Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhat is argument against certain grips for some rifles?
AWB proposals often seem to include bans on certain types of grips for some rifles, and I wonder why this is. Do the grips make the firearm a more effective killing machine, or what?
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)it's like acupuncture, it stimulates you into using the gun in an evil way. Pistol grips cause the most evil neurons to be released.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Bay Boy
(1,689 posts), I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? "
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)make them look scary. The AWB bill is more about emotions then actually accomplishing anything meaningful.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)They are somewhat more comfortable when fired from the shoulder. Significantly less comfortable when fired from the hip.
Laws regulating cosmetic or ergonomic features are designed to satisfy ignorant prejudice and garner easy votes by feeding the least knowledgeable of the political base.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but it is not like it is a huge advantage. The size of the bullet and how fast and how many you can shot them are the measures of lethality. All things being the same, a rifle with a pistol grip is just as lethal as one without.
Here is a perfect example from the proposed AWB:
This one is specifically named as being illegal:
This one is specifically named as be legal:
They are both Ruger Mini-14s - same bullet, same rate of fire, same magazine size. Yet many here will tell you the top one is significantly more dangerous then the bottom one because it is "military grade".
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Pistol grip is not the overriding factor increasing lethality/ However when combined with a high rate of fire and large magazines it increases lethality.
The military grade weapon is just to appeal to a little insecure Rambo with a persecution complex.
You know maybe the willingness to spend so much on looking tough might be an indicator that the purchaser has some mental problems and needs mental screening.
In any case , the mini -14 with the traditional stock is more than adequate for hunting, home defense etc. The military grade one is for suckers, white supremicists, and other unrationally fearful individuals and groups.
While I have no problem with the military grade gun, I have concerns about the mental stability of its purchasers.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Warpy
(110,913 posts)are what's wrong with them. Military style weapons like these should not be out there on the street.
Period.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)and I think there is some merit to those arguments, but the grip ban seems really strange to me.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Under the proposed 2013 Feinstein AWB, as produced by her office, semi-automatic rifles that feed from detachable magazines will still be legal to buy and sell, new or used.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)and focusing on cosmetics, only.
Maybe it's time to clean House.
The best way to reduce gun violence is to reduce all violence.
The best way to reduce all violence is for Democrats to enact progressive social and economic ideas. Universal single-payer health care. Socializing prisons. Sharply reducing the prison population. Ending the War on Drugs. Cheap college or trade school for everybody that can do the work.
Do that, and violence rates will fall naturally while improving the standard of living and achievement of everybody.
Focusing only on hardware will not save lives, and will not improve people's lives or standard of living.
I get the very sick feeling that the reason Democrats are so hell-bent on the idea of gun-control laws is because they've been unable or unwilling to tackle the really big issues that the wealthy PTB profit so immensely from.
I mean, really... don't you wish the politicians had gone after Wall Street or the Bush Administration as hard as they're going after the NRA and protruding pistol grips?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Curiously, the Gungeon has to a great extent become a passion pit for a lot of frustrated progressives. I can understand the frustration, but it's not constructive, only delusional.
armueller2001
(609 posts)for a semi automatic weapon is entirely dependent on the operator's trigger finger speed.
Ban trigger fingers?
Warpy
(110,913 posts)You didn't understand that part?
armueller2001
(609 posts)You'd probably have an easier time repealing the second amendment.
DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)Stability, mobility, recoil control, etc.
3D printers will make a mockery of these proposals.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The .223 Remington cartridge is a pretty mild round, and when fired from a rifle the recoil is not really an issue.
I suppose a pistol-grip Mini-14 might have a slighter faster rate of rapid aimed fire than an in-line grip, but really, how will this help in a mass shooting? When innocent victims are cowering in corners behind improvised cover and the police are minutes away?
DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)Serious stuff, long range...
ileus
(15,396 posts)Pure evil....only the 30 round mag comes close to matching it's pure evil heart.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...is the "shoulder thingie that goes up"?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I hear the gun advocates bring up grips all the time to argue against the assault weapons ban, but most gun control advocates are much more concerned about magazine size and rate of fire than they are about grips.
I do understand why the gun advocates focus so much on grips, because by doing so they point out how weak the assault weapon ban legislation actually is. I do acknowledge that the current legislation is very flawed and it is ridiculous to define an assault weapon based on a grip, but I think that just shows the legislation needs to be made stronger. An assault weapon should be defined based on the rate of fire rather than features that are mostly cosmetic, I fully acknowledge that. I do support an assault weapons ban but I think the bill needs to be written better than the bills we have seen in the past. I would support passage of the current bill as a start, but I fully acknowledge that it would just be a start and would have little impact until a new and stronger law is passed that focuses on rate of fire.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if rate of fire is your concern then that is the ultimate result.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Handguns kill more than any other type of weapon, I think they need to be regulated even more than assault rifles do.
The writer is saying that weapons most suitable for massacres should be banned from private ownership. Pistol grips, bump feed, and high volume magazines or drums combine to form a weapon which is essentially a massacre weapon. Guns do not massacre we know people do. But weapons with the features noted provide the enabling mechanism to massacre.
Lets call these functionally modified weapons what they are- Massacre weapons. Assault is just too mild a word for the intentional capability of these attack weapons. Massacre weapons are what they are, designed to do a lot of killing in a very short times, creating horrific scenes and an ego power boost to the emotionally insecure.
Real men do not need these features, only punks and weaklings do.
hack89
(39,171 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Whenever a pro-control advocate talks about "assault weapons", they are talking about a list of secondary features that, if attached to a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun or handgun, turn it into an "assault weapon".
Allow me to explain. This is from Wikipedia, explaining the now-expired federal ban that is still law in a few states like Connecticut and California.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher {note from krispos: it's actually an adapter to fire rifle grenades}
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: - Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
- Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
- Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
- Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
- A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: - Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
- Detachable magazine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
As you can see, having a pistol grip is defining factor for semiauto rifles and shotguns. A semiauto gun was allowed to have one, and only one, feature on the list. So you could have a pistol grip OR a telescoping buttstock, but not both.
Feinstein's 2013 proposal would make a semiauto having ANY of those features an "assault weapon". You could have none, although to be factually correct her proposal does remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the list and adds barrel heat-shields. Because, yanno, things that get hot shouldn't have a heat shield, right?
Anyway, gun advocates are talking about pistol grips because we're talking about the uselessness of the legislation, which has pistol grips as a defining characteristic of "assault weapon".
Here's a visual aid for you:
These are all Ruger Mini-14 rifles. They are semi-automatic rifles that feed from detachable magazines. They all shoot .223 Rem cartridges. Some are assault weapons, some are not.
Not an assault weapon: ▼
Also not an assault weapon: ▼
Still not an assault weapon: ▼
An assault weapon under both the 1993 and 2013 bans: ▼
Not an assault weapon: ▼
Not an assault weapon: ▼
If the problem is rate of fire, then the solution is not banning rifles with pistol grips, it's banning semi-automatic rifles as a class. And nobody is even talking about doing that. So... how serious are the politicians about curbing mass shootings, which are, despite the media hype, still a tiny fraction of murders per year?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You can cite Feinstein's definition of an assault weapon all you want, I have made it clear that I find her definition inadequate and I think it should be expanded to include more types of guns. I think most gun control advocates would agree with me that several of the guns you pictured as not being assault weapons should in fact be considered assault weapons.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The stocks can be changed at will with a wrench. The mechanicals are the same; Ruger just screws on a different wooden or plastic stock before putting it in the box for shipment.
You are really advocating for either a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, or a ban on all rifles fed from a detachable magazine. This is a position I can respect, even if I do not agree with you, because it does not pander to Democratic voters and donors.
But none of the politicians are talking about that; they're touting a pistol-grip ban, or a telescoping-stock ban, as the panacea to the problem of lone-wolf, irrational, mass-shootings.
