Gun control « Thread Started on Jul 26, 2012, 1:43pm »
Here are the types of weapons I would see no problem for the average person to have. Rifles and shotguns for hunting. Bolt or pump. Handguns that are revolvers are fine.
As to semi-automatice weapons. I am not sure. Perhaps a limit on magazine size would be reasonable. From my experience, I was sure a better hunter with a single shot shotgun than I was with a semi-automatic shotgun.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Re: Gun control « Reply #2 on Jul 26, 2012, 2:06pm »
The right to bear arms was not the right to hunt, out founding fathers did not put the second ammendment in there for hunting. I personally do not own a weapon but I am very happy I live in a country that if I feel the need I can even if it is an automatic weapon that I feel I need for self protection. If those drug wars from just 5 minutes from my house break across the border I want to be prepared. Leftist please stop trying to control freedom and my rights.
The right to bear arms was not the right to hunt, out founding fathers did not put the second ammendment in there for hunting. I personally do not own a weapon but I am very happy I live in a country that if I feel the need I can even if it is an automatic weapon that I feel I need for self protection. If those drug wars from just 5 minutes from my house break across the border I want to be prepared. Leftist please stop trying to control freedom and my rights.
With legal drugs, you won't even have that need to think about buying a weapon for self protection.
BTW, if you're sane and not a criminal we libs don't want your rights to own a gun messed with. If you are, of course we don't want you to have a gun. How hard is that to understand?
The right to bear arms was not the right to hunt, out founding fathers did not put the second ammendment in there for hunting. I personally do not own a weapon but I am very happy I live in a country that if I feel the need I can even if it is an automatic weapon that I feel I need for self protection. If those drug wars from just 5 minutes from my house break across the border I want to be prepared. Leftist please stop trying to control freedom and my rights.
I did not mean only for hunting. Please remember that at the time of the Constitution the weapon that put meat on the table, was similiar to the one carried to war. That is what I mean.
I think you are mistaken if you think you can buy an automatic weapon when ever you want. They are very much controlled.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Re: Gun control « Reply #5 on Jul 26, 2012, 5:23pm »
If there is to be a national dialogue on firearms, as some politicians and pundits have been calling for, there first needs to an agreement on the definition of the terms being used.
Semi-automatic rifles (originally called self-loaders) have been in common use for over a century. Among the early models were the Winchester models 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1910.
Semi-automatic (self-loading) pistols have been in common use for at least that long, including the famous Colt model 1911 and earlier variants.
"Assault Rifles" are capable of fully-automatic fire, and have never been in common use among the general citizenry. The term "Assault Weapon" is a contrived term to describe anything that looks cosmetically like an "Assault Rifle", and has been extended to include even bolt action or single shot rifles of a given caliber that some people want to outlaw.
Today the President said something to the effect that "we don't need AK-47s on our streets". I agree with him. AK-47s are fully automatic assault rifles. They have been strictly regulated since the 1930s, were never in "common use", and are not on the streets.
But he was deliberately obfuscating, and that kind of obfuscation kills any chance to have an honest dialogue. If his target is the semi-autos that "look" like AK-47s, he should say so. But then there is the task of explaining why certain semi-autos should be outlawed while other models which are functionally the same should not. Or, he should admit what he (probably) wants - to outlaw all semi-autos. That's not going to happen.
Another term that needs to be defined is the ubiquitous and opaque "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws (are needed). What exactly does that mean? Aren't the laws we already have "sensible"? Until those terms are defined, there can be no meaningful dialogue.
Another obfuscation is the use of the term "powerful" when describing these military-look semi-autos. The fact is, the 5.56 NATO round used by the M-16 and it's semi-auto variants delivers an energy figure of about 900 ft/lbs at 100 yards. The 7.62 Russian used by the AK-47 and its variants delivers an energy figure of about 1100 ft/lbs at 100 yards.
I have a friend who hunted Alaska for a number of years. He carried a Browning semi-auto rifle in caliber .338 Winchester Magnum. It does not look anything like a military rifle, rather it is a typical wood stocked looking hunting rifle but it functions the same way as the semi-auto military-look rifles do. The energy of that .338 WM cartridge is about 3300 ft/lbs at 100 yards, or three times that of the 7.62 Russian. Now that's powerful. He justified it by explaining that when he was cleaning a deer or caribou, he didn't want to be interrupted by one of those half-ton Alaskan Brown Bears.
As for magazine capacity. I cannot think of any reason to have a detachable magazine for a semi-auto that holds more than ~ 10 rounds. Maybe Stu can chime in on this subject, but when I needed to carry an M-16 in Viet Nam, I was issued 10 round magazines, three or four of them. I don't know what is standard now.
