Sensible gun control

Whether automatic or manual what purpose does having a weapon capable of firing 30 rounds per minute necessary? I get that guns are fun hobby but the problem is with 320 million people in this country there are nut cases who are going to shoot up people. Stinger missiles are illegal for reason. It's not my hobby to own guns so I don't really care if they outlaw the AR-15. I just hope whatever public policy is crafted it's based on sensible gun characteristics as opposed to naming manufacturers and gun types. If it mention's manufacturers or gun types then it's the legislation only exists to destroy the free market. I'd rather see legislation based on gun characteristics like the following:

1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic).
2. Magazine size.
3. Caliber size
4. Muzzle velocity

I'm sure there are other measurables to consider. The point is I'd rather see gun legislation based on reasonable characteristics. Rifles for deer hunting or handguns from home defense do not need to be 50-caliber machine guns. I think a number of use-cases could be defined as acceptable public use. I would prefer to see legislation only mention gun characteristics and not mention any gun manufacturers or model types.

Having legal AR-15s capable of cutting down high school students at the fastest possible rate is not good public policy. I don't think this is a "freedom" issue. I think making rapid fire weapons illegal would make everyone safer because it would be a lot harder for psychopaths to get these type of weapons. We know making stinger missiles illegal has worked. No commercial jets have been shot down.

As far as I know the 2nd Amendment rights does not mean guns cannot be regulated by laws. Maybe I'm wrong and someone can enlightened if the 2nd Amendment means gun owners have free reign over their hobby.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You have yet to demonstrate the ability to form a sensible thought in your time here.

You could have easily just added this garbage to one of the thousands of other threads on this topic.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I really hope that when someone wants to be part of this discussion, they learn about the topic BEFORE they make suggestions.

The law on automatic weapons is already pretty much spot on. None of the shootings at schools have been done with automatic weapons. None. The ability to own a fully automatic weapon is limited to those with lots of money, and a very clean record.

Semi automatic weapons range from .22lr all the way up to the .50BMG.

If you aren't sure, please ask. Many would be very happy to educate.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm not American, so my opinion is not truly valid.

However, as much as I think sensible gun laws are required (which I think already exist??) -- at the end of the day, the only thing those laws will punish are law abiding citizens.

As far as I can tell, it isn't your average, normal American who enjoys shooting at the range or hunting or simply exercising his second amendment that is committing these atrocities. It's someone with grievances, mentally ill or otherwise. And that's a pretty small percentage of gun owners.

While I do think large heavy machine guns or weapons that disperse 1000's of bullets a minute are not needed by your average citizen, I can't see how banning those weapons will remove these crimes. Perhaps it will make it more difficult for the criminals to get a hold of them, but they will. They always do.

Anyhow, just my thoughts.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Swing and a miss.

You want to stop mass shootings? Start with the culture.

a reply to: noonebutme

Up here in Canada we can get a permit to own firearms that are longer than two feet.

The idea is that it's rather hard to hide long rifles in a pocket, and if some dude walks around with a long rifle in public, people are going to see he's up to something.

Firearms that are smaller require a very special permit.

in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/
noun
noun: infringement; plural noun: infringements

1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"

Now, go read the 2nd Amendment again. Don't shovel any crap from the black robes devils either, they don't wear black robes for nothing.

a reply to: dfnj2015



I feel like a broken record here...but one example: hog hunting/management.

They run in herds up into the hundreds, and destroy any land they decide to eat on. They destroy items on your land, too. And sometimes when you shoot, their fight or flight response tells them to fight. So then you get charged by some angry hogs with sharp tusks.

In the State of Texas, this is a real problem.

Let me ask you this: why would the media need to broadcast stories about school shooters? If we are going to restrict one right in the name of preventing school shootings, why not restricts others like the first amendment?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: noonebutme

Up here in Canada we can get a permit to own firearms that are longer than two feet.

The idea is that it's rather hard to hide long rifles in a pocket, and if some dude walks around with a long rifle in public, people are going to see he's up to something.

Firearms that are smaller require a very special permit.

In Texas you can walk around with a rifle without a permit. Its often done as a sign of protest or solidarity. Strangely, folks are not getting shot while this happens.

a reply to: network dude

I could likely fire 30 round per minute with my .22. Or maybe with an AR that is .223 (although accuracy on the latter would not be that great).

With my .22, my mag only holds 10. But if it held 30, i could move through all 30 pretty accurately in a minute. Although im sure you could too.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm a big fan of the good old bolt action rifle. The mechanism is durable, so durable that I've personally handled one from 1918 and it was still firing perfectly.

I don't see the need to get something smaller or automatic.

a reply to: swanne

i have some bolt actions. I like them for deer hunting.

a reply to: dfnj2015

"Automatic" or "Fully Automatic" are machine guns. These require a very special permit that costs thousands of dollars, and a LOT of red tape to own. Very few people are able to own these. A fully automatic weapons means the gun will keep firing as long as the trigger is held down. Some will only fire 3 round bursts, meaning it will fire 3 bullets while the trigger is held down.

"Semi-Automatic" or "Semi-Auto", these types of guns can only fire 1 bullet when the trigger is pulled. To fire more than one bullet, you must pull the trigger each time.

"Double Action Revolver" - this is a revolver that will only fire one bullet at a time each time you pull the trigger. Double action means that the gun will rotate the cylinder and pull the hammer back and release it each time you pull the trigger.

"Single Action Revolver" - this revolver will only fire one bullet at a time, but you must manually cock the hammer back to fire.

"Bolt Action" or "Lever Action" rifles - Will only fire one bullet when you pull the trigger. To fire again, one must operate the bolt or lever to eject the spent round, cock the hammer, and chamber a new round.

Hope this helps people understand.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My marlin model 60 holds 18. No recoil, I can pump them out pretty quick. I don't need to usually, as my scope make the squirrel big enough to hit him where I want and not just "in the squirrel". I think the general public really needs education, long before we start talking about banning something a good portion don't even understand.

a reply to: network dude

agreed.

and in the process we might find that some more folks appreciate firearms than had previously thought.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Great post. Now if you could send that over to every media distributor, you would be doing the world a service!!

Getting them to read it is another issue altogether.

a reply to: JinMI

I second that.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Why should anyone justify to anybody their desire to exercise a right?

Are you going to require that people justify their vote?

Educate yourself about guns in general before creating a thread about guns when you know zilch. I am a self professed gun nut. I own a shat load of firearms. More than the op could carry in several trips to his/her vehicle....bring a truck you're gonna need it. I have never in my time here displayed pics of my collection.....see that word OP....collection. I own several AR's two chambered in .308 two more in .223 awesome firearms.

I have others that I prize more than the AR's. Sks from around 1940 , A Mosin-Nagant from 1933, last of the Dragoon Rifles in Russia.....(Enemy at the Gate Fame.) I own a matching set of Schofield Revolvers ( top breach ) damn awesome pistols.

I own several black powder guns, long guns & pistols. When I'm loading & shooting , say a 1851 Colt Navy Revolver I am reminded that in 1851 this pistol was "state of the art". When I hold my newest, Glock I get the same feeling, that it's "state of the art " firearm. It's a natural evolution of firearms that give us, multiple rounds, faster actions and yea even fully automatic weapons. If not we all would be loading that Blunderbuss to protect ourselves.

a reply to: openyourmind1262

Automatic firearms... To protect yourself from what?

Fireants? The Ruskies?