Gun-Control

[Tommycat]

If it uses .50 caliber rounds, then yeah, I can see banning those.

At least one was a 30-06. Lawmakers can be stupid at times.

That's pretty much overkill. If it's an invasion of a flock of ducks, then a shotgun would be great, but unless if you want to be charged with manslaughter with that blood splatter on your wall, then I'd rather use something of deterrence, like a 9 mm.

 

Shotgun. Less accuracy required. Low penetration. Plus, you can load it with rock salt rounds and oh man.... I used to keep the pump action loaded with one rock salt in the chamber. Stings like hell when you get shot. You think you're dead, and it's enough to scare off most would be assailants.

 

Not to mention the length of the barrel means it's even harder for a child to accidentally shoot themselves(though I still recommend trigger locks for when you are not home)

 

Buckshot won't go through walls and accidentally kill your children sleeping in the other room.

 

Hence why a shotgun is actually the perfect home defense weapon

Wow something else we agree on...

 

The shotgun is my FIRST preference for home defense. Second is a revolver.

[SkinWalker]

I have a sword under my bed. If I have a home break-in, the intruder will wish I had a gun! Still, I prefer to have the option to purchase a firearm and not have that limited by gun-control. I have no problem with controlling assault rifles -even the semi-auto kind; or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

 

Also, I'm changing the title of the thread to be more relevant. This is clearly a thread about "gun control."

[kipperthefrog]

Don't we control guns already? I read somewhere that fully automatic weapons are forbidden unless they are registered and the register closed in 1986.

[Tommycat]

... or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

That would be preferable. I have no problem with requiring proficiency tests. Back when I was in the service they didn't just let you carry a loaded weapon. Before you could do that you had to pass several qualifications. I feel that we should be allowed to have any firearm we wish, but being qualified to carry or even transport it should require STRICT training and qualification.

[EnderWiggin]

I have no problem with controlling assault rifles -even the semi-auto kind; or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

 

Also, I'm changing the title of the thread to be more relevant. This is clearly a thread about "gun control."

 

All of this sounds great to me

 

_EW_

[Q]

I have no problem with controlling assault rifles -even the semi-auto kind;

I don't agree with the above...

...or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

...but I find this to be more than reasonable.

[Darth Avlectus]

@ Ender: Depends on where you shoot the bear. Even black bears have pretty thick hides and skulls. Hit the wrong areas and someone else besides the bear will be sorry.

 

Empty a clip and yeah a wounded bear will die eventually.

Consider even if it runs away from you; until it has bled to death, other people will be in danger. It will be scared and even more dangerous to other people. That is if it doesn't first decide to just flat come after you instead wile you reload 'cuz it's now really pissed.

 

...not to mention all the hell in *any* case such a thing would catch from animal rights activists. I'm not talking the nice ones, either. The militant hypocrite wackos that would attack a cop who was just purging an area of a nuisance.

 

My point: you need something of significant power to kill it because conventional arms might only agitate it.

 

Though there probably are plenty of non-auto weapons to achieve that.

 

The difference is, full auto guns have limits and bans placed on them while single fire do not have as much. Assault Rifles are not controlled because they are guns; they are controlled because they are capable of full auto fire. In other words, "assault". And no, the ammunition capability is not kept down because of the ammo, but because of spray.

 

Now, if you can justify why a civilian would need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 30-60 round magazine then I'll be glad to hear you out.

 

Well, I'll try.

 

Occupational hazards...calling to mind today's (4/8/09) little piracy incident, there are also just plain citizens on international waters for trade and such.

 

Or territory where cops generally 'just don't go'. OH sure they can go wherever they want, but I'm talking about areas (what few there actually are in this country) where you "don't stop for nothin' or no one".

 

Or you go hunting polar bears because a 9mm ain't gonna do worth jack **** to a, what 10 ft. tall ~half ton monster. (Of course you could just use an elephant gun and blow its head off. )

 

 

I have a sword under my bed.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHHHH! YEEEA BOYEE! Now you're talking my language. What kind of blade arms you fancy?

 

If I have a home break-in, the intruder will wish I had a gun!

 

Amen there, bro.

 

Still, I prefer to have the option to purchase a firearm and not have that limited by gun-control.

Agreed.

 

I have no problem with controlling assault rifles -even the semi-auto kind;

Disagreed.

 

or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license.

Fair enough.

 

I'm pretty sure law enforcement does scrutinize everyone and everything about everyone when applying. However I am now lead to believe state to state, it varies.

 

Don't we control guns already? I read somewhere that fully automatic weapons are forbidden unless they are registered and the register closed in 1986.

QFE. Not to drag it out: Yeah, we do. Also we control (albeit state to state) Blades (swords, knives, and all else inbetween), and "dangerous" electronic/electrical equipment requires (at the *bare* minimum) an affidavit...also an exhaustive background check (as of late) depending on *just what it is* that you are purchasing. Same is true for super high powered lasers (never mind you'd practically need a sub-station transformer to actually POWER the thing, or at least 3-phase power). Sure you can buy stuff here and there, but honestly, do you REALLY think the government doesn't watch the surplus equipment it sells?