If there is to be a national dialogue on firearms, as some politicians and pundits have been calling for, there first needs to an agreement on the definition of the terms being used.
Semi-automatic rifles (originally called self-loaders) have been in common use for over a century. Among the early models were the Winchester models 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1910.
Semi-automatic (self-loading) pistols have been in common use for at least that long, including the famous Colt model 1911 and earlier variants.
"Assault Rifles" are capable of fully-automatic fire, and have never been in common use among the general citizenry. The term "Assault Weapon" is a contrived term to describe anything that looks cosmetically like an "Assault Rifle", and has been extended to include even bolt action or single shot rifles of a given caliber that some people want to outlaw.
Today the President said something to the effect that "we don't need AK-47s on our streets". I agree with him. AK-47s are fully automatic assault rifles. They have been strictly regulated since the 1930s, were never in "common use", and are not on the streets.
But he was deliberately obfuscating, and that kind of obfuscation kills any chance to have an honest dialogue. If his target is the semi-autos that "look" like AK-47s, he should say so. But then there is the task of explaining why certain semi-autos should be outlawed while other models which are functionally the same should not. Or, he should admit what he (probably) wants - to outlaw all semi-autos. That's not going to happen.
Another term that needs to be defined is the ubiquitous and opaque "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws (are needed). What exactly does that mean? Aren't the laws we already have "sensible"? Until those terms are defined, there can be no meaningful dialogue.
Another obfuscation is the use of the term "powerful" when describing these military-look semi-autos. The fact is, the 5.56 NATO round used by the M-16 and it's semi-auto variants delivers an energy figure of about 900 ft/lbs at 100 yards. The 7.62 Russian used by the AK-47 and its variants delivers an energy figure of about 1100 ft/lbs at 100 yards.
I have a friend who hunted Alaska for a number of years. He carried a Browning semi-auto rifle in caliber .338 Winchester Magnum. It does not look anything like a military rifle, rather it is a typical wood stocked looking hunting rifle but it functions the same way as the semi-auto military-look rifles do. The energy of that .338 WM cartridge is about 3300 ft/lbs at 100 yards, or three times that of the 7.62 Russian. Now that's powerful. He justified it by explaining that when he was cleaning a deer or caribou, he didn't want to be interrupted by one of those half-ton Alaskan Brown Bears.
As for magazine capacity. I cannot think of any reason to have a detachable magazine for a semi-auto that holds more than ~ 10 rounds. Maybe Stu can chime in on this subject, but when I needed to carry an M-16 in Viet Nam, I was issued 10 round magazines, three or four of them. I don't know what is standard now.
Re: Gun control « Reply #8 on Jul 26, 2012, 6:31pm »
McVeigh killed 10X as many people with some fertilizer and a U-Haul. Do we ban those too? Illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan use the same trick daily to great effect. My point is, banning weaponry will not ratchet down an individual's ability to generate mass casualties. If anything, you'll see bigger body counts.
By the way, that dude in the clock tower at UT back in the early 60's killed 17 with a bolt action 30-06.
We should also keep in mind that the murder rate in this country has been cut in half since the late 70's and there are more people and more guns now.
1 more thing: I believe the largest intentional mass casualty event (outside of 9-11, another non-gun thing) in our history was when some guy set a building on fire after blocking all of the exits back in the 20's or 30's.
Here are the types of weapons I would see no problem for the average person to have. Rifles and shotguns for hunting. Bolt or pump. Handguns that are revolvers are fine.
As to semi-automatice weapons. I am not sure. Perhaps a limit on magazine size would be reasonable. From my experience, I was sure a better hunter with a single shot shotgun than I was with a semi-automatic shotgun.
Comments, questions, concerns?
I own three weapons, two of which would be illegal if you were king so no, I don't agree with your list.
If there is to be a national dialogue on firearms, as some politicians and pundits have been calling for, there first needs to an agreement on the definition of the terms being used.
Semi-automatic rifles (originally called self-loaders) have been in common use for over a century. Among the early models were the Winchester models 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1910.
Semi-automatic (self-loading) pistols have been in common use for at least that long, including the famous Colt model 1911 and earlier variants.
"Assault Rifles" are capable of fully-automatic fire, and have never been in common use among the general citizenry. The term "Assault Weapon" is a contrived term to describe anything that looks cosmetically like an "Assault Rifle", and has been extended to include even bolt action or single shot rifles of a given caliber that some people want to outlaw.
Today the President said something to the effect that "we don't need AK-47s on our streets". I agree with him. AK-47s are fully automatic assault rifles. They have been strictly regulated since the 1930s, were never in "common use", and are not on the streets.
