|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Oct 13, 2009 17:14:33 GMT -5
Ok...so everytime I try to think through a response on this issue, I end up in an infinite loop, but here's a stab at one. Okay, so if weapons can be classed into certain categories, Military use, civic defense, home defense, self-defense. Couldn't that determine what types of weapons you could encounter given a particular situation? Maybe for self defense you have: pistols or handguns, knives shorter than 6", etc. Home defense you have: semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, any other weapons in self defense category, etc. Civic defense: automatic rifles, sniper rifles, anything in other 2 categories, etc. Military use: all of the above plus, tanks, grenade launchers, etc. The above is definitely a shortened and not well thought out list, but only to give an idea of how the list could be broken down. Then...law enforcement would have a better idea of what weapons they might encounter in different situations, and the ability to detain those who possessed weapons outside of their licensed class is easier. I don't have an answer for weapons enthusiasts who might use automatic weapons for sport, other than the screening process is strict, laborious, expensive and frequent. The beginning of some thoughts, like I said in no way complete. Good thoughts. Define sniper rifle for me. I am assuming you are fine with strict regulation of those. If so, compare with a hunting rifle. Other than paint, what is the difference? *disclaimer, I fell into this trap. Hopefully you can help me avoid it with your response* I guess I would categorize it by maximum effective range. A rifle with a range of 300 - 500m would be in one category whilst a rifle with a range of 800-900 or more is in another? |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Oct 13, 2009 17:18:52 GMT -5
If you want to take someone down without aiming, use a shotgun (probably why BF keeps trying to get me one....lol). I fundamentally have a problem with the "inflict maximum damage" effect of an automatic weapon. won't one shot do most times? Outside of a war setting, I just don't see why one needs to spray an area with bullets, causing unneeded property damage and increasing the potential of human collateral damage. I should disclose that I also disagree with the "shoot to kill" mandate of most police organizations. You should be able to take someone down without killing them. I don't think regular people need automatic weapons either. I don't get it. Now I also believe if you have one then you need to be prepared to take a life because it could happen if you find yourself in a position to use it....period. You can't just use it as a scare tactic because it's 2009 and the other person could have something bigger and be a better shooter. When some women came into my apt a few years ago the police officer that came in said that if he shoots then he's trying to kill you. He's not trying to worry about going to court or any of that other stuff and it sounds really mean but I don't totally disagree with him. As far as the stuff in the OP...I have no clue what most of that means, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 13, 2009 18:02:43 GMT -5
If you want to take someone down without aiming, use a shotgun (probably why BF keeps trying to get me one....lol). I fundamentally have a problem with the "inflict maximum damage" effect of an automatic weapon. won't one shot do most times? Outside of a war setting, I just don't see why one needs to spray an area with bullets, causing unneeded property damage and increasing the potential of human collateral damage. I should disclose that I also disagree with the "shoot to kill" mandate of most police organizations. You should be able to take someone down without killing them. I don't think regular people need automatic weapons either. I don't get it. Now I also believe if you have one then you need to be prepared to take a life because it could happen if you find yourself in a position to use it....period. You can't just use it as a scare tactic because it's 2009 and the other person could have something bigger and be a better shooter. When some women came into my apt a few years ago the police officer that came in said that if he shoots then he's trying to kill you. He's not trying to worry about going to court or any of that other stuff and it sounds really mean but I don't totally disagree with him. As far as the stuff in the OP...I have no clue what most of that means, lol. Bun, Most people dont know what most of it means. Truth is, most people think an assault weapon is automatic. This is classic bait and switch. images conjure up automatic weapons when the bill covers semi auto. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 14, 2009 9:12:23 GMT -5
I have also heard many others argue, "why do you need an automatic weapon". Personally, right now I don't - the tea-baggers are only acting hand gun crazy - so that's what I have - a hand gun. But I feel as though there should be some compelling, consistent, and articulated reason why the state should prevent me from doing so pre-emptively.
I don't have hunting rifle, because I don't plan to go hunting - but just because I don't need one is NOT a good rationale for why they should be banned for others. If I feel like hunters should be able to kill prey with a bow and arrow - does that really serve as a good platform for banning hunting rifles? No not really
We have to remember or understand that the Constitution does not GRANT rights to anyone. The Constitution sets out the limits of the federal government. The rights you have, were pre-supposed by the Framers of the Constitution (actually in the DOI they are referred to as inalienable rights - but the DOI and the Constitution are 2 separate things - as the Constitution is literally law, and the DOI is not). So if a right is to be restricted, there should be a compelling reason why. As an individual, I shouldn't have to say why I should be allowed to have automatic weapons - the state should have to say why they should be allowed to prevent me from doing so. IMO the presumption of having authority is with me, the individual - not the state.
