Guns

[Bo Diddley]

Capture.JPG

[old_gregg]

would love to see the windage and drop calcs for that shot. i imagine it would be to aim six feet above the moon.

[Bo Diddley]

would love to see the windage and drop calcs for that shot. i imagine it would be to aim six feet above the moon.

It's all in the science of ballistics. And that's why I referenced an area target--not hard to miss.

[old_gregg]

It's all in the science of ballistics. And that's why I referenced an area target--not hard to miss.

if you’re talking ballistics you can’t ignore that the muzzle velocity of the average 9mm round is 1/3 that of .223. the penetrative characteristics are very different at distance given the difference, as you know. this also all ignoring the more important factors like capacity, optics, barrel durability after thousands of rounds, etc.

[Bo Diddley]

if you’re talking ballistics you can’t ignore that the muzzle velocity of the average 9mm round is 1/3 that of .223. the penetrative characteristics are very different at distance given the difference, as you know. this also all ignoring the more important factors like capacity, optics, barrel durability after thousands of rounds, etc.

I concede that an AR-15 is more lethal than a handgun in this case, but he could still do plenty of damage. He only fired 1100 rounds. You could easily swap out pistols if the one you're using is misfiring. You can mount a pistol into a 3D printed frame that acts more like a rifle, and even mount a scope, which would be unnecessary in hitting an area target.

[All-American]

Well, I'd like to slow down the transfer of guns, and the guys in stores who go in and ask stuff like, "How many ARs do you have in stock? Five? I'll take them all." Shit like that.

However, as the day has gone on, I think that inheriting guns shouldn't be taxed to blood relations.

So the sole purpose is to inhibit possession?

You might as well tax democrat presses $500 and republican presses $1,000.

[wuapinmon]

So the sole purpose is to inhibit possession?

You might as well tax democrat presses $500 and republican presses $1,000.

The sole purpose is to slow down the transfer of the weapons. The $200 transfer tax on machine guns under the National Firearm Act in June 1934 is equivalent to $3,699.51 today. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc...6&year2=201801

The cost is meant to discourage frequent transfers and hording.

[wuapinmon]

This is really what you need to restrict and collect up if you're going to make a difference at all in the long run.

Most of the mass shootings lately have involved AR-15 or equivalent. While the round has more energy, rifles do not have a significant advantage over pistols in close quarters combat. To me they're a wash. The weapon of choice is a submachine gun. So perhaps the people perpetrating these crimes are also drawn to assault rifles out of some mystique or an assumption that they're what is needed to carry out these crimes.

If all assault rifles were rounded up, what could someone do with pistols? Often these shooters were found with multiple rifles and other guns, only to have used one of them in the commission of their crime. Someone could easily strap on a dozen or so handguns, all locked and loaded with full magazines, easily concealed, and quickly and nimbly deployed in close quarters. You could make a case that the result would be even deadlier.

The shooter in Dallas was more of a sniper. Pistols would not be the weapon of choice, but any hunting rifle, even single-shot bolt-action would do. The Vegas shooter was shooting on a downward trajectory of about 1200 feet to an area target. This also is well within the range of handguns.

In short, the AR-15 has some sort of mystique around it that draws the attention of the press, the nation, and probably the perpetrators. And if that's the weapon of choice, maybe getting rid of them helps. But if someone is motivated to kill a lot of people, there will always be a way to do that. Leaving semi-automatic handguns accessible makes that very easy to accomplish.

I think we need to get rid of semi-automatic handguns. Almost all murders and suicides are with handguns. Do we allow revolvers? What about hunters? Whatever we decide about handguns, I think we need a "one screw-up and you're done" policy.

[Eddie]

Yes, I'm a regular Crane.

With your allowance for eliminating transfer costs for inheritance, I'll take back my comment that you hate poor people.

But something to consider - the fees you are talking about really will effect poor people more than anyone. As much as I understand what you're trying to do - reduce guns changing hands - I'd really hate to see it have such an impact on folks with limited finance.

If you're really trying to stop the guy who goes to the gun store to pick up 5 AR's (presumably to sell?), then perhaps you allow individuals one free transfer per year, with graduated increased costs for each subsequent transfer within the same 12 month period of time - so that those who really are involved in multiple frequent transfers are disincentivized.

[wuapinmon]

With your allowance for eliminating transfer costs for inheritance, I'll take back my comment that you hate poor people.

But something to consider - the fees you are talking about really will effect poor people more than anyone. As much as I understand what you're trying to do - reduce guns changing hands - I'd really hate to see it have such an impact on folks with limited finance.

