Yep, that’s me. Although it does seem that you’re splitting hairs on a point that is quite derisory.
I don’t think that the right to bear arms in the US was intended to protect hunter’s rights. We reserve the right to protect our own homes and property.
[quote]Mapo wrote:
In short, anyone who wails and gnashes his/her teeth over the expiration of the “ban” is an idiot.
[/quote]
And what does that make someone who rejoices over the lifting of a meaningless ban?
[quote]
But ok, let’s take your cop-out definition of “whatever it was that they banned back in 1994”.
So, does the weight of a pistol make it more dangerous? One of the evil features that was banned was the manufacture of any handgun having a weight of more than 50 ounces.
Does it matter to you whether a rifle has a bayonet lug on it or not? Because one of the evil features that was banned was putting a bayonet lug on a rifle or shotgun. [/quote]
I guess you have trouble reading. This is the bear and dog claw rebuttal I predicted.
Yes, I have read that the ban did little in substance but I don’t recal me saying I was outraged over the lifting of it. I expressed incredulity and disgust that the type of weapons we both are talking about, you with surer knowledge for certain, are permitted.
As for the gun lobbies helping to form legislation I am talking less about the NRA than the weapons manufacturers. However, even the NRA is a well-oiled political machine, so why wouldn’t I, or anyone else take offense that they are helping to form legislation? This is little difference from the vote buyer that happens in taiwan.
Of course you want knowledgeable people involved but you want to make sure they are as neutral as possible and not on the take from either the gun producers or partisan party backers.
Why do you want these weapons available and why do you think they should be made available?
I am quite willing to learn about this subject and have followed the argument for and against gun control for many years though I know little about the capabilities of particular weapons. You are being belligerent to an open mind and frankly it is making you look pretty foolish despite your “superior” knowledge.
Squid, are you not misguided? How is a belf-fed weapon different from “A semiautomatic rifle is an “assault weapon” if it can accept a detachable magazine”?
Oh I see, it has to have two or more of the other criteria.
Still, what in god’s name would you the need be for such a weapon?
Seems utterly nonsensical to think that it’s ok for the citizenry to arm themselves in a such a way.
I would like to point out that Columbine style killings have also occured in England, Scotland, Germany and Japan among others. This is not a U.S. “crazed gun culture” kind of thing.
Still, sheesh! Look at those little f**ers all dressed up like Palestinian terrorists. Yuck! Is that what we want to aspire to? What next bound feet? public stonings? lynchings? Let’s arrest those little tykes and send them off to a Swiss boarding school so they grow up learning to speak French and understanding nuance like John Kerry… er on second though, fire away my little chickadees, fire away!
MPS…I share the joy of the AWB demise.
By the way…looks like the kids are being well instructed. Fingers outside the trigger guard. Eddie Eagle RULES!
[quote]Still, what in god’s name would you the need be for such a weapon?
[/quote]
Apart from killing people? No idea. Squid, how accurate are these guns compared to conventional sporting rifles with a scope at, say, 400 yards? Do people really hunt deer and such with them? What are their advantages over a sporting rifle?
[quote=“sandman”][quote=“Alleycat”]Still, what in god’s name would you the need be for such a weapon?
[/quote]
Apart from killing people? No idea. Squid, how accurate are these guns compared to conventional sporting rifles with a scope at, say, 400 yards? Do people really hunt deer and such with them? What are their advantages over a sporting rifle?[/quote]
As far as the firearm per se goes, accuracy is primarily a matter of the barrel. Put a match-quality barrel on an AR-15, and it will shoot about as well as the same match-quality barrel put onto a Remington 700. Put a “sporting” barrel on either and they’ll shoot about as well as each other, too.
If you’re talking about real accuracy, i.e., benchrest, a proper benchrest rifle will outshoot anything else you can put up against it. Not many people want to spend $2500 on a rifle, another $1000 on reloading equipment, and a couple of years learning how to reload, though.
In the U.S., semiauto rifles are legal for hunting in all but one or two states. Most people take something like a Remington 7400 with them, but there is no functional difference between one of those and an AK-47. The only difference is one of outward appearance. Your reaction to the functional design of the AR-15 is like other peoples’ reactions when they see a black man approaching on the street – but with less reason behind it, since blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime, whereas so-called “assault weapons” are (or were) rarely used in crime. (Nowadays, they’ve become more popular among criminals because the media and Hollywood have painted them as “the thing to bring” when you rob a bank or a convenience store, so the gangstas have started buying them. But they’re still rarely used in crime. They’re expensive; most criminals are broke.)
