Just something I've often wondered...

I'm guessing that if you posess a gun, you are pro-gun owning. As such, at what sort of weapon do you feel the line should be drawn? I'm very hazy about what is and isn't allowed in respective countries, and I'm looking to find out when some think enough is enough.

IIRC, the US (or at least certain States in the US) have a Magazine size limit?

So, off we go.

Please note, I'm not doing this looking for things to criticise or scorn, just genuinely interested in such things.

I draw the line at rocket propelled chainsaws. You don't need anything more than that.

The "assault weapon ban" with the arbitrary magazine limitation ended. All but a handfull of states allow such items again
(laughable subject, no? I thought "assaulting" was bad behavior, not hardware, lol)
I could draw the line with a R(ights)AW stance with the "keep and bear" line. Thus allowing you to own anything you can carry and operate alone without any aid.

I would just be happy with a repeal of the National Firearm Act of 1934. Because it's that stupid and arbitrary.

Illeix wrote:I would just be happy with a repeal of the National Firearm Act of 1934. Because it's that stupid and arbitrary.

What does it actually say, and what do you find fault with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

I think (and for the most part this mirrors most state laws) any weapon function which is specifically designed and used for battlefield operations crosses the line, primarily fully automatic weapons (designed and used specifically to provide suppressive fire for troop movement) and weapons designed to shoot explosive shells (grenade launchers, mortars and artillery) and purposely silenced weapons.

The whole "assault weapon" issue I always thought was a bit silly as any semi-automatic rifle is essentially the same as any other semi-automatic rifle in function whether it looks like an intimidating Soviet battle rifle or a relatively innocuous hunting rifle.

Also, I have to say I am quite enamored with Frazzled's Rocket Propelled Chainsaw! If only, if only...

My PSP has limited memory, and won't allow me to type the tome I'd like to, but...

The act arbitrarily defined "Short barreled weapons" which basically say that a shotgun with a 17.5" barrel is bad, but 18 isn't. Also a pistol with a buttstock is a "short barreled rifle" when logic clearly proves otherwise.

lastly, sound suppressors, which are a wonderful tool to protect your hearing and reduce noise pollution (like car mufflers!)

amongst other things, but thats most of it.

and machine guns I believe, and greeners.

Machine guns have been out of production for the civilian market in the US since the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986, the thune amendment I believe.

repealing the NFA would do little. The precious few transferrable relics out there would still cost $8,000+ USD as they were all artificially made collectors' items.

Once saw a programme on Channel 4, where the guy had a quad gun like the one seen in Waterworld (When the Smokers are attacking the Atoll) in his backgarden.

Is that legal, or the sort of 'well, it's illegal but hardly portable so sod it' type thing?

Also, being British none to up on guns by name, so post piccies. I don't mind a bit of gunporn.

That was a M2 quad mount, a WWII US military anti aircraft setup.

Now whilst I can see the appeal of having one (LOADSA DAKKA!) isn't that, well, a tad excessive?

It's legal if it was made before 1986, his state allows it, he filled out a LOT of paperwork, sent said paperwork to the ATF, paid a special tax, waited up to nine months for the FBI to do a background check that takes thirty minutes, filled out MORE paperwork, pay a boatload of money for the item, possibly a 5-15 day waiting period before taking possesion of it and finally living in fear of a platoon of ATF agents "forcefully inspecting" his property.

But yes, perfectly legal.

Illeix wrote:My PSP has limited memory, and won't allow me to type the tome I'd like to, but...

The act arbitrarily defined "Short barreled weapons" which basically say that a shotgun with a 17.5" barrel is bad, but 18 isn't. Also a pistol with a buttstock is a "short barreled rifle" when logic clearly proves otherwise.

lastly, sound suppressors, which are a wonderful tool to protect your hearing and reduce noise pollution (like car mufflers!)

amongst other things, but thats most of it.

Law often has to be specific like that. For example, you can legally vote when you are 18 or 20 (whatever, depending on your country) NOT when a judge or jury decides it is reasonable that you can vote.

Once you start banning classes or types of weapons, you run into that problem of specificity. It could be avoided by not banning any weapons at all.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Now whilst I can see the appeal of having one (LOADSA DAKKA!) isn't that, well, a tad excessive?

You've not seen the mosquitoes around these parts...

Therein lies the problem. The NFA is not specific. It applies to barrel length, overall length and attachments.

All of which could be modified with few or no tools, and have little effect on the firearms function.

So what about Sniper and Anti-Tank type rifles? Are they legal? (thinking the one in Robocop what knacks ED-209)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Once saw a programme on Channel 4, where the guy had a quad gun like the one seen in Waterworld (When the Smokers are attacking the Atoll) in his backgarden.

Is that legal, or the sort of 'well, it's illegal but hardly portable so sod it' type thing?

Also, being British none to up on guns by name, so post piccies. I don't mind a bit of gunporn.

Frazzled wrote:That was a M2 quad mount, a WWII US military anti aircraft setup.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Now whilst I can see the appeal of having one (LOADSA DAKKA!) isn't that, well, a tad excessive?

Hell, buying a single belt of rounds alone would set you back, enough to get some decent DAKKA out of all four would drain most households.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So what about Sniper and Anti-Tank type rifles? Are they legal? (thinking the one in Robocop what knacks ED-209)

Sniper rifle = Hunting rifle and Anti-tank would be either explosive or big enough to qualify as explosive anyway.

If the bore is one half inch or less, or it is a smoothbore designed to accept shotshells or black powder, yes*

*Unless you live in California

And do you need a license to fire them, either in your backyard or on the range, or is it just to own/carry them?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And do you need a license to fire them, either in your backyard or on the range, or is it just to own/carry them?

I think this probably depends on the state, county or even city.

That varies state-by-state, but in most sane districts you are fine if you pass a background check.

So what about non-US Citizens visiting on holiday? Would you be allowed to take me down the gun range to fire a few shots, or is that a no-no.

And if it is a no-no, is it one particularly well enforced?

Well, that's a state-by-state thing too, but it's perfectly fine in my state, and I'd be happy to oblige should you find yourself in my part of rainy Washington State! (I'm sure you'll be used to the weather already )

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So what about non-US Citizens visiting on holiday? Would you be allowed to take me down the gun range to fire a few shots, or is that a no-no.

And if it is a no-no, is it one particularly well enforced?

Oh yea you can blow stuff up real good, you just need a firearm, either from the person you're with or many places rent firearms. You go to Vegas there's even a range that has full auto for fun filled rent. SWMBO has ordered that next time we go to Vegas we're going there (she shot a Tommy gun once and loved it).
You show up in Houston or Austin and we'll make lots of things go boom.

Ah, but is it a legal requirement to 'talk like a gangshta shee?' when firing a Tommy Gun?

Thats legal but its definitely illegal to act like a modern thug and try to shoot sideways

Was told that the hold 'gangsta' angle was a crap idea, due to the spent casings not always ejecting fully, leading to 'banghand'?

1. Holding a Tommy gun sideways would be quite difficult actually.

2. holding a pistol sideways, should not affect ejection, plus its funny to watch. getting your wife to shoot like that while holding the other hand in front of her eyes... priceless!

A case that does not eject fully is called a "stovepipe"

Usually cleared by brushing your hand sharply over the ejection port, or the "tap and rack" i.e. tap the magazine to ensure it's seated correctly, then rack the slide. The latter is less efficiant as you usually eject the next (unfired) cartridge along with it and it takes longer.

Illeix wrote:Therein lies the problem. The NFA is not specific. It applies to barrel length, overall length and attachments.

All of which could be modified with few or no tools, and have little effect on the firearms function.

I believe this was the main guise under the Ruby Ridge incident back in the late 90's.

In general, American firearm laws are vague, confusing, and always a bit surreal. It just helps me confirm my belief that no law is made if a lawyer can't use the ambiguity to bend it for any given case.

That said, I am always split on the subject of "the line". I personally believe that most domestic firearm incidents of injury and death are caused by ignorance or stupidity, and that teaching one to use a firearm is one of the more applicable and safest ways to prevent accidental tragedies. If you limit firearms to the public, but still have a large public desire, then the taboo is set and people are afraid of them, which doesn't stop kids/frat boys from thinking they are "cool" and blowing off their foot or permanently damaging their eye because they don't understand what a stock is for.

But "the line" is very tough to decide. If I follow my ideals of "give them a gun and they will shoot their face off, teach them how to shoot a gun and they won't make the news", then ideologically there should be no line. But honestly, I can't imagine what a citizen could use a grenade launcher, RPG, or a fully automatic weapon for. Sure, I have shot fully automatic rifles and submachine guns, but I would never find them feasible in home defense, or hunting (unless you are hunting terminators).

But that is then ignoring the range shooters out there who want to shoot full auto. Is it right to take away their hobby because some psycho lit up us his apartment with an MP5 (Scott Stapp)? I don't know, but as a firearm rights supporter I don't really know if its really necessary for unregulated automatic and military-grade weapons to exist in the market.

None of this will stop/prevent criminals from obtaining weapons, money covers everything, even illegal substances, so my questions is along non-criminal lines.

Was that too much seriousness for the interwebs, Dakka?

It's alright because it's Friday afternoon.

BTW any UK guys wanting to shoot some stuff can go to Prague cheaper and easier than the US, to shoot AK47s and things.

Frazzled wrote:...You go to Vegas there's even a range that has full auto for fun filled rent.

Yes, this is true.

A friend of mine is building his own Gatling gun...and that is completely legal

And trust me, when you have chainsaw bears running around, you will be happy to have a Gatling gun on your side...

JEB_Stuart wrote:

I rescind my wavering on assault weapon bans.

the whole firing a pistol sideways is incredibly stupid, especially when the shell ejects into your eye.

LoL,
Funny thing about gatling guns, is that technically speaking (and pending model) you are only fireing 1 shot at a time per barrel... so they are classified as Semi-Auto.

In fact, ive been tempted to buy this one over the counter from Cabelas:
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/gun_inventory/inventory/lehi/military_arms/623648_tgg38sp_leh.jsp?categoryId=SEARCH_gl

I'm fine with Australia's gun laws. I've given up arguing with Americans about it, but I don't see the point in having an assault rifle or pump-action shotgun anyway. I'm fine with a handgun and hunting rifle.

I guess for the pleasure side of shooting, Assault Rifles etc are a different kind of fun.

Am highly interest in the Prague thing. Fired a Hunting Rifle once (and despite nearly going arse over tit from the recoil, hit the Deer I was aiming at!*) and enjoyed the thrill of the power, so why not go blaze away with an AK, for gaks and giggles?

*don't worry animal fans, the guys I was with made sure someone took their shot close to mine, and the beast didn't suffer!

You know, people talk about gun safety reducing accidents, but I really don't care if someone shoots themselves in the foot. You knew it was a gun, you knew what it does. Don't aim it at your foot.

(Of course, the real risk is that the person will mishandle it in such a manner that injures someone around them.)

In the UK a girl got shot in the eye and killed by an air rifle a couple of weeks ago.

Only a complete ban on gun ownership can eliminate all chances of an accident, however that brings other drawbacks as we all know.

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, people talk about gun safety reducing accidents, but I really don't care if someone shoots themselves in the foot. You knew it was a gun, you knew what it does. Don't aim it at your foot.

(Of course, the real risk is that the person will mishandle it in such a manner that injures someone around them.)

WTF is wrong with educating people about how to properly use a gun? That's the most ridiculous argument I have heard from my fellow pro-gun rights men for quite some time? You teach a person to shoot, they don't shoot themselves and those around them.

Which raises another question for you guys....

Are there minimum legal requirements for how your guns are stored?

