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.

lord_sutekh wrote:Perhaps I misspoke; what would probably be better would be more COGENT gun restrictions, ones that address the actual problems surrounding guns (idiots having access to and responsibility for fully-automatic weapons being one), rather than more of the same piecemeal, virtually-unenforceable ones in existence. Of course, for that to happen, the powers for gun ownership (the NRA most notably) would have to cooperate and not wage their fact-starved, scorched-earth campaigns in pursuit of "any gun, for any person, at any time". That may not be their ACTUAL goal, but it's how they're playing the game.

Yeah, the NRA is sucky and spreads disinformation to further their goals. The debate would be better off without them.

Then again, the Brady campaign is sucky and spreads disinformation to further their goals, and the debate would be better off without them.

The problem with all legislation is writing it in a fashion that works as intended.

It's legal to own a .50 cal sniper rifle (at least in some jurisdictions). It's single shot, a limited clip. Should you? If you shoot Bambi with it, you're not getting much venison. So, how do you not allow people to buy one? If you go by caliber, then it makes most muzzle-loaders illegal (which are typically .50-cal or larger). Which makes 'primitive weapons season' worthless. If you outlaw single-shot weapons with a clip, then a .30-06, which is a fine deer rifle, is outlawed. If you outlaw Model XYZ, then the manufacturer updates it next year to be Model XYZ Mark II. Which is now legal to own.

That's the problem with legislation. It's figuring out the loopholes and trying to close them, not just now, but in the future. And you can't write something as open-ended as, "you can't own anything the police say you can't."

It's pretty obvious that this was a massive tragedy that shouldn't have happened.

As Ron White would say, "you can't fix stupid." The way to prevent it is to NOT be a moron when it comes to being a parent. Know where your kids are and what they're doing. Parents shouldn't need the government to protect their kids, that's the job of the parents. And if they don't want to take on that responsibility, they shouldn't be parents. Unfortunately, we can't legislate that away.

A law could be drawn up which combined factors such as size, length, muzzle velocity, and rate of fir, that would allow the definition of weapons into classes for regulation along whatever lines desired.

Want auto weapons? Allow a high ROF.
Want hunting only weapons? Allow a low ROF but a high velocity or whatever.
Don't want pistols? Allow no weapons under a certain length.

I am not advocating for or against gun control. I am just pointing out that classification can realistically be done if people want it.

Not by Congress. Watch the auto hearings. "Incompetent!" just comes screaming out like a rocket.

It was the fathers fault, simple. He was standing behind his son watching him handle an uzi.

Frazzled wrote:Not by Congress. Watch the auto hearings. "Incompetent!" just comes screaming out like a rocket.

If you can’t accept that Congress can make useful laws, then you’re the one who should be hating the Constitution.

BTW, thanks must go to Sebster (primarily) for saving me the time of writing pretty much everything substantive I’d want to say.

What can I say I'm an eternal optimist... one day my single handed "vote all the incumbent buggers out!" campaign will work...

Kilkrazy wrote:A law could be drawn up which combined factors such as size, length, muzzle velocity, and rate of fir, that would allow the definition of weapons into classes for regulation along whatever lines desired.

Want auto weapons? Allow a high ROF.
Want hunting only weapons? Allow a low ROF but a high velocity or whatever.
Don't want pistols? Allow no weapons under a certain length.

I am not advocating for or against gun control. I am just pointing out that classification can realistically be done if people want it.

And next year, Remington comes out with a weapon that is just long enough to not be a pistol, and have a ROF just below the limit, and has a muzzel velocity just below the legal limit. And the rules get revised and some shyster from NRA drags it out a couple years, because you really do need a short, quick-shot, high velocity projectile to take down deer. And squirrels. Or they make a weapon that has a 'civilian' and 'military' version, the difference being something that's easy to change if you know what your'e doing.

