Summations Only

Actually one of my rifles has both a grenade launcher and a bayonet and under US law I must leave both on the weapon. It has a 10 round magazine and is semi-automatic.

I never stated that the vast majority of individuals do follow this practice. I was only speaking of those individuals that I know. And in fact it is only most that I know. I actually do have a couple of friends that do not own any gun safe, but own multiple rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Not expecting 100% compliance, but with the requirement to own a gun safe, the owner of the gun could be prosecuted for a crime committed using his or her gun without his or her knowledge because the gun should have been properly stored.ABE - I am just kind of annoyed with the fact that we keep coming to the same points with the two groups, gun owners and non-gun owners. We hear, "Ban all Guns", "Ban Assault Rifles", "Guns save lives", "Right to Bear Arms"...etc ad nauseum.No one is attempting to find legislation that can meet somewhere in the middle. We have all the right wing people saying Obama is going to take my guns away, well wouldn't this plan shut them up? He isn't going to take them away, just ask you to be responsible in your ownership or you can and will be held liable. Likewise, for those who are against gun ownership, we can state that not only will more individuals properly store weapons, but those who do not can face prosecution.It just seem like we have to stop looking at the extreme and start finding a way to work together or there will be zero progress anyway.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Forgot the words "his or"

Shiiit... I have enough trouble remembering to plug in my cellphone every night.

The vast majority of people don't commit murder, so what's the point in legislating against it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In Australia it did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-control-work-in-australia

quote:

---

...Australia’s gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

---

quote:

---

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.

---

Wow Yes but I cannot get a bigger cylinder for a revolver can I. Have you seen a 30 round clip for a bolt action rifle? You really have trouble with the obvious don't you. Yes a trained person can. Any idiot can pull a trigger 30 times in a row quickly. How fast can an ordinary someone cycle a bolt action? Your logic is amazing. First of all I do not think you are correct. The survival rifle was originally designed before Eugene Stoner joined Armalite. Also, armalite did come out with lightweight caliber survival rifles of a completely different design, the AR-5 and AR-7 whicj Stomnner did have a hand in designing. The AR-10 is a completely different type of firearm from a survival rifle. If you ahve any evidence showing the original survival rifle was simialr to the AR-10 present it. The whole design of the AR-10 is counter to what a survival rifle should be. Prove it don't assert.
If you don't believe me maybe you should discuss it with Armalite.

quote:

---

The AR-10 was stunningly different than any previous design

---

Yes I am quite familiar with workings and designs of firearms. I am also quite familiar with the history of them also. Also, I am quite capable of finding sources to back what I say. In other words read Armalites history of the AR-10. Off a bench with a bipod for sighting in. You have no reason to believe. Just telling you my personal experience. Take it or leave it.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Well, I am, which is why I'm basically arguing with everybody. I currently favor gun registration, ballistics fingerprinting of all weapons, magazine size limits, "bullet button" requirements on magazine-loading weapons, and possibly annual ammunition purchasing limits. I'm less convinced about the last one. A mass shooter usually only "needs" about a hundred rounds, and his mass shooting is usually the last time he ever fires a gun in his life (since he's usually caught, shot, or suicided.) But it doesn't sound unreasonable to me that someone like a competitive target shooter might expend hundreds of rounds in a year.

I think these are rational common sense things. I think these are doable and effective.The registration is the first and biggest hurdle.

But that's not true, is it?

And it even comes in human flavors with hair triggers. Sorry I came across as being a jerk, but you seem to be missing the irony. You were asked why you don't have full-auto, and you didn't respond with comments about the serious responsibility involved but that you can't afford it and you'd "prolly be in my house and wouldn't want to wreck the place." You followed that with, "Unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous," and your blas attitude combined with the thought of a device that could wreck your house while not being destructive was just too ironic to pass by without comment.You followed your "destructive device" comment by exploding with "I don't give a fuck about the NRA," and sorry, I couldn't resist that either.Anyway, carry on with this dispassionate discussion about various weaponry in a thread begun in reaction to a mass murder. Lookin' good!--Percy

But at what cost?Violent crimes per 100,000 individuals: US, Canada, Australia, and the US: I mean, I'm all for gun control, but not at the cost of having the US spiral into lawlessness like Europe, like the UK, where home invasion robbery is "the new normal" that people accept is going to happen, it's a legitimate mode of employment, maybe you could be a mate and help the guy cart off your goods, but god forbid you be so impolite as to use anything approaching force to prevent him from helping himself to your possessions, your wife, and maybe your life.Edited by Admin, : Make image readable.

In what way?I ask because I live in Illinois and our gun laws are all fucked up so I don't really know about the rest of the country that much. But, I registered my gun when I bought it... I think.I mean, it got "transfered" to me in some paperwork I signed.For the lurkers who don't know how that works, it goes like this: My Glock has a unique number on it. If it was found, then the police would call up Glock and give them the number. Glock would say, 'we sold that gun to Bob's US Gun Distributor. Then the police would call Bob and he'd go: "We sold that to Joe's Gun Store near St. Louis." Then they'd call Joe and they do: "We sold that gun to Catholic Scientist back in '09". Then they'd call me and ask me if I knew where my gun was.

Message 96Starting this thread looked bad in the first place. I'm still missing the irony... He asked why I wouldn't go for a full-auto for killing people. Then he asked why grenades shouldn't be at WalMart. I don't think full-autos should be at WalMart either. You're trying awefully hard to make me look stupid.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

No, it is true. (You're not.. calling me a liar, are you?) The permit-holder drew down but didn't fire, and the shooter retreated in response and killed himself.I mean, that's almost a textbook-perfect case of how concealed-carry could abort a mass shooting scenario. Otherwise you're left with arguing for the possibility that a guy stole an AR-15, loaded up with hundreds of rounds, a side-arm, and a fully-loaded tactical load-bearing vest, bagged all of two people, and said "huh, I guess that's enough" and decided to eat one.That doesn't make any sense to me. Clearly, the Clackamas shooter killed himself when he encountered armed resistance. That the permit-holder didn't have to fire a shot to save lives proves, to me, that the notion of an armed hero stopping a mass shooting event isn't as risible in every circumstance as you've made it out to be in the past. It remains to be seen whether you'll adapt your position to new information; my guess is, the answer is "no."

According to the "carrying concealed" guy, the mall shooter shot himself after seeing him pull his gun: Article here: Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooterNever happens like it does in the movies, though, where the guy steps out from behind a support, points his weapon, and says, "Drop it." Crisis over, guy's a hero. But in the real world I guess a guy carrying concealed is enough to force perpetrators to commit suicide.--Percy