remote possibility but it's still there. Personally I don't think body armor should be available to civilians without good reason, there's really no rational argument to be made for it IMHO.

Not really, you can't get the stuff that will penetrate so you want a big heavy round that will cause the most damage through the armor, a .45 to the chest will break ribs unless they also have a trauma plate...in which case not much is gonna hurt them outside of a rifle round
So that's just it. Our big solution to the problem is to limit magazine capacity so that we now have the very remote possibility to subdue the attacker while he reloads. During the Columbine shootings Eric Harris had a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times. He had 8 reloads during his shooting spree and not one effort was made to subdue him during the shootings. There was also a Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy on campus at the time of the shootings.

So at Columbine you have smaller magazine size (what Obama wants) and an armed cop on duty at the time (what the NRA wants) and neither helped much. At best these ideas everyone is throwing around would only help once a situation like this has already started and these kids would not have been on anyone’s metal health radar.

Both sides can continue to play Politics with this but neither side is dealing with the problems in society which is what is really causing these problems to being with.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
The problem though is lawmakers trying to do ninja bans by making the round capacity so small and the language so restrictive.

There should be no reason to restrict standard capacities. If you want to discuss extended clips that is one thing, but this bill is just horrible.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
The problem though is lawmakers trying to do ninja bans by making the round capacity so small and the language so restrictive.

There should be no reason to restrict standard capacities. If you want to discuss extended clips that is one thing, but this bill is just horrible.
This. I'm betting the only reason they went to 7 rounds instead of 6 was due to Kimber, Dan Wesson and others exercising what little pull they have.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,637
6
81
This. I'm betting the only reason they went to 7 rounds instead of 6 was due to Kimber, Dan Wesson and others exercising what little pull they have.
I don't even know that they had anything to do with it, I'm betting that they just wanted to go lower than 10 but thought a 50% decrease was to much at one time, so they settled on 33%, after their subjects get used to that they can cut it back even more...I mean they got used to 10 already and weren't throwing a fit anymore so eventually they'll be able to go lower than 7 too...it's just a matter of time, they're thinking long term, they'll be reduced to single shot smooth bores eventually:rolleyes:
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
I don't even know that they had anything to do with it, I'm betting that they just wanted to go lower than 10 but thought a 50% decrease was to much at one time, so they settled on 33%, after their subjects get used to that they can cut it back even more...I mean they got used to 10 already and weren't throwing a fit anymore so eventually they'll be able to go lower than 7 too...it's just a matter of time, they're thinking long term, they'll be reduced to single shot smooth bores eventually:rolleyes:
Oh yeah, I can't wait until they get down to one round and say "yeah you can have a grandfathered revolver, but you can only have one round loaded at any given time." :D
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Oh yeah, I can't wait until they get down to one round and say "yeah you can have a grandfathered revolver, but you can only have one round loaded at any given time." :D
No, it will be more like Barney Fife where you have to keep your one bullet in your pocket.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,637
6
81
Oh yeah, I can't wait until they get down to one round and say "yeah you can have a grandfathered revolver, but you can only have one round loaded at any given time." :D
Oh no...they make you "modify" it by sealing the other chambers up so only one round can physically be loaded...hell they may mandate brand new cylinders be purchased that only have one chamber and don't actually revolve anymore:eek:
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
Oh no...they make you "modify" it by sealing the other chambers up so only one round can physically be loaded...hell they may mandate brand new cylinders be purchased that only have one chamber and don't actually revolve anymore:eek:
Nah, they'll just outlaw smokeless powders, because studies show that the lower velocity of black powder rounds produce less deadly wounds. So it'll be back to flint-locks. Because flint-locks have never killed anything. :p
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
349
126
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!
More time to rush the shooter, yet 9/11 was carried out with steak knives.

Figure that one out.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,637
6
81
Nah, they'll just outlaw smokeless powders, because studies show that the lower velocity of black powder rounds produce less deadly wounds. So it'll be back to flint-locks. Because flint-locks have never killed anything. :p
OK I think we need to stop giving them ideasD:
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Nah, they'll just outlaw smokeless powders, because studies show that the lower velocity of black powder rounds produce less deadly wounds. So it'll be back to flint-locks. Because flint-locks have never killed anything. :p
That may be a tough choice for them though. Those powders undoubtably pollute more, so they'd have to choose between the two 'terrible wrongs'. What a fight that'd be between closed doors: The gun grabber religous nuts and the envirokook religous nuts. Could Pay-Per-View that and use it to pay down some of the national debt...

Chuck
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY