Page 14 of 41 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #261
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,006
    So this is from Wiki and defines a bit how Clintons assault weapons Ban defined assault weapons, CA AWB is set up very similar.

    Criteria of an assault weapon

    Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.
    In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:




    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
    Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
    A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
    Detachable magazine.

  2. #262
    Quick question:

    Should one or both of these guns be illegal ?

    Gun #1



    Gun #2

  3. #263
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,121
    Trick question.

    Same gun.

    That is the point I made in my earlier post.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Trick question.

    Same gun.

    That is the point I made in my earlier post.

    Way to ruin it there DDNY

    Could have at least let a couple people jump in with talk about banning that evil mini 14

  5. #265
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Quick question:

    Should one or both of these guns be illegal ?

    Gun #1



    Gun #2
    ================================================== ===

    Under Clintons Assault weapon Ban, the answer would be only #2

  6. #266
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,943
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    ================================================== ===

    Under Clintons Assault weapon Ban, the answer would be only #2
    So OK, (granting your assertion without even taking time to verify it). Sure, subject matter experts should be consulted in the crafting of laws, regulations, rules, etc. And even then they won't alway be right. (Just look at some of the controversial rules in the NFL...all created by guys who know a ton more football than you or I).

    But just because there will be disagreement or they might not get it right the first time is no excuse to just throw up our hands and say, "If they can't be perfect, let's not have rules at all."

    But that's exactly the kind of obfuscatiing fillibustering that people who want no chage at all to the status quo throw up all the time in an attempt to create noise and stifle action. It's a cheap parlor trick. Anyone can do it. Just throw doubts at everything. Make every single word or utterance a debate. And everything grinds to a halt, and no progress is ever made. (PS, GN, to be clear, not aiming this at you, just used your post as a start point.)

  7. #267
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,567
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    ================================================== ===

    Under Clintons Assault weapon Ban, the answer would be only #2
    Man, what a bad law.

  8. #268
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Man, what a bad law.
    What would your improvement to the text of the law as written be?

  9. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by freestater View Post
    Good God, no.

    .45 calibers with Hydra-shock +P hollowpoints.
    Awesome concept. You solve the massacre fame whore epidemic and overpopulation epidemic all in one.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Quick question:

    Should one or both of these guns be illegal ?

    Gun #1



    Gun #2
    I think Tim Tebow should be illegal

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    Of course, but you see the point. The right to bear arms was written for the weapons of the time. A glock would be one hell of a weapon compared to colonial days. I think it's ridiculous to continue to tout the constitutional right to bear arms without bearing any consideration that "arms" have changed. I have to wonder what the founding fathers would think if they were given a future glimpse of weapons today, and the fact that citizens would be pointing to their written Amendment as their right to carry around a bushmaster, for example.

    I would support a limit on cartridge capacity on new weapon sales. High volume clips should be outlawed. Unnecessary.
    A Bushmaster is not really a great weapon. Fairly inaccurate. It's a one shot at a time weapon. Hardly in the family (M16) of combat weapons. The .223 (5.56 mm) does create terrible wounds however.
    There are 300 million guns in the U.S. today. Anyone with a criminal record should have their weapon seized. Anyone with a mental health problem should have their weapon seized. The criteria for licensing should be severe. And guns (like cars) should be subject to re-registration and fees.
    I am in my 60s. I do not recall as many incidents like these mass shootings when I was young (U Texas tower with Charles Whitman exception). What has changed to increase violence?
    Everybody in Switzerland owns a rifle and other guns. THEY do not have a problem.

  12. #272
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,567
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    What would your improvement to the text of the law as written be?
    Focus on the ammo and ammo delivery. Ban high capacity magazines and armor piercing rounds. Beef up background checks. And just generally enforce what we already have on the books.

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Focus on the ammo and ammo delivery. Ban high capacity magazines and armor piercing rounds. Beef up background checks. And just generally enforce what we already have on the books.
    This is basically it in a nutshell. I suppose we could ban new clips with more than a 10 bullet capacity. The Brady Bill did that I believe plus had the "assault rifle" ban which was basically a ban on esthetics of guns that look like military style assault rifles. None of that will prevent tragedies like the ones that happened in CT, AZ and CO however. What is the point then? What about focusing on solutions that may actually prevent future incidents?

    Maybe more gun safety and safe storage education? This kid in CT had easy access to his mothers weapons. Why didn't she lock them up in a safe? Most of the recent shootings have been from people described by acquaintances as "mentally disturbed". Can we do more as a society to identify and treat people that have a propensity to commit violence? That is the type of stuff that may prevent these types of tragedies. Another one is for schools and malls and places with high concentrations of people to have armed guards. I'm not sure how feasible this is but who knows. If the problem were prolific enough they should. There was a recent incident in a mall where a man armed to the teeth killed two people before being thwarted by a concealed carry gun holder. The killer, when confronted by an armed civillian ran and killed himself in the stairwell. Who knows how many lives were saved.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 12-18-2012 at 11:04 AM.

