Gun Banning perspective... - Page 13 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmbdiesel · #**181** 12-24-2012, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

This one is new to Me; what rights and freedoms are Anti-gun People trying to hang on to?

I know that the pro-gun People tend to believe in the Constitution and focus on the 2nd amendment.

I know that I believe backing of and compromising on the 2nd amendment will eventually compromise the rest of the Constitution and view that as a bad thing not just for Myself but the whole Country.

Anti gun folks are trying to preserve their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They definitely believe in the second, but seem plenty willing to accept restrictions on other enumerated rights.

Are not other amendments already restricted? The 1st and 4th come immediately to mind.

retmil46 · #**182** 12-25-2012, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Although it may be a minor point, if a gunman has to stop and reload every ten rounds it gives people a chance to rush him while he is doing it.

That's the theory at least. But I doubt that many people would be willing to bet their life (literally) on that chance. Any slim odds of success are going to be HIGHLY dependent on individual circumstances.

In that case, I'd actually PREFER that the attacker was using one of these "poseur assault" rifles - large cumbersome weapon compared to a handgun, larger and bulkier magazines and rounds (fewer he'd be able to carry), and depending on the design of the rifle a more complicated reloading procedure.

With a modern semiauto handgun, if the attacker is familiar and practiced at swapping magazines, you might be lucky if you had all of 5 seconds to realize he was out of ammo and commit yourself to rushing him, before he had a fresh clip slammed home and was firing again - I doubt very many people are going to have that kind of sangfroid or presence of mind.

Essentially, a second or two after his last round is fired out of his present magazine, you''ll hear PLUNK-SLAP-CLANK - the empty clip dropping out of the gun, a full clip being slapped in, and the receiver being released and slamming home - and he's firing again. It took longer to type those 3 words describing the sounds, than it would for someone practiced at speed swapping clips in a handgun to actually do it.

It really doesn't make a damn to me what number they come up with as far as the ammo capacity of a clip for ANY firearm - but the above is part of the reason many of us are rolling our eyes at talk of banning "high capacity" magazines, as if that was in any way going to be a meaningful part of a solution - at the best, all it might do is limit the body count under the right circumstances - and IMO in any future events such as this it's more likely it won't matter one whit how many rounds are in each individual magazine - people will still end up dead - but at least the pols will have cover for having "done something" about the problem.

t walgamuth · #**183** 12-25-2012, 06:47 AM

Any person with the inclination to think it through and rush a gunman while he reloads would have the mental facilities to notice the reloading rythem and take advantage of it.

toomany MBZ · #**184** 12-25-2012, 08:07 AM

Whomever would have to be a scary short distance away.

t walgamuth · #**185** 12-25-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toomany MBZ

Whomever would have to be a scary short distance away.

Yeah, prolly.

kmaysob · #**186** 12-25-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toomany MBZ

Whomever would have to be a scary short distance away.

it all really depends on what they are carrying. a cop open carries, he or she would be able to carry a full sized pistol vs a smaller concealed weapon. a full size 1911 or glock has easy 100 yard capability in the right hands.

t walgamuth · #**187** 12-25-2012, 10:53 AM

The number of people who could hit a human at 100yd with any pistol has to be very small. Most would have to be within 10 yd to hit I would think, unless they have practiced a whole lot.

retmil46 · #**188** 12-25-2012, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The number of people who could hit a human at 100yd with any pistol has to be very small. Most would have to be within 10 yd to hit I would think, unless they have practiced a whole lot.

Care to bet your life - or anyone else's - on that assumption?

t walgamuth · #**189** 12-25-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Care to bet your life - or anyone else's - on that assumption?

You disagree with it?

...and i don't plan to be shooting up any gradeschoolers either.

jplinville · #**190** 12-25-2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

You disagree with it?

...and i don't plan to be shooting up any gradeschoolers either.

I highly disagree...while groupings are larger at 100 yards, hitting a human sized target at that range isn't difficult for a person to do. I don't have the steady hand needed for it anymore, but I've seen it done at my local range with a Kimber Gold Match II. He proved to me that my M&P was capable of doing the same.

t walgamuth · #**191** 12-25-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

I highly disagree...while groupings are larger at 100 yards, hitting a human sized target at that range isn't difficult for a person to do. I don't have the steady hand needed for it anymore, but I've seen it done at my local range with a Kimber Gold Match II. He proved to me that my M&P was capable of doing the same.

The number of people who could hit a human at 100yd with any pistol has to be very small.

You highly disagree with the above statement. You believe there is a large number of people who can do it? A majority of the population?

Dubyagee · #**192** 12-25-2012, 11:26 AM

Hitting a human sized target at 300 feet is not that hard.

t walgamuth · #**193** 12-25-2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

Hitting a human sized target at 300 feet is not that hard.

So out of a random selection of 1000 people, how many do you suppose could do it?

Actually it would not be that easy to do with an ordinary rifle with iron sights....for someone who has not practiced and had some training.

Diesel911 · #**194** 12-25-2012, 12:22 PM

This is My response to the Democratic Party to which I am still connected by a very thing Thread.

Tho whom this concerns.

