Printable View
Hell, not even GOA and NRA consider rocket launchers to be assault weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
And your hypothetical "wacked-out person" could just as easily dump Ricin (or, easier yet, chlorine gas) into the mall's air handlers.
Why not just keep the crazy off the street in the first place?
Yep proven in the UK... gun crime has risen since the banning of handguns. Same with anything, make it illegal and it goes underground and you lose all control over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
What would have been better would have been a ban on storing the weapons at home, thereby preventing unstable people from travelling around with them. Curious people will want to experience for themselves so now they go underground, buying unsafe hardware/out of date ammo, and using them irresponsibly when they could be going to a licensed establishment..... The interest in weapons here is also proven by the rocketing increase in replica/blank firing/CO2 sales.
Or better yet (as I said before), why not screen those "unstable people" for whatever condition they may have?Quote:
Originally Posted by corturbra
Banning the storage of weapons at home still punishes those who are stable, law-abiding citizens.
Your way is merely punishing the public-at-large for the actions of a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
Folding stocks and pistol grips make concealing weapons easier - remove the stock and replace it with a pistol grip and a folding stock and you have a more easily concealed firearm. There's no great reason for the public to NEED these for the last ditch defense against tyrrany or for much more really. I have no idea why you can't have a bayonette clip.
Easier to conceal, only if the trench coat being worn during the summer doesn't give it away.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetheusers
And you blew it with the word "need".
Second Amendment isn't about NEEDS.
Heck, lets just lock up all the mentally ill. Then we can move on to other "undesirables".Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
Like fetuses!Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
I agree about the screening part, however on the restrictions of owning/using weapons, I disagree. My way still allows the public at large to continue their chosen hobby/sport/way of life, although in a more controlled way.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
The actions of the few will always dictate the freedoms of the many.
What would you prefer no access to weapons or access in a controlled and safe environment?
Access, period.....with the right to defend (in this case, shoot back) if warranted. Self-policing at gun ranges... I have yet to hear of anything happening at the local range regarding "someone going nuts" and shooting up the club's members and property.Quote:
Originally Posted by corturbra
Obviously the "no access" idea fails miserably, look at the UK and Australia.....especially the Aussies, the gun-control program's so bad, no they're after sword/bayonet/machete control as well.
What's your definition of "controlled and safe"? Government-run ranges, with total lockup in an armory? Look out for miles of red tape, followed by huge fees for "safety training", usage, storage and environmental fees, etc....
First you need to define it.Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
Hey man, easy on me! I'm with you 100% I'm just saying that in the UK rather than a total ban a happy medium would have been restricting storage of weapons at a gun club, better than an outright ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
Ahh, sorry if I came across wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by corturbra
Bayonets because of all the drive by bayonetting in the pre-1994 days. Flash hiders because thats what the grenade adapters attach to when firing a grenade from the barrel of a rifle with specialy made ammunition. So again, flash hiders were banned because of all the drive by genading that had been going on in the pre-1994 world.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraflyer
ilovetheusers: You did blow it in your statement when you said "need." Take a minute and thing about what you typed. Let's ban things because people don't need them. Ok, do people really need big SUV's? No one's house needs to be more than 1500 square feet in reality. No one needs to express their individuality.....
corturbra: for those that don't have a lot of faith in mace they prefer a firearm for home protection. Shotguns seem to make the best firearm for home protection.
The assault weapon ban did not do what it was intended to do. Congress new this after they passed the bill which is why they added the 10 year sunset to it. It is a ban that makes people feel good in name only. Hell, look at techs reaction for an example of what I am talking about. If someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it. Just think of what some people did with box cutters a couple years ago and how it has changed the US of A since.
I like chris rocks solution, we dont need gun control we need bullet control.
If every bullet cost $5000 there would be alot less gun violence and when it did happen they used a musket loader, or that guy must ahve done something thers $50,000 worth of bullets in his ***. Not to mention the inocent bystander, at $5000 a pop there are no inocent bystanders.
Then my little reloading press would be worth its weight in gold. It's easy enough to cast lead shot, and bond copper to them...instant FMJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejectionMan
Or give them a tungsten steel core...AP anyone?
Or a few grains' worth of magnesium in the tail...tracers.
Or, if you have access, use hollowpoint ammo and fill the void with white phosphorus, then seal....incendiary rounds. I leave it as a mental exercise to the reader as to how they're going to handle the stuff, much less obtain it. I certainly do not have a hermetically sealed work area with 99.99% nitrogen content!