But why do you NEED 5 rifles?

The BBQ Pit
21

Just gonna duck in here as a gun-owner (I have a small caliber muzzle-loader that my grandfather made, he was a gun-smith…) to point out that you can’t hit SHIT with a machine gun? You can’t aim that sucker! Open up, and you have bullets flying everywhere! (mostly up in the air, as that’s where the recoil tends to throw the muzzle…)

Ditto with even the finest of pistols… beyond about 20 yards or so, you can’t (reliably) hit anything! Even if you are sitting with the barrel of the pistol resting against soemthing stable, the bullet just doesn’t have the rotation/ stability that it would have coming out of a long rifled barrel…

If I wanted to murder a large amount of people all congregated into one small area, a bomb is the only answer (unless we want to consider chemical or biological weapons…).

A gun is just not as lethal as the anti-gun nuts want us to believe…

22

I’m not as up on this as I used to be, but you have to get…aargh…a Class 3? license to own a working automatic weapon. And, as I noted in my post, there are (or at least were) obscene amounts of paperwork needed to get the necessary federal permit. And there may be further state-level restrictions on them as well.

Colorado used to (I don’t know if they’re still doing it) have a firing range that would rent fully-auto weapons for use in the facility. I got to fire an Uzi, which was lots of fun, but as Astroboy notes, not terribly accurate.

Fenris

23

Wow! 21 responses an no vemon. I’m pleasantly surprised. I should have mentioned that this message was in response to a couple of threads in GD; “How much gun control do you want” and “is hunting unnecessary in the US today” or some mumbo-jumbo.

Featherlou-
Behave!

Miller-
I don’t get it. (???)

Red Dragon-
I goofed when registering. My online name is “LongDistanceOperator”. It is in reference to the job I had in the Army; M1A1 Tanker. We can hit out to 3000 meters and beyond. It is also in reference to the fact that I like to shoot in (compete? yeah right!) in 1,000 Yard Benchrest.

RobGruver-
Please don’t use the “A” word when describing your AR-15. Remember, “assualt weapon”, as originally defined is a weapon with selective fire; i.e. semi-auto and full auto. What we hear Feinstein whining about is the new and bastardized meaning of that term. Also remember that “weapons” are issued to you by the Company Armorer. You have a rifle or gun.

JonScribe-
You make some valid points. (ugh. some gun owners would want to strangle me for saying this) I would never say that the average citizen should be able to own a fully-automatic firearm unless they had gone through intense background checks. That is already in place.

What can we do about the not-so-scrupulous individuals who use a gun to commit a crime? Well, keeping out of their hands in the first place is tough. After the crime I would say a mandatory minimum sentence would be a good idea. If someone is killed or injured I would say life in prison with no chance for parole. If the firearm is not discharged I would say five years and they can never possess a firearm again. Get tough on the people committing crimes. Don’t set them free to do it again and bitch when it happens.

“The slippery slope” Hmmmmmm…I think it may be blown somewhat out of proportion, but take a close look at some proposed laws. In an attempt to ban .50 caliber (BMG) rifles, one bill would to outlaw rifles that can penetrate “armor”. What is “armor”? We need a definition, otherwise it leaves the door open to ban pretty much anything. Just about any rifle can penetrate body armor. It’s pretty tough to walk through a parade with grampa’s .30-'06 and shoot a politician, so body armor is effective protection…for it’s intended use.

Another problem with the slippery slope is that while YOU may not want to ban all firearms, plenty of people do; some are in organizations that claim to advocate “sensible” gun control.
Another pet peeve: people who know nothing about .50BMG rifles and call them “sniper rifles” and say that they can “shred a military tank” from 2 miles away. That second quote was from a newspaper article.

  1. No sniper is going to use a .50 BMG. Too much muzzle flash, flying debris, etc, to give away his location. Too much noise…to give away his location. If the target is far enough away that he can’t use his 7.62 NATO or .300 Win Mag, it’s just too far away. No one would take a chance on missing a shot on a high-priority (human) target. (If a bullet whizzed by you, would you stand around and wait for the second one?)

