ban on assault weapons lifted
-
What in the world are you talking about? It is obvious that you don't know which ban has been lifted. The M-16 is a Class 3 firearm, which means that it is capable of fully automatic fire. The ban in question dealt with semi-automatic weapons, which only fire one round per each pull of the trigger. If you can manage to fire a semi-automatic weapon at 800 rounds per minute then I will personally make the submission to the Guiness Book of records for you. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Semi-automatic is not strictly defined as one round fired per pull of the trigger. That is one definition, but it is not the only one. Semi automatic versions of the M16 will fire three rounds, for example. Admittedly it is small calibre but it shows that it not a strict defition. On your second point - the Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington slaying is based on M-16 rifle. You are trying to imply that it is some holy grail that cannot be obtained by the average person. That's bull. Even with this ban there have been loop holes at gun shows, and the 3mil vets running around have had there ways as well. Lastly - WTF - 800 rnd per min - yes. That is the cyclic firing rate. Look it up on google if you are having trouble with it.
-
Semi-automatic is not strictly defined as one round fired per pull of the trigger. That is one definition, but it is not the only one. Semi automatic versions of the M16 will fire three rounds, for example. Admittedly it is small calibre but it shows that it not a strict defition. On your second point - the Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington slaying is based on M-16 rifle. You are trying to imply that it is some holy grail that cannot be obtained by the average person. That's bull. Even with this ban there have been loop holes at gun shows, and the 3mil vets running around have had there ways as well. Lastly - WTF - 800 rnd per min - yes. That is the cyclic firing rate. Look it up on google if you are having trouble with it.
I don't understand why you keep talking about the M16. The M16 is not one of the weapons that is part of this ban. There are NO weapons that are part of this ban that will fire 800 rounds/min. I really don't see why you have such a hard time understanding this. The AR-15 and its variants, like the Bushmaster, that ARE part of this ban, are semi-automatic. They will not fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. Furthermore, three round bursts are defined as automatic fire (hence, the Class 3 rating), not semi-automatic. Jeff Bogan wrote: Look it up on google if you are having trouble with it. I am not the one having trouble. You have no idea what is part of the ban and what is not. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
A 100% ban is ridiculous. Why remove social liberties of the common man? If a bunch of guys like hanging out in the desert, shooting at beer cans, let them to that. If people like hunting deer, or whatever, let them do that. If they want to do it, they should be accountable. To be accountable, you should have a license permit per gun/person, be of a certain age or older, no prior criminal convictions. To acquire a license should take enough time to cool down the angriest person. To fire a gun for which you do not have a license for (other than test firing it before purchase) should be fineable. To fire a gun in an area which isn't safe, should also be fineable, and possibly a criminal act. Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). -- Arigato gozaimashita!
Cripes, I agree. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Why would anyone need to utilize a 800 rounds per minute firing rate? Killing mice? ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Guns that fire 800 rounds a minute are already illegal to own. The ban covered semi automatic weapons not 50 caliber machine guns. For that matter good luck finding a clip that would hold 800 rounds....... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). Hmm. A gun has one purpose. To hurt, damage or kill something or someone. A car has a purpose, to get from a-b, so your example is a little suspect... but I guess it all depends on your point of view. To me, guns serve no useful purpose. I can't understand why so many people get off on them. I guess it is something in the genetic code somewhere. I understand why an army needs a gun, I can see why modern day police forces need a gun, I can see why the farmer finds them useful but for everybody else - surely there are more fun and safer ways to pass the time. I'd have no problem in having licenced establishments where you can go and shoot a few rounds off, but to me there is no good reason why a person needs to *own* a gun. I'll argue about banning car-ownership and introducing a proper public transport system another day :-D Michael CP Blog [^]
I don't know where you live, but I live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Up here our claim to fame is walleye fishing and deer hunting. Personally I don't hunt, but I have no problem with someone who does. Hunters up here pump an enormous amount of money into local economy, traveling here to hunt and also investing in conservation through the money that they pay for licenses and tags. As a matter of fact the local school district even gives the kids the first day of deer season off, Nov 15th because so many kids hunt with their families. Granted that is different than many areas of the country, but the idea of telling people that they can no longer own and use (responsibly) firearms are wrong IMHO. Someone who buys a gun for self-defense is typically more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder, however, I don't think you should tell someone they couldn’t have a legal method of defending their family. Instead punish the criminals, pass legislation with mandatory sentencing, and enforce the laws that are on the books already.... the options are endless. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). Hmm. A gun has one purpose. To hurt, damage or kill something or someone. A car has a purpose, to get from a-b, so your example is a little suspect... but I guess it all depends on your point of view. To me, guns serve no useful purpose. I can't understand why so many people get off on them. I guess it is something in the genetic code somewhere. I understand why an army needs a gun, I can see why modern day police forces need a gun, I can see why the farmer finds them useful but for everybody else - surely there are more fun and safer ways to pass the time. I'd have no problem in having licenced establishments where you can go and shoot a few rounds off, but to me there is no good reason why a person needs to *own* a gun. I'll argue about banning car-ownership and introducing a proper public transport system another day :-D Michael CP Blog [^]
