japantiger 4,185 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Stiffer and more enforceable: during the majority of WW2, the military's of the rest of the world used predominantly bolt action rifles...with clips or detachable magazines. In fact, when WW2 started, the 1903 Springfield was still the standard US military issue...the best info I can find has the 1903 (and similar rifles) delivering 15 rounds per minute downrange in a 24 inch target at 200 yards regularly...the best performance I've found was 38 rounds per minute by an instructor...now, that is using 5 round clips...bolt action rifle and carefully hitting a 24 inch silhouette target at 200 yards...so, just firing randomly from the hip at close range would result in (conservatively) 30-35 rounds per minute (probably more with someone who practices). Think this would take out 20 children in a classroom? That is from what is today the basic 30.06 hunting rifle owned by conservatively 60m Americans (can't get an exact number on this one - working backwards from the 90m total households owning guns in the US). So just what restrictions do you propose to place or what weapons would you propose to eliminate again? We've stepped from military grade, fully auto, semi auto and now pretty much every bolt actions seems out of the question as well....and for good measure....a child will be just as dead with a .22 round...so whether 30.06 of 22 sr or lr; a determined nut can fire a lot of these in a short time in a confined space. Oh, and as for handguns, with a standard 9 round magazine or with speed loaders and a 6 round revolver you get the same result...... this is where all these "good intentioned" proposals fall apart. There is no place to draw the line that will be effective in stopping an insane person from doing something like this,,,.countries that have tried to implement stricter controls (e.g., Norway, Germany, etc) still have these kinds of incidents....and they already had far less gun violence per 100k population than the US before they implemented these restrictions....hhuummm.... Also, you have to go back to #5 above. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason.... unrestrained government is a far bigger and ever present threat than the likelihood of a Sandy Hook incident. I would welcome a real dialogue on the real causes of these types of incidents...not ineffective-expensive-knee-jerk-feel-good-based proposals that allow further unwelcome intrusions into our liberty. As for #4, you said there wasn't "any"...so I just stopped at one....there are more; but you set a low bar. ok,i did set it low, but your arguments seem to prove my points. a trained, skilled killer could take out more than 20 kids with a single shot .410gauge. i am not worried about trained, skilled military, law enforcement professionals. its these wack jobs that have no training and very little common sense that need the high capacity guns and multiple magazines that are dangerous. the same wack job with a bolt action or semi auto 30-06 is much less lethal as far as numbers of potential victims. can you at least agree to that? if the older style weapons with less capacity reloading capability are just as lethal then why does anyone want the assault weapons anyway? a 9 round clip or revolver is not just as leathal than a 15 or 33 round glock that is why you and others want the freedom to own the higher capacity guns. are you aware of the shooting of the congresswoman in arizona. that nut had a glock with a 33round clip and another in his pocket. he was tackled when he was reloading he dropped the 2nd clip. perhaps if lanza had to reload more often there would have been a window of opportunity to disarm him. gun violence will never go away. deaths will never stop. but we can minimize the carnage with some common sense adjustments. these nuts are not well calculated people, they need more fire power and we are making it too easy for them to get it. for what? unrestrained government? i really dont get it, but i will refrain from insults. You don't have to be well trained to shoot people in a confined space. You just have to be determined. I used the military example only to show that the ability to put a lot of rounds out of the barrel extends to every weapon. Every handgun, every hunting rifle. You proposed "stiff and more enforceable restraints:...where is that point...since any gun (other than a single shot muzzle loader) is capable of discharging over 30 rounds per minute in a confined space? The old AWB ban said "two military style components"...the new legislation proposed says only "one" now..and creates a new bureaucracy to enforce it. Of course I imaging you assume somehow our wise lawmakers will do this in a "reasonable" fashion...when has this president or either house of congress done anything in a reasonable fashion? Governments don't do reasonable....they grab power. This reasonable group of people just agreed to raise taxes and increase spending in the face of immoral levels of debt. Reasonable? Let's assume they do pull this off...what follows? 