4th Circuit weighs in on MD "Assault" weapon bans

[Hodr]

You do realize that the argument that the gun is "weaker" doesn't count for much when it can still penetrate a humans body right? A .22LR is perfectly safe to shoot someone in the head with amirite.

I agree that the ban is stupid, but that counter-argument is also based on silliness.

My thought was, given that any gun should be able to kill, the gun that puts out the most bullets in the least amount of time is the most lethal. Unless you are stacking people several deep, then penetrating power may come into play.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Not kidding, at core, the assault on some AR's is text book everything we're told is wrong in terms of making decisions.

Felt like this needed to be repeated.

 

[Graymatter]

You do realize that the argument that the gun is "weaker" doesn't count for much when it can still penetrate a humans body right? A .22LR is perfectly safe to shoot someone in the head with amirite.

I agree that the ban is stupid, but that counter-argument is also based on silliness.

I have a scary black pellet gun that I'm pretty sure will penetrate a human's body. Heck, I think if I pump it up enough, it would severely injure and maybe kill someone. It looks like the real deal, except I painted the muzzle end with fluorescent orange nail polish.

Should we ban scary pellet guns? (we already scoff at candy cigarettes)

 

[TheLibertonian]

My thought was, given that any gun should be able to kill, the gun that puts out the most bullets in the least amount of time is the most lethal. Unless you are stacking people several deep, then penetrating power may come into play.

That's probably a better argument yeah.

 

[glhs837]

My thought was, given that any gun should be able to kill, the gun that puts out the most bullets in the least amount of time is the most lethal. Unless you are stacking people several deep, then penetrating power may come into play.

Well, when you get into guns that people actually use in the commission of crime, it's pretty much the same, the limiting factor isn't the weapon, it's how fast you can pull the trigger. So most bullets over time is a wash, unless you want to just ban semi-autos in general. Magazine size is a bit of a BS standard also, since while it does take time to swap them out (less than a second for someone who practices the motions) that's more than offset by the increased odds of a jam that comes with larger magazines.

 

[GURPS]

my .44 Colt Dragoon [and was the most powerful hand gun until the .357 came out 100 yrs later] is just as capable of killing someone as an AR-15
... the reload time is a bit longer, the accuracy and range are less ...

 

[Gilligan]

Well, when you get into guns that people actually use in the commission of crime, it's pretty much the same, the limiting factor isn't the weapon, it's how fast you can pull the trigger. So most bullets over time is a wash, unless you want to just ban semi-autos in general. Magazine size is a bit of a BS standard also, since while it does take time to swap them out (less than a second for someone who practices the motions) that's more than offset by the increased odds of a jam that comes with larger magazines.

Exactly. The ban was arbitrary and capricious, focusing more on (almost entirely on, in fact) specific "scary features", like pistol grips, detachable magazine, flash suppressor, than on quantitative factors that affect "lethality"..

As Ivan The Crazy Russian famously opined: "Is dangerous?? Of course is dangerous!..is weapon". All firearms are, by design, lethal weapons.

 

[Larry Gude]

Exactly. The ban was arbitrary and capricious, focusing more on (almost entirely on, in fact) specific "scary features", like pistol grips, detachable magazine, flash suppressor, than on quantitative factors that affect "lethality"..

As Ivan The Crazy Russian famously opined: "Is dangerous?? Of course is dangerous!..is weapon". All firearms are, by design, lethal weapons.

It was not arbitrary. They identified a bogeyman, AR's, and honed in on that. It serves the purpose of an issue to build a campaign around. They did the equivalent of saying it was there to ravish all the white women, to make your kids gay, to defile your temples and so forth. They used ALL the tools of bigotry to attack a target that fir the ends, political ends, and was disposable to their side.

Replace 'AR' with 'black man' or 'gay' and see if I am not correct.

 

[Gilligan]

They identified a bogeyman, AR's, and honed in on that. It serves the purpose of an issue to build a campaign around. They did the equivalent of saying it was there to ravish all the white women, to make your kids gay, to defile your temples and so forth. They used ALL the tools of bigotry to attack a target that fir the ends, political ends, and was disposable to their side.

