Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
02-13-2013, 09:45 AM
#482
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Colorado passed a law last night banning magazines that contain more than 15 rounds. They want Magpul to stay though, lol
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...round-magazine
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...round-magazine
Colorado House Committee passes amended gun magazine limit - The Denver Post
Some clarification: it looks like this is a bill that passed the Colorado House Judiciary Committee with an ammendment to change it from banning magazines in excess of 10-rounds to in excess of 15-rounds.
In its form at the time of publication, House Bill 1224 prohibits the sale or possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or more than five shotgun shells.
The bill says that if an individual already owns a high-capacity magazine on the effective date of the bill's becoming law, then that individual may retain it. Prosecutors would bear the burden of proof that an owner violated the new stricture.
However, manufacturers would still be able to produce these magazines within the state.
The bill says that if an individual already owns a high-capacity magazine on the effective date of the bill's becoming law, then that individual may retain it. Prosecutors would bear the burden of proof that an owner violated the new stricture.
However, manufacturers would still be able to produce these magazines within the state.
Charles Robles traveled from Colorado Springs and said had it not been for a high-capacity magazine, he would not be alive.
"It helped me engage the three men who were shooting at me," said Robles in reference to a 2002 Memorial Day robbery at his small business. "I was shot five times, but I was able to save my life and fend off my attackers."
"It helped me engage the three men who were shooting at me," said Robles in reference to a 2002 Memorial Day robbery at his small business. "I was shot five times, but I was able to save my life and fend off my attackers."
Reply
0
0
02-13-2013, 11:34 AM
#483
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
As the suspect zoomed past the officers, he rolled down his window and fired about 15 to 20 rounds, officials said. One of the officers jumped out and shot a high-powered rifle at the fleeing truck, they said.
The suspect subsequently crashed that truck and ran into the woods, authorities said. He ended up in a cabin, and a firefight ensued, they said. Two San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies were shot; one was pronounced dead at a hospital, and the other underwent surgery. Hundreds of rounds were fired in the firefight.
The suspect subsequently crashed that truck and ran into the woods, authorities said. He ended up in a cabin, and a firefight ensued, they said. Two San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies were shot; one was pronounced dead at a hospital, and the other underwent surgery. Hundreds of rounds were fired in the firefight.
I notice they left off the word "assault" in the report.
Reply
0
0
02-13-2013, 11:38 AM
#484
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
I would bet you my lunch those "hundreds of rounds fired" all came from the cops. Ever seen what happens when one guy produces a gun in front of cops? Each one dumps their entire magazine into the guy......
Reply
0
0
02-13-2013, 11:48 AM
#486
It's an obvious "compromise". It effectively eliminates the majority of AR and AK mags which are mostly 30 (some 20). But it doesn't affect .40cal handguns, which almost all have 15rd mags. On the other hand, 9mm duty pistols usually have 16 or 17... ie, the Glock 17, which is the most common police duty pistol in the country has 17rds.
"Fifteen is a reasonable number, and this is what I'm going to ask in my amendment," McLachlan said.
I can't believe I had to go to Wikipedia for a refresher on this... here goes:
Basically, a BILL is introduced by a rep in the HOUSE OR SENATE, and sent immediately to a Committe. Committees are made up of several members of all parties. Members within the committe go round and round until they decide what the bill should really say. Bill then "PASSES" the committee... and goes out to be looked at by all the representatives of the HOUSE/SENATE. After more amending and debate, it's eventually put up for a vote. If it passes the vote, it's sent to the other side of the HOUSE/SENATE, where the process of Committee-Amendments-PASS-Floor-Amendments-PASS... then it goes to the Governor for his vote. He can approve/VETO. If he VETO's, it goes back to the HOUSE/SENATE for another vote where they can overturn the Gov's veto with a 2/3 majority. There's obviously way more political bullshittery that can happen, but that's the basics.
AS OF NOW, THE CO MAG LIMITS BILL HAS ONLY PASSED THE COMMITTEE... AND NOT ACTUALLY MADE IT OUT OF THE HOUSE.
NOTE: Committees are usually open to the public and "experts" invited to speak pro/con to the Reps, provide testimony. The Committe can also kill a bill by failing to act on it.
Referendum Clause: some bills don't go to the Governor, and instead end up on the ballot to be voted on by the People, but the process is the same as getting a bill to the Governor.
"Fifteen is a reasonable number, and this is what I'm going to ask in my amendment," McLachlan said.
