Largest civilian arms build-up in American history

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by leekohler

One more time- anecdotes are not evidence. You can try to make them so, but they are not. Just because you say something is true, we're all supposed to believe you? Are you kidding me?

Now, if you don't like that, that's not my problem. Insulting the forum as a whole is not going to get you far.

I think you are not understanding what I'm saying...

I have never offered an anecdote as proof of anything, other than the simple fact of relating something I have personally experienced.

You have posted in the past, on more than one occasion, past events in your life concerning the hell your family put you through due to your being gay. Should I have played skeptic in those instances and demanded "proof" of such hell? Of course not. You were relating incidents in your past which were relevant to the topic being discussed. They helped people understand what you had endured, and also provided some insight into how your thoughts were shaped.

We all have anecdotal incidents in our lives. I offer them only as examples of situations which another poster might find interesting, and which pertain in some way to the topic being discussed.

Whether you "get it" or not, that's simply the way it is.

[LizKat]

Originally Posted by glocke12

~snip~ Americans are panicking, and are speaking with their wallets. If the majority of citizens here in the US want these banned as the news reports say, why have people been flocking to gun stores to get whatever semi-auto weapon they can? ~snip~

Please. Any sensible person on the planet was appalled at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Most sensible people on the planet would expect a backlash against loose USA regulation of semi-automatic weaponry to ensue. Some people who had thought in the past about purchasing such a weapon may have decided the handwriting is probably really on the wall this time, and so have gone ahead and bought while such a weapon can still be legally acquired (even if they're unsure what they might ever do with it).

However, most "panicked" Americans at the moment are freaked out for more practical reasons: it's four days before Christmas Eve and their credit cards are maxed out and they're not done shopping.

So let's get a little perspective here. And thanks to the forum member who reminded us that around 65% of the guns in the USA are owned by around 20% of the population.

It's not very surprising that some Americans have flocked (and "flocked" is an interesting word, isn't it?) to pick up semi-automatic weaponry this week. Probably even more people flocked to scarf up some Twinkies as Hostess Bakeries teetered at cliffiside a month ago. It's pretty common for people to hope to make a buck off real, rumored or managed scarcity. So it's not all about fear. A lot of it is just more about what it's about for the gun industry and the leadership of the NRA: the grand and exciting expectation of making a buck.

People who are buying extra semi-automatic guns out of actual fear they won't be able to buy spare guns for personal use in the future sort of remind me of a woman I worked with in New York for awhile, back in the 80s. Not her prior circumstances, but her ongoing behavior. She had been a very young child as World War II drew to a close in Europe, had experienced extreme hunger and no matter how serene and sheltered an environment she created for herself after she grew up and landed in the States, she could not shed her habit of accumulating candy bars. She didn't even eat most of them and would sometimes give them to colleagues or trade them for popcorn in the pantry, but she rarely passed up an opportunity to buy one. It was an obsession, obviously. She was aware of it, even had insight into its origins, but could not find the off switch when she saw the candy bar rack at the convenience store.

One could wish that semi-auto gun purchases (and resales) by hoarders would all end up as harmlessly as that woman's candy bar gig.

Personally I'm hoping there will be a federal buyback and ban on semi-auto weaponry and related high-count magazines. And closure of the gun show loophole on skipping background checks for any gun sales.

[Menel]

Originally Posted by zioxide

So they fought for the freedom for 20 first graders to go to school and get massacred by a nut job?

What "oppression" are you referring to then?

Our forefathers fought for freedom from the oppression of the British government. This oppression (prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control) was the fact that they were being taxed without representation in Parliament. This is NOTHING like what's going on now.

Restricting access to assault weapon-type firearms is not cruel or unjust treatment by any means. I still believe in the 2nd amendment to a point, like I said in my other post. But, like most things, there are limits.

And stop trying to pretend like you're smarter than everyone else here. You're not. All that does is destroy your credibility and make you look like an elitist ass.