You should try it sometime. Firing guns is hard and fun. It's not easy to hit the bullseye at 25 meters distance with a hand gun, nor is it easy to hit the bullseye at 300 meters distance with a rifle. It's hard. So hard, it has become a sport. A sport which allows you to have some fun too at times (shooting beer cans and other inanimate object can be quite fun!) Michael P Butler wrote: A gun has one purpose. To hurt, damage or kill something or someone. It used to, there's no denying that. But since a gun today can be used for other purposes than previously mentioned, a gun license should also include the need for the gun. If you need it for hunting, the license should only allow use for the gun while hunting and calibration at designated firing range. If you need it for sporting activities, the license should only allow use for the gun in competitions and training. A license should also require the owner to store the gun in a container which is not easily stolen or broken into. That'll keep the legitimate users happy, idiots away from guns, and thiefs from carrying away my gun. Michael P Butler wrote: but to me there is no good reason why a person needs to *own* a gun. Practicalities. Who'll be the owner of the gun? The state? Or the establishment? No none-state establishment would ever agree on taking responsibilities for guns which is used by others. And to have it state operated would be very Sovietish... I used to have oppinions just like you, until I actually tried it. I found it to be very stimulating and fun. It takes a lot of practice to become good at it. And since you're required to be associated with a sports club to get a license here in Sweden, I also got a bunch of new friends. And contrary to ignorant beliefs, they're not crazy cowboys. If a crime is committed with a gun, a sports club member would be the last to commit it. I would be very pissed off if I couldn't fire my gun at the firing range just because there are criminals out there who use guns for criminal purposes. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Guns that fire 800 rounds a minute are already illegal to own. The ban covered semi automatic weapons not 50 caliber machine guns. For that matter good luck finding a clip that would hold 800 rounds....... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: For that matter good luck finding a clip that would hold 800 rounds....... Clip based guns are for weenies. Real men use gatling guns.. :-D -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Americans and their guns :-D You'd be a whole lot better off if you banned them all. Then at least if somebody is caught with one, you know they are a criminal and can take the approriate measures. Beyond their use for pest control and hunting - there is no other sane reason for a civilian to have one. You'd be better off fixing the problems that cause people to think they need a gun, rather than an out-right ban to start with. But I guess you'll need a few more Columbines before you get the message. Michael CP Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote: Beyond their use for pest control and hunting - there is no other sane reason for a civilian to have one. What about sport shooting? How about archery? Javelin throwing? etc. It's the same as any other sport, the fun you say you can't understand is in the mastering and becoming good at it.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
Americans and their guns :-D You'd be a whole lot better off if you banned them all. Then at least if somebody is caught with one, you know they are a criminal and can take the approriate measures. Beyond their use for pest control and hunting - there is no other sane reason for a civilian to have one. You'd be better off fixing the problems that cause people to think they need a gun, rather than an out-right ban to start with. But I guess you'll need a few more Columbines before you get the message. Michael CP Blog [^]
-
I`m SO there wrote: And if your son or your daughter is slaughtered with an AK47 If some wacko chose to kill my son or daughter, what difference does it make what weapon he chose? A bat, knife, axe, car, or a chainsaw would all do the job. What weapon he chose doesn't really make any difference in the outcome, no more than being shot automatically means that you're dead. If someone wanted to kill my son, and was determined to do so, then there is no law that is going to keep him from it. I`m SO there wrote: More insanely easy ways to kill people!! If wanted to kill a bunch of people, quickly an easily, I would simply get into my SUV and drive it through a dense crowd of people. More people would be killed or maimed in a shorter period of time than you could accomplish with a semi-automatic rifle. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
You are correct. If some wacko chose to kill your daughter, he could do so with any number of weapons. However, there is one unique thing about assault rifles. If one wacko chooses to kill another wacko with a knife, axe, or chainsaw, your daughter is not in danger. If a wacko chooses to kill another wacko with an assault rifle and your daughter happens to be within a mile radius, her life IS in danger. That is also the case with the argument about the relative killing efficacy of hunting cartridges vs. assault cartridges. The target of a shooting, be it with a pistol, assault rifle, hunting rifle, or what-have-you, will probably die. Only in the case of an assault rifle, however, will the lives of everyone else in the radius also be in danger.