This makes no sense. Anytime the govt limits rights we should worry and be upset. When the patriot act was passed, did you tell people to quit bitching about their 4th ammendment rights? At least be consistent.
yes, we should show some skepticism. but i fail to see a very compelling reason to fear for my rights when assault weapons are banned. not to say i agree with it, i think there are better ways to regulate weapons which i have gone over elsewhere. but on the scale of frightening government infringement of rights, this one doesn't even make the top 50.
I would not stoop to the depths to become an attorney. I was a political science graduate before you were born, and am a constitutional hobbiest. I have read con law books, and sat in on con law classes for fun. I have also read the NRA "how to sound smart in a gun control debate" which can make any 1st year law student look like a fool.
wouldnt stoop the the depths eh? ive got it now... you're one of those angry phd's who is starting to realize nobody listens to your "expert" opinion? funny thing was i was going to give you a little credit for your knowledge until you gave credence to the nra handbook... cos charlton heston and his ilk are clearly such renowned constitutional scholars. that's like saying jerry jenkins' interpretation of the establishment clause is probly as good as it gets.
As I said, I don't own one. But who are you to decide what someone else should own just because you don't like the way it looks?
i dont own one either. and im pretty apathetic to assault weapons bans. not strongly for or against them. i just happen to see the small purpose it is supposed to serve and think the "constitutional" fears it stokes are greatly exaggerated.
I agree with you. I think it is over the top. I haven't hunted in years, and I've never owned an "assault weapon". My reponses were about why this guy lost his sponsors. He may have been perfectly correct and reasonable, but he should have considered his audience.
But like any thread remotely having to do with firearms, this has turned into a gun control debate.
YOU made it a gun control debate. my first post said almost exactly the same thing hippiemom just said... and you started spouting off about violent crime statistics and the stupidity of assault weapons bans.
I agree with Mr. Zumbo that hunting with an assault weapon is just plain wrong. That being said, he should be smart enough to realize where his bread is buttered before he opens his mouth and jeopardizes his income.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
here; prairie dogs are hunted not only to control the population; but because they carry plague. assult type rifles use small bullets with a long range. these are perfect but only available in assult type weapons.
we should also take note at the number of assult rifle owners. this clearly shows that a good number of americans own assult rifles.
Where do we draw the line? I mean, I grew up in the southeast and owning a gun is like a rite of passage. Hell, I didn't know they even made trucks without a gun rack until I moved away. I have no problem with responsible folks owning guns. But, where do we draw the line? At assault weapons, tanks, what? I just can't wrap my brain around the necessity of assault weapons. If one is a hunter, I think an assault weapon would diminish the 'sport'. If there are rodents that need to be extinguished due to spreading contagious diseases, it seems like a bunch of folks hunting them with assault weapons is an accident waiting to happen. Shouldn't the handling of nasty rodents be in the hands of professionals opposed to a bunch of assault weapon wielding yahoos?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Where do we draw the line? I mean, I grew up in the southeast and owning a gun is like a rite of passage. Hell, I didn't know they even made trucks without a gun rack until I moved away. I have no problem with responsible folks owning guns. But, where do we draw the line? At assault weapons, tanks, what? I just can't wrap my brain around the necessity of assault weapons. If one is a hunter, I think an assault weapon would diminish the 'sport'. If there are rodents that need to be extinguished due to spreading contagious diseases, it seems like a bunch of folks hunting them with assault weapons is an accident waiting to happen. Shouldn't the handling of nasty rodents be in the hands of professionals opposed to a bunch of assault weapon wielding yahoos?
and who will pay these professionals? and what makes assult weapons any more dangerous than any other rifle? it can't be the 30 round magazines because you can buy those for many rifles not designated as assult weapons. if i put a 50 round magazine on my .22 semi-auto does that make it an assult weapon?