 

Also, Green laser pointers: Relatively harmless, right? We-hell, If you have ever purchased one (prior to or since) a certain law was enacted (due to inconsiderate jackasses pointing at air pilots), your name is on a 'list'. So if you or anyone else ever shine it at planes or choppers, everyone owning a greenie in your town will get a knock at their door by the cops.

 

I don't think I have to tell you what happens to you for pointing it at a street cop.

[kipperthefrog]

here is an interesting article.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30108899/?GT1=43001#storyContinued

 

Some argue that the economic reccesion is linked to the mass killings. It appears that stress and a seemingly ruined life is the primary motive to the killings. For example, a guy got divorced, lost his job and his beloved dog. He wants revenge and on christmaas eve, he goes to his ex wife's christmas party and open fires on the guests before gasolining the house to burn it down

 

Killing nasty people in the world doesn't help. They will be replaced. If guns were outlawed, they would just find some other way to kill. I say they need to find better ways of helping those kind of people get through their problems rather than take our constitutional rights away.

[Darth Avlectus]

...oh please, people will find any reason or excuse to try to make sense of things or excuse them. While I totally agree with you on the general premise of not taking away constitutional rights, bottom line is if you take another's life in cold-blooded murder, you forfeit your own.

 

What did you have in mind for helping? To my knowledge we don't "institutionalize" any more those who are not bad enough to be in jail or prison but too repeatedly/hopelessly screwed up to ever carry on a normal productive life. Besides, I'd say we've come quite a long ways with counseling techniques to prevent crises.

 

I get the thought you are talking about individual crises that could be prevented (which I very much agree with, FTR); HOWEVER, you are applying it to the whole picture when that may not hold completely true across the entire board.

 

Have you ever dealt with ex convicts? I worked in a landscaping company (still do form time to time) that participated in an occupational rehabilitation program. I've dealt/worked with a few ex cons and these are NOT nice, or good, people. What prepared me for it is that I grew up constantly fighting with the types who push the limits and will test you at *every* possible chance they get. Basically as these types would have been as kids. Now, they are much more dangerous adults. They are in large part the type who are only sorry because they were caught. Many never change and will end up back in the system again. Some will change, and thank god for those, but it isn't easy. Others, victim of circumstance I suppose.

 

Even with armed guards and coordinating with law enforcement, you still have to watch yourself *and* the ex-cons; the guards can't see and/or stop everything. Watch out for coworkers' safety, too. Also, you NEVER NEVER NEVER turn your back on them, or become oblivious to their possible danger; you don't know if that guy is going for the shovel to dig with it, or to kill you with it when you least expect it.

 

Lastly, I ain't exactly thrilled about convicted killers sitting on death row for DECADES either, while our tax dollars pay for their room and board. If we don't eliminate the nasty dangerous people who refuse to change, what DO we do with them? They also now demand internet access and stuff because it is supposedly "a basic human right", btw. If you think it'll end there, think again.

 

--I think you get the point. We should try rehabilitating people and help them, but not to a detriment. FTR, I agree with that, but only to a point.

[Q]

Ehh, I'll concede that, but don't forget what Q said - it really doesn't take a lot of modification in order to get the AK you buy at a gun store to be fullauto. And thus, we have our problem. Criminals are more than willing do do a few illegal mods on their guns in order to have a full auto AK47._EW_

Actually, I said that it takes a lot of illegal modification, namely an entire, mil-spec upper receiver with bolt (the receiver is the mechanical heart of the gun) to convert a semi-auto AK-47 to full auto. These are, of course, illegal and hard to get, AFAIK. I wouldn't even want to think what happens to people who are even suspected of possessing this kind of hardware, but Waco comes to mind.

 

The alternative would require access to and expertise with machine tools to either modify the semi-auto upper receiver and bolt or to completely manufacture new ones. This would actually be the preferable method for any smart crook because as long as it could be done in complete privacy no one else would know about it.

Best companion you could have would be a WW2 M1 Carbine, my personal favorite semi-auto rifle.

An excellent choice. It's compact and very light-weight. Plus, it's a piece of history. Another great choice would be the Mini-14 and its derivatives.

I like the M1, but... that whole *PING!!!* Dinner's ready! would be a drawback for me.

Avery's referring to the M1 carbine. It uses a regular detachable-box magazine.

 

What you're referring to is the M1 rifle, also known as the Garand. That it spits its clip out with a loud "ping" after firing the last round is not as big of a disadvantage as you would think. First, while it might alert the enemy that your rifle is now empty, it alerts you as well, so there's no time lost aiming and dry-firing an empty rifle. Second, as long as you have another clip handy you're golden, because that thing loads faster than any other infantry rifle that I know of. Just don't let the bolt crush your thumb.

[Totenkopf]

Well, here's my question. With >200 million guns in civilian hands in the US, why are the # of fatalities so low? If gun ownership presents such a moral quandry and apparent threat to society's welfare, then why are far more people killed in car accidents in a year than gun accidents, let alone crimes over the course of several? Should the govt also take away our automobiles? Why not just force people to rely on mass transit and then force everyone to pony up the money to finance such a system? Fact is, most gun owners in America are responsible. If I wish to purchase a 50cal machinegun and practice firing it and don't have a criminal record or history of mental illness or even poor eyesight, what business is it of your's? The whole idea of the second amendment was to keep our "ruling class" in check. Given the direction politicians have been drifting in over the last 1/2 century, I'd say the 2nd Amendment was pretty impressively and damned prescient.

