Feinstein to Intro Gun Ban Bill on January 22 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39120690]Did you know shotgun homicide is more popular than rifle homicide? [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8[/url][/QUOTE] This is what always puzzled me about gun legislation. Shotguns are fucking brutal weapons. They hit incredibly hard, especially at the distances most gunfights/criminal activity occur at. They are cheap to begin with, and easy to chop if you want to conceal them. Sure they don't have 10+ rounds in most cases, but 6 is enough to put down most if not all resistance you are facing. Shotguns are versatile, and don't exactly require incredible precision to hit things with either. Pump guns are fairly reliable, too. And yet, I never see a proposal to ban shotguns, or regulate them in any way, when in reality, they have the potential to be just as damaging, if not more damaging than a rifle or handgun, while being cheaper and easier to handle. No one seems to be afraid of something that can spit out slugs or buck, both of which are more than capable of killing an individual, certainly more so than .223. (These opinions come from someone who's family owns guns, and has been shooting for most of his life.)

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39122121]The supreme court would also agree with you, as stated in in miller v united states ([URL]http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/miller.txt[/URL]) the whole reason miller couldn't carry a sawed off shotgun, was because it isn't a military weapon. The very definition of an assault rifle is a military weapon. The entire purpose of personal firearm owning, is that, assuming you must form a militia, you may provide your own firearms, and do not need to requisition arms from the federal government.[/QUOTE] True, but police departments and other government agencies are allowed to have sawed off shotguns. [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/why-does-department-of-education-need-12-gauge-shotguns[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Irb4K.jpg[/IMG]

Sorry, misunderstood.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115952]Why not both?[/QUOTE] It's generally that there's not much of a proven statistic to say that strict gun regulations would cut down on violent crime in the US. Gun regulations have been expanding over time but generally speaking violent crime in the has simply continued to go upwards anyways. A lot of people just tend to look at crime statistics in other countries where there are fewer violent crimes, and instantly draw the conclusion that it must be gun control working, but that's not scientific at all, it's purely circumstantial and has no bearing on the real factors behind crime. The fact is, gun control, by and large is a removal of personal freedoms. Addressing poverty and income disparity on the other hand is really not a removal of personal freedoms (unless that's how you regard taxes) it just stands to reason that the societal causes of low class violent crime should be addressed before people start fiddling around with gun regulations.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39122364]It's generally that there's not much of a proven statistic to say that strict gun regulations would cut down on violent crime in the US. Gun regulations have been expanding over time but generally speaking violent crime in the has simply continued to go upwards anyways. A lot of people just tend to look at crime statistics in other countries where there are fewer violent crimes, and instantly draw the conclusion that it must be gun control working, but that's not scientific at all, it's purely circumstantial and has no bearing on the real factors behind crime. The fact is, gun control, by and large is a removal of personal freedoms. Addressing poverty and income disparity on the other hand is really not a removal of personal freedoms (unless that's how you regard taxes) it just stands to reason that the societal causes of low class violent crime should be addressed before people start fiddling around with gun regulations.[/QUOTE] Not only poverty and income disparity but mental health too. The shooter in the sandy hook incident was mentally unstable, he should have had no access to these weapons. Besides, do we ban cars because of drunk drivers? No, we ban the drunk drivers from using cars. I wish Feinstein was intelligent enough to know this, but that is asking too much from her.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39115643]What so we can ignore bullshit like: That quote there, is utter shit.[/QUOTE] Every one of your rebuttals, if they're even justified in being referred to as that, have been about how this gentlemen has typed "it's hard to be bias with the truth." Not once have you addressed any of the well-devised and logical points that countless of others have made, in regards to your own, I don't know, 'argument,' that you've attempted to present for some reason. Not that there's anything wrong, I just don't see the point, unless you're trying to play this off by trying to seem funny by continuously referencing and ripping on this one innocent man's opinion that has nothing to do with the aforementioned points and arguments. [editline]wat[/editline] I mean, I can understand how some other members are becoming frustrated by this continuous farce you seem to enjoy creating a trend out of. I honestly feel bad for the guy that "lost it" and told you to shut the fuck up with your pointless, asinine remarks, and was banned as a result.

