But the right to own a Barret 50 caliber is in the Constitution??? As are “cop killer” bullets.
The “cop killer” bullets(Teflon coated bullets) I don’t agree with, even the NRA disagreed with them and worked with congress to restrict them to military and police only.
Since the rifle falls under the “arms” category, yeah, it is. Doesn’t mean I think anyone should own one, though. No more than I see the need for someone to own a Lambo, Ferrari or Aston Martin, but if you got money to burn who am I to judge.
I find the 45acp rounds for one of my guns to be expensive enough to shoot, and it’s a fairly common round so prices are decent. That’s why the .22lr is so popular, it’s dirt cheap
Unfortunately, the debate on gun control must get real technical. Because few people are aware of technical differences in weapons, the debate deteriorates into a so called “second amendment rights” vs confiscation of all guns. That’s not what the debate is about and it has nothing to do with @Bing’s shotgun or anything to fear by legitimate sport gun owners.
First EVERYONE is in favor of some form of gun control because no one wants a convicted criminal owning a .50 cal machine gun…except the criminal. Secondly, gun legislation works because there are thousands of licensed machine guns out there and hundreds of people licensed to own them yet they are almost NEVER involved in criminal activity. Just because the gun is licensed and tractable and a federal criminal offense to even process one Unlicensed is enough to restrict their use.
It’s that simple. So, we all in favor of some control and we all know it works. Let’s just sit down and decide how far each side is willing to go. Except for the most ardent fear mongering by the people with the most to loose financially it is the typical middle class gun owner who is really in favor of the same laws as is the non owner who both for some reason, get filled with fear. It’s the people who live in fear we have most to fear. So educate yourself, talk intelligently about technical differenses and agree on something to save lives.
Technology in firearms and availability must be addressed. Restrict the conversation to that, and laws that work can easily be agreed upon. Just don’t let the fear mongering by the profiteers be part of the conversation.
The constitution has LITTLE to do with this debate or any debate. The constitution is a living, breathing instrument with provisions for amendments. To deny that the constitution can be amended and redefined is to deny the constitution itself. So let it work for and not against a rational, agreed upon solution.
Not getting into the debate of weather or not guns or certain guns should be outlawed.
I FIRMLY believe that IF there were no automatics in the hands of the public… thousands less people killed over the years.
The problem is that I don’t care what laws are passed they are NOT going to stop those guns from being sold. MAYBE they’ll slow the sales down…but NOT eliminate them. I grew up in NY which had one of the toughest gun laws in the country. Yet you could buy any gun you wanted in NYC within just a few days.
@mikeInNH…
ThIs is where the debate sometimes gets, confusing. “if there were no automatics…” do you mean full automatics or semi automatics. If you mean full, the number of people actually killed by this tightly regulated weapon IS small. if you mean semi automatics, then you have to stipulate even more. A three round semi auto matic shotgun is of less threat then a 7 round pump. Yet, an AR 15 semi auto matic with a thirty round clip or a 15 round Glock are acknowledged high threats to everyone.
Technicality is extremely important in the debate. Without it, @bing has a right to fear confiscation of his “automatic” shotgun because the debate doesn’t differentiate hunting weapons from those of much greater threat to people.
The typical assault rifle with the .223 cartridge is manageable by small, frail and untrained. This may seem an advantage to women for protection, but it in creases the lethality of it to everyone with it’s ease of use, penetration through walls and potential fire power.
I think I know where you are coming from and couldn’t agree more…but limiting technology in weapons has to be done thoughtfully…just as allowing technology in weapons must as well.
And yes, passing and enforcing gun laws on the federal level HAS shown to be effective…if you read my previous post.
To be explicit. If you knew that evey assault weapon had to be registered and reregistered during a private sale, even private sellers would demand back ground checks. Otherwise, any legaly purchased gun, which most guns used in crimes are initially, would make the original owner an accessory after the fact in it’s use in committing a crime. Possession of an assault weapon without registration could be a federal crime. This has restricted the use of full autos in crimes, it would with assault weapons. This includes the manufacturers of the weapons. They all become complicit. It works ! Class action law suits of manufacturer’s, the profiteers, work !
this video was taken after the Stockton shooting in California back in '89
There’s also a video I seen where a guy explains the ballistics of a .223 round and that it’s actually better for home defense because of the way it doesn’t over penetrate; it actually tumbles around when it hits something hard. I’ll look for it when I get home from work, if the thread is still open when I get home that is.