I am Ednas' Husband I am also still a a Member of the Democratic Party.

We all ready have sensiable Gun Laws but Mad Men and Crimminals don't care about thosel Laws.

What We don't have is a Party Leadership willing to follow the Law as writtn in the US Constitution that they swore to uphold and yes even defend. The Democratic Pary Leaders and Dianne Feinstein in particular are like a bunch of Vultures using the horrendus crime to further your own political needs.

The only possible thing that I could see that would have prevented this sort of crime is if the School had had Security similar to like they have and an Air Port. That also has the advantage of possibly keeping other stuff like drugs out of the Schools. I don't see you asking you Members to support better School Security; but I did hear the President speak of Gun Control.

Since the subject of this Letter was Gun Violence in general I think it is common knowlege that at least here in CA a lot of Gun Violence has roots in the the illegal Drug Trade. What is your Party doing about that.

The illegal Drug Trade manages to bring in Tons; tons of Marijuanna to sell. If there was a Ban on Guns you are going to see the also sell Tons of illegal Guns because they only care about the Money.

Besides the Security Measures at School I mentiond I would like to see the Democratic Party form some sort of Comission with unbiased Experts in the Mental Health, Criminalolgy and Security Fields and let people who know what they are doing find a real answer to what you call a Gun Violence Issue.

Tell the Party Leaders to support the US Constituation as they swore to do and roll up there Sleeves and get to work on some real solutions that don't involve turning Law Abiding Gun owners into Crimminals.

You are asking someone to sign a Petition for sensible Gun Laws with out giving details on what the Laws might or might not be. You are asking for a Blank Check to manipulate as you please.
Using the emotions and grief surrounding the deaths of those poor Children is just plain underhanded.

Use the Initiative process that this State has and get what ever Gun Laws you feel are needed on the Ballot where People can see the text of the Law and vote on them.

-----Original Message-----
From: "John Burton, CADem.org"
Sent: Dec 24, 2012 3:33 PM
To: Edna Innerbickler
Subject: FWD: Take action on gun violence

Edna,

I wanted to make sure you saw my email from Saturday regarding the need for passing sensible gun laws in the wake of the terrible school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

More than 18,000 California Democrats have already signed our petition supporting sensible, long-overdue legislation from Senator Dianne Feinstein to ban the sale of assault weapons and extended ammunition clips.

Despite this outpouring of support, the gun lobbyists -- who wield tremendous influence in Washington -- will try to stop Senator Feinstein's legislation.

We need your help to make sure it passes. Click here to sign our petition of support for the upcoming assault weapons ban legislation.

My email from Saturday is below, and it has all of the details.

Let's show the country that California is taking the lead in standing up to gun violence.

Thank you for being a California Democrat.

John Burton
Chair
California Democratic Party

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Burton, CADem.org
Date: Sat, Dec 22, 2012
Subject: Take action on gun violence

THE FIRST EMAIL:
Edna,

In the wake of the horrendous school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut there is both righteous anger and renewed interest in at last passing sensible gun legislation.

America MUST do something about gun violence and gun control -- and once again, your California Democrats are taking the lead.

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, whom Californians re-elected this November, will start the first day of the new Congress in 2013 by introducing a bill banning the sale of assault weapons and extended ammunition clips.

That's real leadership -- but she'll face heavy opposition. The gun lobbyists wield tremendous influence in Washington, and they are committed to stopping any new legislation.

We need to show that California Democrats are standing in unison with Senator Feinstein for a ban on assault weapons. Click here to sign our petition of support today.

Nothing we can do will ever return those innocent children to the arms of their loving families, but we can take strong, aggressive steps to make sure tragedies like the one in Newtown don't become quarterly experiences for communities across America.

You're receiving this email as an someone who's interested in California politics. If you'd rather not receive regular updates from the California Democratic Party, please just click here.

Long-overdue legislation is coming to the table. We need to make sure this passes.

Sign our petition supporting Senator Dianne Feinstein's upcoming assault weapons ban legislation now, and help make sure it passes.

What happened last week in Newtown is beyond unacceptable. We need to show the country California is taking the lead in standing up to stop the gun violence.

Thank you for being a California Democrat.

Peace and friendship,

John Burton
Chair
California Democratic Party

Diesel911 · #**195** 12-25-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The number of people who could hit a human at 100yd with any pistol has to be very small. Most would have to be within 10 yd to hit I would think, unless they have practiced a whole lot.

I agree with the above. If you go to a Shooting Range and watch People Shooting Hand Gun maybe 1/5 of the People would have extreme difficulty hitting Human torso sized target at even 25 Yards with a Hand Gun. And, that is a stationary Target and the Shooter is in no rush.

Someone who has never fired a Rifle before would have difficulty hitting a Stationary Target at 100 Yards unless they were exceptionally good at following instructions and in a good steady positiion (meaning not standing).

An extreme expert Hand Gunner would not be able to hit a 100 yard stationary target if His or Her's gun had non-adjustable sights that were sighted in for 25 yards with out an extreme amount of practice; and maybe then still not able to hit it reliably.

Hand Guns that Have adjustable Sights likely do not have enough adjustment on them to be sighted in at 100 yards.