Not everyone else, just you.

You keep inching closer, now lets put everything together, what you've said in bold above... with what you previously quoted me saying below.

Yes, America where we won our independence from an oppressive regime using rifles that were higher tech than the smooth bore muskets the British military had access to.

If the British had confiscated our rifles...

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

I don't know what state thewitt calls home, but I know that when I took my CHL training in Texas several years ago (after having been shooting for many years prior to that), portions of the class included safety training, firearm familiarity training and firearms handling and firing competency testing. It is my understanding (although I have no specific references to cite) that this is pretty common in any concealed handgun licensing requirement.

Regulations vary by state. In Indiana, unless the law has changed recently, as long as you can legally buy a firearm (no criminal background etc.,) you can obtain a CHL by just filling out the paperwork and paying a fee. Typically there is also an informal sit down with the local PD but that's more so they can relate to you the responsibility you are about to shoulder as they cannot deny you the permit based on the interview.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

Regulations vary by state. In Indiana, unless the law has changed recently, as long as you can legally buy a firearm (no criminal background etc.,) you can obtain a CHL by just filling out the paperwork and paying a fee. Typically there is also an informal sit down with the local PD but that's more so they can relate to you the responsibility you are about to shoulder as they cannot deny you the permit based on the interview.

Unless they do not pass the NICS check.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Several of my close friends have purchased weapons for the first time this year, with concealed carry permits as well.

Gun ownership is definitely on the rise.

Be careful didn't Dick Cheney shoot his close friend in the face by accident.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

Regulations vary by state. In Indiana, unless the law has changed recently, as long as you can legally buy a firearm (no criminal background etc.,) you can obtain a CHL by just filling out the paperwork and paying a fee. Typically there is also an informal sit down with the local PD but that's more so they can relate to you the responsibility you are about to shoulder as they cannot deny you the permit based on the interview.

I'm surprised, and more than a little disappointed, to hear that. I had just made the assumption (I know all about "ASSUME") that other states would feel at least as strongly as Texas that prior to granting a concealed carry permit, they would insure that you had at least a minimum of training specifically on that target.

It just goes to prove that you learn something new every day. I would like very much to see the requirements unified across states, with some minimum amount of training prior to allowing concealed carry. Vermont is a special case, of course.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

I'm surprised, and more than a little disappointed, to hear that. I had just made the assumption (I know all about "ASSUME") that other states would feel at least as strongly as Texas that prior to granting a concealed carry permit, they would insure that you had at least a minimum of training specifically on that target.

It just goes to prove that you learn something new every day. I would like very much to see the requirements unified across states, with some minimum amount of training prior to allowing concealed carry. Vermont is a special case, of course.

The required training, or lack there of, by some states is the sole reason reciprocity is not honored among states. Regardless, if your CCW, CHP, CWP, GWCL (or whatever your state calls it), your "resident" state laws do not apply to the visiting state of reciprocity. Many have taken the ride because of this.

For instance, South Carolina does not recognize Georgia's GWCL.

[LizKat]

Originally Posted by Menel

Rifles have roots in American culture dating back to 1775, not 1850.

Yes, America where we won our independence from an oppressive regime using rifles that were higher tech than the smooth bore muskets the British military had access to.

But so many uneducated people are blind to the history of the USA, and would force us to follow the path of oppression... Such as a ban that would require door to door search and seizure.

This guy here above is a prime example of why we need better schools.

I'm in favor of ban and buyback but the buyback must be voluntary. I don't favor buyback that includes confiscation, it's way too dangerous and the people who would make it dangerous are not the careless sort leaving weapons around for looneybins to steal anyway, are you kidding? They know everything about their stash and what's in it, 24/7. It's their whole life, even if it amounts to two semi-autos, ammo for those and a souvenir 50-caliber machine gun shell from their days in the jungles or deserts.