Family I stayed with in Maine had all the guns and ammo locked away in a walk in saferoom.

Altered_Soul wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, people talk about gun safety reducing accidents, but I really don't care if someone shoots themselves in the foot. You knew it was a gun, you knew what it does. Don't aim it at your foot.

(Of course, the real risk is that the person will mishandle it in such a manner that injures someone around them.)

WTF is wrong with educating people about how to properly use a gun? That's the most ridiculous argument I have heard from my fellow pro-gun rights men for quite some time? You teach a person to shoot, they don't shoot themselves and those around them.

Did I say it was a bad idea for people to learn how to use a gun? No.

I said if they choose not to learn and hurt themselves because of it I don't have any sympathy for them.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Altered_Soul wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, people talk about gun safety reducing accidents, but I really don't care if someone shoots themselves in the foot. You knew it was a gun, you knew what it does. Don't aim it at your foot.

(Of course, the real risk is that the person will mishandle it in such a manner that injures someone around them.)

WTF is wrong with educating people about how to properly use a gun? That's the most ridiculous argument I have heard from my fellow pro-gun rights men for quite some time? You teach a person to shoot, they don't shoot themselves and those around them.

Did I say it was a bad idea for people to learn how to use a gun? No.

I said if they choose not to learn and hurt themselves because of it I don't have any sympathy for them.

But putting it in the context of gun safety? Every pro-gun rights person I know always thinks safety and security are the hallmarks of proper ownership. Perhaps its just the way you phrased your original comment, but it just seems like a crass post without any consideration for the topic at hand. If you just came off wrong, and are saying weeding out the stupid people is not a bad thing, its OT, but then I agree .

Altered_Soul wrote:But putting it in the context of gun safety? Every pro-gun rights person I know always thinks safety and security are the hallmarks of proper ownership. Perhaps its just the way you phrased your original comment, but it just seems like a crass post without any consideration for the topic at hand. If you just came off wrong, and are saying weeding out the stupid people is not a bad thing, its OT, but then I agree .

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see self-inflicted accidents as something that an outside party needs to be trying to prevent. After all, no one forced them to buy a gun, or stopped them from learning how to handle/use it correctly. Accidents inflicted on other people (and crime) are where I would be concerned, since in those cases the victims didn't lead up to their own injuries.

I suppose I was thinking of it from more of a political/social standpoint than a personal standpoint, though. From a personal standpoint I would definately want my friends/family to learn how to handle a gun before buying one (unless it was some sort of collector's piece, or something).

Kilkrazy wrote:
Only a complete ban on gun ownership can eliminate all chances of an accident, however that brings other drawbacks as we all know.

You know that wouldn't work. Cocaine is illegal, yet over 300,000 Kg is smuggled into the US.
I don't know the UK numbers, but I'm sure a lot of guns could be hidden in it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Which raises another question for you guys....

Are there minimum legal requirements for how your guns are stored?

Family I stayed with in Maine had all the guns and ammo locked away in a walk in saferoom.

As far as I know no state has storage requirements. I know pro shops and gun stores have to have trigger locks on all guns but for home use it's up to the home owner. I know some who sleep with a gun or 2 under the mattress, under the pillow, on the night stand next to the bed or in a gun safe.

Yeah, that whole FFL deal is a bitch.

My cousin's neighbor has an old ww2 jeep he mounted a .50cal MG on. It's not highway legal but it's legal for him to have it set up that way since he has all the necessary paperwork. .50cal ammo will rape your wallet though.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm fine with Australia's gun laws. I've given up arguing with Americans about it, but I don't see the point in having an assault rifle or pump-action shotgun anyway. I'm fine with a handgun and hunting rifle.

Why do you have a problem with pump-action shotguns, (besides them being illegal in Australia)? They're one of the best options for hunting weapons and are very popular around here. They are a perfectly legitimate hunting and sport shooting weapon. In a lot of ways, shotguns are a lot safer for hunting than rifles anyway, particularly in more inhabited areas. That's a big reason why shotguns (break-action, pump-action, and semi-automatic) are allowed for deer hunting in Ohio and high powered rifles are not (unless you have property destruction tags, which is really a different thing).

I'm pretty sure more accidents and crimes happen with handguns than long guns (i.e. shotguns and rifles) anyway.

I was thinking about this topic today, and something crossed my mind as I was driving to play 40K in another town. Some of you argue that we shouldn't own guns because they are dangerous, and some argue that we shouldn't own specific types of guns because of their danger. While I was thinking about that I saw a BMW Z3 and a Motorcycle drive by. Now considering way more people die in car accidents every year then from gun accidents, and considering that an abnormally large percentage of these accidents are caused by sports car drivers and motorcyclists, should we allow people to buy these cars? Should we allow people to drive top heavy cars? Should we allow people to drive anything but tiny Toyota Corollas or Ford Focus'? I mean if those other cars are statistically more dangerous what is the difference between that accident, which will most likely kill more people then a gun accident, or an idiot shooting himself or a loved one by accident? I may not be writing this as well as I had thought about it, I have had plenty of port tonight mind you, but I thought it was a fairly good comparison. Thoughts?

Good port, I hope? I'm partial to a drop myself.

Comparing car accident stats with gun accident stats is tricky for various reasons.

1. You need to compare the amount of operator use hours otherwise you are comparing absolute rather than relative accident figures. I suspect that people spend a lot longer in their card than they do shooting their guns, so you might expect more car accidents.

2. Utility. (Arguably) you need cars and you don't need guns for daily modern life.

3. Driving is subject to a variety of regulations such as the design of vehicles, licensing of drivers, road laws and so on.

I wouldn’t weep if cars had regulators in them that prevent driving at excessive speeds except on licensed race tracks. Lorries have regulators (the tachograph) which record operator use. They don’t stop illegal use directly but can be used as evidence in court.

