So, bombings have gone down. But that have everything to do with the Good Friday Agreement and nothing to do with gun legislation.
This whole idea that the nutters will massacre with or without guns is rubbish. The main problem is that disturbed teenage boys can just waltz into their mums bedrooms and help themselves to an arsenal. They can’t do that here. Full stop.
Just to be clear, you are in favor of banningsemu-automatic hunting rifles, which have never been used in any mass shooting situation. That’s your proposed solution, correct?
ETA: or, for a more recent incident, the Beltway snipers ; although I’m hesitant to list it as you might be liable to semantically quibble like a bitch over the “mass” part since their massacre happened over separate incidents.
The M1 is primarily a military weapon, makes use of a magazine, and is classified as an assault rifle. I’m not going to argue with the fact that a hunter can take any rifle into the field he wishes, but I want to see a compelling case against outlawing semi-automatic rifles that are produced primarily for hunting purposes that have a limited capacity for rounds - one of the details that’s typically used to separate assault rifles from hunting rifles.
The outdoor range I belong to sells no ammo. The indoor range does, but at inflated prices. And it may not be a brand my gun likes. Semiautomatic pistols can be finicky about ammo: they can be 100% reliable with Brand A, and completely unreliable with Brand B So rather than risking going to the store on the day I want to shoot only to find I can’t get Brand A ammo because the store’s temporarily sold out, I’d rather keep a decent supply of it in my house.
Fine - keep all the ammo you want at home, and keep the gun at the range, under lock and key. You want to shoot? Great - shoot to your hearts’ content, and pay for the opportunity. Just don’t make the rest of us pay the price.
No, he wasn’t.
He stated that PA does have a blanket semi-auto ban, that it didn’t seem to affect hunting much, and that he himself wouldn’t mind seeing AR-15s go.
Previously, he’d also said that semi-auto rifles weren’t necessary and lazy in the context of hunting ; but that as far as target shooting went he had no problem with them. He further stated his own favoured solution (i.e. semi-autos only available at ranges & under lock and key otherwise), but admitted that in the end the political climate was such that moderate solutions such as his weren’t likely, and as such all semi-autos **might **end up getting altogether banned just to get at AR-15s. He finally stated he was generally OK with this… what’s the diametral opposite of a compromise ?
Your fevered knee jerk filled in blanks that weren’t even there, for **Dave **was pretty darn wordy, precise and comprehensive in what he wrote.
How would you define “mental trouble”? Would you approve of legislation prohibiting gun sales to people with “mental trouble”? What about prohibiting gun sales and ownership to people whose family members were taciturn?
I would expect that, given a hypothetical law restricting ammo purchases or strictly restricting recreational shooting to licensed facilities, there’d be increased competition among the various ranges that’d result in drops of on-location ammo prices. Right now, they certainly tend to gouge the lazy and the uninformed - but that would presumably not be the case if they were patronized by the entire target shooting spectrum.
Same here - right now, there might be little profit margin in stocking unconventional ammunition because, well, people who use uncommon guns mostly do like you do and bring their own. If customers couldn’t do that, they would demand it from the ranges, and ranges would jump at the opportunity to do more business.
Or we’d see the opposite, a standardization of gun types used and sold, as dictated by the limited ammo offer. Would that be really bad ? I’ll admit to being readily ignorant of these things, but I would naively expect say a given 9mm Parabellum pistol to shoot and feel pretty much just like any other 9mm Parabellum pistol - marginal differences in feel between models maybe, but nothing truly mind blowing or game changing in the end. Kind of like switching computer keyboards.
Wrong. He never said he had no problem with them. He said target shooting was a legitimate use, that hunting was not, and that he supported a total ban on semi-auto hunting rifles. He further stated that anyone other than a gun manufacturers should also support such a ban, and that it was “commonsense”.
Exactly. This was the point we were arguing when you showed up and failed to post one truthful thing.
Bullshit. I pointed out that he wants to ban a gun that is responsible for virtually no mass murders in this country. That is not a knee-jerk response. What is knee-jerk is popping into a thread, calling people names, posting falsehoods, all while failing to make anything resembling a point.
No thanks, I’ll keep my gun at home, where it can be of use for self-defense should I need it.
And if I (a teetotaler) can put up with the risk that the rest of you will drink and drive, than you can put up with the risk that a 50 year old woman may go on a shooting spree (hah!) or that despite every effort I make to secure my gun a thief may somehow manage to steal it. (Which could happen to a gun stored at a range just as easily - thieves specialize in breaking into places they shouldn’t enter and taking things they shouldn’t have, after all. Even gun stores risk theft.)
What various ranges? The Omaha metropolitan area has exactly one (and it’s not even located in Omaha, but in nearby La Vista).
I’ll grant your scenario might happen in areas with more than one public range. But public ranges aren’t as common as many people think.
To a certain degree, that has already happened. My father (who’s a collector) has several guns he can’t shoot because finding the proper ammunition for them is nearly impossible.
I’d expect that, too, to change in a big fucking hurry the day plinking (which I gather is mostly a rural thing, correct ?) becomes “outlawed” due to home ammo restrictions or becomes too much of a legal, red tape hassle to bother with any more. Biiiig market opening up.
And the resulting jobs couldn’t even *be *outsourced to China ! Winnage across the board !
Interesting. Did you know that the NRA advises guns not be kept loaded, and that guns should be kept where they are not readily accessible by ‘unauthorized people’ (i.e., your six-year old son wandering around the house looking for your p0rn stash).
“Excuse me Mr. Burgler, could you just stand there and wait why I go fetch my gun? Also, I’m going to need some time to get the ammo and then load my gun - just stand there for a bit, I’ll be right back”.
Yeah, that gun will come in right handy for self-defense. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
The problem with your ridiculous drinking and driving analogy is that cars also serve a useful function - even saving lives! Ambulances, fire trucks! - while guns…not so much. I know of no survey or study that suggests owning a gun reduces your risk of death.
Mainly because of the evident bad faith of those who support gun control. When the measures they support fail to reduce crime, they never agree that such laws should be repealed. Instead, they use it as a reason to push for even stricter laws.
For example, suppose gun control proponents push for and obtain a municipal gun ban in City X. In a later debate about gun control, someone on my side points out that the gun ban had essentially no effect on crime in City X.
Typically, the gun control proponent will respond that “OF COURSE it did not reduce crime. For gun control to work, it needs to be enacted on a much broader level.”
Well fine, but if it’s so obvious that gun control doesn’t work at the municipal level, why did support the law in the first place? And why are you not pushing to repeal it now?
Why would anyone support a law which he knows perfectly well will not accomplish anything at all? Seems to me the only reasonable explanation is that the person has a hidden agenda. He wants the law as a stepping stone towards more and more restrictive laws. And given that gun control pretty much never works, it’s pretty easy to see where this process will lead.
In sum, at best gun control proponents do not want to take my guns away in the same sense that a morbidly obese person did not want to get fat.
Here’s a suggestion: If you are a gun control proponent, and you sincerely do not want to take away everyone’s guns, then please demonstrate your good faith by lobbying for the immediate repeal of all gun laws which clearly did not result in a significant reduction in crime. Once those laws are repealed, we can talk about what laws might make sense.
