Originally Posted by Semo '75

But, more importantly, it sends the crystal clear message that all someone has to do to get the attention of the entire nation, from regular citizens on up to the President of the United States, is to walk into a place that's lightly defended and start killing innocent people. "Do that," we tell troubled young people, "and you will become a household name. People hundreds, even thousands, of miles away will discuss the conditions of your life over dinner. You will force movie studios to change their release schedules, schools to revise their safety plans, experts to puzzle over the mystery that was you, and politicians to debate. Just pull the trigger and, for the length of about one news cycle, you will be the talk of the nation. Your name will go down in history."

Some people will work tirelessly their entire lives for just the opportunity to become a household name. Meanwhile, we offer a pretty much guaranteed shortcut to the same level of fame, a method that just happens to be tailor made for troubled and suicidal young men.

You don't think that has an impact? Really?

Heh. Interesting take. I contrast to the Ryzhskaya station bombing and the other green-line bombing on the Moscow Metro. Traffic was routed around the affected area while they cleaned up and did forensics, and people -- other than those directly impacted, of course -- continued going about life as normal. It then struck me as more 'adult' a reaction than the media-blitz-OhMyGawd!!1!! with the names and pictures and everything. I hadn't considered the possibility that it might have a... if not 'deterrent', than at least 'not-encouragement' effect.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Okay, since you completely missed my point, I'll make it anyway.

An AR-15 is a semi-automatic knock off off an M-16. It's mechanically the same as any of the most commonly used hunting rifles. Round size wise, an AR-15 actually packs bullets that are smaller than a lot of your more popular hunting rifles, meaning the AR is going to be pound for pound less likely to be lethal than your .30- variants.

Same with the hand guns. They're semi-automatic hand guns, mechanically the same as any of the most commonly used hunting side arms. Round size, they're actually smaller than some of the more popular .40 to .45 sizes.

There is no law that a person could write that would ban the sale of these kinds of weapons that would not have a negative impact on every practical application for fire arms. The guns that can be banned because you can parse out what makes them different from standard, practical use fire arms either already are, or are so expensive they are effectively banned based on price rationing or both.

There is no difference between these semi-automatic guns and any other semi-automatic gun you could show me save round size.

Roger that. In terms of FP/IN^2 and velocity my good old fashioned Police .44 Mag S&W completely wipes out anything the Glock and Sig 9s can muster. Awesome stopping power (but portability, recoil control and repeat rate, not so much ...).

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If you're looking for the answer, you're not going to find the answer because there isn't a perfect answer. School security is an answer, social awareness is an answer, social involvement is an answer, addressing loopholes in gun laws is an answer and not turning these things into a media frenzy or a spectacle is answer and lowering the bar as far as psychological testing ect is an answer. Associating my mentality as being similar with his is a huge mistake on your behalf. My mentality would have moved me towards him and brought me into direct conflict with him. And god willing, my mentality would have countered his mentality, prevailed and put an end to the senseless slaughter.

Does your mentality lead you to hang around elementary schools, armed, waiting for a massacre to start? This might possibly be a positive contribution, but there would not be universal approval. Guns frighten a lot of people. I'm dubious that armed civilians hanging around elementary schools would be a positive contribution. Maybe if they knew you had specific appropriate training and were part of the emergency response protocol. Have you tried going to the local police station, letting them know you have a gun, and saying you are helpfully going to hang around elementary schools?

If not, you are having death daydreams. You are dreaming about killing people while not making the planning and effort required to make the daydreams come true in a positive way. Thus, you remind me of the shooter.

Thing is, it would be much easier for the shooter to find his target of choice than for you. Catching a nut with a gun in the act is a difficult problem. For all the attention they get, they are few and far between. It would take a lot of people with a lot of guns hanging around a lot of schools to create a meaningful defense. Daydreaming that you could be of help if only you had a magic pony that could instantly get you to the crime scene is kind of pointless.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You're kidding yourself. But then, that's what you folks do I guess. Fool yourselves.