So that's why it's being mentioned so much on DU by gun advocates; because the laws being championed by gun-control advocates does focus on secondary cosmetic features like protruding pistol grips.
On a person note, I'd like to thank you for the civil conversation we're having. I've been in many worse and few more polite.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The politicians are pretty spineless for the most part and few of them will say what I am saying even though it is a fairly mainstream position and I am sure a number of them think it privately. I don't think there is a single person who has studied the assault weapons ban that could honestly say it makes a lot of sense as written, even Feinstein herself seems to know it is a weak bill. To me however that means it needs to be strengthened rather than scrapped, the concept behind the bill is good but the language is bad. I still somewhat reluctantly support the bill because I think it is better than nothing, but I don't pretend it is a fantastic bill.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...that the politicians supporting this are doing so strictly for personal promotional reasons. It's hard for Democrats to run on their records when they have a solid history of corporatism and bowing to the conservatives.
Feinstein and Schumer and such are smart people; they know the what the law does and doesn't do, and yet they yap on and on about critical the law is! For their re-election campaign, maybe.
Democrats are finally showing some spine with regards to pushing back against the forced-childbirth crowd, but they're substituting a useful progressive agenda that would reduce overall violence (and with it, gun-related violence) with an over-hyped culture-war issue about the "style" of guns. Pistol grips! Mercy! *fans self*
Again, the vast majority of homicides are single-victim incidents, and the most commonly used weapons are handguns, knives, and clubs, but they're banking on public anger of the very rare mass shooting to garner votes and campaign money in 2014.
It's pandering, it's insulting the intelligence of the electorate, and yet it's working, because many DUers either don't know or don't care about the general inadequacies of the proposed laws as long as somebody "takes on the NRA" or "gun culture".
And they keep forgetting that people that don't own guns have to do, literally, ZERO, to keep on not owning guns. They don't have to even pay attention to politics to not own a gun. But gun owners? They pay attention, and they are motivated.
*shrug*
It is the equivalent to defining an "assault car" based on how big the rims are, how much aftermarket body cladding is attached to it, and how high the rear spoiler is. If you ban "assault cars", then you obviously reduce the number of deaths and accidents by cars with big rims, aftermarket body cladding, and big rear spoilers. Of course, the same people would still be owning the same make and model cars and driving on the same roads, but, dammit, I've reduced deaths from "assault cars"! Vote for me!!!! And give me money, lots of money.
So it's not going to save lives; we both agree on that, I think. But it's also going to keep the Democrats from pursuing a broad-based liberal agenda and it's going to motivate the conservatives, who, after four years of being marginalized as "paranoid gun nuts" are now pretty much 100% justified in their fears about Democrats and social-war gun laws.
With any luck, the corporate side of the GOP and the theocratic side of the GOP will split and cause party collapse soon, but can we bank on that?
I don't have a problem with things like universal background checks, but that's not as sexy as banning ASSAULT WEAPONS, and this issue needs some moral outrage and flashy podium-pounding!
"Guns & Ammo" magazines wrote an article in this month's edition about AR-15 alternatives, semiautomatic magazine-fed rifles that that are not AR-15s or AK-47s that would not be on the list of "rifles banned by specific name" list that is part of Feinstein's proposal. So the same companies that are now making AR-15s will simply switch production to Swiss or German or Israeli or Belgian or French designs, or resuscitate old American designs like the M-14 and M-1 Carbine or new ones like the Remington 7400.
Still plenty of magazine-fed semiautos floating around, but, thankfully, none of the evil AR-15 mechanisms.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)6. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific functional design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These functional features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting guns.
7. The most significant assault weapon functional design features are: (1) ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine, (2) a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip, and, (3) a forward grip or barrel shroud. Taken together, these are the design features that make possible the deadly and indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed. None of them are features of true hunting or sporting guns.