My reasoning on voluntary buyback goes like this: if we can reduce the total outstanding semi-auto weaponry, that's great. Most of the stuff to worry about belongs to people who may have a fairly small collection of semi-auto weapons and are willing to sell back this one or that one but "maybe not this one here, I just got that from my Uncle Harry's estate y and you can have it over my cold dead etcetera". OK. Chill. Keep it. Lock it up. Be safe about having it. God help you if it ends up with blood to its name, that's all.

I'm okay with partial response to a buyback offer, no way do I expect a buyback to net everything. I would not expect it to get ANYTHING from the huge-hoard bunker nutjobs who hang out re-counting their ammo and re-cleaning their stuff every day, making sure they still have 30 of this and 20 of that and seven thousand rounds of ammo for the apocalpyse du jour. I feel sorry for the women and children they may have hanging out with them, and I'm sorry these guys are wasting the better potential of their lives listening for the sound of the black helos incoming, you know? But I don't favor anyone going in and trying to separate them from their stuff on a slow Tuesday.

Now if a bunch of bunker boys want to come out with their stash of stuff and do something stupid, then all bets are off and we're not talking buybacks or confiscation either. Probably "the gummint" (which is us by elected representation, just us ordinary people in the USA with half a clue about personal safety, rights, responsibilty) would elect at that point to have the relevant local law enforcement make arrangements for the federal law enforcement to make arrangements for the military to drop the equivalent of a bunker buster bomb and be done with it. If the bunker boys want to call that "the gummint coming for my guns" well then fine, that's definitely what that kind of shock and awe could look like. But not just because the bunker boys didn't want to engage in a voluntary buyback. The people of this country are dumb sometimes, and therefore so is the government, but probably everyone learned something from Waco.

Now the loonybins who steal a weapon and try to shoot up classrooms, they are not loony enough to locate and then try to approach the bunker boys. If you do that you are so off the wall that you are just cutting ahead to the suicide part before you do the mass killing.

So I don't worry much about the guns of the big hoarders. My concern, statistically speaking, is much more with the idle guns owned by people who at one time decided to get a semi-automatic weapon for whatever reason (fear, fun, being young and copycatting a friend who had one), but now they're grown up, now their circumstance is different, now they don't have a use for it and it just sits around. Those are the guns I'd like us to buy back and melt down. They are not being used, they are perhaps not properly secured, maybe not even wanted any more. So they are just sitting there like time bombs, far more dangerous to a classroom full of kids than any good ol' boy militia's stash of obssesively watched amd stroked weapons out in the woods. The idle in the closet guns are really the ones most likely to end up killing innocent people. There are millions of them. And I bet many of them could be bought back. Let's ask Congress to try it.

How about postponing the construction of one nuclear sub for one year, or a couple of those littoral combat ships. Take the money and use it for the buyback. A couple of billion dollars buys back a lot of high end firepower. Net potential for saving American lives could equal the value of the deterrent potential of those deferred ships, don't you think? Think how many people get slain by these weapons each year. How sad that even one of them may be an unwanted weapon anyway but ends up in wrong hands and sheds blood.

I realize that the gun used in the Connecticut shooting would not likely have been tendered to such a buyback offer. That should not stop us from trying to buy back and melt down the semi-automatic weaponry people are willing to part with, similar weapons that are just as capable of ending up in a wrongful shooting.

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

So you believe more guns are the solution, correct?

As society continues to break down under a government more concerned with winning elections rather than addressing the problems of the nation, I believe the individual will need to take more and more personal responsibility for the safety and security of their family, friends and possessions.

If this means carrying a concealed weapon, then yes.

----------

Originally Posted by leekohler

Did they also take lessons on how to use said weapons? I doubt it. And that's the problem. Too many idiots own guns.

You should really try to understand the reality of the law before you go off on an emotional rant and rail against gun ownership.

A concealed carry permit requires that you first pass a course in which you show not only competency in using your weapon, but understand and can explain the laws governing the carrying of that weapon.