...assult type rifles use small bullets with a long range. these are perfect but only available in assult type weapons...
which calibers are you referring to?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
It could be a private or government organization, it matters not to me. There are plenty animal control organizations that exist. You do not want a bunch of laymen with assault weapons shooting these critters to bits. Esp, if there is an infectious disease involved. You still have to deal with the removal of said animal.
and what makes assult weapons any more dangerous than any other rifle? it can't be the 30 round magazines because you can buy those for many rifles not designated as assult weapons. if i put a 50 round magazine on my .22 semi-auto does that make it an assult weapon?
a 50 round mag....geesh! Maybe I am the only one that sees that as extreme. I mean, if my neighbor can have an arsenal, maybe I should be able to cook up a batch of small pox in my basement. A biological weapon is a weapon, nonetheless. It should be my right to protect myself from the yahoo next door with a tank and arsenal. Again, where do we draw the line??????? Maybe someone should explain to me the necessity of having assault weapons or even these 30 round mags? I'll admit, I am no gun expert. Perhaps I'm missing something.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It could be a private or government organization, it matters not to me. There are plenty animal control organizations that exist. You do not want a bunch of laymen with assault weapons shooting these critters to bits. Esp, if there is an infectious disease involved. You still have to deal with the removal of said animal.
a 50 round mag....geesh! Maybe I am the only one that sees that as extreme. I mean, if my neighbor can have an arsenal, maybe I should be able to cook up a batch of small pox in my basement. A biological weapon is a weapon, nonetheless. It should be my right to protect myself from the yahoo next door with a tank and arsenal. Again, where do we draw the line??????? Maybe someone should explain to me the necessity of having assault weapons or even these 30 round mags? I'll admit, I am no gun expert. Perhaps I'm missing something.
a .22 is a very small cartridge. That's probably where you are missing. No one would intentionally assault anything with the exception of rodents with 50 22 rounds. Can you kill people certainly, but it's not a military weapon in the least even with a 100 round drum.
any and all weapons can be dangerous even a BB/pellet rifle, BB guns can hold 300 BB's all of which can be fatal, but it's not an assault rifle.
Essentially you could have 5 .22 10 round clips and it wouldn't take you but about 30 seconds longer to shoot all of those rounds than with the 50 round clip if you knew what you were doing.
when you get into the automatic weapons (illegal since the 1930's) and the 7.62mm's and .45's cartriges and you put on plastic folding stocks and grenade launchers....that's more of an assault weapon.
you can't even really hunt with 50 rounds in a .22. I mean you can but it's a little silly bulky and heavy. The most useful it would be is at the gun range. I don't really care to kill anything but shooting clay pigeons and shooting targets is great fun.
Handguns are by far the most dangerous weapons available to the public, after that, legal weapons aren't really the issue.
I'm pretty consistant though from drugs to guns etc. I don't think laws do a thing to stop someone from buying a gun or drug if they really want one.
It's kind of a classic case of a certain group completely hating another and wanting rules imposed to fit thier particular ideal.
stupid and or violent people owning guns is a problem, but the same is true of the automobile. Enacting legislation, dosen't really do much to keep criminals away from killing machines.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
a .22 is a very small cartridge. That's probably where you are missing. No one would intentionally assault anything with the exception of rodents with 50 22 rounds. Can you kill people certainly, but it's not a military weapon in the least even with a 100 round drum.
any and all weapons can be dangerous even a BB/pellet rifle, BB guns can hold 300 BB's all of which can be fatal, but it's not an assault rifle.
Essentially you could have 5 .22 10 round clips and it wouldn't take you but about 30 seconds longer to shoot all of those rounds than with the 50 round clip if you knew what you were doing.
when you get into the automatic weapons (illegal since the 1930's) and the 7.62mm's and .45's cartriges and you put on plastic folding stocks and grenade launchers....that's more of an assault weapon.
you can't even really hunt with 50 rounds in a .22. I mean you can but it's a little silly bulky and heavy. The most useful it would be is at the gun range. I don't really care to kill anything but shooting clay pigeons and shooting targets is great fun.
Handguns are by far the most dangerous weapons available to the public, after that, legal weapons aren't really the issue.
I'm pretty consistant though from drugs to guns etc. I don't think laws do a thing to stop someone from buying a gun or drug if they really want one.
It's kind of a classic case of a certain group completely hating another and wanting rules imposed to fit thier particular ideal.
stupid and or violent people owning guns is a problem, but the same is true of the automobile. Enacting legislation, dosen't really do much to keep criminals away from killing machines.
Hey, I appreciate the info! Although they were all around me growing up, I really know very little about guns. And you might have the right logic concerning drugs and guns. Ill have to shelve that one and think about it awhile.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hey, I appreciate the info! Although they were all around me growing up, I really know very little about guns. And you might have the right logic concerning drugs and guns. Ill have to shelve that one and think about it awhile.