Anything that can hold a lot of Ammo and be cycled real fast should be banned(notice I didnt mention shotguns?No street sweepers please-who would shot Ducks anyhow?That leadshot has got to be good for the ecosystem)-Kevin
Possession of an assault weapon without registration could be a federal crime.
And right now in NY State it’s a crime to own most assault weapons. Yet if you know where to look you can buy them. I do agree then by banning them nation wide will reduce the ownership. And criminals will have a harder time getting them…but it doesn’t mean you CAN’T get them. After all our Federal Government has done such a cracker-jack job in stopping illegal drugs.
I agree with the video facts. That’s why you should be very specific about define what you mean in an assault rifle. Where the video fails, is the constant use of opinion in that the getting rid of some types of semi automatic weapons is “sad”, just because of their proliferation. That is an opinion that should be NOWHERE in the debate. What hunted animal other then man needs to be hunted with a high capacity semi automatic weapon ?
To that end, @MikeInNh is absolutely right. It is the proliferation of high capacity, semi automatic weapons that needs to be examined. There was once a proliferation of cars and SUVs with with high centers of gravity, no seatbelts or airbags. That does not make it right that they should continue to frequent our roads and be made available with easy access to those with no ligitimate need or training in their use. We adjusted and compromised with cars and trucks.( and continue to) We can do it with firearms. It will and should be an on going process and not a one time fix.
The law prohibiting full automatic weapons does work because of it’s registration. Illegal drugs in general aren’t registered by a manufacturer. Legal drugs have their own problems as well but have no where near the proliferation problem. Drugs are not subject to detection the same way firearms are and their use of some drugs is condoned by much of the buying public. The public in general does not support the unregulated use of firearms. NY officials say the problem is that there is no fed support for their harsher laws !
.
@bacar2
I do agree that over penetration of the ,223 is less then some hunting rounds and some types of pistol ammo. But, penetration is as much a function of bullet design as caliper. Military ammo, which tends to ball ammo because of itz’s ability to function tends to penetrate more then any other non specific round. These types of ammo are sold in huge numbers on the civilian market with a very large portion devoted to 9mm ball and .223 ball amunition. You won’t see specific non penetration revolver rounds or shot gun shot compared to .223 in penetration. That they tumble, makes then less viable as a hunting round. That we need anything that approaches a high capacity .223 for home defense is debatable as is a high capacity 9mm and especially one with no consideration for the ball amunition used, is another debatable point. Home defense use for weapons is vastly overrated.
Do any of you remember what it was like to be six years old? I do. I remember losing my first tooth on my sixth birthday, and it is depressing the hell out of me right now that anyone could make a case that his right to own an assault rifle is more important than a six-year-old’s right to live. It’s even more depressing that someone could make the case that his right to own an assault rifle is more important than the lives of 20 first graders. Excuse me if I don’t give a #### about the technical issues.
Before you continue this debate, I challenge you to look back at your life, and contemplate how different it would have been if it had ended at the age of six.
The law prohibiting full automatic weapons does work because of it's registration.
One estimate some 20 years go was there were over 5000 automatic weapons in NY state. Every single one of them was UN-REGISTERED because they were illegal to posses.
Last estimate I heard - there were over 2 million assault weapons in the US. How many of them are legally registered??
Still not convinced just passing a law saying this gun or that is illegal to own is going keep those guns out of the hands of people who want to use them.
@Whitey
I hear you Whitey and agree…but we are peeing into the wind if we think any legislation will be pasted without the voting public being more aware of what they want…just screaming " for #*^ sake do something won’t do it."
