OK, then could you briefly describe how this definition establishes that a weapon is more dangerous than a weapon which does not fit this definition?
For instance, suppose I have two shot guns. One has a pistol grip and a folding stock; the other does not. Why is shot gun A more dangerous than shot gun B?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, think of it this way: African-Americans are more likely to be convicted of a crime and more likely to be murdered (black males, especially.) Some people (generally not on the Dope, thankfully) chalk that up to racial inferiority, but I’m relatively sure we all realize that being black doesn’t “mean” anything vis-a-vis crime. When we really dig into it, we find ourselves in social and economical issues. It’s not the being black; it’s the circumstances.
Maybe it’s the same concept with America. I’m not really sure, but I’d be willing to bet that we also have a higher rate of non-gun violent crime versus the rest of the world, too. And, I may be wrong about this, but don’t we have a higher rate of serial killers than other developed countries?
Our circumstances make us unique in time and place, in a lot of ways.
Regardless, I appreciate the conversation, and regardless of my tenets on guns, I’m glad you are doing your best to help society in the manner in which you see fit. With apathy so common, I must say I value the contributions of someone willing to at least try to understand/discuss/change things.
It’s not the guns. I don’t have the numbers available, but I think that 99% of the guns in the U.S. are not used in any sort of crime. Of those that are (according to cites I looked up 25 years ago, and I have no reason to believe it’s changed), many are only included in the crime incidentally (for example, a gun might be at a location but never touched) or they are used as a threat and not fired. Really, your solution punishes people who have never committed a crime and little or nothing to punish the bad guys.
IMO the problem is our society and the way we’ve grown as a country. I think the solution is to provide better education so that people can better themselves without resorting to crime. We need to reduce poverty. For example, Universal Health Care would allow people to get treatment without having to decide between it and food or rent. And healthier people are more employable and productive, so there would be less incentive to make money illicitly. We need to have a saner approach when it comes to drugs and alcohol. A lot of this is education. Another big part is treatment – treatment that would be covered under UHC. My ex-fiancée says that Dickens said it well in A Christmas Carol; that the majority of our problems come from Ignorance and Want. If we reduce ignorance by providing a proper education, fewer people will want. Those that are still in need can be helped. But in the end, people need to hope. Instilling hope, showing people that they can improve their lives and helping them do it, is hard and expensive. It’s much easier to pass do-nothing laws that only hurt the people who are not a problem.
I am going to say this with complete and utter honesty. If you are anywhere within driving distance of central Pennsylvania, send me a PM. There’s a firing range less than 15 minutes from where I live, we’ll go buy a few boxes of target-shooting shells for my Mossberg shotgun and some iced tea, and bullshit about politics while killing a few dozen bright-orange bits of clay.
About half of the people I know are gun owners. Every gun owner I know in real life is laid-back, respectful of their weapons and the potential dangers thereof, and I think they’d have the same reaction as you do to the nut you describe with the fence.
And really, I appreciate your honesty in admitting you don’t have a lot of practical experience with either firearms or firearm owners.
– Zeriel (flag-flying, gun-owning, Democrat-leaning average guy)
P.S. all you pro-gun guys reading this are invited too–none of my in-town buddies are clay shooters and I never have anyone to go with these days. =P
I second Zeriel’s invitation. I’d be happy to char some beef flesh with any of y’all and at least give you the opportunity to look at/hold/ and/or shoot any of my guns. So, if you’re ever in northeast Texas, feel free to send me a PM.
But if they could come up with a meaningful, functional definition, it wouldn’t be easy to get around it, would it? If their definition was “any weapon capable of fully automatic fire” is banned, then manufacturers couldn’t get around it without changing the fundamental functionality of the weapon. But that’s not what’s at stake here - it’s more like “you cannot have both a pistol grip and a bayonette lug” - solution? saw off the bayonette lug. Without the ability to mount a bayonette, the rifle goes from SUPER DANGEROUS ASSAULT RIFLE to… rifle.
Ridiculous on both counts. First, no .50 caliber rifle that I’m aware of has ever fallen under an assault weapons ban. Secondly, these rifles are at the extreme end of marksmanship - how in the world can they not have a sporting purpose? People buy them (for thousands of dollars, and over a dollar per each round) to fire them at very distant targets to test their skills.
Sounds like anything beyond black powder firearms to me. So really - that’s your definition? Legally? A standard under which just about any gun falls?