I think it's a great theory and ideal that we could have some meaningful gun laws in the US. It'd be horribly controversial. And Congress is mostly populated by the most popular kids in high school, not the brightest and hardest working kids who try to really help people. They just try to get re-elected. And gun laws are like abortion - it's a touchy subject and most of these career politicians don't want to offend a potential voter. That's why we see politicians take up issues that are obvious, like teenage smoking, and not dealing with important things - like how to ensure the economy rebounds, revising accounting regulations, and securing the borders. Nope, much easier to take a stance on gay marriage.

Lastly, I don't see how good gun regulations would have prevented this tragedy. Having a father who was not a moron would have. I'm sure the father is emotionally devastated by this. But, come on, how do you not think, "this doesn't sound right."

That I have a fairly low opinion of gun shows doesn't help. I don't get the need to go out and fire an automatic weapon, and I certainly can't imagine letting a 9-year old do it.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. You want additional legislation to control guns in light of this situation? Why? Whomever handed the kid the Uzi didn't even follow the rules that were laid down by the gun club.

The ad stated that there would be a certified instructor there handling the situation. I would postulate that the reason for that would be some kind of local law that mandates licensing in order to fire a firearm. So, it's very possible that the laws already in place were not being followed.

In light of THAT, even though it is basically an assumption and I freely confess that, what the feth good would an additional law be??? And as far as regulating the dimensional specs of a fire arm, you don't get a whole hell of a lot smaller than an Uzi. No hunting rifle (IE, the most useful type of fireamr for civilians) would be left. At BEST you might get a carbine, but prob. not even that.

I am failing to see how additional, reasonable legislation that could have actually been passed in that area would have been helpful in this situation. Please explain.

Illeix wrote:yes, that boy should have had more control on that gun!

QFT!

Your lucky that you can get guns to protect yourselfs, i had to rely on my trusty cricketbat when i got burgaled. I think that guns shouldn't be banned in the USA but i think that you should only be able to get say handguns, i think that a fully automatic weapon is a bit much for protecting yourself. Reasonable force anyone?

Lord Bingo wrote:Your lucky that you can get guns to protect yourselfs, i had to rely on my trusty cricketbat when i got burgaled. I think that guns shouldn't be banned in the USA but i think that you should only be able to get say handguns, i think that a fully automatic weapon is a bit much for protecting yourself. Reasonable force anyone?

Now that you mention that I realize I've never heard of someone using a fully automatic weapon to protect themselves. I've heard a lot of stories, even been around when someone defended someone's life with a handgun. The only thing I ever hear going down with fully automatic weapons is drive by shootings. A lot of innocent bystanders, they need to work on their aim.

Lord Bingo wrote: Reasonable force anyone?

Absolutely.

As long as we understand, "reasonable" means "has a reasonable chance of killing whatever you shoot".

Typeline wrote:Now that you mention that I realize I've never heard of someone using a fully automatic weapon to protect themselves.

A good semi with a light trigger and quick action is better than full-auto because you don't waste as much ammo.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Typeline wrote:Now that you mention that I realize I've never heard of someone using a fully automatic weapon to protect themselves.

A good semi with a light trigger and quick action is better than full-auto because you don't waste as much ammo.

QFT, and the best part of this is... with a 30Cent Rubber band you can turn the Semi Auto Ar15 with that light trigger pull into this..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfwFP_RwTQ&feature=related

lord_sutekh wrote:Cars serve a purpose in common socety that makes their use A) regulated, B) accepted, and C) neccessary. FULLY AUTOMATIC SUBMACHINEGUNS do none of the above. What part of "designed and intended for Israeli Special Forces" says that it is an item that should be in a civilian's hands, no matter the age?

When the civilians are the government. If people aren't smart enough to handle guns,then what makes you think they are smart enough to pick their leaders. The commander in chief is the biggest nuclear gun of them all. Also you make the assumption that they are not necessary. Read the works of the founders, guns are the final check in the system. As far as regulated......millions of regulated, registered idiots on the roads. doesn't make for safer drivers. Accepted? What a brave new world we live in. Does suck for the kid, but if people learn a little personal responsibility and some freakin' common sense from this idiocy. His short life will have more meaning than most. With parents that gullible he probably wasn't long for this world anyway. Prayers for the boy may he rest in peace.