Gun-Control

[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]

Originally Posted by Tommycat

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.

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

@ 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. 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]

Originally Posted by True_Avery

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.

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

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.

Originally Posted by True_Avery

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mimartin

<snip>

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:

Originally Posted by myself

@ 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]

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

snip

Originally Posted by mimartin

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.

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

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]

Originally Posted by mimartin

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.

[mimartin]

Then why was you argument based on the need for higher caliber when thirty-aught-six is perfectly legal today?

Oh, I have eaten rattle snake. I also never been bitten by a snake, but have been with family/friend when they were bitten. I just pay attention to my surrounding when I'm in the woods so that I don't run up on an animal that could do me harm and take other precautions to prevent them from being drawn to me.

[Darth Avlectus]

I'm sorry I've confused you. >_< (dammit--curse me) I clustered them together by accident. Good to see you're still reasonable to try and understand.

I DO feel, however, I am a responsible enough citizen to own such things were it legal in my state. I would jump through whatever hoops I had to and also I'd make sure those around me with firearms were safe with the weapons. We already have controls. I would not like them banning assault guns outright. I'd like to be able to eventually get them should the need ever arise.

...this coming from a guy who could make a makeshift taser out of a CRT TV, save needing to order an SCR.