What makes you think that I couldn't win in a shootout with a guy who has an assualt rifle? It only takes one bullet and the ability to make the first one count.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What makes you think that I couldn't win in a shootout with a guy who has an assualt rifle? It only takes one bullet and the ability to make the first one count.

What makes me think that, is cause the guy has a lot more bullets than you, and you have to find him and shoot first, and kill him before he starts shooting with a gun that can shoot faster and more bullets than yours.

As Bob points out too, you're not likely to be there with a gun, unless it is your job to be, and such a person carries around a gun on school grounds. Or, one could be locked up and available only to you, I suppose (?), but how many people would be killed before you retrieve it, while you could have been calling 9-11?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Roger that. In terms of FP/IN^2 and velocity my good old fashioned Police .44 Mag S&W completely wipes out anything the Glock and Sig 9s can muster. Awesome stopping power (but portability, recoil control and repeat rate, not so much ...).

Most of the departments I know of use the Glock 21 (.45 cal) and the officers will frequently carry Glock 27's (.40 cal subcompact) as a side arm. They shoot fast and the 21 is really feathery on the recoil. The 27 is used more as a worst case scenario, so the recoil is miserable, the grip is miserable, but it's probably the best you can get for something I can barely hold. But it's not like either of these are much faster firing rate wise than any other semi-auto.

Originally Posted by Kepi

@ Marx&Lennon

Every single manufacturer offers a semi-auto hunting rifle, they are almost always use a gas chambering system, and a light weight synthetic version is generally offered and prefered.

The slow spin on the round, is, I agree an issue. However, it doesn't make the weapon more lethal, it makes it more likely to maim human targets. A larger round or high quality ammo would negate any advantages (if there are any) banning slow spin barrelling created.

Similarly, synthetic construction is very common and desireable in any and all hunting side arms. There's a reason that Glocks and Sigs are amongst the most popular pistols on the market, and it's got very little to do with criminality and everything to do with the fact that they're great.

Touting the fact that we now make sporting arms that employ military technology is far from satisfactory in my book. We also make 50 caliber "target" rifles, for those wishing to test their abilty over extreme distances. Sorry, that's a sniper rifle, hard stop.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

When it comes to why these are desireable for hunting, first, it's an issue of dependability. I don't want a gun that is heavy and difficult to operate. I want something light, easy to aim, and reliable that I know is going to do what it is supposed to. Second, it's an issue of speed. If I hit an animal and I see it getting up, I want a gun that's as quick as my response. I don't want to have to chamber another round myself and I really don't want to have to pull the gun away from my face or jerk it and botch my aim. Finally, it's a matter of safety. If I approach an animal, and it's gone down, but is still alive, and it rears up on me for my sake I want both my rifle and my pistol (if I lose my rifle in the process) to be light weight, quick, and to offer me as many rounds as I need. Finally, it's good conservation. When I shoot an animal, I want it dead as fast as possible. Prolonging an animal's suffering is not cool.

What differentiates an assault weapon fromother arms is a matter of degree, but a long arm, designed to hunt deer, typically has a barrel a lot longer than a weapon designed to kill people at realitively close range.
The M-16 is the baseline form for the entire universe of faux ARs, and it had a relatively long barrel for the type. I have seen the carbines for sale too. Those have zero applications outside the miltary, unless SWAT is intending to assault a drug house or something. Likewise, the high-volume shotguns.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Magazine limits aren't a bad idea, it's just that it's not hard to carry a bunch of . Safe storage requirements are something I'm very in favor of. But banning gas systems, synthetics, and all these sort of elements would be largely detrimental. It'd keep me from going hunting and put me at the range (where I'd rather shoot a revolver).

All that plastic and light-weight framing came directly from the need to allow the user to respond fast to others similarly armed. I think the deer are still relatively disadvanted against a rifle with a wooden stock.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

But my guess is that the reason so many people are dying in these events are true response time issues. It's not just that people are shot, it's that people are shot and they're having to wait for the duration of the event (which involves police handling the shooter and being sure that the threat is mitigated) before sending in EMS. Working out new operations for that could potentially save a lot of lives.

