this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
368 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3380 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Virginia House of Delegates approved an assault weapons ban on a party line vote Friday.

Fairfax County Democratic Del. Dan Helmer’s bill would end the sale and transfer of assault firearms manufactured after July 1, 2024. It also prohibits the sale of certain large capacity magazines.

“This bill would stop the sale of weapons similar to those I and many of the other veterans carried in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Helmer said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chiliedogg 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Self-defense pistols require higher mag capacity for 2 reasons.

One reason is because the goal of shooting an attacker isn't to kill him from blood loss in 40 minutes. It's to stop him from killing you in 5 seconds, meaning it generally requires multiple hits to physically stop them.

And the bigger reason is because precise shooting under stress is really, really difficult. In a 2-way shooting scenario with 5 rounds the most likely outcome is you miss all 5 shots. You carry 12-15 rounds in the mag not so you can shoot someone 12 times - you do it so you have 12 chances to hit.

It's also one of the reasons you don't hear about people with concealed firearms taking out mass shooters very often. Anyone with a lick of training knows they're going to miss most of their shots and that they're more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the shooter.

[–] abbotsbury 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the goal is to stop someone in 5 seconds, why would you need more rounds for the higher caliber rifle? Seems like 5 rifle rounds and 12-15 pistol rounds would be enough stopping power.

But if your argument is more chances to hit, well then you're just advocating for more rounds going somewhere other than there target, and 30 (high caliber rifle) rounds is certainly too much to fire out your walls willy nilly.

[–] Fades 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Seems like 5 rifle rounds and 12-15 pistol rounds would be enough stopping power.

it's like you only read half of the comment and raced to post this reply...

the comment you replied to said:

the bigger reason is because precise shooting under stress is really, really difficult.

the reason why you need more than 5 rifle rounds, IS NOT about stopping power. It's about giving you more than enough chances to land hits (if such a thing is absolutely necessary, the #1 goal of any sane gun owner is to avoid a firefight at ALL FUCKING COSTS).

Precise shooting in a stressful environment is really fucking hard, your heart is hammering your hands are shaking, you realize this could be the end. All of these factors heavily affect shooting ability in the moment.

But if your argument is more chances to hit, well then you’re just advocating for more rounds going somewhere other than there target, and 30 (high caliber rifle) rounds is certainly too much to fire out your walls willy nilly.

you are making a lot of assumptions here, like assuming it's home defense shooting 556 or the like. What happens when you're out in the wilderness and end up in a face off with a bear or a cougar? There are so many complex settings and situations and here you are framing the conversation as if this only applies to defending your bedroom or hallway.

For home defense, many many people take this into account and avoid calibers with high penetration power. Not every home defenser has 5.56 or .300blk. Plenty of "assault weapons" that shoot pistol calibers

[–] abbotsbury -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

it’s like you only read half of the comment and raced to post this reply…

Nice ad hominem, thank you for putting your poor faith on display right away, but no, I was merely just addressing the points as presented.

the reason why you need more than 5 rifle rounds, IS NOT about stopping power

So why did they say the rifle needed more than the handgun?

It’s about giving you more than enough chances to land hits

So the numbers should be the same then, no?

Precise shooting in a stressful environment is really fucking hard, your heart is hammering your hands are shaking, you realize this could be the end. All of these factors heavily affect shooting ability in the moment.

Which is dangerous for anyone nearby.

you are making a lot of assumptions here, like assuming it’s home defense shooting 556 or the like

Seems like you're the one making assumptions, champ, all I implied is higher caliber, because I don't think people often refer to .22 carbines as rifles.

What happens when you’re out in the wilderness and end up in a face off with a bear or a cougar? There are so many complex settings and situations and here you are framing the conversation as if this only applies to defending your bedroom or hallway.

Okay, so how many shots do you think you need for a bear, or for a cougar? Because even if you're squeezing your trigger as fast as possible, a cougar is gonna be able to finish you before you finish your 30 round mag.

Not every home defenser has 5.56 or .300blk. Plenty of “assault weapons” that shoot pistol calibers

oh cute, a nice little strawman to finish with, almost needed a reminder that you were a bad faith actor. Didn't say anything about assault weapons though, scare quotes were cute though, definitely keep that up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Also not who you're arguing with nor who you originally replied too, but:

So why did they say the rifle needed more than the handgun?

He didn't, but "because the pistol still needs to be concealable." Jam this in your pants and it'll 100% stick out, or "print" as they call it. Rifles are inherrently less concealable, so they may as well have their standard capacity magazines.

[–] chiliedogg 1 points 9 months ago

Not who you're arguing with, but I am who you initially replied to.

I never said a rifle needed more ammo than a pistol, and you're claiming I did. I only addressed handguns in my comment. So maybe there's some accuracy to the claim you are framing your reply before reading the comments....

Also, an AR-15 is a .22 inch (22 caliber) carbine. It's not a .22lr carbine (though I have BCG replacement that let's me run .22lr through it for cheaper plinking).

[–] PoliticalAgitator 0 points 9 months ago

In a 2-way shooting scenario with 5 rounds the most likely outcome is you miss all 5 shots.

Then the same is true for the person attacking you.

Anyone with a lick of training knows they're going to miss most of their shots and that they're more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the shooter.

The pro-gun community insists that even "a lick of training" should be entirely optional.