Skip to main content

View Diary: AWB and honesty (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'll be the first to admit... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, gerrilea

    ...I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to varying types of automatic / semi-automatic weapons.  My ignorance on the issue could be exploited by either side of this debate (there's no denying the 2nd Amendment, but there is a debate to be had regarding how it's interpreted.)  However, it makes very little sense to me to continue to manufacture and sell high capacity clips and weapons that are generally used on a battlefield.  

    Do I really need to know the minutiae here, or is this splitting hairs?

     

    Now there is a difference between a semi-automatic rifles rate of fire and its cyclic rate of fire. The cyclic rate of fire is based on how fast the weapon cycles or in layman terms how fast it loads, locks, fires, unlocks and ejects each round, whereas the rate of fire factors in how fast a person can change magazines and the overheating of the barrel.
    Please explain to me the difference in and the significance of the rate of fire between automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

    Might seem like a loaded question, but I'd really like to know why these distinctions are important and why a ban on automatic rifles included in the AWB bill is a ploy by pro-gun control advocates to actually go after the types of semi-automatic rifles you discuss in your diary.

    •  The rate of fire of a fully automatic rifle (5+ / 0-)

      should be higher than a semi-automatic rifle since all that has to be done to empty the magazine is pull the trigger once and hold it down. Will that rate of fire be significantly higher? That would depend on the capacity of the magazine and the shooters skill at changing magazines.

      As far as I know the AWB focuses solely on semi-automatic firearms that look like they are fully automatic and therein lies the rub. IIRC the AWB does not address the functionality of firearms it only covers their appearance and therein lies the rub addressing only how things look instead of how they function. There is little to no difference between how fast a black plastic semi-automatic rifle fires and a wood stock semi-automatic rifle fires. It seems to me that proponents of the AWB have a problem with all semi-automatic rifles, not just the black plastic ones, hence my request for honesty.

      I think it is a weapons cyclic rate of fire that they don't like, all I am asking is that they get honest with the American people and proclaim what they really want, a ban of all semi-automatic rifles. And if they are really honest they would extend that ban to all semi-automatic firearms to include shotguns and handguns.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:56:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the reply. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, raincrow, gerrilea

        Can I assume that you believe that outlawing high capacity clips is a more effective (and honest) way of reducing the lethality of both automatic and semi-automatic weapons (insofaras making it take more time to reload)?  

        Are semi-automatic rifles the most common type of weapon used in hunting?

        •  I have actually written a diary suggesting (4+ / 0-)

          that magazine capacity be restricted to 10 rounds, it's one of the few proposals as far as bans go that has the potential of reducing the severity of mass shootings.

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:28:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I disagree most vehemently. Two of the (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, oldpunk, rockhound, gerrilea

            most notorious mass shooters (Cho at VT, and Harris at Columbine) operated almost exclusively with 10-round magazines - a dozen or more each.

            The "instances" where a shooter was stymied in reload involved extreme capacity magazines (the AR at Aurora, or the attack on Giffords), where the inherent unreliability of the magazine caused a jam either in the magazine or the well.

            Restricting magazines, to the contrary, only harms those who don't fill a backpack full of reloads - in other words, magazine limits disadvantage those who are minding their own business but who might be armed against people who came looking to murder a bunch of people.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:39:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You and I are actually closer to violent agreement (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, gerrilea

              than anything else. That's why I said that restricting magazine capacity is one of the few proposals that has the potential to reduce the severity of a mass shooting. Banning scary looking firearms will do less than fuck all, other than hurt Dems in the midterms.

              I personally think that such a restriction will have the same effect that it had last time which is pretty much zip. So I guess I am really more ambivalent than anything. With that said I would be willing to give on magazine capacity, I see it as a sop, but that would be about it.

              You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

              by oldpunk on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:02:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See, I'm not willing to go with any bans. (5+ / 0-)

                Because "ban" is short for "criminalize the possession of".

                Think about that. Even if old magazines are grandfathered in, a ban sends people to prison not for what they do, but what they have.

                As such, criminalizing possession should never be offered as a sop - it should always be given the highest level of scrutiny with regard to efficacy.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:12:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for working to inform yourself (4+ / 0-)

      Full automatic is what you see in movies. A bad guy holds the trigger down and there's a continuous rapid fire until the gun runs out of ammunition, which never happens in the movies. Such weapons are already hard for civilians to own.

      Semi-automatic means the gun fires one shot per trigger pull. After each shot the gun readies the next round with no work needed on your part. Hold down the trigger and nothing more happens. Seconds pass. Minutes pass. Three Republicans make stupid comments about rape. Eventually you get bored and let go of the trigger.

      Pull the trigger rapidly and it fires rapidly.

      What makes Bushmaster-type weapons so hideously well suited for 12/14 type crimes is that a shooter can load them with 30 or even a hundred rounds at a time, and when he runs out, he can swap in a new magazine in a second or two, making it only justly barely possible for someone to tackle him without being shot.

      There are also semi-automatic rifles which conveniently ready the next round for you but which require more time-consuming reloading after a few shots. Those are better suited for hunting than for atrocities.

      I can't speak for people who own firearms like those on the Feinstein list but I think they're afraid that if laws don't have to make sense, then there's no limit on what the next law might do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site