Tell you the truth I don't know a whole lot either, I don't want you to shelve it just be open to discussion and you are so that's very cool. A lot of people make great points, we do need better gun control. No one wants kids getting killed or people running wild killing other people there just has to be better ways to go about it than arbitary legislation. That's kind of where I am on a lot of social issues.
When I start hearing the "people shouldn't be allowed to....." argument I get worried. Checks and balances and different opinions are what make society great and fun, I'm just tired of bad apples being the reason we have to ruin liberty for the rest of us.
Cheers, P.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Do you kjnow how much Howard's gun buyback program cost? Do you know how many guns were destroyed? Do you know what the net effect that program had on crime is?
Without looking up the exact figures, no I don't know, but I would guess that it cost a few million, and many thousands of guns were destroyed. The net effect on crime was probably minimal, except that since the new laws were introduced there have been no incidents of lunatics going on rampages with military rifles.
That's hardly the point though. The point is that there is absolutely no reason for anyone to own firearms like that, just as there is no reason for people to own hand grenades or rocket launchers, and by taking them out of circulation you help to prevent the development of a dangerous culture of gun ownership like you see in the states. Those weapons are designed to kill people, not animals, so why does any 'hunter' need to own one?
On our property we own several rifles, all of which are bolt action. My favourite is the .223, which holds only five rounds. I've never once needed to fire more than two shots at anything, so it is more than adequate for hunting purposes. As I said before, if you need to empty 30 or 40 rounds into a deer to bring it down, you are a very bad shot, and from an animal welfare and public safety point of veiw, you shouldn't be allowed to handle a firearm.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
It could be a private or government organization, it matters not to me. There are plenty animal control organizations that exist. You do not want a bunch of laymen with assault weapons shooting these critters to bits. Esp, if there is an infectious disease involved. You still have to deal with the removal of said animal.
a 50 round mag....geesh! Maybe I am the only one that sees that as extreme. I mean, if my neighbor can have an arsenal, maybe I should be able to cook up a batch of small pox in my basement. A biological weapon is a weapon, nonetheless. It should be my right to protect myself from the yahoo next door with a tank and arsenal. Again, where do we draw the line??????? Maybe someone should explain to me the necessity of having assault weapons or even these 30 round mags? I'll admit, I am no gun expert. Perhaps I'm missing something.
the best things about shooting at a range is when someone brings an anti-gun person to the range. that person usually becomes a regular.
50 and 100 round magazines are only to say you have them. after 1 shot the prairie dogs are gone. hidden in their burrows. the use of assault weapons is the accuracy. and the fact that they use small bullets that are accurate to a long range. the next weapon up is much too powerful and would blow the animal to pieces.
as to who's best equipt and able to remove these animals; it's the hunter. someone that can place a bullet in the size of a quarter at 100 + yards. someone who practices constantly. that's who i'd want exterminating these animals. the assault weapons i've seen used have 5 round magazines. you only get 1 shot at a prairie dog.
so what does it matter the object that propelled the bullet?
Without looking up the exact figures, no I don't know, but I would guess that it cost a few million, and many thousands of guns were destroyed. The net effect on crime was probably minimal, except that since the new laws were introduced there have been no incidents of lunatics going on rampages with military rifles.
$500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns, and there was no effect on crime rates. Here's a clue for the gun grabbers - law abiding citizen turn them in. Criminals don't. After a ban like this, the criminals still had their guns.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
$500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns, and there was no effect on crime rates. Here's a clue for the gun grabbers - law abiding citizen turn them in. Criminals don't. After a ban like this, the criminals still had their guns.
adding to that; if you want gun control and guns out of the hands of criminals; enforce smuggling laws. illegal guns are illegal because they were smuggled into the country and therefore do not have a paper trail. guard the borders and stop the influx of illegal guns and you will attain gun control.
i wonder how many of the people that turned in guns used the money to buy a new gun?
when you get into the automatic weapons (illegal since the 1930's)
Not illegal, just a lot more paperwork to own. Restricted in '86. Oh yeah, and they are VERY expensive. A $400 legally transferrable AK cost $14-25k! Cost prohibitive to law abiding citizens. A criminal will still pay $400 for the same gun with absolutely no paperwork.
Not illegal, just a lot more paperwork to own. Restricted in '86. Oh yeah, and they are VERY expensive. A $400 legally transferrable AK cost $14-25k! Cost prohibitive to law abiding citizens. A criminal will still pay $400 for the same gun with absolutely no paperwork.