[True_Avery]

If I wish to purchase a 50cal machinegun and practice firing it and don't have a criminal record or history of mental illness or even poor eyesight, what business is it of your's?

Because when you have a gun that big you become a danger to those around you as well.

 

I feel it is my business if my country feels like it should give out heavy weaponry with no more restriction than "amendment, and your mind looks ok", especially when that weapon can go through cars or reinforced walls, and even cleanly through a tank. We have trained, federal professionals handle those weapons because they are designed to cause mass damage ontop of death.

 

While I get the car reference, there is a differences between a car and a gun. A car is primarily designed to get you from place to place with the chance of killing something while a gun is primarily designed to cause harm/kill the thing it is pointed at. One is a mode of transport, while the other is a tool designed to kill. You can target fire, but the primarily reason for its existence is to cause harm.

 

Assault Rifles and full-auto weapons are trouble because the spread and uncontrollability of such a weapon can hit civilians, go through walls and hit non-combatants. Sawn-off shotguns can be hidden, and the increased spread can hit more non-combatants. Grenades and other high explosives hurt without prejudice.

 

The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. The vagueness could imply every weapon in existence up to atom bombs, while it can also imply defensive arms and not a stash of grenades.

 

Maybe people can be trusted with a full auto weapons enough to sell them at K-Mart, but personally I'd rather crime be performed with small arms and knives and have it be a -little- difficult for them to get their hands on heavy weapons than have the government personally give bigger weapons to the populous.

 

But while people can be trusted or distrusted, a bullet can and does hit without prejudice. A sawn-off shotgun spread, .50 cal bullet, full-auto spray bullet, etc fly without prejudice.

 

Call me paranoid, but I trust the average citizens as much as I trust our government, and I trust a .50 cal bullet even less.

[Tommycat]

Avery's referring to the M1 carbine. It uses a regular detachable-box magazine.

 

What you're referring to is the M1 rifle, also known as the Garand. That it spits its clip out with a loud "ping" after firing the last round is not as big of a disadvantage as you would think. First, while it might alert the enemy that your rifle is now empty, it alerts you as well, so there's no time lost aiming and dry-firing an empty rifle. Second, as long as you have another clip handy you're golden, because that thing loads faster than any other infantry rifle that I know of. Just don't let the bolt crush your thumb.

 

Whoops! My bad, You are right. I was thinking of the Garand. Personal preference would be the M1 in either form over the crappy M16 any day. Better range, and stopping power. And especially against zombies haha. Of course all 3 can have a silencer added. M16 gains some ground for the same reason the Army justified it.. lighter rounds means you can carry more rounds.

 

Interesting story about the M1 Garand. During WWII many outfits that were carrying the Garand would carry an extra clip. They would fire a few rounds, then toss the spare. When the enemy would poke his head up to fire(thinking the GI had to reload) Bang.

 

Oh and TA, I'd rather be able to go out and purchase them legally. I have the contacts to purchase them illegally. Heck if I had an extra 6000, I could even get a rocket launcher(single shot... not a good investment in my eyes... plus what good would that be on Z-Day). The problem is that law abiding citizens can't get what criminals can get.

[Totenkopf]

Because when you have a gun that big you become a danger to those around you as well.

 

Merely your subjective opinion. Not inherent fact. Merely owning any weapon with a magazine that holds >1 bullet can make you a hazard in the abstract. Frankly, unless I mount a 50cal on a toyota/vehicle (like in 3rd world countries) and tool around the neighborhood firing at whatever catches my eye, your fear is dramatically overstated. Besides, how many people do you see commiting crimes with a 50 cal in the US anyway? Too damned impracticle.

 

I feel it is my business if my country feels like it should give out heavy weaponry with no more restriction than "amendment, and your mind looks ok", especially when that weapon can go through cars or reinforced walls, and even cleanly through a tank. We have trained, federal professionals handle those weapons because they are designed to cause mass damage ontop of death.

 

No offense, but since we aren't talking about frag grenades, suitcase nukes or AFVs/APCs, or other heavy weapons (how many people could afford an ICBM in their backyeard anyway? ), you've only demonstrated a fear of something and little else (esp in light of prior mentioned "minimal" preconditions).

 

While I get the car reference, there is a differences between a car and a gun. A car is primarily designed to get you from place to place with the chance of killing something while a gun is primarily designed to cause harm/kill the thing it is pointed at. One is a mode of transport, while the other is a tool designed to kill. You can target fire, but the primarily reason for its existence is to cause harm.

 

Primary reason for knives and other edged weapons is to cause harm. I'd say Skin has a fairly good grasp of that concept.

 

Assault Rifles and full-auto weapons are trouble because the spread and uncontrollability of such a weapon can hit civilians, go through walls and hit non-combatants. Sawn-off shotguns can be hidden, and the increased spread can hit more non-combatants. Grenades and other high explosives hurt without prejudice.