1) A huge black market and most likely organized crime involvement. This is what happens every time the Feds enact a prohibition; every time. This means new agencies and agents and bureaucracies to enforce it. 2) Now, since the politicians look to Europe now for all their "solutions" what has happened in Europe? In Germany and Norway for example, agencies can now go into homes; presumptively, and inspect weapons caches at any time without reasonable cause....why, because they have acquired that "right" thru legislative fiat. You don't think the US will go that route? They are now using "drones" in domestic law enforcement...a government will use whatever means to intrude on rights... There are no limits as to what power a government will afford itself in the name of it's perceived agenda...even our well intentioned bureaucrats. Your whole premise seems to be "can't happen in America". That is hardly a reasonable or logical approach. If that was the case; then frankly we didn't need a constitution to begin with since the majority of it describes what inalienable rights the government cannot intrude on. I guess because we are born here we are just endowed with special knowledge and character that prevents such abuses...unlike any other humans ever born...human nature is not applicable here....WOW, that is American exceptionalism. “Tyrants preserve themselves by sowing fear and mistrust among the citizens by means of spies, by distracting them with foreign wars, by eliminating men of spirit who might lead a revolution, by humbling the people, and making them incapable of decisive action…” ... Aristotle Our history is littered with examples to show a reasonable person that it in fact "can" and "will" happen in America (Aliens and Sedition Act, Alcohol Prohibition, Three Supreme Court rulings to make slavery legal, Internment of US citizens in concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestry, ...... human nature is still human nature...and just because it is the 21st century, governments still crave unlimited power unless we restrain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,185 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 you also are comparing accidental deaths to mass murders. we cannot eliminate accidental deaths but the government does continually study, analize, and legislate to try to ruduce them. But it's not being effective on something far easier to solve and something that should have far more emphasis on it due to the magnitude of deaths. Why do you think that the Fed can enact something so simple as an AWB and it will be effective? Especially since the previous one wasn't effective (per the Justice Department, not me) and countries that have enacted far more rigorous and intrusive bans (e.g., Norway and Germany) haven't been effective either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdgen 2 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. True. I'm aware that if someone really wants a certain weapon, they will most likely be able to acquire it somehow. This same line of thinking can be applied to murder: if someone really wants to commit a murder, then they will most likely be able to somehow. In my view, it is unrealistic and naive to think we can stop all firearms murders or to eliminate their existence, but I do think it is very much worth the effort to try to make the sale, fabrication, and trade of certain weapons more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,977 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 get out of here with that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,977 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 we need these guns so we can overthrow the government if we need to. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUGradinTX 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? No. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdgen 2 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. True. I'm aware that if someone really wants a certain weapon, they will most likely be able to acquire it somehow. This same line of thinking can be applied to murder: if someone really wants to commit a murder, then they will most likely be able to somehow. In my view, it is unrealistic and naive to think we can stop all firearms murders or to eliminate their existence, but I do think it is very much worth the effort to try to make the sale, fabrication, and trade of certain weapons more difficult. We will just have to disagree about it. I don't see any reason to increase the burden on law abiding people for crimes they aren't committing. While admitting it won't stop the problem because criminals don't obey the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUJarhead 72 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 1. corvettes are usless but are not designed to rapidly kill multiple people. you made no point with that one! Not usless at all, in my opinion. And your opinion would depend on what your definition of "use" is, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Freak 2,559 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? No. What's your point? The second question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Freak 2,559 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUGradinTX 0 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/shooting-centerfire-rifles-semiautomatic/_/N-1102333/Ns-CATEGORY_SEQ_105524280?WTz_l=SBC%3BMMcat104792580%3Bcat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsamerica.com/962422923/Colt_AR15_M16_223_full_auto.