I'm waiting tfor the time that the overly armed general public responds to an event like this, and gets everyone on the scene killed. One shooter, one gun is dangerous enough. At a scene with 10 shooters, and chaos thrown in for good measure, I doubt even a well trained soldier or cop will be able to keep the players straight. The operating rule will be: you shoot at me and I return fire.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

More or less, though, these guns are just guns. There's nothing that makes them special

Is this one special?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Does your mentality lead you to hang around elementary schools, armed, waiting for a massacre to start? This might possibly be a positive contribution, but there would not be universal approval. Guns frighten a lot of people. I'm dubious that armed civilians hanging around elementary schools would be a positive contribution. Maybe if they knew you had specific appropriate training and were part of the emergency response protocol. Have you tried going to the local police station, letting them know you have a gun, and saying you are helpfully going to hang around elementary schools?

Nope, I have other things to do with my time. But, if I were called upon to take action during a shooting spree or found myself in a school during a shooting spree, I would find the way and the means to turn the hunter of innocent sheep into the wolf who is being hunted.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If not, you are having death daydreams. You are dreaming about killing people while not making the planning and effort required to make the daydreams come true in a positive way. Thus, you remind me of the shooter.

I've been close enough to dealth to able to tell you that it's a scary and unsettling feeling at first but once you get to the point of acceptance and final thoughts and regrets it becomes a rather qualming experience. I've been there and I'd rather not go there again until it's my time.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Thing is, it would be much easier for the shooter to find his target of choice than for you. Catching a nut with a gun in the act is a difficult problem. For all the attention they get, they are few and far between. It would take a lot of people with a lot of guns hanging around a lot of schools to create a meaningful defense. Daydreaming that you could be of help if only you had a magic pony that could instantly get you to the crime scene is kind of pointless.

I made a couple of wishes. I wished that there would be someone similar to me with a gun to stop the killing spree next time and I wished that I could have been there with a gun to stop him this time.

Mac-10's are automatic, not semi-automatic. You go to full auto and then you have a weapon that's there for supressive fire. It serves no practical applications for anything but, and supressive fire only really works on people. It's also in a price range that's utterly prohibitive for most people. I've known many people who've had a lot of guns, and the only people who I've known to own something like that were exceedingly wealthy. Only .08% of crimes are committed using automatic weapons. They're expensive and impractical.

As for hunting weapons using military technology, they're using technology, period. There are tons of technological innovations spearheaded by the military with a wide array of civilian applications. We're using one of the most efficient and brutal right now. If plastic framing makes my gun easier to shoot, why should I have to give it up? I'm sure a wood framed rifle would be just as likely to kill unarmed people.

Outlawing carabines isn't a bad idea in general and barrell length on shoulder arms is a reasonable concern, but I think the problem you run into with spreeshooters is that they don't seem to care as much if they live or die, so they're really a hacksaw away from making their standard rifle a carabine.

My thoughts weren't of the general public playing cowboy, my thoughts were more on SWAT tactics which would allow them to secure sections of the scene down so that you can start EMS providing services. It maybe piecemeal, but it's better than waiting.

Just ban all the weapons except rifles used for hunting, and be done with all the stupid debate about what's what. People should not have these weapons of war and that's that. Or just support Sen. Feinstein's bill and be done with it. She knows what she's doing.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I made a couple of wishes. I wished that there would be someone similar to me with a gun to stop the killing spree next time and I wished that I could have been there with a gun to stop him this time.

People with guns are not allowed to go on school campuses. You would have to work there, and the school would have to be willing and able to assign that role to you. But maybe your scenario would work with the guy in Oregon last week. Not that I'm in favor of people carrying guns around. I don't want to go to a state that allows people to carry guns. I would not have liked shoot 'em up the wild west.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

All that plastic and light-weight framing came directly from the need to allow the user to respond fast to others similarly armed. I think the deer are still relatively disadvanted against a rifle with a wooden stock.