@MikeInNH
"Still not convinced just passing a law saying this gun or that is illegal to own is going keep those guns out of the hands of people who want to use them. "
Please try to find the number of instances FULL automatics were used in the commission of a crime…forget estimates of 20 years ago. Look at facts.
Can you buy one elsewhere and bring it into NY without being caught…yes, but only if you are licensed from a dealer who must be licensed and you had better not be caught with one ANYWHERE without a license.
"Violators can be fined as much as $10,000, imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both."
This is why it works for the common citizen. Mass killings were not committed by a criminal and criminals are not using them in committing crimes ! Isn’t that the idea ? Or are you arguing we should do nothing cause nothing works ?
Please try to find the number of instances FULL automatics were used in the commission of a crime...forget estimates of 20 years ago. Look at facts.
That’s NOT what I’m saying. What I’m saying is we can put laws in place to STOP the sale of guns (automatic, semi-automatic, guns with 30 round clips)…it doesn’t matter…you can still buy them if you want. I was using the Automatic example because they currently are illegal in NY, yet you can still buy them illegally. You don’t have to leave NYState to buy an illegal weapon. You can buy them right now today if you know where to look.
Or are you arguing we should do nothing cause nothing works ?
As I stated above…I’d LOVE to see all these types of weapons taken off the street. I’m just not convinced that by passing a law making them illegal is going to do it. There are too many in the marketplace right now to put a stop to it. I will admit that by making the guns harder to get is going to stop many of these senseless killings like in NewTown. But it doesn’t mean that it’s NOT going to happen again. What I’d hate to see is we pass a strict federal gun law…and now everyone relaxes and think we’re all safe now. Many towns would put a stop to upgrading their security systems because we’re all safe now. In the wake of NewTown our town is debating putting a police officer in the elementary schools. If a federal gun law is passed…I guarantee you those police officers will be pulled.
If I had to power to vote on it…I’d vote to ban all those weapons. Don’t think I’m taking the side of the NRA. I’m just not convinced that it’ll do much good.
We agree…as usual.
We do have the power to vote on it if we use it as a primary issue in elections.
Unfortunately, money and greed have enough power to slow things down.
So, a police officer on school grounds of every school. ( many schools use them as resources already, there is little controversy IMO.)
Hardening access to schools.
Federal laws and enforcement that reflect the majority views on this issue and not the profiteers.
That’s all doable and not that expensive for the lives it affects in a positive way.
The current upheaval of public sentiment against “evil” weapons might be leveraged to gain the political will to face down the gun lobby and pass some gun bill that drastically restricts the firepower of firearms that can be owned by the non registered public. We all know what “assault weapons” are. Restrict ownership to federally licensed collectors.
Has anyone else heard the Right Wing radio chant regarding the “minuscule percentage” of deaths caused by “assault rifles?” Such pandering is offensive to me.
many schools use them as resources already
Our town has them in our High-school and middle school already. But now we want to add 6 more to the grammar schools. And put locks and a buzzer system on the doors…along with bullet proof glass.
Of course we don’t want little kids killed in any way, whether it be by guns, cars, airplanes, or natural events like floods or tornados. I don’t think that’s the point. Murder is already illegal and that doesn’t seem to stop anyone. Just passing more laws and restrictions without even enforcing what we have will solve nothing. Reduce clip sizes, make pistol grip illegal, make hollow points illegal, make adjustable stocks illegal, ad nauseum and that will solve anything? Did it solve anything in DC or how about Mexico or Norway as models? How many defenseless kids got in the way of crazy people there? One staff member in Norway with a weapon could have saved a hundred kids. One weapon or even a taser by the Newtown principal could have saved her life and the others, but they were defenseless, throwing themselves at the guy while he shot them. Heroic but stupid.
I don’t know what the answers are but woe to us to think that banning 100 round magazines will protect our kids from all the lunatics out there. Are we willing to spend the money for armed guards at our schools for the little kids? I doubt it since we aren’t even willing to pay for teachers. We just want the cheap way out to feel better about it rather than addressing anything that will give a 95% chance of success. So congress pass some laws to make us feel good and we won’t have to spend any money for schools or provide treatment and housing for nut cases.