The gun fearing minority in the country really do just run with the pack over any unjustified fear it seems. No wonder they are so easily persuaded by the government that it should be taking care of them, rather than they should be responsible for themselves.

[glocke12]

I believe those who say "only 20% of American households own guns" are wrong...

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2592011.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...p-renaissance/

----------

Originally Posted by thewitt

As society continues to break down under a government more concerned with winning elections rather than addressing the problems of the nation, I believe the individual will need to take more and more personal responsibility for the safety and security of their family, friends and possessions.

If this means carrying a concealed weapon, then yes.

----------



You should really try to understand the reality of the law before you go off on an emotional rant and rail against gun ownership.

A concealed carry permit requires that you first pass a course in which you show not only competency in using your weapon, but understand and can explain the laws governing the carrying of that weapon.

The gun fearing minority in the country really do just run with the pack over any unjustified fear it seems. No wonder they are so easily persuaded by the government that it should be taking care of them, rather than they should be responsible for themselves.

Not here in PA, and this is where I differ with many gun owners. Not only am I in favor of first time gun buyers/owners being required to take a safety/orientation course, but I also think CCW holders should be required to take a safety/orientation course that also deals with the legal ramifications of using a weapon to defend yourself..

[CalWizrd]

Please try to bear with me... notice the places in your post that I have highlighted.

Originally Posted by LizKat

I'm in favor of ban and buyback but the buyback must be voluntary. I don't favor buyback that includes confiscation, it's way too dangerous and the people who would make it dangerous are not the careless sort leaving weapons around for looneybins to steal anyway, are you kidding? They know everything about their stash and what's in it, 24/7. It's their whole life, even if it amounts to two semi-autos, ammo for those and a souvenir 50-caliber machine gun shell from their days in the jungles or deserts.

My reasoning on voluntary buyback goes like this: if we can reduce the total outstanding semi-auto weaponry, that's great. Most of the stuff to worry about belongs to people who may have a fairly small collection of semi-auto weapons and are willing to sell back this one or that one but "maybe not this one here, I just got that from my Uncle Harry's estate y and you can have it over my cold dead etcetera". OK. Chill. Keep it. Lock it up. Be safe about having it. God help you if it ends up with blood to its name, that's all.

I'm okay with partial response to a buyback offer, no way do I expect a buyback to net everything. I would not expect it to get ANYTHING from the huge-hoard bunker nutjobs who hang out re-counting their ammo and re-cleaning their stuff every day, making sure they still have 30 of this and 20 of that and seven thousand rounds of ammo for the apocalpyse du jour. I feel sorry for the women and children they may have hanging out with them, and I'm sorry these guys are wasting the better potential of their lives listening for the sound of the black helos incoming, you know? But I don't favor anyone going in and trying to separate them from their stuff on a slow Tuesday.

Now if a bunch of bunker boys want to come out with their stash of stuff and do something stupid, then all bets are off and we're not talking buybacks or confiscation either. Probably "the gummint" (which is us by elected representation, just us ordinary people in the USA with half a clue about personal safety, rights, responsibilty) would elect at that point to have the relevant local law enforcement make arrangements for the federal law enforcement to make arrangements for the military to drop the equivalent of a bunker buster bomb and be done with it. If the bunker boys want to call that "the gummint coming for my guns" well then fine, that's definitely what that kind of shock and awe could look like. But not just because the bunker boys didn't want to engage in a voluntary buyback. The people of this country are dumb sometimes, and therefore so is the government, but probably everyone learned something from Waco.

Now the loonybins who steal a weapon and try to shoot up classrooms, they are not loony enough to locate and then try to approach the bunker boys. If you do that you are so off the wall that you are just cutting ahead to the suicide part before you do the mass killing.