2)Although the .50BMG is used in 1,000 yard competition, that does not make it a good sniping round. These guys KNOW exactly how far away the target is. They also get “sighter” rounds; they can fire several shots to get it on target before competition begins. At extreme ranges, bullets drop A LOT. An error of only 1% in estimating range can mean a miss.

24

The short answer is - fully automatic weapons, like most NFA weapons, can be legally owned provided the following things are done and conditions exist:

  1. You must live in a State, County, City, and homes association that allows such a thing. Kansas, for example, does not.

  2. You must meet all Federal requirements, which include the following:

Reputedly, any misdemeanor, even one erased by “diversion” will disqualify you. Anecdotally, people have been disqualified due to traffic tickets, but I do not know if that is true.

  1. The Chief Law Enforcement Officer or District Attorney of your jurisdiciton must approve it.

  2. Under the provisions of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (McClure-Volkmer Act) - Public Law 99-308, the weapon must have been made and legally owned before May 19, 1986.

The ranges you go to to rent these weapons have complied with the above processes. HOWEVER…renting of guns is a considerable gray area in some jurisdictions. It can be the opinion of some law enforcement officers that renting a fully-automatic weapon at a range, loading it, and spraying targets with bullets is “possesion” of such a weapon, and therefore you could be arrested on the spot, and face 10 years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. It’s definitely a gray area, and the real bitch about gray areas is they always seem to work against you in real life…but that’s just me being cynical.

25

We already have reasonable limits that allow me to keep (though not bear, I live in Ohio, hence no concealed carry) firearms while limiting access to those who shouldn’t own them, or even be near them. You are woefully misinformed of the current state of gun control legislation,if you believe otherwise. I suggest you educate yourself on current gun laws before proposing new ones.

Anyway, you posted something that bugs me. You want to limit access to those who shouldn’t own guns? If someone shouldn’t own guns, why do you want to merely limit their access to them? Shouldn’t they be prohibited outright from ownership?

No, unreasonable. Rifles are damned poor self-defense weapons. Rifles are designed to fire projectiles accurately over long distances. The bullets are also typicall quite powerful. Neither characteristic is desirable for personal protection, especially indoors. Not to mention rifles aren’t exactly the most wieldable of firearms. Handguns are a far better choice. Short-barreled shotguns are even better.

Sorry, we disagree. I fully believe the slippery slope arguments. In fact, I started a thread in GD just a coupla weeks ago asking gun control proponents to disprove the slippery slope by posting the goals and legislation they’d accept as "end-game,’ that is, the legislation, the enactment of which, would require no more additional gun law restrictions. I recieved one serious reply from the pro-control members of this board. This leads me to believe that since the gun-control proponents haven’t considered their “end-game” position, they, as yet have none; they are merely parroting the positions of the gun-control organizations. Consider that along with the refusal of the major gun-control organizations to make public their own “end-game” scenario and the voluminous quotes from their spokespeople and legislators advocating total, or near total, bans on firearms, and I believe we have considerable evidence the slippery slope is no fallacy.

Great. In your mind the debate is already over. I read this to mean, do as I say and all will be fine. Fuck that. And you.

26

Oh, swell. I try and behave myself and not go ballastic amongst a bunch of gun nuts, and a Mod tells me to fuck off.

Others were able to point out errors and differences without getting cranky. You, UncleBeer, just couldn’t resist a little F-bomb and personal attack.

I know this is the pit, but that wasn’t necessary.

Why don’t you go kick your dog, now?

27

Jon, he’s right (sort of). Why should we simply accept something that we consider to be detrimental simply to avoid hassles from naysayers?

28

Because, right now, it’s all about how things appear. And you’re not going to win any policy battles with reasoned logic when the gun opponents can flash pictures of school shootings and other atrocities.

Is it fair? Nope. But then the making of policy rarely is. It’s an advesarial process, and anything goes.