Indeed they are. But have you ever carried one of those long heavy rifles through some good old Pac NW underbrush canyons for a whole day? If there's a lower-weight option, just the fact that it's less to lug around makes it an advantage to a real hunter (not to one of those lazy asses that covers himself in deer piss and hides up a tree, of course... but we're talking about real hunting). In fact, since visibility in the woods is pretty damn low, the added long-distance accuracy of the full-length barrel isn't really doing anything for a hunter, either -- while the tendency of the short barrel not to get hung up on vine maples and blackberries and the other assorted miscellany that deer seem to phase directly through without leaving a path makes it a very important feature in a hunting rifle as well.

So short barrel and light weight are indeed very much qualities important and valued from the standpoint of hunting alone.

But then again, if you define the question narrowly and carefully enough, you can come up with a list of 'unnecessaries' to include pretty much whatever you want.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Just ban all the weapons except rifles used for hunting, and be done with all the stupid debate about what's what. People should not have these weapons of war and that's that. Or just support Sen. Feinstein's bill and be done with it. She knows what she's doing.

As I said earlier, there's no mechanical difference between the weapons used in any given spree shooting and hunting weapons. Attempting a ban would be an exercise in either futility or masturbation, or both.

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Manchin Urges NRA to Discuss Gun Law Changes

A pro-gun U.S. lawmaker on Monday called on Congress and the gun industry to come together on a "sensible, reasonable approach" to curbing high-powered, assault weapons like those used in the Connecticut school shooting last week.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat who has earned top marks from the gun industry, said all ideas should be open for discussion after the violence on Friday that killed 20 children aged 6 and 7.

Manchin, a hunter and member of the National Rifle Association, said the availability of such high-powered weapons does not make sense and called on the gun lobby group to cooperate with a reform of the nation's gun laws.

The NRA has been an influential force against limiting gun sales and has succeeded in loosening restrictions on some high-powered combat weapons originally intended for military use.

"We've got to sit down. I ask all my friends at NRA — and I'm a proud NRA member and always have been — we need to sit down and move this dialogue to a sensible, reasonable approach to fixing it," he told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program.

Addressing the nation's gun laws are just part of a larger cultural problem in the United States, Manchin acknowledged. "But everything needs to be on the table, and I think it will be," he said.

Manchin's comments come as residents in Newtown, Conn., prepared on Monday for the first two of 20 funerals of children massacred in their classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday. Six adults were also killed.

The rampage is the latest in a string of mass shootings nationwide this year. But its direct target of such young children has shaken even some conservatives who in the past have been staunch gun supporters.

"Every American must know from this day forward nothing can ever be the same again," said the MSNBC show's host, former lawmaker Joe Scarborough, adding later that even Republicans like him must take another look at gun laws.

"Politicians can no longer defend the status quo. They must instead be forced to defend our children," Scarborough, an NRA supporter, said in an emotional program that also questioned the role of video games and movies as well as mental illness.

Friday's shooter, Adam Lanza, was armed with hundreds of bullets in high-capacity magazines of about 30 rounds each for the Bushmaster AR 15 rifle and two handguns he carried into the school. He had a fourth weapon, a shotgun, in his car outside.

"Never before have we seen our babies slaughtered. This never happened in America, that I can recall, ever seeing this kind of carnage," said Manchin, who has earned the NRA's top “A” rating on gun issues. "This has changed where we go from here."

Representatives for the National Rifle Association did not immediately return a request for comment. The lobby group has no statement on the school shooting on its website.

On Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she would introduce legislation this week to ban assault weapons. The Democratic lawmaker authored the previous ban that lapsed in 2004.

President Barack Obama also on Sunday called for America to change its approach to violence but did not use the word "gun."

Advocates of gun rights say Connecticut already has among the strictest gun laws in the nation.

But in Newtown, which is also home to another gun industry group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the shooting has touched off fierce questions about gun limits.