  14. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I would support a limit on cartridge capacity on new weapon sales. High volume clips should be outlawed. Unnecessary.
    A Bushmaster is not really a great weapon. Fairly inaccurate. It's a one shot at a time weapon. Hardly in the family (M16) of combat weapons. The .223 (5.56 mm) does create terrible wounds however.
    There are 300 million guns in the U.S. today. Anyone with a criminal record should have their weapon seized. Anyone with a mental health problem should have their weapon seized. The criteria for licensing should be severe. And guns (like cars) should be subject to re-registration and fees.
    I am in my 60s. I do not recall as many incidents like these mass shootings when I was young (U Texas tower with Charles Whitman exception). What has changed to increase violence?
    Everybody in Switzerland owns a rifle and other guns. THEY do not have a problem.
    But in this case nobody with a criminal record or a mental health issue purchased these guns. Let's be very clear-A perfectly sane person is responsible for all that happened. The mother put these guns in that child's hands. This is a person that fits into all the criteria gun advocates claim makes one worthy of owning weapons like this. This incident happened because a perfectly sane person either made the weapons freely available or did not do enough to keep them locked away and unavailable. So now we all not only have to hope that you are sane enough to meet some sort of guidelines, and hope that you are not a criminal before meeting them, we also have to hope you're not a stupid friggin idiot as well. How do you meet those guidelines?

    I realize it's not nice to speak ill of the dead but make no mistake this all happened because of her gross negligence. Go through the accounts of those who knew her and her son. She actually warned a babysitter to quote "never take your eyes off Adam, not even when you're in the bathroom" when Adam was younger. She KNEW Adam was dangerous. In light of that she still kept dangerous weapons and a large stash of ammo in the house and accessible to Adam. Whether the kid broke into a safe or she gave him access makes no difference. If they ended up in his hands like this the fault is all on her. Period.

  15. #275
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Focus on the ammo and ammo delivery. Ban high capacity magazines and armor piercing rounds. Beef up background checks. And just generally enforce what we already have on the books.
    Reasonable.

    I also support a waiting period. If you are already a gun owner, a waiting period should not be much of an an inconvenience to you. You already have a gun for protection. And if you've never owned a gun (likely meaning little experience with firearms) then you're exactly the guy I want having to wait to purchase a weapon. But I gather the gun show guys don't like waiting periods.

    Also, I don't know what kind of database the ATF maintains, but it would not be too hard to look for purchase/registration anomalies that suggest potential criminal behavior (e.g., the little old lady who out of the blue is suddenly buying hand guns at shows every couple of weeks ).
    Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 12-18-2012 at 12:40 PM.

  16. #276
    I also support a waiting period. And if you've never owned a gun (likely meaning little experience with firearms) then you're exactly the guy I want having to wait to purchase a weapon.
    Just wait till the first battered woman is killed by her abuser during the waiting period, and see how that plays out in the vulture media.

    But I gather the gun show guys don't like waiting periods.
    Too bad. This is literally the last reason why I'd NOT pass mandatory wait periods.

    It is disturbing that in some locales, you can walk into and out of a gun show, and if you have enough money, have 30 new guns and a palatte of ammo in your car by the time you're done.

  17. #277
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    But in this case nobody with a criminal record or a mental health issue purchased these guns. Let's be very clear-A perfectly sane person is responsible for all that happened. The mother put these guns in that child's hands. This is a person that fits into all the criteria gun advocates claim makes one worthy of owning weapons like this. This incident happened because a perfectly sane person either made the weapons freely available or did not do enough to keep them locked away and unavailable. So now we all not only have to hope that you are sane enough to meet some sort of guidelines, and hope that you are not a criminal before meeting them, we also have to hope you're not a stupid friggin idiot as well. How do you meet those guidelines?

    I realize it's not nice to speak ill of the dead but make no mistake this all happened because of her gross negligence. Go through the accounts of those who knew her and her son. She actually warned a babysitter to quote "never take your eyes off Adam, not even when you're in the bathroom" when Adam was younger. She KNEW Adam was dangerous. In light of that she still kept dangerous weapons and a large stash of ammo in the house and accessible to Adam. Whether the kid broke into a safe or she gave him access makes no difference. If they ended up in his hands like this the fault is all on her. Period.

    Frankly, in this case, you make a good point. The mother was not a nut job. Just irresponsible and in denial. Perhaps he son needed to be institutionalized or under care. However, in many of the other recent cases, the shooter was a nut job. It's not a perfect world. Bad guys will ALWAYS be out there and ALWAYS have access to weapons if they try hard enough. This school was somewhat secure (locked doors), but he was DETERMINED to defeat the safeguards.
    In the schools here in Charleston there are armed guards in every school - elementary to HS. I don't like that presence BUT it will deter psycho cases.
    But again, regulated clip sizes and even more scrutiny on ownership can help. Maybe disqualify ownership if any family member has a criminal or mental situation. Based on address.

  18. #278
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,934
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I don't like that presence BUT it will deter psycho cases
    Really.

    So a mentally ill person who wants to kill his own mother, gun down 20 6 year olds and then kill himself...will say "no way man. I'm not gonna do it. There's a rent-a-cop at the school with a Glock"?

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Really.

    So a mentally ill person who wants to kill his own mother, gun down 20 6 year olds and then kill himself...will say "no way man. I'm not gonna do it. There's a rent-a-cop at the school with a Glock"?

    The guards here in Charleston and surrounding communities are armed.
    THey carry either Glocks or Sig Sauers.
    And they are not 70 year old retirees. They will deter.

  20. #280
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,934
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    The guards here in Charleston and surrounding communities are armed.
    THey carry either Glocks or Sig Sauers.
    And they are not 70 year old retirees. They will deter.
    Yes.

    Paul Blart would stop it.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us