 

Perhaps. But can cause doesn't always translate into "will casuse" (except in the case of criminals, who've no use for the law anyway).

 

 

The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. The vagueness could imply every weapon in existence up to atom bombs, while it can also imply defensive arms and not a stash of grenades.

 

Maybe people can be trusted with a full auto weapons enough to sell them at K-Mart, but personally I'd rather crime be performed with small arms and knives and have it be a -little- difficult for them to get their hands on heavy weapons than have the government personally give bigger weapons to the populous.

 

Call me paranoid, but I trust the average citizens as much as I trust our government.

 

As the Rolling Stones sang.....you can't always get what you want. Besides, if you believe many of the indiscriminate claims by liberal news sources, you'd think that 90% of all guns used my the cartels are from America. Fact is, the US border is so porous and enforcement so relatively lax, that getting guns illegally would likely only be a matter of $$. Interesting that you trust the goverment only as much as you trust the "average citizen", but are quite content to have same unworthy govt control all the guns? Selective paranoia, no? (rhetorical question here)

[True_Avery]

Oh and TA, I'd rather be able to go out and purchase them legally. I have the contacts to purchase them illegally. Heck if I had an extra 6000, I could even get a rocket launcher(single shot... not a good investment in my eyes... plus what good would that be on Z-Day). The problem is that law abiding citizens can't get what criminals can get.

I'm not denying that you can't get your hands on them. You can get an Ak-47 for like $30 in some of the more questionable areas.

 

But it seems to be the cold war concept. Sure, the weapon is there and you can get it, but does that necessarily mean that it should be available to everyone? If the public gets the big guns, aren't the criminals going to jive for -bigger- weapons? Then the cops need to stock up more, which beats on the tax payer as well as giving the criminals more incentive to get bigger weapons.

 

While your logic says "criminals should get them, then the civilians should get them to protect themselves", I see it as a somewhat opposite where this just leads to a civilian/criminal arms race

 

Also, when was the last time you heard about a bunch of guys gunning down some cops with an RPG in the USA? While it probably does happen, should we just keep the way to get it in the black market area to limit that happening? Wouldn't making that rocket and other non-prejudice based weaponry legal just increase the chances of them being used?

 

Because my supposition is that if you build it, they will come. Crime is always going to happen, but I'd prefer that these weapons be somewhat difficult to get and kept within a small world instead of making them available at k-mart.

 

Merely your subjective opinion. Not inherent fact. Merely owning any weapon with a magazine that holds >1 bullet can make you a hazard in the abstract. Frankly, unless I mount a 50cal on a toyota/vehicle (like in 3rd world countries) and tool around the neighborhood firing at whatever catches my eye, your fear is dramatically overstated. Besides, how many people do you see commiting crimes with a 50 cal in the US anyway? Too damned impracticle.

You don't see many people committing crimes with .50 cal weapons because, for the most part... they aren't freely available? I thought that was the definition of gun control.

 

I feel my fear is justified when the weapon can go through the target you are shooting quite easily. It is a heavy arms weapon desined to take down tanks and other vehicles so I'd like, as I said way above, a reason better justified than "it is my right" in order to sway me to allowing civilians to own such a weapon.

 

This is not a criminal/civilian issue with me really. It is a person by person reason, and the people that currently can get their hands on a .50 cal weapon (namely a rifle) are so trained, licensed, etc.

 

If that is your point, then I agree. I just don't feel that anyone should be able to walk in with a gun liscene and say "I want a .50 cal. Just put it in the truck."

 

No offense, but since we aren't talking about frag grenades, suitcase nukes or AFVs/APCs, or other heavy weapons (how many people could afford an ICBM in their backyeard anyway? ), you've only demonstrated a fear of something and little else (esp in light of prior mentioned "minimal" preconditions).

Hardly. Your example was a .50 cal weapon, which is banned due to its indiscriminate nature of going through multiple walls and people.

 

Other indiscriminate weapons include grenades and high explosives, so I feel the category fits. If you would like to narrow it down, then feel free.

 

And yes, Totenkopf, I do in fact fear a weapon that can go through a tank, building, etc being handed over the counter to someone. Sorry if that sounds unreasonable, or unpatriotic.

 

Primary reason for knives and other edged weapons is to cause harm. I'd say Skin has a fairly good grasp of that concept.

I think you are misunderstanding me.

 

I don't think they should be banned outright, but that they should be heavily controlled due to their nature as high damage weapons.

 

From your post, I felt you were implying it was your right as an average joe to go to the mart and purchase a .50 cal weapon. In which case I respectfully disagree.

 

Also, A knife is controlled. It is in your hands, and you guide the attack (unless you throw it). I think you are missing my point about weapons that harm without prejudice being controlled.

 

As the Rolling Stones sang.....you can't always get what you want. Besides, if you believe many of the indiscriminate claims by liberal news sources, you'd think that 90% of all guns used my the cartels are from America. Fact is, the US border is so porous and enforcement so relatively lax, that getting guns illegally would likely only be a matter of $$. Interesting that you trust the goverment only as much as you trust the "average citizen", but are quite content to have same unworthy govt control all the guns? Selective paranoia, no? (rhetorical question here)

Sorry, you lost me at "liberal news."