A funny sight....I live very near to an outdoor range where they shoot skeets. So, they shoot towards a hill that is across from them, I guess just to not have stray bullets flying around...like for the shots they miss. Its a very big place.
The funny part??? A family of deer get on top of the hill, graze, and watch the guns go off. Its hilarious.
$500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns, and there was no effect on crime rates. Here's a clue for the gun grabbers - law abiding citizen turn them in. Criminals don't. After a ban like this, the criminals still had their guns.
I see that you're still choosing to ignore my point.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
i wonder how many of the people that turned in guns used the money to buy a new gun?
I know a lot of people who handed in old, illegal firearms and used the money to buy much nicer, newer, legal ones.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I see that you're still choosing to ignore my point.
You are correct. I did ignore your point, but only because we will get exactly nowhere on that issue. It will be absolutely impossible for us to find common ground. You claim your point is "the" point. My "the" point is freedom and liberty. We are miles apart. So I chose to ignore it so that I wouldn't repeat my schtick and you wouldn't repeat your schtick.
But if you insist, I will go there with you.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You are correct. I did ignore your point, but only because we will get exactly nowhere on that issue. It will be absolutely impossible for us to find common ground. You claim your point is "the" point. My "the" point is freedom and liberty. We are miles apart. So I chose to ignore it so that I wouldn't repeat my schtick and you wouldn't repeat your schtick.
But if you insist, I will go there with you.
No I don't insist. Lets just agree to disagree. We live in different countries, apparently with different ideas of what constitutes a fundamental liberty. I understand your argument, even without hearing it from you, because I've heard it so many times before. I don't agree, and I think that for Australia at least, the introduction of tighter gun laws was a good thing. I'm saying that as a gun owner and user. I'll leave it at that.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
No I don't insist. Lets just agree to disagree. We live in different countries, apparently with different ideas of what constitutes a fundamental liberty. I understand your argument, even without hearing it from you, because I've heard it so many times before. I don't agree, and I think that for Australia at least, the introduction of tighter gun laws was a good thing. I'm saying that as a gun owner and user. I'll leave it at that.
Cool. I do understand your argument, and I do respect you, I just know that we won't come to consensus on the issue.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You are correct. I did ignore your point, but only because we will get exactly nowhere on that issue. It will be absolutely impossible for us to find common ground. You claim your point is "the" point. My "the" point is freedom and liberty. We are miles apart. So I chose to ignore it so that I wouldn't repeat my schtick and you wouldn't repeat your schtick.
But if you insist, I will go there with you.
it's almost funny how people come to the realization of what their fundamental freedoms should be. for example; when hitler disarmed germany the people thought it was a move towards a more civilized society. when the nazi machine took full swing; they realized they were dooped and only disarmed so they couldn't resist a dictator. when the us starts talking about banning guns; i'll start hoarding them.
it's almost funny how people come to the realization of what their fundamental freedoms should be. for example; when hitler disarmed germany the people thought it was a move towards a more civilized society. when the nazi machine took full swing; they realized they were dooped and only disarmed so they couldn't resist a dictator. when the us starts talking about banning guns; i'll start hoarding them.
what makes me curious is the contradiction held by many of these people that tighter gun laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional and impose a huge burden on legal gun owners, but government wire-tapping of us citiznes without any warrants or oversight is perfectly reasonable, constitutional, and "if you didnt do anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about." shouldn't these gun lobbyists be saying "well if you're not a felon you have nothing to worry about cos you can still buy whatever you want."
what makes me curious is the contradiction held by many of these people that tighter gun laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional and impose a huge burden on legal gun owners, but government wire-tapping of us citiznes without any warrants or oversight is perfectly reasonable, constitutional, and "if you didnt do anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about." shouldn't these gun lobbyists be saying "well if you're not a felon you have nothing to worry about cos you can still buy whatever you want."
I try to be consistent in my distrust of the gov't. I am anti-patriot act and anti-gun banning. I like the ACLU watching out for my liberties -- except the 2nd ammendment. I like the NRA for watching out for that one. I give money to both.