So I don't worry much about the guns of the big hoarders. My concern, statistically speaking, is much more with the idle guns owned by people who at one time decided to get a semi-automatic weapon for whatever reason (fear, fun, being young and copycatting a friend who had one), but now they're grown up, now their circumstance is different, now they don't have a use for it and it just sits around. Those are the guns I'd like us to buy back and melt down. They are not being used, they are perhaps not properly secured, maybe not even wanted any more. So they are just sitting there like time bombs, far more dangerous to a classroom full of kids than any good ol' boy militia's stash of obssesively watched amd stroked weapons out in the woods. The idle in the closet guns are really the ones most likely to end up killing innocent people. There are millions of them. And I bet many of them could be bought back. Let's ask Congress to try it.

How about postponing the construction of one nuclear sub for one year, or a couple of those littoral combat ships. Take the money and use it for the buyback. A couple of billion dollars buys back a lot of high end firepower. Net potential for saving American lives could equal the value of the deterrent potential of those deferred ships, don't you think? Think how many people get slain by these weapons each year. How sad that even one of them may be an unwanted weapon anyway but ends up in wrong hands and sheds blood.

I realize that the gun used in the Connecticut shooting would not likely have been tendered to such a buyback offer. That should not stop us from trying to buy back and melt down the semi-automatic weaponry people are willing to part with, similar weapons that are just as capable of ending up in a wrongful shooting.

You might notice a pattern emerging in the highlighted words. Now, please read the following carefully credited excerpts from various sources:

...That leaves Sugarmann’s call for denying civilians semiautomatic handguns, such as the one the Milwaukee murderer reportedly used to deadly effect. But apart from its magazine (see above), a semiautomatic handgun, or pistol, is as ordinary, traditional, and basic as a firearm can be. The 9 mm model used in Milwaukee fires rounds the same size as a .38 caliber revolver...

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control

...A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. Although automatic weapons and selective fire firearms do the same tasks, semi-automatic firearms do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

...The vast majority of modern guns sold and collected in the US are semiautomatic, which means they fire a single shot with every pull of the trigger, but automatically reload between shots. That's in contrast to full-automatic weapons, as well as single-shot guns that require the operator to "cock" the gun or hand-feed ammunition between shots...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/semi-automatic-gun-assault-weapon-definitions

I could go on and on, but you probably get the picture by now.

The most evil thing about semi-automatic firearms is their evil sounding label.

They are not machine guns. They are not automatic weapons. And they are not somehow evil incarnate.

As far as handguns go, pretty much every firearm that isn't a revolver is a semi-automatic pistol. It's what cops carry. Brinks truck drivers. FBI. Secret Service. Probably most concealed carry permit holders (because they're thinner, and thus easier to conceal).

Please, please, please stop demonizing semi-automatic firearms as somehow more dangerous or evil simply because the term sounds vaguely like an automatic weapon. It's not.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Please try to bear with me... notice the places in your post that I have highlighted.



You might notice a pattern emerging in the highlighted words. Now, please read the following carefully credited excerpts from various sources:







I could go on and on, but you probably get the picture by now.

The most evil thing about semi-automatic firearms is their evil sounding label.

They are not machine guns. They are not automatic weapons. And they are not somehow evil incarnate.

As far as handguns go, pretty much every firearm that isn't a revolver is a semi-automatic pistol. It's what cops carry. Brinks truck drivers. FBI. Secret Service. Probably most concealed carry permit holders (because they're thinner, and thus easier to conceal).

Please, please, please stop demonizing semi-automatic firearms as somehow more dangerous or evil simply because the term sounds vaguely like an automatic weapon. It's not.

along the same lines, I'll add this...written up by a firearms manufacturer (Bravo Company):

Dear Hunters and Sportsman,
The media feeds you a lot of BS. A couple facts to please consider when forming your opinion on the next gun ban legislation proposal:

1) A sawed off hunting shotgun is a LOT more lethal in these close quarter mass killings of unarmed innocent people than any semi auto rifle. Anyone with extensive firearms training and experience will confirm that.