Japanese cars have a little bell which dings when you break the speed limit on the motorway.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I was thinking about this topic today, and something crossed my mind as I was driving to play 40K in another town. Some of you argue that we shouldn't own guns because they are dangerous, and some argue that we shouldn't own specific types of guns because of their danger. While I was thinking about that I saw a BMW Z3 and a Motorcycle drive by. Now considering way more people die in car accidents every year then from gun accidents, and considering that an abnormally large percentage of these accidents are caused by sports car drivers and motorcyclists, should we allow people to buy these cars? Should we allow people to drive top heavy cars? Should we allow people to drive anything but tiny Toyota Corollas or Ford Focus'? I mean if those other cars are statistically more dangerous what is the difference between that accident, which will most likely kill more people then a gun accident, or an idiot shooting himself or a loved one by accident? I may not be writing this as well as I had thought about it, I have had plenty of port tonight mind you, but I thought it was a fairly good comparison. Thoughts?

I think it's a pretty good point; especially in the context of motorcycles, which are very dangerous, and are probably harder to minimize the danger of when using than guns. No one needs a motorcycle, most motorcycle owners also own cars.

It's sort of where I was going with the distinction between shooting yourself and shooting someone else. There would be more counting against motorcycles if their high death rates applied to other people on the road when a motorcycle was being used, but as they don't, I can't think of a good reason to ban/heavily restrict them (or force them to wear helmets... that might be another thread though...).

Another glaring issue between driving and target shooting, is that when driving there are things outside of your control that, if the stars line up against you, will kill you regardless of how safely you drive.

If you always follow the four safety rules of shooting, a negligent discharge cannot happen, and if an accidental discharge occurs, no-one will be harmed.

I like this

Full auto assault rifles tend to be a big no, yet they are far less dangerous than most single shot rifles. (M200 .408 being one i have a new love for)

Full autos are just too wasteful.

but like I said, any firearm properly handled is safe. full auto or single, large bore to small.

See, as a sniper you are taught "one shot, one kill". As a non-Sniper I believe that if it only takes you one shot to kill someone you are doing it wrong.

In all seriousness though guns, more so than sex, are like a taboo subject in parts of the world. Now I understand that we as a species need to procreate to continue our existence but I would class maybe 5% of the reasons for having sex is to procreate, the other 95% is for our own pleasure.

Now, that does not mean gun owners enjoy shooting more than sex (at least I hope not) but in the same way players and ho's enjoy sex for the sake of enjoyment and not to populate, some people enjoy shooting guns for the excitement of it without doing it for hunting or self-defense. To say things like "guns should only be legal for hunting" would be similiar to saying "well, sex should only be legal if one is doing it to procreate...casual sex should be illegal".

See how ludicrous that sounds?

It might be ludicrous, but it comes with a Papal thumbs up!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Which raises another question for you guys....

Are there minimum legal requirements for how your guns are stored?

Family I stayed with in Maine had all the guns and ammo locked away in a walk in saferoom.

depends on the state. Some states have required about locks etc. Some don't.

I don't think I will ever fully understand the US Legal System!

State Laws, County Laws, Federal Laws.....my poor brain!

The lock issue is another problem.
There's really no good answer to it, only a few halfway decent answers.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I don't think I will ever fully understand the US Legal System!

State Laws, County Laws, Federal Laws.....my poor brain!

Don't worry, we can't figure it out either.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I don't think I will ever fully understand the US Legal System!

State Laws, County Laws, Federal Laws.....my poor brain!

Not to be a thread necromancer, but I just got done listening to 2 lawyers argue about gun control so this is on my mind.
I understand how you feel. I live in the US andI moved to the state of Connecticut (CT) from Maine years ago. Only recently did I decide to take up marksmanship and hunting again. What a difference between the 2 states. In Maine if the feds say it is ok, for the most part, it is ok. There is basically a checklist of things that make guns illegal in CT in addition to list of specifiaclly banned firearms. It's all very strange, thye have a list of "bad" parts that you can have no more than 2 of on a firearm. Pistol grip and a detachable magazine on a firearm? ok, but don't you dare have a bayonet lug on it unless you want to fix the magazine or remove the pistol grip. The Sig 551 is illegal by name, but the Sig SCM (the same rifle without a muzzle break, a bit that goes on the end of the barrel to vent gas and control recoil) is ok. The "AK 47 type rifle in 7.62x39" is illegal but you can buy an ak in any other caliber of which there are 3 that I know of.
Arbitrary and bizzare.
This does not matter much to me since I collect C&R (curio and relic, old rifles that have a value based on age and rarity rather than function) and many of these laws do not apply to those. So my Mosin-Nagants, SMLEs, Schmidt-Rubins and old Mausers are exempt. It goes on and on, many laws are so arbitrary it is ridiculous. There are some laws that are well thought out which I agree with but those are a minority.

Where to draw the line? Well the second amendment is rather vague and the militia acts and several other federal documents are so archaic it is ridiculous. For instance"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed". Now the intent of that particuar document was to ensure that congress could call upon all citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 to serve as a defensive army. It is my opinion, keeping in mind that I am no legal scholar, that the intention of the second amendment of the US Constitution was to provide the American people with the ability to defend themselves from all threats to their freedom even if that includes their own government.

IMHO i feel that fully automatic firearms should be illegal for private ownership. The only exception to that I would accept would be something like the (former) swiss model. Ok, you can have that rifle but any and all ammunition you have for it must in a sealed container the government will check or be bought at a shooting range ,logged and a range officer must sign something sayng you fired x number of rounds to make sure you aren't bringing any home .If you fail to adhere to this the government will come down on you like a 10 ton poophammer. I would willingly give up the ability to buy a certain caliber of ammunition if I was allowed to have on hand a select fire rifle for a worst case scenario. Unfortunately as much as I love America we seem to have more than our fair share of grossly irresponsible people and I do not think this would work. So, no on select fire for private ownership.
That is about where I draw the line. Pump action, sure. Bolt action, absolutely. Semi-auto, great. I've seen the rifles that the local police have in their trunks and I'm not messing about with them. I also know how easy it is to get illegal firearms around here. Not that I advocate stockpiling ammo and crazy guns. I have 2 rifles made after 1944, a five shot semi-automatic hunting rifle and a vz 58 (which is an old , 1958, semi-auto military rifle). The latter I bought for cheap ammo to practice with and because the czechs have awlays made a fine firearm.