 

But, as far as the paranoia goes, I don't trust myself, you, or frankly a "licensed" civilian as described by Skin (within the context of 'drivers license') with a weapon of that size. For more information look at my comments on indiscriminate weaponry.

 

And you'll have to elaborate on the theory of because the criminals have something, everyone should have that something as well. It, again, seems to be an arms race deal.

 

If it is so bad that people have access to these weapons, our solution is to... make them more easily available?

 

I, personally, just cannot follow that logic very well in this situation.

 

Also, I can't exactly follow the logic on why just because it is available in Mexico, every citizen should have it. You can buy any prescription drug you want down in Mexico, but we control them within the states for good reason.

 

 

But, again, I am replying to you under the assumption you are support indiscriminate weaponry being available to the public. You will have to narrow down exactly which weapons you want, because just saying ".50 cal" puts it in the indiscriminate weapons category. Maybe you were using it as an example, maybe not. I'm just working off of what I read.

[Tommycat]

I dunno TA, I think the reason I support the civilian getting them is they are not breaking the law. Actually the AK's run about 800 to 1200 but they are Russian made(not the cheap Chinese knockoffs which run about 300 to 500, not including my "friend's bonus"). And honestly the greatest number of crimes comitted with a firearm even before it was illegal to sell "assault" weapons were comitted with handguns. Before the machine gun ban the same was true. Hand guns are cheap easy to conceal, and ammo is easy to get. This is how crime would prefer. I mean it's technically legal to carry a 30-06 rifle everywhere, but we don't see crimes being comitted with those very often. Simple reason. It's impractical to do so. Besides, It's harder to run and hide when witnesses say "I saw the guy running with an M-60 on his shoulder."

 

And have you fired a .50 cal? It isn't as easy as they make it look in the movies. Heck even firing a 12 gauge is a lot harder than the movies make the "50 cal" out to be. The 50 cal is way better suited to defensive than assault. too dang heavy. too dang bulky. too much kick. You just about need a 3 man team for one of those.

[Q]

Avery, if you're talking about the Barrett, which I'm sure that you are, check out the article that I linked to. That weapon is so large and heavy (larger and heavier than a medium machine gun) and the recoil is so brutal that it's almost useless to crooks because it is only useful in certain situations, firefights not being one of them. It is only effective in the hands of an expert with a lot of specialized training on that particular model.

 

California's ban against them is based on fear born of ignorance of these facts, and it has had the negative effect of Barrett refusing to sell to California law enforcement, organizations that actually have some use for the weapon. And .50BMG can't penetrate a tank. It can penetrate certain APCs, yes, but not a tank.

[Totenkopf]

Well, you are apparently misinterpreting my comments as well. First, a 50cal bullet (implicitly implying a 50 cal weapon) was your example. I just ran with it. Still, your "paranoia" is insufficient reason to disallow ownership of weapons you fear. It is NOT a matter of Americans should have machine guns b/c Mexicans do. What Mexican's have or not is irrelevant. The point of mentioning Mexico was to demonstrate that no matter what anti-gun laws you inflict on the US, criminals will always be able to access weapons via smuggling and a black market. Yeah, even w/in the US.

 

As Q and Tommy have pointed out, the "indiscriminate" 50cal bullet you fear is mostly marginalized by the cost of the weapon required to fire it and its unwieldy nature. Frankly, you have more to fear from pistols than really big weapons as the choice of most criminals. And your concern about what you call the indiscriminate nature of such weapons is somewhat perplexing. Why? B/c in all likelyhood, if a criminal uses a grenade (ie he controls where he's throwing it), it's likely his INTENT is to do as much damage as possible. Same goes for any weapon. The true indiscriminate weapon in question is the human being wielding the gun/knife/grenade/etc.

 

Never said fear alone was bad, just insufficient. I agree that people shouldn't be handed out guns like they're halloween candy. However, it also makes no sense to treat all people like they are effectively felons. It seems like a huge stretch to assume that crooks are going to get caught up in an "arms race" with the average joe out there. Besides, less little johnny is manning his 50 cal whilst mommy and daddy go to sleep, crooks aren't going to need really heavy weaponry to loot and rob homes. Just not practical.

 

However, in closing, I think that most modern libs misunderstand (or worse, misrepresent) the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The first ten apply to rights the citizen has w/respect to the govt (domestic, not foreign). So, while I respect your right to fear such weapons, its not sufficient reason to ban private ownership. Since I'm not sure exactly how heavily or in what specific manner you seek to regulate such weapons, I'd hesitate to agree with your interpretation of what exactly that should entail.

[mimartin]

Not to mention the length of the barrel means it's even harder for a child to accidentally shoot themselves(though I still recommend trigger locks for when you are not home)

QFT

 

Although I always leave the trigger locks in place for all my weapons and the weapons are unloaded. I’ve just practiced taking the look off and loading faster than it takes a person to cross the room. The trigger locks not only protect against accidental shootings, but prevent your weapon from being turned on you. Hate to come home late at night and find my own gun pointed at me by an intruder.

 

@ Ender: Depends on where you shoot the bear. Even black bears have pretty thick hides and skulls. Hit the wrong areas and someone else besides the bear will be sorry.

