• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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.
HumblePie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Weren't most of the reports of body armor just ignorant witnesses/journalists assuming an evil black tactical vest was armor?
 
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.
 
corwin said:
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😉
Click to expand...

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.
 
corwin said:
For Lanza I think that was true...but Aurora he definitely was wearing body armor
Click to expand...

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?
 
lotus503 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Puddle Jumper said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
corwin said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Agent11 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
irishScott said:
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.
Click to expand...
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🙄
 
corwin said:
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🙄
Click to expand...

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." 😀
 
irishScott said:
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." 😀
Click to expand...

No, it will be more like Barney Fife where you have to keep your one bullet in your pocket.
 
irishScott said:
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." 😀
Click to expand...

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😱
 
corwin said:
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😱
Click to expand...

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. 😛
 
TallBill said:
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!
Click to expand...

More time to rush the shooter, yet 9/11 was carried out with steak knives.

Figure that one out.
 
irishScott said:
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. 😛
Click to expand...

OK I think we need to stop giving them ideasD:
 
irishScott said:
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. 😛
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top