Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!