 

Empty a clip and yeah a wounded bear will die eventually.

Consider even if it runs away from you; until it has bled to death, other people will be in danger. It will be scared and even more dangerous to other people. That is if it doesn't first decide to just flat come after you instead wile you reload 'cuz it's now really pissed. [/Quote] There is so much just wrong with this. One as a responsible hunter you do not take a shot unless you are reasonability sure it will be a kill. You are ready for a second shot, but the attempt should be to put the animal down on the first shot. This is the merciful and humane way to hunt. Second if you wound an animal it should not be a danger to anyone, but you because it is your responsibility to track that animal now and put it out of its misery. A hunter should respect his/her prey and not behave in such a cruel matter. I also disagree with what I believe is your assessment ender’s comments. You don’t need higher caliber weapons to hunt. Plenty of hunters hunt bears with a bow or black powder as our forefathers did. To me what you have described here is slaughter and not what I consider the sport of hunting. However, I don’t know about bear hunting. I’m not planning on eating bear, so I don’t plan on hunting one.

 

I’m all for firearms for responsible hunting (not needless slaughter) and home protection. I just believe with gun ownership comes responsibility.

[True_Avery]

Ok, seems I have misinterpreted some information. I shall go do some research of my own and watch how this thread pans out before responding again.

 

Thanks for the info Tommy, Q, Toten.

[Darth Avlectus]

Because when you have a gun that big you become a danger to those around you as well.

Collateral damage is inevitable regardless of size. True that bigger the bang, the more destruction. However, people meeting prerequisites (which I am pretty sure through legit means is more than just 2nd amendment+clean mind), and showing a satisfactory proficiency with as little margin for error as possible (margin being totally up to department or official testing out prospective user/owner of said weapon, very strict if I'm not mistaken.

I feel it is my business if my country feels like it should give out heavy weaponry with no more restriction than "amendment, and your mind looks ok", especially when that weapon can go through cars or reinforced walls, and even cleanly through a tank. We have trained, federal professionals handle those weapons because they are designed to cause mass damage ontop of death.

Concern noted. However, you make it sound as if these are just casually given out like the little pop guns at a 4th of july festival. While most cops begrudgingly welcome citizens' firearms, I'd think as with most things, the larger the profile, the more attention you bring to yourself. Furthermore, I see cameras *everywhere* in public. If you go out with the intention to **** something up with your assault gun, you will have a high probability of a full scale showdown with law enforcement (and quite possibly military). Otherwise, it'll be pretty easy to finger you as a suspect if you are not caught right away.

The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. The vagueness could imply every weapon in existence up to atom bombs, while it can also imply defensive arms and not a stash of grenades.

Arms also could be defined as other armaments. A great deal many. Blades have varying legality from state to state, but most places I know of seem to outlaw carrying this on your person or concealed in public. A blade is tame by comparison to an explosive, yet it is controlled and outlawed similarly. Probably because a good amount of bulletproof armor could be stabbed and/or cut through and hence cops would not be safe from being carved to ribbons.

 

Maybe people can be trusted with a full auto weapons enough to sell them at K-Mart,

Again, you are making it sound as if these are just handed out wholesale. That is not the case. You're assuming it's just a wink and a nudge to get one an assault weapon. Again, not the case.

 

but personally I'd rather crime be performed with small arms and knives and have it be a -little- difficult for them to get their hands on heavy weapons than have the government personally give bigger weapons to the populous.

Who wouldn't prefer that?

 

Assuming that the criminals even get these weapons by legitimate means from within the country (which they probably don't), people with assault guns are usually followed by the government like flys on ****. The only "success" they could hope for with some bout with these weapons ends in either violent death or serious imprisonment.

 

The primary reason for assault weapons being available to criminals in all likelihood is shady brokers or means outside the country. It could happen the legit way, however, I'd estimate the majority aren't, like in the case of the drug cartels. If criminals are getting weapons through other means (like foreign countries or shady brokers), then restrictions within the country would sort of become irrelevant: "Can't get 'em in the US? Hop out of there for a while."

 

I thought vaunted government was supposed to have spines and say no to bribes and corruption instead of give into it and call laws unenforceable?

 

But while people can be trusted or distrusted, a bullet can and does hit without prejudice. A sawn-off shotgun spread, .50 cal bullet, full-auto spray bullet, etc fly without prejudice.

 

Call me paranoid, but I trust the average citizens as much as I trust our government, and I trust a .50 cal bullet even less.

 

A bullet cannot do harm by itself, it requires significant external influence in order to carry out a harmful action. Intent, nature or just plain stupidity.

 

Merely your subjective opinion. Not inherent fact. Merely owning any weapon with a magazine that holds >1 bullet can make you a hazard in the abstract. Frankly, unless I mount a 50cal on a toyota/vehicle (like in 3rd world countries) and tool around the neighborhood firing at whatever catches my eye, your fear is dramatically overstated. Besides, how many people do you see commiting crimes with a 50 cal in the US anyway? Too damned impracticle.

 

Twisted Metal series, anyone? Not to mention, if Americans are supposedly "too out of shape to mount a significant rebellion", according to so many, wouldn't that mean Americans could not handle the kick of such firearms? Now all of a sudden, everyone is potentially about to go postal?