2) Civilian AR-15 rifles are NOT the same automatic weapons the Military has. The military has fully automatic weapons. Civilian AR-15s in production today do NOT. They shoot one shot per trigger pull, just like a semi auto hunting rifle.

3) Civilian AR-15 rifles (or similar) has the same type of internals as your semi auto deer rifle.

4) When a sociopath chooses that shotgun or hunting rifle in the next horrific event, you are the legislature’s next target.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by glocke12

along the same lines, I'll add this...written up by a firearms manufacturer (Bravo Company):

Dear Hunters and Sportsman,
The media feeds you a lot of BS. A couple facts to please consider when forming your opinion on the next gun ban legislation proposal:

1) A sawed off hunting shotgun is a LOT more lethal in these close quarter mass killings of unarmed innocent people than any semi auto rifle. Anyone with extensive firearms training and experience will confirm that.

2) Civilian AR-15 rifles are NOT the same automatic weapons the Military has. The military has fully automatic weapons. Civilian AR-15s in production today do NOT. They shoot one shot per trigger pull, just like a semi auto hunting rifle.

3) Civilian AR-15 rifles (or similar) has the same type of internals as your semi auto deer rifle.

4) When a sociopath chooses that shotgun or hunting rifle in the next horrific event, you are the legislature’s next target.

All very good points. There is nothing worse about an AR 15 then any other semi-automatic. Yes some consider it to be a SBG (scary black gun) but really they are all the same. If you want to limit magazine capacity that is fine by me. If you want to make a mandatory Federal 14 day waiting period and require fingerprinting to purchase that is also fine by me. If you want to close the gun show loophole that is also fine by me. What I don't agree with is banning a weapon only because of it's appearance. Even if they do ban assault weapons the AR's will still be built, however missing many features. The AR 15 is a good rifle and many military and former military like this weapon because they are well trained on the similar M16 or M4. Now of course the M16 and M4 are illegal to own as a civilian for good reason because they are either fully automatic or have 3 round burst capability. I don't support civilians owning any sort fully automatic or machine gun.

There is a good reason sawed off shotguns are illegal, but you are right that a person who doesn't care about the law could easily get one or make one and do far more harm.

See even us people who like guns would like to see some increased regulation and better enforcement of current regulation. I'm not sure why the NRA didn't float a few of these ideas as an alternative to a ban. I think they would have gotten more public support.

[LizKat]

Yah, I said semi-auto because how could it pay a loonybin to grab someone's BB gun or .22 and go on a rampage with it, even though he could certainly manage to kill a critter or person or a couple of them in a few minutes. He would have to reload and reload. If I used incorrect language, please forgive me but I think I have described what I meant correctly.

As for ban and buyback, you are not interested, apparently, even when the buyback is voluntary, i.e., when it excludes confiscation of weaons that are already out there. Sorry to hear that. I think it's a great way to get guns off the street when the owner gets to consider whether he really wants or needs to keep that kind of weaponry or would be willing to surrender it for cash. Sometimes people just don't give it that much thought as time passes. So if they think about it for a minute, maybe they realize they don't actually want that firepower on hand any more. Then the buyback makes sense for him, et voila, it's one more gun on the way to meltdown and not risking the killing of some innocent people sometime.

It's about reducing the chance, not eliminating it. It would be a start. Same with the ammunition, the high count magazines.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by LizKat

Yah, I said semi-auto because how could it pay a loonybin to grab someone's BB gun or .22 and go on a rampage with it, even though he could certainly manage to kill a critter or person or a couple of them in a few minutes. He would have to reload and reload. If I used incorrect language, please forgive me but I think I have described what I meant correctly.