From the VPC Bullet Hoses
Ten Key Points about What Assault Weapons Are and Why They Are So Deadly
POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use and their only purpose it to kill many people in a short amount of time. We support legislation to ban all assault weapons.
Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?
******
Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only look scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.
******
A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons?s=4
I think VPC and Brady qualify as gun control advocates; grips seem to be very important to them. It seems they believe the grip allows controled indiscriminate fire; not sure how those two terms work together.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)But citing a couple of examples does not mean grips are the big issue on gun control advocates minds, we spend far more time talking about magazine size and rate of fire.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)specifically bringing up grips and grip being a universal component in legislation defining assault weapons, I think it is a major point for many or most gun control advocates.
I agree it is a ridiculous point to use to try and define how lethal a gun is.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Yes, you can find mentions of grips from gun control advocates but a couple of brief mentions does not make it the major topic of discussion. I rarely hear grips even mentioned by gun control advocates, it may happen from time to time but it is not nearly as major of a topic as gun advocates make it out to be.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)1. Machine guns (full auto).
2. Semi auto guns. (guns that cycle the action either from energy supplied by the shooter or the cartridge)
3. Single shot.
If you want stronger legislation, you will have to ban No. 2.
Good luck and god's speed.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)That covers pump-action, bolt-action, and lever-action guns.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)"guns that cycle the action either from energy supplied by the shooter or the cartridge"
I put them together to keep it simple. I can run six rounds through an 870 just about as fast as an 1100. Certainly fast enough not to matter in the real world. If you're shooting that fast you're not aiming so it doesn't matter whether the rate of fire is pretty fast or really pretty fast.
People who aren't familiar with guns seem fixated on niggling details when those details just don't matter. I think that's why we get such bad legislation and bullshit fodder from the chattering classes.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)But it really does depend on the action type. Pumps and levers are significantly faster than bolts, for example.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I don't see how to ban one without banning the other when technology can eliminate the difference in less time than it takes to switch mags in a 1911.
If we banned gas action AR15 how long do you thing it would take them to come up with a pump action "tactical .223"?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)A Remington 7600 with a pistol grip, that takes AR-15 magazines and shoots .223 Rem.
Boom, done.
I also don't see why Marlin can't come up with a lever-action carbine that feeds from an AR-15 magazine. Maybe make it a side-feeder so you can still have the full-length lever stroke, if needed.
It wouldn't be the tackdriver that an AR is, but more than accurate enough for self-defense out to a couple of hundred yards, right?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Remington 7615 Police:
In fact, it may already be discontinued. It was meant to replace the ubiquitous 870 shotgun for police patrol cars under the theory that officers trained on the 870 would adapt quickly to a pump action rifle. The fact is that more officers nowadays are familiar with the AR platform -- "common use," y'know -- so the raison d'être for the 7615 has dried up and blown away. Unless there's a new AWB.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)and I could run 30.06's through it just as fast an 870. And I only weighed 140 lbs back then.
Correction
I think it was a 760 BDL (Predecessor to the 7600, duh)
Like this, different forend.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Damn, I have the wrong job.
Add on a Picatinney rail for a scope, and a second one for a flashlight, and you're all set!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)iiibbb
(1,448 posts)1. Machine guns (full auto).
2. Semi auto guns - detachable magazines
3. Semi auto guns - fixed magazines
4. Repeating arms (pump and lever action)
5. Single shot
I know you consider 2-4 to be the same, but really they're not.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)I would also distinguish between fixed magazine and detachable magazines for repeating arms.
Just to note also that there aren't that many fixed magazine semi-autos around. Garand, SKS, the older Remington sporting rifles, tube-fed rimfires ... What else?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...in every bill for a new AW ban that has ever been written.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I agree, which is one of the reasons I was wondering about its inclusion in AWB policies. Most supporters of the AWB don't seem to care much about grips, yet there it is.
Another poster in this thread posted a link where the director of the ATF talks about the grip ban. I did not think his reasoning was completely explained, but it was a start. Here is that link: http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/politics/2013/01/10/tsr-dnt-johns-assault-rifle.cnn
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)sylvi
(813 posts)Since most AWs today are designed with an "in-line" stock, which means the stock is higher to be lined up with the upper receiver and barrel to help control muzzle rise, they lack the downward slope that allows for a grip to be molded or carved into them behind the trigger such as the one you see in the bottom photo of the Mini-14 in this thread. Trying to grip an in-line stock itself is awkward and uncomfortable and makes it difficult or impossible to reach the trigger, so a pistol grip is the best answer.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Because it has one if the most vertical traditional stock grips of all the shotguns; it's like someone carved an old cap & ball pistol grip in the middle of a slab of walnut.
Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)
Post removed
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...carping about other people wasting their time here?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Besides, it's easier to complain about us poopyhead Gungeoneers than actually sit down and
ponder why it is that they're not getting what they were so very sure they were going to get...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)kudzu22
(1,273 posts)They want to ban semi-autos, but don't want to be accused of banning hunting & sporting rifles. The only difference between them is their appearance, which is why they focus on mundane things like adjustable stocks and pistol grips. Then they invent made-up reasons why these features make the weapon "assault" rather than sporting.
My favorite one is when DiFi or McCarthy claims that the pistol grip is designed to spray fire from the hip. I think they got that idea from a Rambo movie. I don't know about you -- but for me, holding a pistol grip rifle is much easier at the shoulder and quite awkward at the hip. But, they depend on an ignorant media to buy whatever they say, and they usually do.
They've also claimed that an adjustable stock makes the weapon more concealable. Anyone ever try to hide an AR in their pants? The three inches of travel makes a big difference.......NOT!
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Military style doesn't go over well with some people.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)There is really no compelling reason why a firearm with one kind of grip should be considered any more dangerous than one with another.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)firing from the hip only happens in the movies.
IOW, either he is ignorant or a lying ideologue. IIRC, he is likely the same one that had a news person fire an AK on full auto from the hip claiming "you can buy those at gun shows". You can't buy full autos at gun shows with "no questions asked".
Personally, I put it up there with DEA and its predecessor claiming pot was a "gateway drug that will lead to heroin addiction."
One would have to be at very close range, like point blank, to hit anything that way. Besides, a traditional stock would easier to fire from the hip.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1119/Andrew-Traver-Is-Obama-s-choice-for-ATF-chief-an-antigun-zealot
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Assault-Weapons-Surge-in-City-69620227.html
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...(and especially two of them on a rifle) would aid controlling a rifle while firing it without the stock square against the shoulder.
Kind of the way this:
Is easier to control than this:
Of course the wisdom of doing this (with a rifle) when not making a movie is questionable.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Other than watching movies.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)we all did this when we heard that.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Really?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)He might know more than I do about some -- hopefully many -- aspects, but he certainly got that one wrong.
Of course, being the director suggests more political connections than knowledge expertise.
madville
(7,397 posts)Politicians and law enforcement are typically very ignorant about firearms law. It's very easy to get confused when there are thousands of laws and every state has a different set.
I wouldn't expect an agency head to spout anything but the typical political talking points.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)where it says proper form is to fire from the hip. It's not there. It's just another stupid VPC talking point with no basis in reality.
Anyone who has ever held one of these weapons knows that the reason there is a pistol grip is to make it easy to fire from the shoulder. It's very awkward to fire it from the hip. In fact, traditional stocks are much easier to fire from the hip.
So take your talking points somewhere else.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I am glad there is some reason other than just appearance, but I am still not persuaded toward the pistol grip ban. Limiting magazine size and improving background checks are two policies I currently support.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's actually easy with a traditional grip... I've done it with a Marlin Model 60. With a pistol grip, I would have had to bend my wrist upwards more to fire from the hip.
Frankly, I wish more mass shooters would should from the hip. We'd have fewer victims.