I can't believe I had to go to Wikipedia for a refresher on this... here goes:
Basically, a BILL is introduced by a rep in the HOUSE OR SENATE, and sent immediately to a Committe. Committees are made up of several members of all parties. Members within the committe go round and round until they decide what the bill should really say. Bill then "PASSES" the committee... and goes out to be looked at by all the representatives of the HOUSE/SENATE. After more amending and debate, it's eventually put up for a vote. If it passes the vote, it's sent to the other side of the HOUSE/SENATE, where the process of Committee-Amendments-PASS-Floor-Amendments-PASS... then it goes to the Governor for his vote. He can approve/VETO. If he VETO's, it goes back to the HOUSE/SENATE for another vote where they can overturn the Gov's veto with a 2/3 majority. There's obviously way more political bullshittery that can happen, but that's the basics.
AS OF NOW, THE CO MAG LIMITS BILL HAS ONLY PASSED THE COMMITTEE... AND NOT ACTUALLY MADE IT OUT OF THE HOUSE.
NOTE: Committees are usually open to the public and "experts" invited to speak pro/con to the Reps, provide testimony. The Committe can also kill a bill by failing to act on it.
Referendum Clause: some bills don't go to the Governor, and instead end up on the ballot to be voted on by the People, but the process is the same as getting a bill to the Governor.
Last edited by samnavy; 02-13-2013 at 12:06 PM.
Reply
0
0
02-13-2013, 02:32 PM
#487
Anti-gun logic before:
-Fight the establishment.
-Fight the man.
-Burn these government walls down, throw wrenches into the gears.
-Destruction to everything evil government
Anti-gun logic now:
-Guns are bad. No matter what.
-Guns that are black, are scary. Black things are scary. (Anti-gun people are racist.)
-Ban guns, everyone lives happily ever after.
-The constitution is old, so its more like a guideline.
-Criminals by definition, are less dangerous without guns, so if we ban guns... bad guys wont be able to buy guns.
-Tons of people have been killed by guns; regardless a large percentage of them being criminals. People still dieded :'(
-If rednecks want their guns, then they must resemble toys for everyone to be safe.
-Because real guns need to look like toys; kids can't be kids, and play good vs. evil.
-The government is our ally. They are our friends. They are the key to peace.
-Let's all smoke pot, then the world's troubles will be over.
Anti-gun in the future:
-Control all the things!
-Fight the establishment.
-Fight the man.
-Burn these government walls down, throw wrenches into the gears.
-Destruction to everything evil government
Anti-gun logic now:
-Guns are bad. No matter what.
-Guns that are black, are scary. Black things are scary. (Anti-gun people are racist.)
-Ban guns, everyone lives happily ever after.
-The constitution is old, so its more like a guideline.
-Criminals by definition, are less dangerous without guns, so if we ban guns... bad guys wont be able to buy guns.
-Tons of people have been killed by guns; regardless a large percentage of them being criminals. People still dieded :'(
-If rednecks want their guns, then they must resemble toys for everyone to be safe.
-Because real guns need to look like toys; kids can't be kids, and play good vs. evil.
-The government is our ally. They are our friends. They are the key to peace.
-Let's all smoke pot, then the world's troubles will be over.
Anti-gun in the future:
-Control all the things!
Reply
0
0
02-13-2013, 04:36 PM
#488
I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but...
In my own interest, I did some graph plotting and trendline analysis last night using some wikipedia data of "intentional homicide rate" and "guns per capita" rate, and plotted the two against each other. It's no surprise that the US guns per capita rate is tremendously high relative to the average "rest of the world" - On the order of something like 80 guns per 100 people.
I fit two curves to the data - and it's important to know that fitting a curve to data will almost never be a perfect representation of outcomes, but here are the results.
The linear curve plot suggested that on average, at approximately 60 guns per 100 people, intentional homicide is completely eliminated, and at 0 guns per 100 people, intentional homicide rises to about 20 per 100k people across the globe. Remember, curves aren't perfect - linear curves especially - take that for what it's worth.
The exponential plot, which never reaches zero, but only approaches zero as guns per capita increases, showed a significant increase in intentional homicides at approximately 20 guns per 100 people, and at zero guns the homicide rate was about 14 per 100k people.
It's important to note that the U.S. intentional homicide rate was *slightly below average* without regard to gun ownership, and lies above the curve in both linear and exponential analysis with regard to gun ownership. Were the curves a truly accurate representation of intentional homicide rate, the US would have <.5 homicides per 100k people on the exponential graph, and spontaneous human creation to the tune of about 20 people per 100k on the linear graph (this might explain our illegal imigration problem...)
Conclusion:
The "anti-gunners" will argue tooth and nail that gun-related homicides are higher in countries with "lax gun control" - and to be quite honest, they are absolutely correct - when guns are easily available, they quickly become the murder weapon of choice - after all, why bother killing someone with a baseball bat, getting blood all over you, expending a great deal of effort, and possibly getting yourself injured when all you have to do is point and squeeze?