Manchin said hunters don't need weapons with massive reload power and that there needs to be "a common sense discussion" about reasonable gun use. "It should move beyond dialogue. We need action," he said.

He acknowledged that Congress is currently focused on resolving the so-called fiscal cliff until the end of the year but signaled movement on the gun issue after that, a sentiment echoed by other lawmakers.

"There's an opportunity now to seize this moment and do something reasonable," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., also told MSNBC.

© 2012 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

He didn't use an automatic rifle, he used a semi-automatic rifle. They're not the same thing. The weapon he used is not an assault rifle. It's dummied up to look like one, sure, but functionally it's no different than any Browning or Remington. It doesn't do automatic fire. It is not high powered, it is not automatic, burst, or selective fire. It's a semi-auto lookalike knock off, but looks are where the comparison ends.

Also, most hunting is not done with shotguns, it's done with rifles, unless you're hunting birds.

Originally Posted by Kepi

He didn't use an automatic rifle, he used a semi-automatic rifle. They're not the same thing. The weapon he used is not an assault rifle. It's dummied up to look like one, sure, but functionally it's no different than any Browning or Remington. It doesn't do automatic fire. It is not high powered, it is not automatic, burst, or selective fire. It's a semi-auto lookalike knock off, but looks are where the comparison ends.

Also, most hunting is not done with shotguns, it's done with rifles, unless you're hunting birds.

None of that hairpsplitting means a tinkers damn. 20 children are dead because a guy had a weapon of war. I don't care what you call it; he should not have had access to it. Noone should, unless you are in a war zone.


from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2312818.html

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.


Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

IN the harrowing aftermath of the school shooting in Connecticut, one thought wells in my mind: Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?

The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns.

Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries, according to David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard who has written an excellent book on gun violence.

So let’s treat firearms rationally as the center of a public health crisis that claims one life every 20 minutes. The United States realistically isn’t going to ban guns, but we can take steps to reduce the carnage.

American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem lax about are the things most likely to kill.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has five pages of regulations about ladders, while federal authorities shrug at serious curbs on firearms. Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year, and guns 30,000.

We even regulate toy guns, by requiring orange tips — but lawmakers don’t have the gumption to stand up to National Rifle Association extremists and regulate real guns as carefully as we do toys. What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.?

As one of my Facebook followers wrote after I posted about the shooting, “It is more difficult to adopt a pet than it is to buy a gun.”

It's not hair splitting. The guy used a gun that's greatest selling point is that it's relatively cheap and the ammo for it is relatively cheap as well.

It's a weapon whose functionality is no different from that of a normal rifle because it is a normal rifle. It doesn't have auto fire it has semi-auto, there's a significant difference, and if you don't understand it you've got no business in the debate because you don't understand the issue at hand.

There's no way to ban that gun without banning most commonly used hunting rifles, unless you ban carabines, in which case they'll just sell the same gun with a longer barrell which people will just saw off on their own when they decide to shoot up a school.

There's no legislation you can write to ban those guns that wouldn't ban all guns.

Originally Posted by Kepi

He didn't use an automatic rifle, he used a semi-automatic rifle. They're not the same thing. The weapon he used is not an assault rifle. It's dummied up to look like one, sure, but functionally it's no different than any Browning or Remington. It doesn't do automatic fire. It is not high powered, it is not automatic, burst, or selective fire. It's a semi-auto lookalike knock off, but looks are where the comparison ends.

Also, most hunting is not done with shotguns, it's done with rifles, unless you're hunting birds.

Kepi, don't waste your time. People have tried to explain the facts to Eric on a number of occasions, and he not only steadfastly refuses to listen, but actively rejects attempts at education or correction. If he says that a weapon is automatic, then it's automatic. If he says that hunters only use shotguns, then they only use shotguns. He's aggressively ignorant.

Originally Posted by Kepi

It's not hair splitting.