Remember folks, you're all in the militia. As per 10 USC § 311: [quote]The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[/quote] Basically if your not in the armed forces or the national guard and are between the ages of 17 and 45 you're in the unorganized militia.

[QUOTE=Grasp;39122022]This is what always puzzled me about gun legislation. Shotguns are fucking brutal weapons. They hit incredibly hard, especially at the distances most gunfights/criminal activity occur at. They are cheap to begin with, and easy to chop if you want to conceal them. Sure they don't have 10+ rounds in most cases, but 6 is enough to put down most if not all resistance you are facing. Shotguns are versatile, and don't exactly require incredible precision to hit things with either. Pump guns are fairly reliable, too. And yet, I never see a proposal to ban shotguns, or regulate them in any way, when in reality, they have the potential to be just as damaging, if not more damaging than a rifle or handgun, while being cheaper and easier to handle. No one seems to be afraid of something that can spit out slugs or buck, both of which are more than capable of killing an individual, certainly more so than .223. (These opinions come from someone who's family owns guns, and has been shooting for most of his life.)[/QUOTE] It's because shotguns have a very shot effective range, less than about 50m, 100-200m if your shooting slugs. Where as most centrefire rifles can do about 300-400m minimum

[QUOTE=download;39124941]It's because shotguns have a very shot effective range, less than about 50m, 100-200m if your shooting slugs. Where as most centrefire rifles can do about 300-400m minimum[/QUOTE] Which is funny cause I can bet 95% of these mass shootings and just (criminal) shootings in general happen ~50m

let's take away matches from everyone, because .0001% of the population might be arsonists and there's [i]totally[/i] no way one could use a match for anything other than burning a building down

[QUOTE=download;39124941]It's because shotguns have a very shot effective range, less than about 50m, 100-200m if your shooting slugs. Where as most centrefire rifles can do about 300-400m minimum[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Aman VII;39124984]Which is funny cause I can bet 95% of these mass shootings and just (criminal) shootings in general happen ~50m[/QUOTE] Was the point I was trying to make. Most of the mass shootings I have heard about didn't consist of long range kills by any means, and 50m is quite generous distance wise, in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39124984]Which is funny cause I can bet 95% of these mass shootings and just (criminal) shootings in general happen ~50m[/QUOTE] It's also funny because buckshot causes incredible trauma upon impact. It won't punch through bones and bounce around like .223, but if you get hit by seven ball-bearings and the plastic wad (which NO form of media ever mentions, that I've seen) you are almost certainly going to die. Honestly I'd be more scared of a sawed-off 12 gauge than literally everything Feinstein thinks should be banned. [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] Maybe worthy of mention but sawing off a shotgun and even possessing it, never mind using it in a crime, carries an unbelievably heavy penalty. People still do it.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39125903]It's also funny because buckshot causes incredible trauma upon impact. It won't punch through bones and bounce around like .223, but if you get hit by seven ball-bearings and the plastic wad (which NO form of media ever mentions, that I've seen) you are almost certainly going to die. Honestly I'd be more scared of a sawed-off 12 gauge than literally everything Feinstein thinks should be banned. [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] Maybe worthy of mention but sawing off a shotgun and even possessing it, never mind using it in a crime, carries an unbelievably heavy penalty. People still do it.[/QUOTE] .223 bouncing around? At less then 200m .223 goes straight through unless it's a hollow point. It may ricochet off bones. Buck shot would go through a bone depending on the range.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;39124850]Remember folks, you're all in the militia. As per 10 USC § 311: Basically if your not in the armed forces or the national guard and are between the ages of 17 and 45 you're in the unorganized militia.[/QUOTE] I wish there was an organized militia group, managed by the states, wouldn't hurt, and you could have a group of people training in disaster relief and other useful things in a crisis. Think of it as an aid to police and other emergency personnel if things get out of control.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;39127025]I wish there was an organized militia group, managed by the states, wouldn't hurt, and you could have a group of people training in disaster relief and other useful things in a crisis. Think of it as an aid to police and other emergency personnel if things get out of control.[/QUOTE] Isn't that what the National Guard is supposed to do?