But he was deliberately obfuscating, and that kind of obfuscation kills any chance to have an honest dialogue. If his target is the semi-autos that "look" like AK-47s, he should say so. But then there is the task of explaining why certain semi-autos should be outlawed while other models which are functionally the same should not. Or, he should admit what he (probably) wants - to outlaw all semi-autos. That's not going to happen.
Another term that needs to be defined is the ubiquitous and opaque "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws (are needed). What exactly does that mean? Aren't the laws we already have "sensible"? Until those terms are defined, there can be no meaningful dialogue.
Another obfuscation is the use of the term "powerful" when describing these military-look semi-autos. The fact is, the 5.56 NATO round used by the M-16 and it's semi-auto variants delivers an energy figure of about 900 ft/lbs at 100 yards. The 7.62 Russian used by the AK-47 and its variants delivers an energy figure of about 1100 ft/lbs at 100 yards.
I have a friend who hunted Alaska for a number of years. He carried a Browning semi-auto rifle in caliber .338 Winchester Magnum. It does not look anything like a military rifle, rather it is a typical wood stocked looking hunting rifle but it functions the same way as the semi-auto military-look rifles do. The energy of that .338 WM cartridge is about 3300 ft/lbs at 100 yards, or three times that of the 7.62 Russian. Now that's powerful. He justified it by explaining that when he was cleaning a deer or caribou, he didn't want to be interrupted by one of those half-ton Alaskan Brown Bears.
As for magazine capacity. I cannot think of any reason to have a detachable magazine for a semi-auto that holds more than ~ 10 rounds. Maybe Stu can chime in on this subject, but when I needed to carry an M-16 in Viet Nam, I was issued 10 round magazines, three or four of them. I don't know what is standard now.
If there is to be a national dialogue on firearms, as some politicians and pundits have been calling for, there first needs to an agreement on the definition of the terms being used.
Semi-automatic rifles (originally called self-loaders) have been in common use for over a century. Among the early models were the Winchester models 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1910.
Semi-automatic (self-loading) pistols have been in common use for at least that long, including the famous Colt model 1911 and earlier variants.
"Assault Rifles" are capable of fully-automatic fire, and have never been in common use among the general citizenry. The term "Assault Weapon" is a contrived term to describe anything that looks cosmetically like an "Assault Rifle", and has been extended to include even bolt action or single shot rifles of a given caliber that some people want to outlaw.
Today the President said something to the effect that "we don't need AK-47s on our streets". I agree with him. AK-47s are fully automatic assault rifles. They have been strictly regulated since the 1930s, were never in "common use", and are not on the streets.
But he was deliberately obfuscating, and that kind of obfuscation kills any chance to have an honest dialogue. If his target is the semi-autos that "look" like AK-47s, he should say so. But then there is the task of explaining why certain semi-autos should be outlawed while other models which are functionally the same should not. Or, he should admit what he (probably) wants - to outlaw all semi-autos. That's not going to happen.
Another term that needs to be defined is the ubiquitous and opaque "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws (are needed). What exactly does that mean? Aren't the laws we already have "sensible"? Until those terms are defined, there can be no meaningful dialogue.
Another obfuscation is the use of the term "powerful" when describing these military-look semi-autos. The fact is, the 5.56 NATO round used by the M-16 and it's semi-auto variants delivers an energy figure of about 900 ft/lbs at 100 yards. The 7.62 Russian used by the AK-47 and its variants delivers an energy figure of about 1100 ft/lbs at 100 yards.
I have a friend who hunted Alaska for a number of years. He carried a Browning semi-auto rifle in caliber .338 Winchester Magnum. It does not look anything like a military rifle, rather it is a typical wood stocked looking hunting rifle but it functions the same way as the semi-auto military-look rifles do. The energy of that .338 WM cartridge is about 3300 ft/lbs at 100 yards, or three times that of the 7.62 Russian. Now that's powerful. He justified it by explaining that when he was cleaning a deer or caribou, he didn't want to be interrupted by one of those half-ton Alaskan Brown Bears.
As for magazine capacity. I cannot think of any reason to have a detachable magazine for a semi-auto that holds more than ~ 10 rounds. Maybe Stu can chime in on this subject, but when I needed to carry an M-16 in Viet Nam, I was issued 10 round magazines, three or four of them. I don't know what is standard now.
Thank you. Good information.
Let me ask about the magazine capacity of your friend's rifle. How many did it hold?
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Here are the types of weapons I would see no problem for the average person to have. Rifles and shotguns for hunting. Bolt or pump. Handguns that are revolvers are fine.