Storage: In the state of Connecticut I do not have to lock up any firearm unles there are children in the house. I do have a gunsafe and I feel that not using ,at the very least, trigger locks is irresponsible. I leave it unlocked when I am at home and I appreciate some peoples' need to leave a firearm ready I feel that if you are out of the house they should be locked up. I do not have a duty to retreat in my house CT. I can shoot anyone who breaks into my house. I do not ever want that to happen. I grew up around guns. For me there is no wierd appeal to them . They are not sexy. They are not glamorous. They are machines; machines which can be exceptionally deadly in the hand of the irresponsible or the morally bankrupt.

ok, so maybe some guns are sexy.
My avatar is a 1943 M38 Mosin-Nagant being fired at night. Absolutley rubbish firearm, but is is awfully loud and bright.
Let us not speak of the saiga 12 shotgun that someone made into a pistol just so it looked like a bolt pistol.

I don't see the evils in full auto weapons. A single shot .22 can kill someone just as easily as a M16 on full auto. The only difference is one sprays 100 rounds in seconds, the other fires between 1-2 rounds per second.

Some of the most ludicrous laws I'm seeing trying to get passed, especially in NY, are laws making semi-autos (of all types) illegal. Meaning that the only guns allowed would be single shot rifles and revolvers. Hell, I've seen revolvers shot nearly as fast as semi-auto pistols so that solves nothing.

The problems with making exceptions to rules and laws (and I don't mean just guns) is that it just creates more loopholes and even more laws/statutes/regulations. Either make blanket laws covering every exception or don't make the law at all.

Of course if that was done lawyers wouldn't exist as everything would be cut and dry.

I think you answered your own question there skip. Full Auto, at say, 10 rounds per second, has a far greater chance of causing a shooting to be fatal than a bolt action rifle. Spray and pray seems to be the main fear here.

Same with Revolvers. Just because you've seen it, doesn't make it the norm. With an automatic, just keep squeezing the trigger.

Though do bear in mind I don't know a great deal about guns other than I'm not fussed for them.

I have friends in New York and I understand your concerns Fate and best wishes to the folks in NY. I hope you are able to defeat this ridiculous legislation.
I suppose you are right, I have no issue with our full auto laws in the US as they stand other than it is excessively expensive to get a FFL 3.
I've just been dealing with the post Obama gun rush and I've seen too many idiots who don't know the first thing about firearms swinging AR style rifles that have the hubble telescope attached (don't even get me started on the physics behind why it is stupid to put a scope on a 14.5" barreled 5.56 with a giant break welded on)across the firing line while loaded.
I never used to feel this way. I was of the opinion that people should have any firearm they wanted. Then I had to actually deal with people who did not have a healthy respect for firearms. Some of the people I have witnessed at shooting ranges shouldn't be allowed to operate a stove never mind a gun. Its just that simple. As we have allowed our country to degenerate into the mindset of "nothing is my fault" people have become less responsible.

In terms of lethality. .22 vs. M16 on full auto.Both lethal, yes. .22 kill someone just as easily as an M16 simply false. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that is just wrong. Other than the fact that th .22 has , in a best case scenario, almost 900 ft/lbs less force and a significantly shorter effective range.22 is not designed to kill people. 5.56 is designed to tumble and fragment when it his flesh thus creating massive wound cavities. Can a .22 kill people, sure. My best friend's brother was killed with a .22. The comaprison is still a little ridiculous.

Yes a single shot rifle in the hands of a competent indiviual is just as deadly to a single person as a select fire rifle. That being the point; in the hands of a competent individual. The capacity to fire fully automatic takes competency and familiarity out of the equation in some circumstances. Why was the AK one of the most successful rifles ever: reliability and.... wait for it....... the ability to put it in the hand of anyone and make it function as intended. You didn't need special training, the post and notch sights weren't spectacular but , barring the sights on the British No.4 and 5, were the simplest thing in the world to use.
I don't want my simpleton, alcoholic neighbor to have one of those(as it is he has been arrested for running around his front yard screaming obscenities in his underpants in the wee hours of the morn, shame really, other than him this is a nice area).

I am with you on simplifying gun laws. But how are we to go about it? I would actually like an intelligent dialogue and not a flame war.

fastchocolatesurprise wrote:
I don't want my simpleton, alcoholic neighbor to have one of those(as it is he has been arrested for running around his front yard screaming obscenities in his underpants in the wee hours of the morn, shame really, other than him this is a nice area).

Alright from some. I have Junkies in the flat above. Oh how I loathe them and their Dogs. Halfway tempted to score some Smack, post it through their door, then ring the pigs. BACK TO JAIL WITH YOU JUNKIE SCUM! Is it entrapment? Yup. Do I care? Nope. We should ship them off to you lot for Target Practice.

Indeed sir. I sympathize.I'm a landlord and it is awfully hard to rent out a room sometimes. "Oh it's a lovely neighboorhood. There is a primary school down the road. It's right next to the highway., and...."
Shouted very loudly from across the road " F*** YOU YOU F******* S****!!!" by a paunchy gentleman in his late 50's while making obscene gestures at his house. Thus far most of the household has been in jail at one point in time but there is always one bad seed left around.
Dramatis paersonae:
the names of all those involved have been changed to protect their identities
"Me": fat helpless man working 2 jobs and renting out just to keep his home (barely)
"Billy":pulls apart stolen cars in his back yard to sell as parts also ran over an old man and killed him
"Frank": "sell various drugs at all hours of the night in order to ensure that the neightboorhood is kept awake by small japanese cars with ridiculous exhausts
"Cindy": Loud obnoxious, no known criminal pursuits other than waking everyone up with rap
"Bob": Geezer who gets drunk and screams obscenities at all hours, also a druggie (mind you I have no issue with pot smokers, generally quiet and amiable., I'm guessing he doesn't smoke pot)

I'm all for that MDG. I'd love if I could go around shooting everyone I know for being a drug dealer without needing probable cause. Uh oh, now I'm going to attract the Humanitarians with that comment and how they have a right to life.