Something you'll never hear the "anti-gunners" quote is "intentional homicide rates" vs gun-ownership. Why? Because as gun ownership goes down, murders go....UP!?!? How can that be? Gun-related murder is a SIGNIFICANT part of the pie for countries with fewer gun regulations.
Well, the simple answer is this: When guns are not available, the murderer simply chooses the next best weapon. The ability and "perceived neccessity" for the murderer to kill his victim does not go away.
It also becomes MUCH EASIER for a murderer to get away without bodily harm in a non-gun country if you consider that, in most cases, he merely has to pick on someone who is weaker than he is - or in a more probable case - the bad guy finds one or more buddies and they target a lone victim. In a gun free country, the bad guys stand a very good chance of getting away unharmed, but in a pro-carry country, even with 10 bad guys vs. one victim, the bad guys stand a significantly higher chance of being severely injured - even if only one in ten victims are carrying.
Consider putting yourself in the shoes of the "bad guy" and given these two choices.
Group 1 has a potential yield of 15 victims per week, on average each person in group 1 has $100 on them. 3 of these potential victims will be stronger than you.
Group 2 has a potential yield of 100 victims per week, on average each person in group 2 has $1,500 on them. 10 of these victims will be stronger than you. 1 of these victims will have a concealed and loaded gun.
Which group would you pick your victims out of?
In my own interest, I did some graph plotting and trendline analysis last night using some wikipedia data of "intentional homicide rate" and "guns per capita" rate, and plotted the two against each other. It's no surprise that the US guns per capita rate is tremendously high relative to the average "rest of the world" - On the order of something like 80 guns per 100 people.
I fit two curves to the data - and it's important to know that fitting a curve to data will almost never be a perfect representation of outcomes, but here are the results.
The linear curve plot suggested that on average, at approximately 60 guns per 100 people, intentional homicide is completely eliminated, and at 0 guns per 100 people, intentional homicide rises to about 20 per 100k people across the globe. Remember, curves aren't perfect - linear curves especially - take that for what it's worth.
The exponential plot, which never reaches zero, but only approaches zero as guns per capita increases, showed a significant increase in intentional homicides at approximately 20 guns per 100 people, and at zero guns the homicide rate was about 14 per 100k people.
It's important to note that the U.S. intentional homicide rate was *slightly below average* without regard to gun ownership, and lies above the curve in both linear and exponential analysis with regard to gun ownership. Were the curves a truly accurate representation of intentional homicide rate, the US would have <.5 homicides per 100k people on the exponential graph, and spontaneous human creation to the tune of about 20 people per 100k on the linear graph (this might explain our illegal imigration problem...)
Conclusion:
The "anti-gunners" will argue tooth and nail that gun-related homicides are higher in countries with "lax gun control" - and to be quite honest, they are absolutely correct - when guns are easily available, they quickly become the murder weapon of choice - after all, why bother killing someone with a baseball bat, getting blood all over you, expending a great deal of effort, and possibly getting yourself injured when all you have to do is point and squeeze?
Something you'll never hear the "anti-gunners" quote is "intentional homicide rates" vs gun-ownership. Why? Because as gun ownership goes down, murders go....UP!?!? How can that be? Gun-related murder is a SIGNIFICANT part of the pie for countries with fewer gun regulations.
Well, the simple answer is this: When guns are not available, the murderer simply chooses the next best weapon. The ability and "perceived neccessity" for the murderer to kill his victim does not go away.
It also becomes MUCH EASIER for a murderer to get away without bodily harm in a non-gun country if you consider that, in most cases, he merely has to pick on someone who is weaker than he is - or in a more probable case - the bad guy finds one or more buddies and they target a lone victim. In a gun free country, the bad guys stand a very good chance of getting away unharmed, but in a pro-carry country, even with 10 bad guys vs. one victim, the bad guys stand a significantly higher chance of being severely injured - even if only one in ten victims are carrying.
Consider putting yourself in the shoes of the "bad guy" and given these two choices.
Group 1 has a potential yield of 15 victims per week, on average each person in group 1 has $100 on them. 3 of these potential victims will be stronger than you.
Group 2 has a potential yield of 100 victims per week, on average each person in group 2 has $1,500 on them. 10 of these victims will be stronger than you. 1 of these victims will have a concealed and loaded gun.
Which group would you pick your victims out of?
Reply
0
0
02-14-2013, 01:16 PM
#489
Also, have you seen and heard the footage from the shootout? It sounded like they Chinese New Year with how many shots were being rattled off. You could hear 30round clips being emptied in seconds by full auto or burst shots.
Reply
0
0
02-14-2013, 01:30 PM
#490
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
I just simply love how disproportionate their response to this threat and subsequent followthrough were compared to others.
Also, have you seen and heard the footage from the shootout? It sounded like they Chinese New Year with how many shots were being rattled off. You could hear 30round clips being emptied in seconds by full auto or burst shots.