By the same token, I don't get people who are vigilant about our 1st and 4th ammendment rights, but don't give a shit about the 2nd ammendment, as if we should just pick and chose at this point. I'm a big fan of preserving all of my liberties.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
what makes me curious is the contradiction held by many of these people that tighter gun laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional and impose a huge burden on legal gun owners, but government wire-tapping of us citiznes without any warrants or oversight is perfectly reasonable, constitutional, and "if you didnt do anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about." shouldn't these gun lobbyists be saying "well if you're not a felon you have nothing to worry about cos you can still buy whatever you want."
ah; ignorance is bliss. let's first look at the areas with the strictest gun laws; that's where you'll find the highest crime rates. now look to the 23 states that allow citizens to carry conceiled weapons. crime is the lowest.
now let's look at illegal weapons. an honest citizen will not buy an illegal weapon; ie: one smuggled into the country illegally. and a criminal cannot buy a legal firearm.
so what do stricter gun laws do? they create a black market. so in order to control the guns that get into the hands of criminals; we must attack the smuggling of guns.
somehow we must get it out of our heads that punishing innocent people will deter crime. my guns should only scare you if you are going to attack me.
I try to be consistent in my distrust of the gov't. I am anti-patriot act and anti-gun banning. I like the ACLU watching out for my liberties -- except the 2nd ammendment. I like the NRA for watching out for that one. I give money to both.
By the same token, I don't get people who are vigilant about our 1st and 4th ammendment rights, but don't give a shit about the 2nd ammendment, as if we should just pick and chose at this point. I'm a big fan of preserving all of my liberties.
as am i, but we've agreed there are regulations on all. you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater... it is not protected free speech. similarly, there is room for some regulation of access to guns. granted, i dont think banning assault weapons is the answer, but not every single move to regulate guns is automatically violating the 2nd amendment, just as not every regulation on speech is a violation of constitutional rights.
i find that many of the NRA folks view it just that way though, which is unproductive. instead of involving people with an honest concern for 2nd amendment rights, it has effectively excluded them from the debate becos they're unwilling to come to the table to talk sense and compromise. it's led to a weird ad-hoc patchwork of gun laws that is ridiculous and ineffective and probably does more damage to 2nd amendment rights than an honestly discussed and well thought policy would.
ah; ignorance is bliss. let's first look at the areas with the strictest gun laws; that's where you'll find the highest crime rates. now look to the 23 states that allow citizens to carry conceiled weapons. crime is the lowest.
now let's look at illegal weapons. an honest citizen will not buy an illegal weapon; ie: one smuggled into the country illegally. and a criminal cannot buy a legal firearm.
so what do stricter gun laws do? they create a black market. so in order to control the guns that get into the hands of criminals; we must attack the smuggling of guns.
somehow we must get it out of our heads that punishing innocent people will deter crime. my guns should only scare you if you are going to attack me.
where did i say i want stricter gun laws? i dont actually. in fact, i think my proposals would be much more liberal than current policies. what i am advocating is SMARTER regulation, not necessarily more or stricter regulation.
where did i say i want stricter gun laws? i dont actually. in fact, i think my proposals would be much more liberal than current policies. what i am advocating is SMARTER regulation, not necessarily more or stricter regulation.
Comments
yes, we should show some skepticism. but i fail to see a very compelling reason to fear for my rights when assault weapons are banned. not to say i agree with it, i think there are better ways to regulate weapons which i have gone over elsewhere. but on the scale of frightening government infringement of rights, this one doesn't even make the top 50.
wouldnt stoop the the depths eh? ive got it now... you're one of those angry phd's who is starting to realize nobody listens to your "expert" opinion? funny thing was i was going to give you a little credit for your knowledge until you gave credence to the nra handbook... cos charlton heston and his ilk are clearly such renowned constitutional scholars. that's like saying jerry jenkins' interpretation of the establishment clause is probly as good as it gets.
i dont own one either. and im pretty apathetic to assault weapons bans. not strongly for or against them. i just happen to see the small purpose it is supposed to serve and think the "constitutional" fears it stokes are greatly exaggerated.
YOU made it a gun control debate. my first post said almost exactly the same thing hippiemom just said... and you started spouting off about violent crime statistics and the stupidity of assault weapons bans.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
we should also take note at the number of assult rifle owners. this clearly shows that a good number of americans own assult rifles.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
and who will pay these professionals? and what makes assult weapons any more dangerous than any other rifle? it can't be the 30 round magazines because you can buy those for many rifles not designated as assult weapons. if i put a 50 round magazine on my .22 semi-auto does that make it an assult weapon?
which calibers are you referring to?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
It could be a private or government organization, it matters not to me. There are plenty animal control organizations that exist. You do not want a bunch of laymen with assault weapons shooting these critters to bits. Esp, if there is an infectious disease involved. You still have to deal with the removal of said animal.