As to semi-automatice weapons. I am not sure. Perhaps a limit on magazine size would be reasonable. From my experience, I was sure a better hunter with a single shot shotgun than I was with a semi-automatic shotgun.
Comments, questions, concerns?
I own three weapons, two of which would be illegal if you were king so no, I don't agree with your list.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
McVeigh killed 10X as many people with some fertilizer and a U-Haul. Do we ban those too? Illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan use the same trick daily to great effect. My point is, banning weaponry will not ratchet down an individual's ability to generate mass casualties. If anything, you'll see bigger body counts.
By the way, that dude in the clock tower at UT back in the early 60's killed 17 with a bolt action 30-06.
We should also keep in mind that the murder rate in this country has been cut in half since the late 70's and there are more people and more guns now.
1 more thing: I believe the largest intentional mass casualty event (outside of 9-11, another non-gun thing) in our history was when some guy set a building on fire after blocking all of the exits back in the 20's or 30's.
Well, I think since McVeigh there is more reporting if someone buys unusually large amounts of fertilizer at once. Look, no one who posts here has a problem if guys like Stu and Davesid have an AK-47 or whatever. These guys are trained professionals. It's the ease in which the end user gets the materials that I think is the issue here. In my field I trust most professional boat operators, divers, cameramen etc. I said "most". Some still hit an island on auto-pilot or die in a cave. Its the general population I am concerned about. I feel that 10-15% of the general population are incompetent, yahoos and a danger to society when they operate boats, dive, drive cars, own guns etc. OK...10-15% too high? Ever go down to Mission Bay on a Saturday and watch people operate their jet skis? There seems to be no good controls in place. For example, if I buy over a couple months, an AR-14 (or whatever), shotgun, 9mm, body armor and thousands of rounds of ammunition you should call 911...because something bad is probably going to happen. Same goes for most people I know.
McVeigh killed 10X as many people with some fertilizer and a U-Haul. Do we ban those too? Illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan use the same trick daily to great effect. My point is, banning weaponry will not ratchet down an individual's ability to generate mass casualties. If anything, you'll see bigger body counts.
By the way, that dude in the clock tower at UT back in the early 60's killed 17 with a bolt action 30-06.
We should also keep in mind that the murder rate in this country has been cut in half since the late 70's and there are more people and more guns now.
1 more thing: I believe the largest intentional mass casualty event (outside of 9-11, another non-gun thing) in our history was when some guy set a building on fire after blocking all of the exits back in the 20's or 30's.
Are you saying there should be no controls on any weapons?
The guy at UT picked a great place to be a sniper. Do you think the guy in CO could have done as much damage with a bolt action 30-06?
How about the accidental gun death rate? Has it dropped in half too? Murder rate is a poor proxy here anyway. Lots of murders don't involve guns. I'm talking about gun control.
I am not suggesting that gun control will stop mass murders.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
McVeigh killed 10X as many people with some fertilizer and a U-Haul. Do we ban those too? Illiterate goat herders in Afghanistan use the same trick daily to great effect. My point is, banning weaponry will not ratchet down an individual's ability to generate mass casualties. If anything, you'll see bigger body counts.
By the way, that dude in the clock tower at UT back in the early 60's killed 17 with a bolt action 30-06.
We should also keep in mind that the murder rate in this country has been cut in half since the late 70's and there are more people and more guns now.
1 more thing: I believe the largest intentional mass casualty event (outside of 9-11, another non-gun thing) in our history was when some guy set a building on fire after blocking all of the exits back in the 20's or 30's.
Are you saying there should be no controls on any weapons?
The guy at UT picked a great place to be a sniper. Do you think the guy in CO could have done as much damage with a bolt action 30-06?
How about the accidental gun death rate? Has it dropped in half too? Murder rate is a poor proxy here anyway. Lots of murders don't involve guns. I'm talking about gun control.
I am not suggesting that gun control will stop mass murders.
No. I think background checks are reasonable and could be made to be more effective, Auto weapons should be controlled. Magazine size probably should be regulated although anyone familiar with weaponry knows that high capacity magazines have a nasty habit of jamming, even the good ones. Most yahoos don't buy good ones. The cheap ones are really bad. A competent shooter can eject and reload a magazine in a few seconds so limits on capacity are largely window dressing.
Re: Gun control « Reply #16 on Jul 26, 2012, 11:30pm »
So I am curious, really looking for a rational response, why would a regular person need a semi-automatic which fires more than 5 or 10 bullets (would that be a round?) or an automatic gun?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/davdesid/red_wolf6.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3903/hillmansig.gif "[image]")