I, am fortunate enough to live in Mn, not that gakhole of a state called NY so our gun laws are pretty lax. Only thing illegal as far as I'm aware are shotguns with barrels shorter than 18" or whose total length is less than 24" inches. Other than that anything goes so long as you have the right permits and licenses. I own 3 handguns, have just received my FFL, and I'm thinking of becoming a gun smith.

I don't understand a lot of the negative press around full autos being legal. Are they necessary for home defense or hunting? Of course not but are Lambo's and Vipers needed for driving on a normal 4 or 6 lane highway when both can exceed 200mph and get to 60 in around 4 seconds? No but they aren't illegal (though I've heard some states don't allow them but that to me is also bullgak).

When you intend to shoot up a mall or school, where lets face it guns are not allowed most of the time (most mall security guards in any city/state cannot carry anything more lethal than pepper spray) you don't need an AK-47. A shotgun or even a couple of handguns would still allow you to kill a fairly large number of people. Sure running at someone with an AK is more suicidal than someone holding a .45 but I don't want to take either chance (not unless I have a screen of about 12 bullet catchers in front of me). Panic kills more people than the number of bullets flying around.

If V. Tech or Columbine students/staff had reacted differently not as many people would have died. After all, a pistol clip only holds about 15-19 rounds before reload. You get rushed by 30 people you might kill 15 but the other 15 will destroy you before you get a chance to reload.

No doubt it was too much trouble to work out what kinds of attachments to guns would be dangerous, so they just rolled some D6s and said there you go.

What a shame the NRA was asleep in that state when the laws were being run through the local government.

Sadly people lack balls. Nobody seems willing to literally risk taking a bullett if they think they might survive otherwise.

Look at the 9/11 flights. Held up with boxcutters, and sadly only one flight had sufficient people fighting back. I'm not criticising their behaviour as it's extremely human. I consider myself quite ballsy, but without being in that situation you never know how you'd react. And I dearly hope I never find out.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sadly people lack balls. Nobody seems willing to literally risk taking a bullett if they think they might survive otherwise.

Look at the 9/11 flights. Held up with boxcutters, and sadly only one flight had sufficient people fighting back. I'm not criticising their behaviour as it's extremely human. I consider myself quite ballsy, but without being in that situation you never know how you'd react. And I dearly hope I never find out.

Whoa whoa whoa.

You CANNOT use the 9/11 flights as examples. Prior to 9/11, there had really NEVER been incidences of hijacking airliners that didn't result in anything but ransom demands or political statements. Look at any incidence of airplane hijackings, and you'll see that the real deaths are always from when authorities tried to storm the grounded flight. The passengers probably just, for the most part, figured it was a "normal" hijacking.
They cooperate, they get to go home safe and sound.

The passengers didn't have any real way of knowing until it was far too late and the hijackers had barred themselves into the cockpit.

Which state? NRA is never asleep anywhere, it's just unfortunate that sometimes the ones pushing the laws can't be made to see that their ideas and logics are flawed so the NRA doesn't always win.

NY is fethed anyhow, getting past the gak gun laws. The problem with most states is that public security are not allowed to carry guns on them into certain places (AC guards being the exception as they have to go into the vaults to get the money out to put into the trucks, not to mention the cargo itself once in the truck).

I'm certain if mall and school security guards were allowed to be armed a lot fewer casualties would result from mass shootings. I mean a taser is only good within about 10 yards, pepper spray and baton more or less within striking distance. Sure a person with a AK could walk into a class and kill all 30 before he was even noticed but he wouldn't get many more than that once security figured out where he was and could shoot back.

Whichever state whoever was complaining about gun laws in that state was complaining about.

Kanluwen wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sadly people lack balls. Nobody seems willing to literally risk taking a bullett if they think they might survive otherwise.

Look at the 9/11 flights. Held up with boxcutters, and sadly only one flight had sufficient people fighting back. I'm not criticising their behaviour as it's extremely human. I consider myself quite ballsy, but without being in that situation you never know how you'd react. And I dearly hope I never find out.

Whoa whoa whoa.

You CANNOT use the 9/11 flights as examples. Prior to 9/11, there had really NEVER been incidences of hijacking airliners that didn't result in anything but ransom demands or political statements. Look at any incidence of airplane hijackings, and you'll see that the real deaths are always from when authorities tried to storm the grounded flight. The passengers probably just, for the most part, figured it was a "normal" hijacking.
They cooperate, they get to go home safe and sound.

The passengers didn't have any real way of knowing until it was far too late and the hijackers had barred themselves into the cockpit.

Boxcutters were the point though. Stubby if sharp blades, limited damage potential if you take them on. Yet the poor hostages felt sitting tight and awaiting landing was the better option. As you said, they had no real way of knowing the ultimate idea behind it, and that's what makes it even more tragic. Please note folks that once again, I am not implying cowardice on any part here.

NY hasn't won yet, the NRA are doing their best. FL tried to pass some bullgak laws that the NRA fought to get vetoed and won (and it resulted in the release of a person after 2 years in prison serving 20+ years for killing a man trying to break into his house).

Most states have crap gun laws and the NRA is actively trying to turn over most of them. The NRA can only do so much and the good guys don't always win.