Exactly what I meant by "Arbitrary and Capricious". Not based on purely rational or quantifiable metrics.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well, when you get into guns that people actually use in the commission of crime, it's pretty much the same, the limiting factor isn't the weapon, it's how fast you can pull the trigger. So most bullets over time is a wash, unless you want to just ban semi-autos in general. Magazine size is a bit of a BS standard also, since while it does take time to swap them out (less than a second for someone who practices the motions) that's more than offset by the increased odds of a jam that comes with larger magazines.

I would take this line of argument if I had the chance and ask a mag hater what is the proper number of dead, the acceptable level of carnage and I'd make that very point; if it is a trained person, mag size ain't gonna matter. If they're untrained, larger is better because it increases the chances of a failure. Then, I'd take them to a range and spend $1,000's of tax payer dollars illustrating this.

 

[Larry Gude]

Exactly what I meant by "Arbitrary and Capricious". Not based on purely rational or quantifiable metrics.

If you're goal is to have a little "I hate AR's!" pin, then, it is rational and quantifiable. That's my point. I'm sure we're on the same page here so, this is more for public consumption than directed at you or the other gun loons lurking about.

And, again, I'd grab this and scream long and loud that, based on facts and evidence and knowledge, AR's may well be the LAST place you'd focus your energies IF reducing gun violence was the true goal.

 

[Tilted]

If you're goal is to have a little "I hate AR's!" pin, then, it is rational and quantifiable. That's my point. I'm sure we're on the same page here so, this is more for public consumption than directed at you or the other gun loons lurking about.

And, again, I'd grab this and scream long and loud that, based on facts and evidence and knowledge, AR's may well be the LAST place you'd focus your energies IF reducing gun violence was the true goal.

I don't know, an AR-15 makes for an effective gateway drug of sorts.

For instance, you might use one to teach your 100-pound girlfriend how to shoot long guns before, her confidence that she can handle rifles established, handing her, say, a lever action 7mm Rem Mag.

Gateway. Gun.

And as you can probably imagine, some of those (ex) girlfriends turned hardcore users go on to become stone cold killers.

 

[Gilligan]

And, again, I'd grab this and scream long and loud that, based on facts and evidence and knowledge, AR's may well be the LAST place you'd focus your energies IF reducing gun violence was the true goal.

Ed zachary.

 

[Gilligan]

I don't know, an AR-15 makes for an effective gateway drug of sorts.

For instance, you might use one to teach your 100-pound girlfriend how to shoot long guns before, her confidence that she can handle rifles established, handing her, say, a lever action 7mm Rem Mag.

Gateway. Gun.

And as you can probably imagine, some of those (ex) girlfriends turned hardcore users go on to become stone cold killers.

LOL. Good friend of mine has his 100-lb (maybe) 15 yo daughter shooting competitively with an AR-15 platform. Started younger, of course. She's quite good with a pistol too, but the AR is her favorite. She helps him reload too; they load their own match-grade ammunition.

My own daughters both love to shoot about everything I own and always have. The younger one is in process of obtaining her CCW (not in MD) and is on track for a PHD in Criminal Justice. The older one is very good at shooting clays...and gets the opportunity to do that often where she lives in Texas.

Raising a bunch of terrorists, we are.

 

[TheLibertonian]

If you're goal is to have a little "I hate AR's!" pin, then, it is rational and quantifiable. That's my point. I'm sure we're on the same page here so, this is more for public consumption than directed at you or the other gun loons lurking about.

And, again, I'd grab this and scream long and loud that, based on facts and evidence and knowledge, AR's may well be the LAST place you'd focus your energies IF reducing gun violence was the true goal.

The gun debate is like the abortion debate. Two sides screaming past eachother and ignoring everything the other side is saying that they can't jump on.

 

[Larry Gude]

The gun debate is like the abortion debate. Two sides screaming past eachother and ignoring everything the other side is saying that they can't jump on.

Nah. At least the abortion battle makes sense. One side says it's wrong the other side says it's none of your bees wax. The gun debate is sorta like, gosh, what? It's like, well, saying we have too many deaths by gun, virtually none done with AR's, and then going after AR's.

 

[Larry Gude]

And as you can probably imagine, some of those (ex) girlfriends turned hardcore users go on to become stone cold killers.

Sounds dangerous to me.

 

[Tilted]

The Fourth Circuit today announced that it will rehear this case en banc. Oral argument will be held May 11th. I wouldn't count on the panel's decision being upheld by the full court.