That all said - I don't concede that no such compelling rationale exists. I just think it's easier to make arguments for things like tanks, and hand grenades, then what could be classified as assault weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 14, 2009 9:23:15 GMT -5
Good thoughts. Define sniper rifle for me. I am assuming you are fine with strict regulation of those. If so, compare with a hunting rifle. Other than paint, what is the difference? *disclaimer, I fell into this trap. Hopefully you can help me avoid it with your response* I guess I would categorize it by maximum effective range. A rifle with a range of 300 - 500m would be in one category whilst a rifle with a range of 800-900 or more is in another? With an AR-15's iron sights and good competitive ammo, I can hit a man sized target at 500 yards. With a scope I am good out to 700 or so. After that, I can't reliably calculate bullet drop and windage. With a .308 in a magnum cartrige, and a properly sighted rifle, I can hit (not reliably) out at 900 or so. I have seen shooters take a hunting rifle and have a 10" group at 1000 yards. That said, I dont think you can categorize by range. You would get hunting rifles in the "sniper" category. |
|
|
|
Post by Alc 06 on Oct 14, 2009 9:32:02 GMT -5
i am a firm believer of the "guns don't kill people, people do" thought process. People are the problem, not the guns. Now, i'm not saying that it's ok to sell AR's at the gas station, but if some fool wants to get his hands on a gun in order to do harm, he will. I think the categorization itself is a problem. To Kyng's point, it's relative. Just because can snipe with an assault rifle doesn't make him a threat to society. Now, if your basement looks like this then we may have a problem, lol.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 14, 2009 10:00:17 GMT -5
IS THAT A MAXIM FROM WWI?!??!! OMG!!! It is!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 14, 2009 10:21:52 GMT -5
IS THAT A MAXIM FROM WWI?!??!! OMG!!! It is!!! Repeats comment from yesterday. sometimes you scare me Kyng..... |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 14, 2009 10:23:49 GMT -5
IS THAT A MAXIM FROM WWI?!??!! OMG!!! It is!!! Repeats comment from yesterday. sometimes you scare me Kyng..... Why? |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 14, 2009 10:28:40 GMT -5
Repeats comment from yesterday. sometimes you scare me Kyng..... Why? Cause you LOVE guns. I wouldn't be surprised if you ever got on Cribs, Alc's pic is what your basement would look like. I know folks who have guns. Hell, a shady character showed up on my doorstep and I answered with the Glock in hand. But you are a gun expert, nee a gun aficianado. I bet you had uzi's on your sheets instead of superman when you were little, didn't you...LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 14, 2009 15:57:35 GMT -5
Cause you LOVE guns. I wouldn't be surprised if you ever got on Cribs, Alc's pic is what your basement would look like. I know folks who have guns. Hell, a shady character showed up on my doorstep and I answered with the Glock in hand. But you are a gun expert, nee a gun aficianado. I bet you had uzi's on your sheets instead of superman when you were little, didn't you...LOL Uzis are too crappy for my sheets, they fire from an open bolt. I sleep on AK-47s.  |
|
|
|
Post by Alc 06 on Oct 14, 2009 16:04:27 GMT -5
Cause you LOVE guns. I wouldn't be surprised if you ever got on Cribs, Alc's pic is what your basement would look like. I know folks who have guns. Hell, a shady character showed up on my doorstep and I answered with the Glock in hand. But you are a gun expert, nee a gun aficianado. I bet you had uzi's on your sheets instead of superman when you were little, didn't you...LOL Uzis are too crappy for my sheets, they fire from an open bolt. I sleep on AK-47s. Lol. That reminds me of this dude trying to sell me and my friend an AK-47 and a bulletproof vest out of his trunk at the gun show once. I couldn't even keep a straight face and avoid asking "why the hell are you riding around with all of that? and better yet, why are you trying to get rid of it?" |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 14, 2009 16:08:08 GMT -5
Bullet proof vest? That would have raised a flag for me.
Those are like underwear. Never buy em used
|
|