Reply
0
0
02-19-2013, 10:33 AM
#494
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Pay attention when D's are in charge:
"women in college should not carry guns to protect themselves from sexual assault, because they may prematurely shoot harmless men they "feel" are dangerous."
CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers
WA Dems Sponsor Bill Allowing Police to Search Gunowners' Homes
Feds Buy Two Billion Rounds of Ammunition
"women in college should not carry guns to protect themselves from sexual assault, because they may prematurely shoot harmless men they "feel" are dangerous."
CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers
WA Dems Sponsor Bill Allowing Police to Search Gunowners' Homes
In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.
Feds Buy Two Billion Rounds of Ammunition
To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war! I’m going to tell you what I think is going on. I don’t think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. … I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses. I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared. I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.
It’s not the number of bullets we need to worry about but the number of feds with guns it takes to use those bullets. There are currently more than 70 different federal law enforcement agencies employing over 120,000 officers with arrest and firearms authority . . . That’s an increase of nearly 30 percent between 2004 and 2008. If the trends have continued upward at a relatively steady rate, that would put the total number of federal law enforcement officers at somewhere between 135,000 and 145,000. That’s a pretty staggering number, especially when you consider that there are only an estimated 765,000 state and local law enforcement officers. That means that about one in seven law enforcement officers in the country works directly for the federal government, not a local jurisdiction.
Reply
0
0
02-19-2013, 01:00 PM
#495
I'm pretty pissed that various gov't police agencies saw the writing on the wall and are buying ammo in preparation for the apocalypse and I'm down to my last 10k rds.
Most people don't understand that an average gun enthusiast just out messing around could go through 1000rds in a few hours EASILY. The only thing that prevents me from doing this once or twice a week is simply the cost. 1000rds of 9mm FMJ was around $250 back in December. Now, if you can find somebody willing to ship you that much, it's damn near triple. .223 is going for almost $1rd, and you CANNOT find .22lr ammo anywhere.
Also, while "official" numbers will never really be known, the US civilian market for recreational ammo is around 5 billion rds per year, so we still have way more than the feds... and that's just how much we buy every year, not how much we shoot. I've been buying way more than I shoot for a long time.
I will say that I'll never be caught like this again. When the prices start coming down late-summer'ish, I'll get my **** together. Hell, you can put 5k rds of .22 in a shoebox. Early last year, CMP was liquidating stock of .22lr and selling 5k rd bricks for $90... I know a guy who bought 50k rds of the stuff and would have bought more if they'd have let him.
****, I've got 2 buddies who have so much ammo they can't count it all. One of them saw a good deal one day and bought 2500 rds of .30carbine and has never owned a gun in that caliber... just in case. He's got 2 full-size safes of ammo. I'd estimate a good 200k rds just for his own personal use. Half of it is .22lr, but he'd shoot 5k rds a month if the wife would let him have the time. What's worse... the guy won't sell me any of it.
Most people don't understand that an average gun enthusiast just out messing around could go through 1000rds in a few hours EASILY. The only thing that prevents me from doing this once or twice a week is simply the cost. 1000rds of 9mm FMJ was around $250 back in December. Now, if you can find somebody willing to ship you that much, it's damn near triple. .223 is going for almost $1rd, and you CANNOT find .22lr ammo anywhere.
Also, while "official" numbers will never really be known, the US civilian market for recreational ammo is around 5 billion rds per year, so we still have way more than the feds... and that's just how much we buy every year, not how much we shoot. I've been buying way more than I shoot for a long time.
I will say that I'll never be caught like this again. When the prices start coming down late-summer'ish, I'll get my **** together. Hell, you can put 5k rds of .22 in a shoebox. Early last year, CMP was liquidating stock of .22lr and selling 5k rd bricks for $90... I know a guy who bought 50k rds of the stuff and would have bought more if they'd have let him.
****, I've got 2 buddies who have so much ammo they can't count it all. One of them saw a good deal one day and bought 2500 rds of .30carbine and has never owned a gun in that caliber... just in case. He's got 2 full-size safes of ammo. I'd estimate a good 200k rds just for his own personal use. Half of it is .22lr, but he'd shoot 5k rds a month if the wife would let him have the time. What's worse... the guy won't sell me any of it.
Reply
0
0
02-21-2013, 08:37 AM
#497
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Virginia Pizza Shop Offers A Discount To Anyone Who Carries A Gun | ThinkProgress
too bad it's still illegal to curse in public in VA Beach...that place is such **** hole, if the Air Force Base was to move out of the area, it would be desolate.
too bad it's still illegal to curse in public in VA Beach...that place is such **** hole, if the Air Force Base was to move out of the area, it would be desolate.
Reply
0
0