Oh, Kepi. Haven't you figured it out yet? If you disagree with Eric, it's "hair splitting", "parsing language", or something similar. It's a disingenuous attempt to make it appear to others that you're simply nitpicking. Don't get worked up about it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

None of that hairpsplitting means a tinkers damn. 20 children are dead because a guy had a weapon of war. I don't care what you call it; he should not have had access to it. Noone should, unless you are in a war zone.


from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2312818.html

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.


Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

IN the harrowing aftermath of the school shooting in Connecticut, one thought wells in my mind: Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?

The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns.

Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries, according to David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard who has written an excellent book on gun violence.

So let’s treat firearms rationally as the center of a public health crisis that claims one life every 20 minutes. The United States realistically isn’t going to ban guns, but we can take steps to reduce the carnage.

American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem lax about are the things most likely to kill.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has five pages of regulations about ladders, while federal authorities shrug at serious curbs on firearms. Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year, and guns 30,000.

We even regulate toy guns, by requiring orange tips — but lawmakers don’t have the gumption to stand up to National Rifle Association extremists and regulate real guns as carefully as we do toys. What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.?

As one of my Facebook followers wrote after I posted about the shooting, “It is more difficult to adopt a pet than it is to buy a gun.”


The extremists who post on this site are extremely out of the loop.

If you ever legally bought a gun and adopted a pet, you'd know that it's easier to adopt a pet than legally buy a gun.

I'm aware, but I figure if you repeat it enough, eventually someone will look it up on wikipedia, maybe watch a video on youtube, maybe play Fallout: New Vegas... Anything that might give them a sense of what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If you ever legally bought a gun and adopted a pet, you'd know that it's easier to adopt a pet than legally buy a gun.

Here in GA, the paperwork was about the same... I don't recall the humane society having to make any phone calls though.

Originally Posted by Kepi

It's not hair splitting. The guy used a gun that's greatest selling point is that it's relatively cheap and the ammo for it is relatively cheap as well.

It's a weapon whose functionality is no different from that of a normal rifle because it is a normal rifle. It doesn't have auto fire it has semi-auto, there's a significant difference, and if you don't understand it you've got no business in the debate because you don't understand the issue at hand.

There's no way to ban that gun without banning most commonly used hunting rifles, unless you ban carabines, in which case they'll just sell the same gun with a longer barrell which people will just saw off on their own when they decide to shoot up a school.

There's no legislation you can write to ban those guns that wouldn't ban all guns.

That is so ridiculous, it is amazing that you guys debate this. I guess it's true; extremists are all over this site. It ain't what it used to be.

Sen Feinstein is writing the legislation. Tell her it can't be done. She's already done it; problem was, it had an expiration date; that was her mistake.

The only issue at hand is that creeps have access to weapons of war. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. If you think you do, you are not a sportsman, you are a killer. I don't see how anything could be more clear. If hunters are using semi-automatic weapons now, then they should be stopped from using them then. All you need is an old fashioned shotgun.

When I say the word semi-automatic, what does that mean to you? In your mind what makes semi-automatic different from full auto?

What is the difference between a semi-automatic and a hunting rifle?

What is the difference between a shotgun and a hunting rifle? Are there semi-automatic shotguns?

Definition of insanity: people who don't read and don't listen to facts, and instead insist on continuing what does not work. Examples: many folks at this site, and many Americans.

Okay, here's where the problem is. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Semi-auto fires one bullet when you depress the trigger. Full auto will fire multiple rounds. The rifle the guy had is semi-auto. It only fires one round at a time. The "auto" in semi-auto has to do with the internal mechanics of the gun, and what it means is that it readys a round to be fired, instead of having to do something (pull or pump a leaver) to ready the next round, but it cannot fire multiple rounds when the trigger is depressed only once.

What are commonly called "clips" are actually magazines (the terminology skew comes from the time when you loaded semi-auto rifles with ammo bound together by clips), and it has nothing to do with rate of fire, but just how many rounds you can fire before having to reload. Using larger capacity magazines just means you can shoot more before having to reload (and increases the likelyhood you'll misfeed), but it has nothing to do with rate of fire.