Primary reason for knives and other edged weapons is to cause harm. I'd say Skin has a fairly good grasp of that concept.

Or anyone else who attends a Ren Faire and buys a sword, who goes to meets of the S.C.A., People in the International Kendo Federation or some other kendo organization, Martial Artists of Shaolin and/or Arnis/Eskrima base, hell even actors to a degree. Potentially even every Star Wars fan...which is probably all of us here. Point is, you can't eat your pie and still have it too.

 

If the public gets the big guns, aren't the criminals going to jive for -bigger- weapons?

Yes, always. However, if bigger weapons are not available in the USA, then they must be getting them elsewhere. Because they go for the biggest and baddest they possibly can in addition to the normal. That would suggest that for one, subtlety is not on their mind; for another, they don't just go the next size up if there are other options. Sure there are pragmatism issues with such things as demolition is not in *every* case, but as a general rule baddies usually want more than *just* the next size up. They'd want that, and a couple more of each of the next sizes as well.

 

Arms race or not: Criminal mindsets are that of predatory. These in the majority will not be looking for a fight, they will rather be looking to dominate with as little resistance as possible. Just thought I'd put that out there.

 

While it does stand to reason that an arms race goes nowhere but down, I see at least you are willing to make compromise provided there are adequate standards to be met for obtaining such things, instead of outright banning them. There already are such standards at legit locations of acquisition, to my knowledge.

 

instead of making them available at k-mart.

:dozey:

Somehow I doubt that would ever happen without first other things having TERRIBLY gone wrong FIRST; I do not see authorities in the USA, with any lick of rational thinking whatsoever, allowing (even during their off-days) such weapons to *_EVER_* be capable of being purchased at a store where potentially even miguided 14 year olds could get hold of them. I seriously think you can relax so far as that is concerned.

It is a person by person reason, and the people that currently can get their hands on a .50 cal weapon (namely a rifle) are so trained, licensed, etc.

I will contend that you are (again) making it sound as if it's just a simple matter to obtain these things...yet you live in CA too, so I would expect that you, of all people, into politics and on top of state laws, know that ours is one of the strictest states concerning guns.

If that is your point, then I agree. I just don't feel that anyone should be able to walk in with a gun liscene and say "I want a .50 cal. Just put it in the truck."

Sorry to beat a dead horse. You can't. It isn't THAT simple to obtain it. It is person by person, yes.

I don't think they should be banned outright, but that they should be heavily controlled due to their nature as high damage weapons.

We can agree on not banning.......and so another lashing to the dead horse with the requirements again.

 

Over time, they'll be seen as impractical, and seen as additional reason for the next step. The next step would be banning. Call it slippery slope: I call it the way things would progress, and we know it.

 

<snip>

@ Ender: Depends on where you shoot the bear. Even black bears have pretty thick hides and skulls. Hit the wrong areas and someone else besides the bear will be sorry.

Empty a clip and yeah a wounded bear will die eventually.

Consider even if it runs away from you; until it has bled to death, other people will be in danger. It will be scared and even more dangerous to other people. That is if it doesn't first decide to just flat come after you instead wile you reload 'cuz it's now really pissed.

 

There is so much just wrong with this. One as a responsible hunter you do not take a shot unless you are reasonability sure it will be a kill. You are ready for a second shot, but the attempt should be to put the animal down on the first shot.

I thought that's what I was implying; take as few shots as possible with preferences being one, maybe two if absolutely necessary. Using heavier firepower if you're a good shot but are not good with other methods. Not everybody competent who hunts does it the the same.

Second if you wound an animal it should not be a danger to anyone, but you because it is your responsibility to track that animal now and put it out of its misery.

You obviously misunderstood. I dismantled my origianal post for you, see below.

A hunter should respect his/her prey and not behave in such a cruel matter. I also disagree with what I believe is your assessment ender’s comments.

I would suggest it is *you* who have misunderstood *my* posting. It was a supposition going into possibility based on a real life incident that came to mind. Sorry I did not make that clear in my original post. See below.

You don’t need higher caliber weapons to hunt. Plenty of hunters hunt bears with a bow or black powder as our forefathers did.

A feat I'm still in the process of learning, as well as learning the methods of my Native American tribal heritage--TYVM

To me what you have described here is

an incident of misconduct and NOT

slaughter and not what I consider the sport of hunting. However, I don’t know about bear hunting. I’m not planning on eating bear, so I don’t plan on hunting one.

I suggest higher caliber for those not yet skilled like our forefathers. I do have experience with bears, hunted one once, and in the practical. Especially having lived where tourists have been so stupid as to feed them and think it's cute. It saddens me to have to see them euthanized for their resultant dependency on our food garbage or stalking people for scraps.

I’m all for firearms for responsible hunting (not needless slaughter) and home protection. I just believe with gun ownership comes responsibility.

As do I. Furthermore I am rather insulted that you think I have malice of intent and wish ominous cruelty on these animals. You don't know me, you've probably never met me. Put away the brass knuckles, m, and let's back up to what I originally said. ALL of it this time:

@ Ender: Depends on where you shoot the bear. Even black bears have pretty thick hides and skulls. Hit the wrong areas and someone else besides the bear will be sorry.