Alleycat, why in whoever’s name would anyone want to eat a pizza when she could eat squid instead? Why would anyone want a BMW when they could drive a Matiz? Why would anyone put a spoiler on a Honda??
As far as advantages, semiautomatics are easier on the shoulder – a semiautomatic action spreads the recoil over a longer time, so they don’t hurt as much to shoot. Follow-up shots on game are more rapid since you don’t have to work a bolt or pump. Reliability is lower, however, since the mechanism is more complex and so more prone to jams.
For someone who is physically handicapped, like crossbows they can enable that person to hunt or target shoot when a bolt-action, break-action, pump, lever, or whatever would be unusable.
I like Bush’s take on the issue. ‘I approve of the ban but I’m fucked if I’m going to put any pressure on my friends in congress to keep it in force.’ A man for all people? I’m sure Mr Kerry has been accused of something similar shennaigans over on the IP thread. As for who should advise on Gun Law - I would vote for members of the police and armed forces to have that role. I reckon they might know a thing or two about the subject.
Define “assault weapons”.
Really. Let’s hear a definition from all of you uninformed do-gooders who want to ban them. Tell me what they are.[/quote]
Mapo, you’re just looking for a way to trip me up so why would I attempt a defintion? Not the most genuous of ploys.
But here goes:
I’d call assault weapons the type of weapons that were banned under the assault weapons ban. In other words the type of weapons that were described, shown in photographs, talked about in congress and subequently on the news, and which have features that strike any sane person as something that should not be permitted to be sold freely even though I am sure some of these features are shared with more ordinary handguns and rifles which is how people like you always try to argue this matter.
But you know what? Dogs have claws, and so do bears, but that doesn’t make a bear safe or the equivalent of a dog.
And why are you calling me a do-gooder when I seem the only one on this thread who would ever listen to what you had to say with an open mind?[/quote]
Well, excuse me, but if you’re going to ban something, it seems like you ought to know what you’re banning.
But ok, let’s take your cop-out definition of “whatever it was that they banned back in 1994”.
So, does the weight of a pistol make it more dangerous? One of the evil features that was banned was the manufacture of any handgun having a weight of more than 50 ounces.
Does it matter to you whether a rifle has a bayonet lug on it or not? Because one of the evil features that was banned was putting a bayonet lug on a rifle or shotgun.
The whole point I am making is, what the “ban” eliminated was a few minor features that made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the primary function of the firearms.
In short, anyone who wails and gnashes his/her teeth over the expiration of the “ban” is an idiot.
Furthermore, since you don’t know what they are, why do you give a crap whether they were banned or not?
Finally, regarding your “point” that “the gun lobby” shouldn’t be involved in crafting legislation, since none of you people are willing to learn anything about the subject, who are you going to get to draft the laws? I know, let’s get a random selection of three-year-olds to draft our laws from now on. They’ll do a better job of it than the gun-banning lobby.[/quote]
Who gives a flying f*** if the general public denies a fringe group the right to own something of no good use to anyone. For what purpose does owning a rifle of that sort have – some kind of post adolescent fantasy? Not like they are trying to ban milk or something.
I have never met anyone who had to handle a weapon of that type for a living ever lusting over having one in the home. They had a clear idea of what these weapons do and represent. It certainly has nothing to do with “sport”.
Interesting. I’ll need to ask my friends at home if they agree – an AR15 as accurate as a stalking rifle? And for much less money? I wonder why I never see them advertised in Field and Stream?
To the same extend as in the US? I don’t have any stats but I highly doubt that e.g. Germany compares in the number of incidents nor in the number of victims (absolute or percentage of population). Gun related incidents and in particular “killing sprees” are very rare.
Getting a gun is extremely difficult in Germany, especially fully-automatic weapons are a big no-no.
Exceptions are made for sport shooting, hunters and collectors (in the latter case the guns must not work anymore), with limits to quantity and type of gun. You can get a license to carry a hand gun, but obtaining such a license requires some good and valid reason, police background check and it will be strictly controlled (registration and even a visit at home to ensure it’s stored safely).
Even those guns that shoot plastic pellets and which are widely available here (some would call them toys) are forbidden; if you get caught by customs because you thought it makes a nice souvenir or gift be prepared for some hefty fine if not a jail sentence. Even a wooden model that looks like an automatic rifle can get you into jail.
[quote=“MaPoSquid”]
For someone who is physically handicapped, like crossbows they can enable that person to hunt or target shoot when a bolt-action, break-action, pump, lever, or whatever would be unusable.[/quote]
For someone who is physically handicapped, the best place to go hunting should be a grocery store. These are usually well stocked in the U.S. 
There is no logical reason for anyone in the U.S. to own a fully automatic weapon. Full Stop.
Hell, after having several relatives shot during heated arguments, I don’t think there is any logical reason for Americans to possess any firearms whatsoever. But that’s another issue. 
[quote] let’s get a random selection of three-year-olds to draft our laws from now on. They’ll do a better job of it than the gun-banning lobby.
[/quote]
Now you’re talking sense.
And yodelling competitions have occured outside of Switzerland.
Brian
?? How much is a “stalking rifle” in Scotland? I think your costs may be higher due to regulatory costs. One can buy a basic Remington 700 in K-Mart for around US$300. A basic AR-15 costs around US$500 (some assembly required).
Well, it’s damn difficult to get a fully automatic weapon in the U.S., too. About half of the states prohibit them completely, and in all cases, a law-abiding owner has to go through a long licensing procedure and background checks. California, Washington, Illinois, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts – all of the states I’ve lived in – ban possession of fully automatic firearms by non-government (California has a limited exemption for movie companies, but the restrictions are so severe that both of the movie industry gun-rental companies I used to know of have stopped handling them).
[quote=“Vannyel”]There is no logical reason for anyone in the U.S. to own a fully automatic weapon. Full Stop.
Hell, after having several relatives shot during heated arguments, I don’t think there is any logical reason for Americans to possess any firearms whatsoever. But that’s another issue. [/quote]
So who’s talking about "fully automatic weapon"s anywhere in this?? In case you didn’t know – and you apparently didn’t – the formerly “banned” “assault weapons” aren’t fully automatic.
As far as the rest, I’ve noticd that insanity seems to run in your family. However, that doesn’t mean that the rational public shouldn’t own guns.
Well, Field & Stream is an American publication, but they don’t carry ads for these soldier-type guns. They DO carry ads for rifles and shotguns costing thousands of dollars, though, so I don’t think cost is an issue here.
No, I don’t think many of these guns are sold to hunters. I just wonder WHO they’re marketed toward.
Clearly, paranoid nut cases who feel more powerful knowing that they own a weapon which can easily destroy several lives quite quickly.
They most likely fantasize often about going into battle, single-handedly wiping out the enemy and returning home a hero.
Yes, in their minds they are the saviours of the planet but in reality they are simply guys who feel powerless and inadequate and the ownership of such weapons allows them to feel like superior warriors instead of the inferior weasels that they truly are.
“Gun Control” originated with Democrats to keep the blacks in their place.
[quote=“MaPoSquid”]
[quote=“Vannyel”]There is no logical reason for anyone in the U.S. to own a fully automatic weapon. Full Stop.
Hell, after having several relatives shot during heated arguments, I don’t think there is any logical reason for Americans to possess any firearms whatsoever. But that’s another issue. [/quote]
So who’s talking about "fully automatic weapon"s anywhere in this?? In case you didn’t know – and you apparently didn’t – the formerly “banned” “assault weapons” aren’t fully automatic.
As far as the rest, I’ve noticd that insanity seems to run in your family. However, that doesn’t mean that the rational public shouldn’t own guns.[/quote]
Sorry for the mistake but it’s simple to correct - replace fully automatic with ‘assault’ there is still no logical reason.
As for the insanity, well my mother did shoot herself in the leg with the pistol she brought to ‘protect’ her store, my cousin did shoot my uncle during a drunken argument, and my dad was shot by a jealous man, but we’re just your average gun-totting american family.
On the rational side of things, why would a rational member of the public feel the need to own an assault weapon? Home protection? Who do you plan on rebelling? Hunting? It’s not bad enough people go prancing around the woods every year trying to get in touch with some ‘hunter’ roots that should have died a long time ago (considering the number of grocery stores in the U.S.) and end up a threat to local farmers but you think they need sweet looking assault weapons to help them get touch with their he-man military roots as well. Sport? Well if you’re calling baiting innocent creatures (deer) and then shooting them sport or using dogs to flush out rabbits, etc. sport, well you got me there. One man’s sport is another man’s murder.