a 50 round mag....geesh! Maybe I am the only one that sees that as extreme. I mean, if my neighbor can have an arsenal, maybe I should be able to cook up a batch of small pox in my basement. A biological weapon is a weapon, nonetheless. It should be my right to protect myself from the yahoo next door with a tank and arsenal. Again, where do we draw the line??????? Maybe someone should explain to me the necessity of having assault weapons or even these 30 round mags? I'll admit, I am no gun expert. Perhaps I'm missing something.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
a .22 is a very small cartridge. That's probably where you are missing. No one would intentionally assault anything with the exception of rodents with 50 22 rounds. Can you kill people certainly, but it's not a military weapon in the least even with a 100 round drum.
any and all weapons can be dangerous even a BB/pellet rifle, BB guns can hold 300 BB's all of which can be fatal, but it's not an assault rifle.
Essentially you could have 5 .22 10 round clips and it wouldn't take you but about 30 seconds longer to shoot all of those rounds than with the 50 round clip if you knew what you were doing.
when you get into the automatic weapons (illegal since the 1930's) and the 7.62mm's and .45's cartriges and you put on plastic folding stocks and grenade launchers....that's more of an assault weapon.
you can't even really hunt with 50 rounds in a .22. I mean you can but it's a little silly bulky and heavy. The most useful it would be is at the gun range. I don't really care to kill anything but shooting clay pigeons and shooting targets is great fun.
Handguns are by far the most dangerous weapons available to the public, after that, legal weapons aren't really the issue.
I'm pretty consistant though from drugs to guns etc. I don't think laws do a thing to stop someone from buying a gun or drug if they really want one.
It's kind of a classic case of a certain group completely hating another and wanting rules imposed to fit thier particular ideal.
stupid and or violent people owning guns is a problem, but the same is true of the automobile. Enacting legislation, dosen't really do much to keep criminals away from killing machines.
Hey, I appreciate the info! Although they were all around me growing up, I really know very little about guns. And you might have the right logic concerning drugs and guns. Ill have to shelve that one and think about it awhile.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Tell you the truth I don't know a whole lot either, I don't want you to shelve it just be open to discussion and you are so that's very cool. A lot of people make great points, we do need better gun control. No one wants kids getting killed or people running wild killing other people there just has to be better ways to go about it than arbitary legislation. That's kind of where I am on a lot of social issues.
When I start hearing the "people shouldn't be allowed to....." argument I get worried. Checks and balances and different opinions are what make society great and fun, I'm just tired of bad apples being the reason we have to ruin liberty for the rest of us.
Cheers, P.
Without looking up the exact figures, no I don't know, but I would guess that it cost a few million, and many thousands of guns were destroyed. The net effect on crime was probably minimal, except that since the new laws were introduced there have been no incidents of lunatics going on rampages with military rifles.
That's hardly the point though. The point is that there is absolutely no reason for anyone to own firearms like that, just as there is no reason for people to own hand grenades or rocket launchers, and by taking them out of circulation you help to prevent the development of a dangerous culture of gun ownership like you see in the states. Those weapons are designed to kill people, not animals, so why does any 'hunter' need to own one?
On our property we own several rifles, all of which are bolt action. My favourite is the .223, which holds only five rounds. I've never once needed to fire more than two shots at anything, so it is more than adequate for hunting purposes. As I said before, if you need to empty 30 or 40 rounds into a deer to bring it down, you are a very bad shot, and from an animal welfare and public safety point of veiw, you shouldn't be allowed to handle a firearm.
-C Addison
the best things about shooting at a range is when someone brings an anti-gun person to the range. that person usually becomes a regular.
50 and 100 round magazines are only to say you have them. after 1 shot the prairie dogs are gone. hidden in their burrows. the use of assault weapons is the accuracy. and the fact that they use small bullets that are accurate to a long range. the next weapon up is much too powerful and would blow the animal to pieces.
as to who's best equipt and able to remove these animals; it's the hunter. someone that can place a bullet in the size of a quarter at 100 + yards. someone who practices constantly. that's who i'd want exterminating these animals. the assault weapons i've seen used have 5 round magazines. you only get 1 shot at a prairie dog.
so what does it matter the object that propelled the bullet?