Assuming you’re referring to the north hollywood shooting, those weren’t “assault weapons”. That may sound silly, but they wouldn’t have fallen under the federal assault weapons ban. Why? Because they were actual assault rifles, illegally smuggled in from mexico. Actual assault rifles don’t fall under the assault weapons ban, because the ban doesn’t attempt to regulate anything with select-fire, just the non-functional characteristics of semi-automatic weapons.
You started the thread about how handguns as a group were too harmful for people to be allowed to own. A few posts ago you said “there’s no actual need for individuals to possess” rifles. It’s sort of deceptive to argue about how handguns are particularly dangerous as a type of gun, but actually seemingly advocate banning all guns. It seems like an attempt to give you a false sense of unbiased credibility - by being opposed to handguns specifically and maybe not the other stuff, you give the impression that you don’t want all guns banned, just the particularly dangerous ones.
And California has outlawed the .50 BMG. Even though it has never been used in a crime.
As to locking up guns in at shooting ranges. What about folks like myself that shoot on their own private property? Or others that share shooting ranges with LEOs where the only ‘facility’ is a dirt berm?
I shoot a number of different guns. I won’t mention different types of calibers and styles because that information seems to be useless to those that oppose firearm ownership.
I will say this though. The anti gunners are right. Any target pistol or revolver, any hunting rifle. Any plinker, any skeet gun, any goose gun, any varmit rifle, any so called ‘assault weapon’ or assault rifle can kill a person.
That the anti gun folks want to draw a distinction between them just shows how little they know about firearms.
Newspapers don’t kill people, people use newspapers to kill people.
Honest, Your Honor. I was cleaning my newspaper and it just went off!
mangeorge
You better add axes and hammers too. Any medieval knight would tell us (if he could) that such weapons are devastating.
You beat me to it. That’s starting to be a pattern.
Watch it, mister 
That would be a hell of a precedent.
We can’t define what this new law will be prohibiting in any intelligible way. We can’t put words to what we want. or even describe what it is we want to outlaw, because we don’t know what we are talking about and can’t be bothered to find out, so let’s just make a BIGGER LAW that outlaws all of it.
This is going to sound belligerant. Sorry about that (not really).
But I don’t need “you” deciding what I need or don’t need. I bet “you” don’t want me making those decisions, because I guaranteed I could come up with one hell of a long list, if it’s only about need. If “you” get to decide I can only have or do the things I absolutely need, then let’s just flush the constitution, the law, and any notion of freedom/rights down the toilet right now.
Will this thread ever return to the initial issue of bringing the national park gun rules in line with the local state laws?
Because that was the original question posted.
Yes, we really should end the hijack.
So, take a position and defend it! Drag this thread, kicking and sreaming if necessary, back on topic. 
Yes. Let’s do that.
See foreground here.
Given the choice between being on the receiving end of that thing, and being shot, I’ll take the bullet, PLEASE.
On topic gun threads live in the realm of unicorns.
So… Pistols. You know, despite what people have said in the past, during the Revolutionary War, pistols were essential arms. The French gave us thousands of pistols. Mostly Model 1777s, if I remember right.
I’m pretty sure they’re covered by the Second Amendment. Specifically.
How many Great Debate threads are ever really 100 percent on topic?
I think the vast majority of debate threads on this forum go “off topic” at some point.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a good thing. Otherwise some threads get to be like an old “Pong” game.
For the unponged among you.
Yep, that’s the whole game. And yes, people used to actually play it. For hours on end.
Ok then. As I pointed out way back in post #145 this new rule is merely an adjustment that aligns the gun laws of the national park system with the gun laws of the state the park is in. And why is this a reason foor concern?
Out here in Oregon there is one area only that this law applies to; Crater Lake National Park. It’s in the center of southern Oregon. To reach this enclave of gun safety you have to subject yourself to the gun laws of Oregon while driving through the state.
If you are an outdoors type of person you might wish to visit the Mt Hood National Forest, Siuslaw National Forest, or one of the 38 designated wilderness areas. Or umteen state parks. Or you might want to have a beer or coffee in downtown Portland.
In all of these areas the gun laws, including concealed permits, of the state of Oregon apply. I believe that the laws of Oregon should apply within Crater Lake National Park too. So do our representatives who voted for the change, including Peter Defazio (Dem), one of the most liberal reps in the House.
So explain to me why this is not a reasonable change instead of this huge cause for alarm??