If you're really trying to stop the guy who goes to the gun store to pick up 5 AR's (presumably to sell?), then perhaps you allow individuals one free transfer per year, with graduated increased costs for each subsequent transfer within the same 12 month period of time - so that those who really are involved in multiple frequent transfers are disincentivized.

How about this...one free transfer every three years with graduated increased costs for each transfer with no ceiling within the same three year period.

1st= free
2nd-5th = $500
6th-10th = $700
11th-20th = $1000
20th and above = $3000

The buyer pays the transfer fee, not the seller.

[Northwestcoug]

Gun owners share their feelings about the AR-15 in the Trib:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/...un-in-america/

This guy, whose name (Skousen) fits in with his views, drops some truth:

“A combat rifle is important to have in your safe in case there is a riot, famine, gang-related home invasion, local terrorism, a civil war or an invasion from a foreign country. Combat rifles enabled the Korean District to protect their businesses during the L.A. race riots, can be used for hunting during famine if necessary, evens the playing field should there be a home invasion by multiple people, could be used to protect against a Tsarnaev-Watertown-type lockdown, is the ‘family musket’ should another Great Britain become too tyrannical, and could be used to protect your family while retreating from a foreign military invasion.”

I can honestly say those threats don't even crack my top 10 worries about the future of America. I must be missing the signs.

[cowboy]

Ok, wuap, JL, OG, etc. You guys all own guns and understand them, and you've given this some thought, so I would like your opinions on two problems that I see as huge obstacles to the effectiveness of further restrictions:

1) There is an enormous supply of semi-automatic weapons, large-capacity magazines, etc. in circulation. To restrict these would seem to require getting them out of circulation. If you disagree, I'm interested in why. Otherwise, how do you propose we get these things out of circulation if you favor restrictions, and

2) Laws are already being broken, so what would you propose to make further restrictions effective? Specifically, the Vegas shooter was using an illegal weapon, and it's pretty easy to modify legal weapons to be illegal. Also, neither the Texas shooter nor the Florida shooter should have been able to purchase weapons given their history. It seems that helping dealers and cops enforce existing laws would be largely eliminate the need for further laws.

I'm truly interested in your thoughts, so please don't view this as some sort of challenge. Obviously, I'm pro-gun, but it is equally obvious that we have to find a way to stop school shootings.

[Uncle Ted]

Gun owners share their feelings about the AR-15 in the Trib:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/...un-in-america/

This guy, whose name (Skousen) fits in with his views, drops some truth:



I can honestly say those threats don't even crack my top 10 worries about the future of America. I must be missing the signs.

Nobody said hog attacks?... wild boars are apesh*t crazy:

Anything less than an AR-15 will usually just piss them off.

[Northwestcoug]

Nobody said hog attacks?... wild boars are apesh*t crazy:

Anything less than an AR-15 will usually just piss them off.

OK. A wild hog attack might crack my top 10.

[wuapinmon]

Ok, wuap, JL, OG, etc. You guys all own guns and understand them, and you've given this some thought, so I would like your opinions on two problems that I see as huge obstacles to the effectiveness of further restrictions:

1) There is an enormous supply of semi-automatic weapons, large-capacity magazines, etc. in circulation. To restrict these would seem to require getting them out of circulation. If you disagree, I'm interested in why. Otherwise, how do you propose we get these things out of circulation if you favor restrictions, and

2) Laws are already being broken, so what would you propose to make further restrictions effective? Specifically, the Vegas shooter was using an illegal weapon, and it's pretty easy to modify legal weapons to be illegal. Also, neither the Texas shooter nor the Florida shooter should have been able to purchase weapons given their history. It seems that helping dealers and cops enforce existing laws would be largely eliminate the need for further laws.

I'm truly interested in your thoughts, so please don't view this as some sort of challenge. Obviously, I'm pro-gun, but it is equally obvious that we have to find a way to stop school shootings.

1) Buy the guns and magazines of the people who will sell them. Of the people who won't, let them be grandfathered in, but make their transfer fees if they want to sell them so ASTRONOMICALLY HIGH >$3,000 and increasing yearly with no exemption for inheritance they naturally come out of circulation. And, then any found unregistered are contraband, just like machine guns and "Any Other Weapons" have been under the Firearms Act since 1934, only up the penalties to include a loss of 2nd-Amendment Rights forever.

2) We create a true database that is funded by transfer fees and a tax on ammunition and that gets maintained properly. Also, if you break this law, I'm all for forfeiture. Like, if we find a gun in your home that you knowingly modified, after you're convicted, the People now own your property, real and personal, at that location. If you use an illegal weapon in a crime, the penalty needs to be so severe that there is no reason to use one. For example, if you rob someone with a firearm, a .9 won't get you 5, it'll get you 50.

I have to run to class, but these are some initial thoughts.