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;39127025]I wish there was an organized militia group, managed by the states, wouldn't hurt, and you could have a group of people training in disaster relief and other useful things in a crisis. Think of it as an aid to police and other emergency personnel if things get out of control.[/QUOTE] United States National Guard, and some militas are sponsored by state senators/representatives.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39127583]United States National Guard, and some militas are sponsored by state senators/representatives.[/QUOTE] Georgia has the Georgia Defense Force [URL="http://www.gasdf.com/"]http://www.gasdf.com/[/URL].

Under this bill. The mosin nagant (that TONS of people own) would be classified an assault weapon for its bayonet lug [t]http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/hiRes/411540201.jpg[/t] The gun is bolt action and does not even have a detachable magazine (you have to load the rounds one by one from the top). I have never heard of anyone being attacked with a bayonet. Ever.

[QUOTE=ac/14;39130811]Under this bill. The mosin nagant (that TONS of people own) would be classified an assault weapon for its bayonet lug [t]http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/hiRes/411540201.jpg[/t] The gun is bolt action and does not even have a detachable magazine (you have to load the rounds one by one from the top). I have never heard of anyone being attacked with a bayonet. Ever.[/QUOTE] I think it specifically exempts manually operated guns.

[QUOTE=ac/14;39130811]Under this bill. The mosin nagant (that TONS of people own) would be classified an assault weapon for its bayonet lug [t]http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/hiRes/411540201.jpg[/t] The gun is bolt action and does not even have a detachable magazine (you have to load the rounds one by one from the top). I have never heard of anyone being attacked with a bayonet. Ever.[/QUOTE] There's no reason it shouldn't be. Bayonets can be especially deadly, and mosins fire rounds larger than AR-15s or AK-47s are chambered for in the first place.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39132027]There's no reason it shouldn't be. Bayonets can be especially deadly, and mosins fire rounds larger than AR-15s or AK-47s are chambered for in the first place.[/QUOTE] I am honestly speechless at how stupid this is.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39132027]There's no reason it shouldn't be. Bayonets can be especially deadly, and mosins fire rounds larger than AR-15s or AK-47s are chambered for in the first place.[/QUOTE] Please tell me you're being tongue-in-cheek? Because I have never heard of a bayonet being used by a criminal, and while you're correct about the caliber, intermediate assault rifle rounds are the smallest rifle rounds available and that would mean that literally any rifle would be an assault weapon, and that is pants-on-head retarded.

I hate that this is proposed. The only thing I hate about the gun culture in the US is how some of you worship them like gods. Its scary.

[QUOTE=Black;39132920]I hate that this is proposed. The only thing I hate about the gun culture in the US is how some of you worship them like gods. Its scary.[/QUOTE] They can't envision a world where they and others have the ability to kill whoever they want whenever they want, with a gun.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39132929]They can't envision a world where they and others have the ability to kill whoever they want whenever they want, with a gun.[/QUOTE] This is ridiculously out of touch with public opinion and you should feel a little ashamed of yourself for saying that.

[QUOTE=Melonious Monk;39132998]This is ridiculously out of touch with public opinion and you should feel a little ashamed of yourself for saying that.[/QUOTE] Why should my opinion be the same as 'public opinion'?

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39133054]Why should my opinion be the same as 'public opinion'?[/QUOTE] No sane person who understands the moral, psychological, and legal impact of even a justified homicide would want to kill another person. However, when you are in imminent danger, you should be willing and able to defend yourself.

[QUOTE=cccritical;39125534]let's take away matches from everyone, because .0001% of the population might be arsonists and there's [i]totally[/i] no way one could use a match for anything other than burning a building down[/QUOTE] the number of lawful things you can do with a match exceeds that of a gun by miles, what a ridiculous argument

[QUOTE=Trumple;39133108]the number of lawful things you can do with a match exceeds that of a gun by miles, what a ridiculous argument[/QUOTE] I could list a number of different shooting sports but I don't think I would change your opinion on the matter.

[QUOTE=Melonious Monk;39133194]I could list a number of different shooting sports but I don't think I would change your opinion on the matter.[/QUOTE] Which you don't need a gun capable of killing someone with to compete in.