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUGradinTX 0 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Exactly. And the reason that supply is so low is because of restrictions/regulations on the availability of automatic weapons. I started this train of questions in response to 3rdgen post regarding the "futility" of stricter regulations. He didn't bother to respond so I appreciate you taking up the task for him Anyway, 3rdgen said: "It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic." My point being that "reality" doesn't "trump logic". Reality can be modified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdgen 2 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Exactly. And the reason that supply is so low is because of restrictions/regulations on the availability of automatic weapons. I started this train of questions in response to 3rdgen post regarding the "futility" of stricter regulations. He didn't bother to respond so I appreciate you taking up the task for him Anyway, 3rdgen said: "It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic." My point being that "reality" doesn't "trump logic". Reality can be modified. We were talking about gun show background checks and not the banning of the manufacture of an entire class of weapons. I will still answer your question. The problem with that is that there are 10s of millions more semiautomatic weapons in existence today than full autos in 1986. Even back in the 1930s when the first restrictions were put on full auto weapons most of those weapons weren't bought by the public due. They were stolen from national guard armories by criminals. Even if you ban the production of semiauto weapons today. There are 5-10 million AR style rifles alone already in private hands. That doesn't include AK, m-14, FN FAL, Galil, and at least 100 other semiautomatic weapons of both pistol and rifle calibers. The price will rise but not to the point that full autos command. Once again the reality of supply and demand will still out weigh the feel good logic. So unless you plan confiscation to modify reality the two situations are not a legit comparison to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUGradinTX 0 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Exactly. And the reason that supply is so low is because of restrictions/regulations on the availability of automatic weapons. I started this train of questions in response to 3rdgen post regarding the "futility" of stricter regulations. He didn't bother to respond so I appreciate you taking up the task for him Anyway, 3rdgen said: "It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic." My point being that "reality" doesn't "trump logic". Reality can be modified. Correct. The restiction is on full-auto and burst-capable. Keep in mind this restiction is on a mechanical function of the gun. That being the capability of firing multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. I agree with this. Restict fully automatic or burst-capable weapons. Now, let's focus on what all started this conversation; the Newtown shooting. That weapon was NOT capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. So WHAT specifically about that rifle are you wanting to restrict to make them less available? If we are talking about this, we might as well reach a conclusion that has a chance of working. Keep in mind we have already established the federal ban of 1994 did not succeed because it could not find a mechanical difference from an AR15 semi-automatic and other semi-automatic rifles. All of the restictions were placed on "cosmetic" items that were easily changed. This allowed for the continued sale of these rifles. Also keep in mind that Connecticut, the state where the shooting took place, has a current ban similar to the 1994 federal ban. The rifle used was registered and legal under that ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Exactly. And the reason that supply is so low is because of restrictions/regulations on the availability of automatic weapons. I started this train of questions in response to 3rdgen post regarding the "futility" of stricter regulations. He didn't bother to respond so I appreciate you taking up the task for him Anyway, 3rdgen said: "It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic." My point being that "reality" doesn't "trump logic". Reality can be modified. Correct. The restiction is on full-auto and burst-capable. Keep in mind this restiction is on a mechanical function of the gun. That being the capability of firing multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. I agree with this. Restict fully automatic or burst-capable weapons. Why do you agree with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons? Now, let's focus on what all started this conversation; the Newtown shooting. That weapon was NOT capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. So WHAT specifically about that rifle are you wanting to restrict to make them less available? If we are talking about this, we might as well reach a conclusion that has a chance of working. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I would place greater restrictions on rifles with detachable magazines. Keep in mind we have already established the federal ban of 1994 did not succeed because it could not find a mechanical difference from an AR15 semi-automatic and other semi-automatic rifles. All of the restictions were placed on "cosmetic" items that were easily changed. This allowed for the continued sale of these rifles. Also keep in mind that Connecticut, the state where the shooting took place, has a current ban similar to the 1994 federal ban. The rifle used was registered and legal under that ban. I think the "ban" of 1994 was a complete joke. Regardless, I am not arguing for reinstating the 1994 ban , so that's not really relevant to my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUGradinTX 0 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Exactly. And the reason that supply is so low is because of restrictions/regulations on the availability of automatic weapons. I started this train of questions in response to 3rdgen post regarding the "futility" of