Make some reasonable concessions, and you’ll gain more moderates to your side, that’s all I was attempting to say. I wasn’t suggesting that the debate was closed. Just the opposite.

However, tell those same moderates to fuck off, and you’ve lost them.

Eh, Uncle.

29

Well, Jon, you have to understand that Mr. Beer has had to argue this same topic a hundred times in the past few months alone. I don’t blame him for getting tired of snide implications and hidden agendas (not to say that I believe you have either).

However, I’m not here to defend him (he’s capable of that on his own… VERY capable, oy!). In either case… what you’re saying sounds a whole lot like “Give up, you won’t win anyway.” Which is, of course, bullshit.

And we should just accept that? We should allow politicians to use and abuse isolated tragedies to further their own selfish goals? Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. As long as there are people who will present a distorted worldview to those who don’t know much about the subject (and, as such, are easily swayed by emotional pandering), we will continue fighting them with logic and reason.

30

No, actually Spoofe, Jon is right. I was well out of line with the “fuck you,” comment. Please allow me to aplogize to you and withdraw it, Jon. It was wrong of me.

I stand by the remainder of my post though.

31

Here we see again why UncleBeer is my favorite Moderator. Not that we are supposed to have favorites. :slight_smile:

As for your post here, JonScribe:

Yes. Will the gun banners ever put forth legislation like that? Believe me - I follow legislative matters dealing with the subject very seriously. And in every case since 1989, what the (liberal?) media reports an anti-gun bill would do is not the truth! You can hear about how the “assault weapons” ban would not affect ordinary hunters and sportsmen from the smiling Dan Rather or CNN droid, then go on the Net to see the full text of the bill, and see that it in fact, in its early versions, banned nearly all semi automatic shotguns and rifles.

I posted a long personal story about why I have my position on firearms in GQ a while ago (before it was moved). I doubt anyone here read it, but one key thing that opened my eyes was seeing Senator Howard Metzenbaum lie repeatedly on national television about what the contents of the bill he sponsored were.

Until the national level gun control advocates can be honest with us, they will never have my respect.

As I say…is that really what they are doing?

Why are you allowed to define what is reasonable or not? Let’s take automatic weapons. See the things I posted earlier in this thread? According to that evidence, you would be safest among legal holders of automatic weapons in this country. Think about it - 67 years of legal automatic weapons ownership. More than 100,000 owners. Only one murder. Yet - this is not safe enough for you - in your own words, you say this is “unreasonable”. If one crime over 67 years is unreasonable…well shit.

New York. Washington DC. California. Ohio. The UK. Australia. Japan. Canada. History says you are wrong. Every place that has a yen for restriction has led to more restriction, then confiscation. Even here in the US - the only difference is time. Two examples:

New York:

The UK:

Ah, the ad hominem attack. Never mind, I’m sorry I even responded. But since what I wrote my be of use to others that are not going to call me names, I’ll leave it.

32

In all fairness, I wouldn’t call “gun nut” much of a personal attack (I’d describe myself as one, in fact) and he did only use the phrase after UB had told him to fuck off (which he went on to apologise for).

33

Well…OK, Gary. Fair enough.

34

Well, I read it and remember it well, Anthracite. In fact, your story parallels closely with my scorn for the despicable Senator Howard Metzenbaum. And since I’m actually from Ohio, perhaps I hold him in even more contempt than you. Metzenbaum has done more to shape my views on gun control and prod me to educate myself on the issue than any other ten people or organizations.

35

You know, I think I may have thought this before, perhaps even said it (The “Why do you need FIVE guns?!?!”) But it wasn’t until this thread came up that I realized how much I hate that question in terms of things I’ve got, such as black shoes.

I would do anything to get guns out of the hands of the goddamn idiots of this country (the ones who commit crimes, who don’t keep them away from kids, etc), but I suspect they’re such a miniscule proportion of gun owners, I have no idea how to manage it. Thus, you’ll find me increasingly skeptical about restrictions, controls, new laws, etc.