Yeah, prior to 9/11 most hijackings of any sorts were just maneuvers to get money for whatever bullgak reason the hijackers felt was necessary.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sadly people lack balls. Nobody seems willing to literally risk taking a bullett if they think they might survive otherwise.

Look at the 9/11 flights. Held up with boxcutters, and sadly only one flight had sufficient people fighting back. I'm not criticising their behaviour as it's extremely human. I consider myself quite ballsy, but without being in that situation you never know how you'd react. And I dearly hope I never find out.

Whoa whoa whoa.

You CANNOT use the 9/11 flights as examples. Prior to 9/11, there had really NEVER been incidences of hijacking airliners that didn't result in anything but ransom demands or political statements. Look at any incidence of airplane hijackings, and you'll see that the real deaths are always from when authorities tried to storm the grounded flight. The passengers probably just, for the most part, figured it was a "normal" hijacking.
They cooperate, they get to go home safe and sound.

The passengers didn't have any real way of knowing until it was far too late and the hijackers had barred themselves into the cockpit.

Boxcutters were the point though. Stubby if sharp blades, limited damage potential if you take them on. Yet the poor hostages felt sitting tight and awaiting landing was the better option. As you said, they had no real way of knowing the ultimate idea behind it, and that's what makes it even more tragic. Please note folks that once again, I am not implying cowardice on any part here.

Boxcutters and the potential for bombvests like the hijackers were heard having broadcasted in the clear instead of over the PA system on the plane?

That's why they sat tight.

Yeah Killrazy, random laws. No doubt. I'ts almost a perfect copy of the US 1994 assault weapons ban in the area of random firearm attachments.


Oh and don't count on the NRA to defend us. When people started getting arrested in Connecticut for openly carrying pistols , which I will add right now for CT citizens and law officers , according to the state it is not against the law. We a legally allowed to openly carry pistols PERIOD end of discussion . The state went so far as to issue a statement to all law enforcement agengies telling them to not arrest people openly carrying pistols. They still did. So people were getting aressted and later let go sometimes after their pistols had been destroyed. Missed work, legal fees etc. There are more than a couple of cases in court right now about this.
So a bunch of us called up th NRA.
The NRA told us to feth off. They weren't interested in people making waves.

If I was passenger of a routine hijacking I'd probably sit quietly as what normally happens is just a money exchange or the dude(s) taken out by snipers upon hitting the ground. If I knew ahead of time I'd be crashing into a skyscraper, well let's just say I wouldn't have gotten onto that flight, I'd be a millionaire and it'd be so much easier to figure out what women want, oh and I'd be a millionaire.

Here's a sensible idea:
Repeal the NFA laws (which are unconstitutional under the 2nd, 8th and 10th amendments) replace the NICS background check with BIDS (just as effective with 5% of the cost) and hold criminals accountable for their crimes and stop letting them out early (the Seattle shootings were committed by a felon, who wasn't allowed to own firearms anyway)
And to top it off, let's implement the gun-free zone liability act, to encourage people to actually enforce their security standards.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Boxcutters were the point though. Stubby if sharp blades, limited damage potential if you take them on. Yet the poor hostages felt sitting tight and awaiting landing was the better option. As you said, they had no real way of knowing the ultimate idea behind it, and that's what makes it even more tragic. Please note folks that once again, I am not implying cowardice on any part here.

I think I get what you are saying MDG, and whats more I think I agree with you. I fully get that you aren't accusing someone of cowardice or idiocy, but you are also trying to look at the situation realistically. The terrorists weren't carrying freaking Uzis, but simple box cutter, that while potentially very painful, its lethal application would have been limited in a rush by passengers. I have wondered a bit about the subject myself, but never spent much time on it. But in the situation I might be tempted to try something with other passengers, that or my temper would have gotten the better or me. But this is all speculation considering I have never been in that type of situation.

That's not liberal enough Illeix. You aren't thinking clearly. Under Obamanation that just won't ever happen (or anywhere that a liberal is allowed to govern).

I like the thought but we might as well wish for Obama to take the next Billion+ bailout and divide it equally among the taxpayers instead of filling some fat cats pockets with money so his million+ dollar investment can stay afloat.

Hmmmm... You speak sense Illiex.
I just read up on BIDS and it looks good. Kudos, you taught an old dog a new trick.

I just wish that it was my idea, Alan Korwin must have been stockpiling everyones' lost common sense.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Boxcutters were the point though. Stubby if sharp blades, limited damage potential if you take them on. Yet the poor hostages felt sitting tight and awaiting landing was the better option. As you said, they had no real way of knowing the ultimate idea behind it, and that's what makes it even more tragic. Please note folks that once again, I am not implying cowardice on any part here.

I think I get what you are saying MDG, and whats more I think I agree with you. I fully get that you aren't accusing someone of cowardice or idiocy, but you are also trying to look at the situation realistically. The terrorists weren't carrying freaking Uzis, but simple box cutter, that while potentially very painful, its lethal application would have been limited in a rush by passengers. I have wondered a bit about the subject myself, but never spent much time on it. But in the situation I might be tempted to try something with other passengers, that or my temper would have gotten the better or me. But this is all speculation considering I have never been in that type of situation.

I figure they probably had someone hostage. Rushing someone with the fear of being stabbed by a boxcutter is one thing, rushing someone who will slash open another person's throat if you do so is another.

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Now whilst I can see the appeal of having one (LOADSA DAKKA!) isn't that, well, a tad excessive?

You've not seen the mosquitoes around these parts...

My oldest brother was an MSG in Uganda and he said the bugs out there were down right scary. Id want a friggin anti aircraft gun for those.

I don't think any part of the US/state government should infringe on an individuals right to bear arms.

I think the federal government should not ban automatic weapons.

Many of the gun laws are foolish. I think it was somewhere in California that banned a rifle after seeing it in a Schartzenegger movie (irony). It was overturned because there had never been a crime committed with the weapon. It turns out that (under those circumstances) outlawing something simply because you saw it in a movie and it scared you doesn't hold up in court!