stricter regulations. He didn't bother to respond so I appreciate you taking up the task for him Anyway, 3rdgen said: "It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic." My point being that "reality" doesn't "trump logic". Reality can be modified. Correct. The restiction is on full-auto and burst-capable. Keep in mind this restiction is on a mechanical function of the gun. That being the capability of firing multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. I agree with this. Restict fully automatic or burst-capable weapons. Why do you agree with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons? Now, let's focus on what all started this conversation; the Newtown shooting. That weapon was NOT capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. So WHAT specifically about that rifle are you wanting to restrict to make them less available? If we are talking about this, we might as well reach a conclusion that has a chance of working. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I would place greater restrictions on rifles with detachable magazines. Keep in mind we have already established the federal ban of 1994 did not succeed because it could not find a mechanical difference from an AR15 semi-automatic and other semi-automatic rifles. All of the restictions were placed on "cosmetic" items that were easily changed. This allowed for the continued sale of these rifles. Also keep in mind that Connecticut, the state where the shooting took place, has a current ban similar to the 1994 federal ban. The rifle used was registered and legal under that ban. I think the "ban" of 1994 was a complete joke. Regardless, I am not arguing for reinstating the 1994 ban , so that's not really relevant to my point. 1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt. 2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to. 3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,353 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 One of the issues being discussed is a ban on sales of certain weapons at gun shows--where individuals do not have to pass a background check. I feel like this is something we should all be able to agree on, unless our gun-toting stance clouds our logic. What do you all think? It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic. Are fully automatic weapons as widely available in this country as semi-automatic weapons? If not, why do you suppose is the main reason? $$$ Sorry, but I don't understand. Please expand. $$$ = They're too expensive. So a auto-capable AR15 costs a great deal more to produce than a semi? I don't think so. To produce? No, to freaking buy. AR15 Semi-auto = $729.99 http://www.cabelas.c...80;cat105522480 AR15 Full Auto = $15,000.00 http://www.gunsameri...3_full_auto.htm So why are they priced so high? Supply versus demand. From what I understand, civilians are not permitted to own fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. So, that would make supply very low. Exactly. And the reason that supply is so low is because of restrictions/regulations on the availability of automatic weapons. I started this train of questions in response to 3rdgen post regarding the "futility" of stricter regulations. He didn't bother to respond so I appreciate you taking up the task for him Anyway, 3rdgen said: "It is pointless you can buy any weapon that is available at a gun show from private citizens. Look in the want ads of any paper or thrifty nickel at least in the south. You will see on any given week AKs, SKSs, and ARs listed all legal. Not to mention many semiautomatic handguns. Just in case you are wondering reality trumps all this feel good logic." My point being that "reality" doesn't "trump logic". Reality can be modified. Correct. The restiction is on full-auto and burst-capable. Keep in mind this restiction is on a mechanical function of the gun. That being the capability of firing multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. I agree with this. Restict fully automatic or burst-capable weapons. Why do you agree with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons? Now, let's focus on what all started this conversation; the Newtown shooting. That weapon was NOT capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. So WHAT specifically about that rifle are you wanting to restrict to make them less available? If we are talking about this, we might as well reach a conclusion that has a chance of working. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I would place greater restrictions on rifles with detachable magazines. Keep in mind we have already established the federal ban of 1994 did not succeed because it could not find a mechanical difference from an AR15 semi-automatic and other semi-automatic rifles. All of the restictions were placed on "cosmetic" items that were easily changed. This allowed for the continued sale of these rifles. Also keep in mind that Connecticut, the state where the shooting took place, has a current ban similar to the 1994 federal ban. The rifle used was registered and legal under that ban. I think the "ban" of 1994 was a complete joke. Regardless, I am not arguing for reinstating the 1994 ban , so that's not really relevant to my point. 1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt. Quite true, but not the point. 2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to. Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself. A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos. 3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out. It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.