Which WAS NOT TO SAY I approve of turning a bear into a bloody ****ing rag doll. Kill it and get it over with.

In supposition:

Empty a clip and yeah a wounded bear will die eventually.

Consider even if it runs away from you; until it has bled to death, other people will be in danger. It will be scared and even more dangerous to other people. That is if it doesn't first decide to just flat come after you instead wile you reload 'cuz it's now really pissed.

FYI, where I was living in 2007 an idiot tourist did something like this. Used a pistol and wounded the bear. Failed in putting it down. Then proceeded to empty the rest of the clip into the bear and did not succeed in taking it down. Ended with the bear bleeding to death out in the woods. Nobody else harmed. I was recalling this and it DOES NOT NOT NOT reflect on my beliefs on how prey ought to be dispatched in a hunt. Moreover it SHOULD NOT NOT NOT reflect that way upon me. If it did in your eyes, then I suggest it is YOU who has misunderstood MY posting. However, I did neglect to mention the tourist incident in an attempt at brevity. I'm sorry.

...not to mention all the hell in *any* case such a thing would catch from animal rights activists. I'm not talking the nice ones, either. The militant hypocrite wackos that would attack a cop who was just purging an area of a nuisance.

About the same period of time near my area, an activist did assault a police officer trying to scare a bear away form a vacation rental where still another idiotic tourist left the hot tub lid open while gone. This so happened to be near the whacko's house. The activist watched and acted with intent.

My point: you need something of significant power to kill it because conventional arms might only agitate it. Though there probably are plenty of non-auto weapons to achieve that.

I meant that in the interest of dropping a bear with as FEW shots as possible, preferrably ONE; two IF AND ONLY IF NEED BE. I'm sorry if you think THAT is cruel. Furthermore, I have hunted in general and know what it's about. I also have encountered bears several times. I respect them much more than I think you realize. hunting I would rather just make it quick and be done with it. Have not done with arrows and gun powder yet. I do intend to.

[True_Avery]

I was not implying that they -are- available and easy to get, but bringing up my concern if they were. CA has some strict gun control, but I was just considering if it was really loosened up.

[Tommycat]

Pffff In California they have such strict laws on what guns can be sold in the state most assault rifles wouldn't be able to be sold. Look up the rules for the California Drop Test.

 

Must not fire when:

Dropped from 4' with

- barrel parallel to the ground

- weapon on it's side

- barrel pointed down

- barrel pointed up

- weapon upside down

 

That's just one of the rules for the pistols. If it fails ANY of those tests the pistol CANNOT be sold in California.

[mimartin]

snip

You don’t need higher caliber weapons to hunt. Plenty of hunters hunt bears with a bow or black powder as our forefathers did.

Again, you don’t need higher caliber weapons to hunt. It is a sport and if you believe you do need a higher caliber then do not take the shot. Either wait until a better opportunity at the target presents itself or let the animal go unharmed. After all it is a sport and the animal deserves a sporting chance.

 

One idiot does not make it necessary for people to hunt with assault rifles. If someone is an idiot and does not know how to hunt or handle an encounter with a wild animal in the woods, then they should not hunt and should look at wildlife in a zoo. The idiot should not own a firearm for everyone’s safety including his/her own.

 

 

Have not done with arrows and gun powder yet. I do intend to.

No, I do not plan to hunt anything I’m not willing to eat (except snakes). I have hunted Feral Hogs and Deer with both. Yes, I have encountered both and also coyotes, wild dogs and bobcats while hiking. All the encounters involved me only being armed with a 22 caliber revolver loaded with rat shot and a hunting knife. I have never fired a shot in self defense with the exception of killing snakes and to scare off wild dogs.

[Darth Avlectus]

Again, you don’t need higher caliber weapons to hunt. It is a sport and if you believe you do need a higher caliber then do not take the shot. Either wait until a better opportunity at the target presents itself or let the animal go unharmed. After all it is a sport and the animal deserves a sporting chance.

Conceded on the point of hunting as I had some reservation.

 

One idiot does not make it necessary for people to hunt with assault rifles.

Never said that it did. Never went hunting with an assault rifle like an AK-47 (I was talking about a 30-ought-6 this whole time), nor did I mean to imply hunting with an assault rifle. Your contempt is noted, htough. ...I prefer blades, personally.

 

We can agree idiots+firearms=bad.

 

When it comes to defense, my attitude is you just don't **** around with a bear, though. Especially for the unforeseen. Better safe than sorry. Hardly the time or place to 'sport'. You can condescend me about that until you're blue in the face, but that won't change the fact your 22 rat shot most likely isn't going to stop a bear from shredding you alive. If you want to test that out, then go right ahead. Understand, I'm not coming to your funeral, though.

 

No, I do not plan to hunt anything I’m not willing to eat (except snakes).

If they were poisonous, I understand. If not, pity, snake isn't too bad. Many say it tastes like chicken...mmm, it's its own flavor and (depending on snake) spicier than chicken. Don't know what you're missing.

 

I have never fired a shot in self defense with the exception of killing snakes and to scare off wild dogs.

Our experiences differ, then.