However, I often wince at the rhetoric of even the sanest, most responsible gun owners. I buy many of their arguments, but do they have to drape themselves in the goddamn flag so much? I swear this is the kind of crap the idiots out there glom onto and run with, with zero intellectual understanding of the term “citizenship.” These are the same people who want to file a lawsuit when you shush them in the movie theatre because “it violates their freedom of speech.” If I hear “It’s a free country” tossed off inappropriately by one more fuckhead who wouldn’t know the bill of rights from a drycleaning receipt, I am going to go completely and utterly apeshit.

Say, I just had an idea. If more of you would use your guns AGAINST the idiots and solve this problem, I’d consider it a beautiful compromise. I’d buy the bullets. Now if we could just come up with a foolproof idiot-identification system…

36

JonScribe
Your arguements seems to be essentially that we surrender our basic defense and leash over our government because it’ll look better. Uh-uh. BAD idea. Then you start with “Nut Job” and “Gun Nut”. You’re NOT going to win any sympathy among the moderates by sounding like a radical. I could just as easily call you a “Banner” or “Confiscator”, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you’re only guilty of being lazy in your terms and definitions.

Are you aware that there are better than 30,000 firearms regulating laws on the books? I’d say that all the ground that needs be given, has already been given. Now it’s up to the society to ENFORCE THOSE DAMN LAWS, not ask for more. Or maybe better yet, how about simplifying and consolidating them, so that law enforcemnt can tell what the hell they’re doing?

Anthracite
I also read your post in the other thread, and may I say that I’m always impressed with the completeness of your information?

Long D.
The Barrett Model 82 is an issue weapon with the SEALS, and other units as well, for sniping purposes (mostly anti-material sniping). It has an excellently designed muzzle break that prevents major issues with muzzle-blast giving away the sniper’s position. Ssgt. Carlos Hathcock used a Browning M-2 with an Unterl(sp?) 9X scope to score a confirmed kill at 2500 yards (firing off the bolt release). So, you can see that the .50 BMG is a viable sniping round.

UncleBeer
Nice, humble recovery. A pleasure watching you at work.

CrankyAsAnOldMan
We use the flag because that was/is the purpose of the Second Amendment, irt RKBA, in the first place. All other arguments are collateral. You’re entirely right about the level of knowledge irt the Bill of Rights. Your last suggestion, however, is right off the reservation, even for a jest.

37

Ya got me there. I forgot to mention the Anti-Materiel role. I do think we can both agree that the BMG is at best, impractical for human targets. I saw a pic of an M2 with Unertl in …I think…“The One-Round War”. Mighta been a different book.

I have to say that I’m surprised by the responses. I lurk at this site a lot and I figured we had a mostly liberal crowd.

I’m tempted to offer someone (in the Dallas/Forth Worth area) the punch holes in paper at 1,000 yards with one of my rifles. I dunno though. I do think they would find it addictive.

38

Oh, I get the amendment thing. It just that I–oh, heck, I already yammered on about that. No need to repeat.

As for my final comment: I regard the Pit as the perfect venue for me to fantasize about and even occasionally (and humbly) suggest the means of death (hopefully gruesome) for the types of morons that drive me nuts and whom many Dopers come to this very forum to rage about. However, in retrospect I can see that in a gun control thread, suggesting gun-owning normal people shoot the gun-toting nutjobs might be less than amusing to some. I regret any offense.

But I’d still buy a ticket to watch.

39

**Excus me, but that is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. A machine gun can’t hit anything so it isn’t dangerous? Bull Shit.

40

And you follow that dumb argument up with an even dumber argument.

What, pray tell, DOES make a machine gun dangerous? Its harsh language? Its compelling arguments in favor of euthanasia? Its reckless driving habits?

A machine gun is less dangerous (in one way) than other firearms because it’s highly inaccurate. Do you have evidence to dispute this, or just a heightened level of stupidity?