As for ban and buyback, you are not interested, apparently, even when the buyback is voluntary, i.e., when it excludes confiscation of weaons that are already out there. Sorry to hear that. I think it's a great way to get guns off the street when the owner gets to consider whether he really wants or needs to keep that kind of weaponry or would be willing to surrender it for cash. Sometimes people just don't give it that much thought as time passes. So if they think about it for a minute, maybe they realize they don't actually want that firepower on hand any more. Then the buyback makes sense for him, et voila, it's one more gun on the way to meltdown and not risking the killing of some innocent people sometime.

It's about reducing the chance, not eliminating it. It would be a start. Same with the ammunition, the high count magazines.

Are you saying that what you want is to eliminate any weapons chambered in a caliber larger than .22, and anything that isn't a single shot action?

[LizKat]

I'm saying buy back anything anyone is willing to part with. Yes I realize the handguns that are semi-auto have become the "standard" modern choice. If you don't need it then why not turn it in to the buyback? Heck, turn in a Saturday night special if you don't need it.

As far as the ban, the semi-auto rifles are the ones I wish would not be sold any more. And again, bought back on voluntary basis.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by LizKat

I'm saying buy back anything anyone is willing to part with. Yes I realize the handguns that are semi-auto have become the "standard" modern choice. If you don't need it then why not turn it in to the buyback? Heck, turn in a Saturday night special if you don't need it.

As far as the ban, the semi-auto rifles are the ones I wish would not be sold any more. And again, bought back on voluntary basis.

Aside from any funding issues, I'd have no problem with a voluntary buy-back program for any weapons.

As for no longer selling semi-auto rifles... we're in different camps. You're talking about a large percentage of the total rifles sold... for a variety of reasons from hunting to target to defensive. Again, a semi-auto is nothing more than a particular firearm design... no built-in Satanic purpose.

[citizenzen]

Just remember kids, these are semi-automatics.

[quagmire]

Yeah, mods like that should be illegal.... Though the second video was crafty. Not sure how you would prevent that.... Just have to mitigate it with low capacity clips.....

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Just have to mitigate it with low capacity clips.....

That's what I'd go after: high capacity magazines.

And I would outlaw stocks or other devices that allow a gun to fire "automatically".

And yes ... I do understand that the second video demonstrates that can't be prevented entirely.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Just remember kids, these are semi-automatics.

As are these.

Are you just trying to help me prove the case that semi-auto rifles can exist in a variety of shapes, size and colors?

Sure, they can look really evil. Functionality... they all operate the same. One trigger pull, one shot fired.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

As are these.

Are you just trying to help me prove the case that semi-auto rifles can exist in a variety of shapes, size and colors?

Sure, they can look really evil. Functionality... they all operate the same. One trigger pull, one shot fired.

You obviously didn't watch the videos posted prior to typing a response. The post had nothing to do with gun styling.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Are you just trying to help me prove the case that semi-auto rifles can exist in a variety of shapes, size and colors?

I believe those videos demonstrated that with some relatively simple modifications or techniques, semi-automatic guns can fire at near automatic rates.

To me that confirms the need to restrict firearms to lessen the damage they can inflict; starting with limiting magazine capacity and outlawing modifications like the sliding stock in two of the videos.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by thekev

You obviously didn't watch the videos posted prior to typing a response. The post had nothing to do with gun styling.

You obviously are quite wrong in your assumption. It still took one trigger pull to fire each round. The fact that that cockamamy yahoo was looping fingers into his belt or pulling on the fore stock while firing doesn't mean it's a full auto weapon. It would be a miracle for him to be able to hit anything he might try aiming at.

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I believe those videos demonstrated that with some relatively simple modifications or techniques, semi-automatic guns can fire at near automatic rates.

To me that confirms the need to restrict firearms to lessen the damage they can inflict; starting with limiting magazine capacity and outlawing modifications like the sliding stock in two of the videos.

I would have no problem agreeing to making such modifications illegal. As to magazine capacity, sure go ahead and limit it. That one won't make any difference in potential future tragedies.

Limitations of acquisition, and more stringent regulation will turn out to be much more effective.