One of the things I like about traveling is speaking to people from other countries. The majority of the people I talked to in Australia (I was only there for two of the best weeks of my life!) were furious at the gun laws that Australia implemented. Most recently, I spoke to some Portugese about their gun laws and it was very interesting. Typically it falls in to two categories

1. I don't understand America; fascination with guns. These people are usually under the impression every time an American goes to the store, there is a chance he will be shot or shoot someone.

2. They envy our rights, and the relative ease with which we can own a firearm.

I am very interested in how the Supreme Court rules on this ltest 2nd Amendment case. It is very clear that the Bill of Rights recognizes our right to bear arms. It's not something given to us by the government and it is not something the government can take away. It is one of the reasons I never register my guns or anything.

I don't register mine. Registration is another excuse for Obamanation to tax us more or keep closer tabs on us. Funny how the government is paranoid about it's citizens when the biggest crooks in the US ARE the government officials.

Not everyone needs an AK-47 but you also shouldn't be disallowed from owning one either. If I want to buy a Lamborghini (and those are dangerous in the wrong hands as not many people could handle that kind of car) I should (and do in MN anyway) have the right to own one.

My FFL allows me the right to purchase and own an MG-42 and it's ammo. Granted it's $2500 for the gun and the ammo is around $1/round but if I want to blast targets with it I could. Though honestly I don't think I'd actually fire live rounds through it as I'm not that rich and it will lay down 1500 rounds in 60 seconds. Hard to justify spending $1500 in 60 seconds time.

The UK used to allow gun ownership pretty widely. It was extremely restricted because of the Hungerford Massacre and the Dunblane Massacre.

However most people didn't use to feel the need or desire to have a gun anyway. It was bad news for target shooters. It is pretty easy to get an illegal gun if you want one.

The difference in the USA is so many people have a strong desire to own a weapon.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sadly people lack balls. Nobody seems willing to literally risk taking a bullett if they think they might survive otherwise.

Look at the 9/11 flights. Held up with boxcutters, and sadly only one flight had sufficient people fighting back. I'm not criticising their behaviour as it's extremely human. I consider myself quite ballsy, but without being in that situation you never know how you'd react. And I dearly hope I never find out.

You're talking out of your ass MDG. Sometime after 9/11 a nutjob went nutty on a Southwest flight. They subdued him and by buduing him I mean he turned up dead.

Pre 9/11 one thing
Post 9/11 you're going down.

In response to the original topic I own several guns, rifles & pistols, as for what I consider too much is kind of hard to explain; A long time friend of mine makes a living with automatic weapons. He is a re-enactor and consultant to many movies & documentaries. He has been in Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Enemy at the Gates, & many History Channel documentaries. He has a federal firearms license that allows him to own & use automatic weapons. It's not easy to get, as a side note since the implementation of the federal firearms license no legal owner of an automatic weapon has committed a crime where a firearm was involved. (that is not say that someone like that hasn't had say a traffic ticket)That information is a matter of public record. The license also superceeds some state & local firearms laws because it is a Federal license.

Are the requirements for that licence fairly stringent then?

Orkeoaurus, Yes from what he told me the back ground check took a few years & he had a good security clearance when he was in the Navy. I also have left his name out on purpose for many reasons even though I know he doesn't post here. He also allows a few days extra for travel when ever he works on projects of that nature even though he has to contact any local law enforcement agencies when he tranports such weapons, due to being detained especialy with the airlines & California in gereral.

Excuse me Fateweaver in regards to your comment about the VT shootings do you have any idea what we went through during that. Have you ever been in a situation like that. I'm sorry that we were to busy trying to get out of there, not fully understanding what was going on. It's people like you that make me sick of the world and people who say that they would act differently in situations that they were never present at.

On topic I am a gunowner myself. I use them mainly for hunting purposes but also own guns just for the firing range. And as well I am currently working on getting a conceal and carry license.

@Ghost: While I can understand why you would be frustrated, for your own sake, and out of respect to others, don't make such personal attacks on someone. If you have an issue take up over PM or with a MOD. Not trying to be offensive or insensitive, I just don't want the Modquisition to come down on you...like a hammer....

I agree, no matter what you think you may do in a situation--you don't really know unless you do it. It's easy to be a Monday Morning QB, but it's different being in the middle of a crapstorm.

I also think it's common sense that gun free zones are nothing more than target-rich environments. People that plan on killing other people don't lose sleep over bringing a weapon in a gun-free zone.

Of course, Dorns Fist. But I wonder if anyone ever thought; "They'll never break THIS law!" with any sincerity.

My line is when a weapon starts to fire exploding or incendiary shells. Though I have no real problem with someone owning an antique cannon.

I just fail to see the point of all the bans and restrictions. 70+ years of gun control have failed to eliminate gun crime and only really succeeded in making it a pain in the ass for a law abiding person to own a firearm. On top of that most gun control laws focus their attentions on banning, or attempting to ban by ridiculous means, weapons that are used in only a tiny portion of gun related crime. Gun control laws represent an incredible waste of time and money spent trying to solve, and failing, the wrong problem.

Tyyr wrote:My line is when a weapon starts to fire exploding or incendiary shells. Though I have no real problem with someone owning an antique cannon.

I just fail to see the point of all the bans and restrictions. 70+ years of gun control have failed to eliminate gun crime and only really succeeded in making it a pain in the ass for a law abiding person to own a firearm. On top of that most gun control laws focus their attentions on banning, or attempting to ban by ridiculous means, weapons that are used in only a tiny portion of gun related crime. Gun control laws represent an incredible waste of time and money spent trying to solve, and failing, the wrong problem.

Control is not about solving a problem. Its about control.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Was told that the hold 'gangsta' angle was a crap idea, due to the spent casings not always ejecting fully, leading to 'banghand'?

Nonsense... they even make sights for them held that way: