Judges have way too much power

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Jarlaxle »

An M14/M1A is just as capable as an AR. So is an M1 carbine, albeit with much shorter range. (Its a low velocity round.)

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:48 pm
An M14/M1A is just as capable as an AR. So is an M1 carbine, albeit with much shorter range. (Its a low velocity round.)
I was talking about physical appearance, not its capability as a deliverer of death and destruction.  The M1 and M14 look more like the 'traditional' image of a rifle or shotgun — no pistol grip, for one thing, and (correct me if I'm wrong) the M1 did not have a detachable magazine, but was clip-fed and held a maximum of eight rounds internally, versus capability for detachable box magazines holding up to 20 rounds for the M14.

Another interesting fact about the M14 is that, although it did have full-auto capabilities, because it used the more-powerful 7.62×51mm cartridge it was deemed virtually uncontrollable in fully automatic mode, so most M14s were permanently set to semi-automatic fire to avoid wasting ammunition in combat.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Big RR »

Permanently set to semi automatic? I recall the M14s I used had a switch (of sorts) on the side that could be turned using a special tool to fire fuly automatic (but it was pretty unwieldy). As I recall, the M60 (a fully autmatic weapon with changeable barrels) also used the same rounds as the M14 (although from bandoliers, not a magazine).

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Big RR wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:55 am
Permanently set to semi automatic? I recall the M14s I used had a switch (of sorts) on the side that could be turned using a special tool to fire fully automatic (but it was pretty unwieldy). As I recall, the M60 (a fully autmatic weapon with changeable barrels) also used the same rounds as the M14 (although from bandoliers, not a magazine).
That might be what they meant.   Make it so that it wasn't easy to do but still reversible if it really became necessary?

And according to Wikipedia, the M60 was a two- or three-man weapon (one gunner and one feeder/spotter, and sometimes a third ammunition carrier) due to the weight of the gun, ammunition, and the tripod/replacement barrels, and was usually shown mounted on a bi-pod or tripod rather than employed as a strictly hand-held weapon.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Big RR »

What I recall, it was a small odd shaped knob that could be rotated to permit full automatic firing; the tool was kind of like a wrench with a center part that went into a hole in the knob. As I recall, it could be turned to fully automatic and back to semi automatic (although firing too much on automatic would screw up the barrel, so the tool was kept under lock and key. the M14 was the rifle we trained with (and used in field training exercises), but we did have to qualify each year on the M16 (which could be turned to fully automatic (and back) by the flick of a switch (and every time we were on the range with the M16s, you could pretty much guarantee some idiot had his switched on full automatic, getting him in some trouble and sent for extra training).

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Jarlaxle »

Bicycle Bill wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:27 am
Jarlaxle wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:48 pm
An M14/M1A is just as capable as an AR. So is an M1 carbine, albeit with much shorter range. (Its a low velocity round.)
I was talking about physical appearance, not its capability as a deliverer of death and destruction.  The M1 and M14 look more like the 'traditional' image of a rifle or shotgun — no pistol grip, for one thing, and (correct me if I'm wrong) the M1 did not have a detachable magazine, but was clip-fed and held a maximum of eight rounds internally, versus capability for detachable box magazines holding up to 20 rounds for the M14.
Garand used 8-shot stripper clips. M-14 and M1A (civilian version, no full-auto capability) use a detachable magazine-usually 20 rounds, sometimes 30. The M1 carbine usually used a 30-round magazine.

Note that this is still an M1A:
Image
Another interesting fact about the M14 is that, although it did have full-auto capabilities, because it used the more-powerful 7.62×51mm cartridge it was deemed virtually uncontrollable in fully automatic mode, so most M14s were permanently set to semi-automatic fire to avoid wasting ammunition in combat.
Image
-"BB"-
Full-auto in a rifle is impractical, unless it's a rifle heavy enough to be, itself, impractical. (Like the ~16lb BAR.) Even now, the current military rifles have no FA capability-they can fire single shots or 3-round bursts. (Legally, that still makes them "machine guns" to F-troop.)

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Gob »

Big RR wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:14 pm
I am concerned it will pave the way for racist assholes to become armed vigilantes (maybe even provoking the riots by their very presence),

Yep, it may inspire a white racist to go out and shoot white people again.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Sue U »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:24 pm
Explain, in your own words, what a "military style weapon" is.
I am not a boomstick enthusiast and I'm not about to get dragged into a semantic argument about what an "assault weapon" is, but everything outlawed by the 1994 federal assault weapons ban is a good enough starting point.
Big RR wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:09 pm
I agree with you on all of the above except for the ban on military style weapons; I would think any semi automatic rifle could pretty much do the same thing as an AK 47 or something else that looks "military" (if this is not the case, I'd be happy to learn why, but I think it is).
As I understand it (and I don't purport to be any kind of expert), all high-velocity rifles are pretty much equally destructive. But there is a reason wannabe Wolverines, militia morons and mass shooters gravitate to AR and AK style weapons. Realistically, in terms of social policy, a ban on such firearms does not have as much to do with the technical capabilities of the weapons as with curbing both supply and demand overall. And as I have pointed out numerous times, the overwhelming majority of gun deaths involve handguns, which, if we were rational about guns in this country, is where the focus of bans and circulation reductions should be. But we are not rational about guns in this country due to the gun sickness that afflicts American society, so in lieu of a rational and comprehensive policy I am all for whatever will move even incrementally toward the goal.
GAH!

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Jarlaxle »

Sue U wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:44 pm
Jarlaxle wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:24 pm
Explain, in your own words, what a "military style weapon" is.
I am not a boomstick enthusiast and I'm not about to get dragged into a semantic argument about what an "assault weapon" is, but everything outlawed by the 1994 federal assault weapons ban is a good enough starting point.
So...absolutely nothing except cosmetics. Absolutely nothing in the 1994 AWB affected the actual performance of the rifle...but it banned cosmetic things like...bayonet lugs. Also, notably, it accomplished, exactly, nothing.
Big RR wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:09 pm
I agree with you on all of the above except for the ban on military style weapons; I would think any semi automatic rifle could pretty much do the same thing as an AK 47 or something else that looks "military" (if this is not the case, I'd be happy to learn why, but I think it is).
As I understand it (and I don't purport to be any kind of expert), all high-velocity rifles are pretty much equally destructive. But there is a reason wannabe Wolverines, militia morons and mass shooters gravitate to AR and AK style weapons. Realistically, in terms of social policy, a ban on such firearms does not have as much to do with the technical capabilities of the weapons as with curbing both supply and demand overall. And as I have pointed out numerous times, the overwhelming majority of gun deaths involve handguns, which, if we were rational about guns in this country, is where the focus of bans and circulation reductions should be. But we are not rational about guns in this country due to the gun sickness that afflicts American society, so in lieu of a rational and comprehensive policy I am all for whatever will move even incrementally toward the goal.
People "gravitate" to the AR platform because it's cheap, it's very common, ammunition at least USED to be cheap and abundant (military surplus sales have pretty much dried up), it's been around a long time (basic design is sixty years old), and it's probably the most-adaptable rifle platform available. I'm not an AR fan (much prefer the Garand or M1A), but I don't deny it's an astoundingly versatile design.

$50 to 2AF.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Sue U »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 5:14 pm
Absolutely nothing in the 1994 AWB affected the actual performance of the rifle...but it banned cosmetic things like...bayonet lugs. Also, notably, it accomplished, exactly, nothing.
"Accomplished, exactly, nothing," except, y'know:
Assault weapon ban significantly reduces mass shooting

A continuation of the federal ban could have prevented 30 public mass shootings

March 25, 2021 | By Marla Paul

A federal assault weapon ban was highly effective in reducing public mass shootings, reports a new Northwestern Medicine study just published in a pre-print.

The study found the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) — that included a ban on large capacity magazines (limiting the number and caliber of bullets) — from 1994 to 2004 — resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths and number of gun injuries.

The study leveraged the passage and expiration of the FAWB to estimate the number of mass shootings that were prevented during the ban, as well as the number of shootings that would have been prevented had the ban remained in place.