$500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns, and there was no effect on crime rates. Here's a clue for the gun grabbers - law abiding citizen turn them in. Criminals don't. After a ban like this, the criminals still had their guns.
adding to that; if you want gun control and guns out of the hands of criminals; enforce smuggling laws. illegal guns are illegal because they were smuggled into the country and therefore do not have a paper trail. guard the borders and stop the influx of illegal guns and you will attain gun control.
i wonder how many of the people that turned in guns used the money to buy a new gun?
Not illegal, just a lot more paperwork to own. Restricted in '86. Oh yeah, and they are VERY expensive. A $400 legally transferrable AK cost $14-25k! Cost prohibitive to law abiding citizens. A criminal will still pay $400 for the same gun with absolutely no paperwork.
http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/
Click on NFA Firearms.
there has not been a crime committed with a legal full automatic weapon since 1934 according to the fbi.
The funny part??? A family of deer get on top of the hill, graze, and watch the guns go off. Its hilarious.
I see that you're still choosing to ignore my point.
-C Addison
I know a lot of people who handed in old, illegal firearms and used the money to buy much nicer, newer, legal ones.
-C Addison
You are correct. I did ignore your point, but only because we will get exactly nowhere on that issue. It will be absolutely impossible for us to find common ground. You claim your point is "the" point. My "the" point is freedom and liberty. We are miles apart. So I chose to ignore it so that I wouldn't repeat my schtick and you wouldn't repeat your schtick.
But if you insist, I will go there with you.
No I don't insist. Lets just agree to disagree. We live in different countries, apparently with different ideas of what constitutes a fundamental liberty. I understand your argument, even without hearing it from you, because I've heard it so many times before. I don't agree, and I think that for Australia at least, the introduction of tighter gun laws was a good thing. I'm saying that as a gun owner and user. I'll leave it at that.
-C Addison
Cool. I do understand your argument, and I do respect you, I just know that we won't come to consensus on the issue.
it's almost funny how people come to the realization of what their fundamental freedoms should be. for example; when hitler disarmed germany the people thought it was a move towards a more civilized society. when the nazi machine took full swing; they realized they were dooped and only disarmed so they couldn't resist a dictator. when the us starts talking about banning guns; i'll start hoarding them.
what makes me curious is the contradiction held by many of these people that tighter gun laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional and impose a huge burden on legal gun owners, but government wire-tapping of us citiznes without any warrants or oversight is perfectly reasonable, constitutional, and "if you didnt do anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about." shouldn't these gun lobbyists be saying "well if you're not a felon you have nothing to worry about cos you can still buy whatever you want."
I try to be consistent in my distrust of the gov't. I am anti-patriot act and anti-gun banning. I like the ACLU watching out for my liberties -- except the 2nd ammendment. I like the NRA for watching out for that one. I give money to both.
By the same token, I don't get people who are vigilant about our 1st and 4th ammendment rights, but don't give a shit about the 2nd ammendment, as if we should just pick and chose at this point. I'm a big fan of preserving all of my liberties.
ah; ignorance is bliss. let's first look at the areas with the strictest gun laws; that's where you'll find the highest crime rates. now look to the 23 states that allow citizens to carry conceiled weapons. crime is the lowest.
now let's look at illegal weapons. an honest citizen will not buy an illegal weapon; ie: one smuggled into the country illegally. and a criminal cannot buy a legal firearm.
so what do stricter gun laws do? they create a black market. so in order to control the guns that get into the hands of criminals; we must attack the smuggling of guns.
somehow we must get it out of our heads that punishing innocent people will deter crime. my guns should only scare you if you are going to attack me.
as am i, but we've agreed there are regulations on all. you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater... it is not protected free speech. similarly, there is room for some regulation of access to guns. granted, i dont think banning assault weapons is the answer, but not every single move to regulate guns is automatically violating the 2nd amendment, just as not every regulation on speech is a violation of constitutional rights.
i find that many of the NRA folks view it just that way though, which is unproductive. instead of involving people with an honest concern for 2nd amendment rights, it has effectively excluded them from the debate becos they're unwilling to come to the table to talk sense and compromise. it's led to a weird ad-hoc patchwork of gun laws that is ridiculous and ineffective and probably does more damage to 2nd amendment rights than an honestly discussed and well thought policy would.
where did i say i want stricter gun laws? i dont actually. in fact, i think my proposals would be much more liberal than current policies. what i am advocating is SMARTER regulation, not necessarily more or stricter regulation.
so let's hear your ideas.