The study authors estimate the ban prevented 10 public mass shootings during the decade it was in place, before it was allowed to expire. FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1,139 people, the authors said.

The political climate at the time the FAWB was passed required a sunset clause in order to get the bill passed.

The study was published in a pre-print and is considered preliminary until accepted by a journal.

“As society searches for effective policies to prevent the next mass shooting, we must consider the overwhelming evidence that bans on assault weapons and/or large capacity magazines work,” said lead author Lori Post, director of the Buehler Center for Health Policy and Economics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Previous studies on FAWB only evaluated if it resulted in fewer gun deaths and injuries.

The Northwestern study is the first to look at the impact of the gun control policy on the number of mass shooting events, not number of people killed or injured. It also is the first to measure how many mass shootings were prevented when the FAWB was in place, as well as how many could have been prevented if the legislation was never sun setted.

“It does not result in fewer other types of gun deaths and injuries, such as domestic homicides. You only need one bullet to commit suicide, kill your wife or kill somebody else. But when you are just looking at mass shootings, it is super effective,” Post said.

Access to assault weapons, which have rapid fire capacity and gun cartridges that hold lots of bullets, are directly related to mass shootings.

“The purchase of the assault weapon is often the final step in the preparation and execution of a mass shooting,” Post said. “The shooter from Colorado bought his assault weapon and ammunition one week before the mass shooting.”

Every year, 50,000 people die from a gun injury, however, less than 1% of the cases are mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities in a single setting in a public space. But mass shootings have a tremendous toll on American mental health. Other studies have found significant associations between mass shootings and child anxiety, with particularly high anxiety levels close to the mass shooting event. Other studies have found that nearly one-third of adults avoid certain public places due to mass shootings.

Now that the election and COVID-19 are receding from the news cycle, Post expects more mass shootings to occur.

“The previous news cycles sucked the oxygen out of mass shooters as they are looking to be newsworthy, Post said. “Now there is room on the national agenda for mass shooters.”

The study demonstrates the utility of public health surveillance on gun violence. Surveillance informs policy on whether a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines reduces public mass shootings.

Public mass shootings are a significant public health problem that require ongoing systematic surveillance to test and inform policies that combat gun injuries. While there is widespread agreement that something needs to be done to stop public mass shootings, exactly which policies that entails varies, such as the prohibition of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, are still being debated.

Next Post and colleagues plan to explore the mental health of shooters. Most shooters are pegged as mentally ill when in reality mass shootings require lots of planning, premeditation, forethought and fantasizing when we can clearly identify antisocial behavior such as narcissism and psychopathy. These are personality disorders, not mental illness, she said.

Maryann Mason, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Feinberg, is a co-author of the paper.
Source: Northwestern Univ.

But baby steps for those with an infantile worldview.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Big RR »

The study found the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) — that included a ban on large capacity magazines (limiting the number and caliber of bullets) — from 1994 to 2004 — resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths and number of gun injuries.
Somehow, I would think it's due much, much more to the substantive changes, especially banning of high capacity magazines, than just banning guns that look scary or like military weapons. Sure, some people who commit crimes like those rifles, but if they couldn't get them they'd just buy ordinarly high power semi automatic rifles and do the same thing.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Sue U »

Big RR wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:04 pm
Sure, some people who commit crimes like those rifles, but if they couldn't get them they'd just buy ordinarly high power semi automatic rifles and do the same thing.
And yet, during the 10 years the law was in effect, a substantial number of those people didn't. Now, public mass shootings is a pretty small subset of gun crimes and gun deaths in the grand scheme, but it's one that's highly visible and generates the most public sentiment capable of influencing governmental policy.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Big RR »

True, but I think it was mostly due to the ban on high capacity magazines, than the military style rifles. SMaller magazines make those shootings much more difficult to carry out.

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Jarlaxle »

Not really.

The fact there are about a quarter billion (probably more) standard capacity magazines already out there makes any attempt to ban them futile.

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Big RR »

To a certain extent, yes; but then if you are caught with them in many jurisdictions you could lose your arsenal.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20704
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Arsenal losing is always good news
Image
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply