Not exactly a gun debate.

I read a couple of the gund debate threads that have been floating around and have mixed feelings. I am not really sure I want to put anything out there that directly addresses guns.

But, what about those thing that are in that realm, but not exactly?

An example: armor piercing bullets.

Does anyone out there want to come out as pro/con?
On the same note, what about a weapon’s rate of fire? Are there any NRA members opposed to automatic weapons, but in favor of the continued legality of basic handguns and rifles?

Hmmmmm. I don’t think these were phrased very well. Well, tell me/us what you think.

Grendel: there are no such thing as “cop killer” bullets. A lie of the anti-gun crowd. There was one Co., that made special bullets to penetrate kevlar vests, but they were sold to Police depts ONLY, designed for SWAT teams, etc. No police officer was ever killed by one. Now, even the police can’t buy them, and they sure would have been helpful in that bank robbery in LA.

Now, there are a lot of military surplus rifle “armor piercing–AP” rounds, but those high powered rifles need no special bullet to go thru std “bullet-proof” vests.

As far as “full auto” goes, that is a dead issue, settled in the 30’s. The NRA has no desire to fight for full auto.

There are no such thing as “Plastic guns”, ie guns made especially to go thru airport security, either. Nor “disposable” guns.

If you want a good debate, try cheap, unsafe “saturday nite specials”.

Good try, tho. :cool:

Other gun “peripherals” would include bayonets, but I don’t think anyone really wants those for anything other than as a display piece.

But long-range hunting scopes, laser targeting sensors expanded clips, silencers… things like that can be a very hot topic for gun types. The scopes and laser sights can be very useful in hunting and target shooting, but I don’t think expanded clips would be needed for either activity (after all, if you can’t hit a deer after seven shots, you suck with a gun). Silencers… those can be useful while hunting (if you miss, you’re not going to scare your target away), but they also make illegal gun use a lot easier. In that case, I think the cons outweigh the pros.

Anybody else have ideas of what might be debated here?

Silencers are a dead issue, also, the NRA has no interest in them. Good sights are useful for hunting, as good ol Spoofe said, so they will not be banned.

How about guns that LOOK military, but are not, ie “assault guns”?

Daniel said:

Yes, there are “plastic guns,” but they are not mass-produced nor available to the public. As for “disposable” guns, whet do you mean by that term? Saturday Night Specials or any cheap gun could be considered that. Zip guns would fall in that category, too.

pinqy

Thanks Daniel. I wasn’t really looking for a debate as much as info on the things people don’t really discuss. I also was interested in seeing if any NRA members differed from the NRA’s official position.

On the subject of plastic guns…
“Likewise, the all-plastic guns which would have been undetectable by airport security equipment were
never actually manufactured, and thus had never been involved in a single act of violence.”

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kleck.pointblank.sum.html

I was also curious about the feasibility of ceramic guns. Urban myth or no? All I found was this especially wry site

http://www.claytonbailey.com/guns.htm

What do you mean by “a dead issue”, Daniel? Strong regulation of machineguns and suppressors since the 1930s does not answer the OP’s question, which is about how things should be regulated. Some pro-gun rhetoric rejects all gun regulations, past and future. If you take what a lot of people say at face value (no right to regulate guns = no right to regulate guns) then the Federal government should repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act and drop taxation of these items. It does no good to point out that the laws already exist if the debate is normative, as opposed to positive. If I’ve misinterpreted the OP, well, mea culpa.

Boris: just as there are anti-gunners who would ban ALL guns, there are gun-nuts who would repeal ALL gun laws. However, as far as I know, the NRA does not support such a position (ie legalizing machine guns), a Supreme Court case settled that THAT much gun control was constitutional, and I think there are few/none here who would argue in favor of it. Thus, no debate. I suppose we could set up a straw man and have fun taking turns beating it, but…

Pinqy: All plastic guns? I will agree that it is not impossible the CIA has come up with something, but have you any evidence? Glock said it would cost them 25-50 million in research to develope a gun none but terrorists would want to buy. And, yes, I agree SNS are sorta “disposable”, in fact I suggested them as a debate topic. But specially built “one shot- disposable” guns are a myth. (taking aside the “liberator” of WWII).

At this site, Mr Zambezi points out he “would place no limit on firearms” on this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26750
I’m not trying to drag him out for it, I’m just pointing out that, whatever their numbers, machinegun deregulators are among us.

I, personally, think the status quo ante 1986 was just fine: civilians could buy machineguns as long as they registered them and paid a $200 tax each time they transferred them. The 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act prohibited new machineguns from entering the civilian market. Thousands (roughly 200,000, IIRC) remain in civilian hands, where they are used in no known criminal activity. So it’s not really a dead issue in my book.

I thought the whole thing that set off the public outcry about “plastic guns” was that some gun manufacturers (Glock?) started modifying a few of the models that made by making a few of the peripheral parts of out of plastic (e.g. the handgrip and barrel shroud). This was to reduce weight, not to make the gun undetectable by an airport metal detector.

Not drawing me out Boris B. Feel free to point out any contradictions you spot. .

In colonial times, arms were those that could be carried. Weapons such as cannon were called ordinance. Therefore, teh constitution should protect machine guns. I have no problem with them being legal. Nor with Supressors.

The fact is, they are not terribly effective. THey eat up tons of ammo and are extremely innacurate. I fear )) buckshot more than a machine gun.

No, Boris, you interpreted my poorly phrased question perfectly.

As far as plastic guns…are you referring to the ceramic/porceline guns such as the Glock-17? I believe they could get past an airport security guard who wasn’t watching carefully (and lets face it, they don’t always) but was visible if you were watching. I don’t think there are all that many out there though.

As far as “cop-killers” just what constitues a “cop killer?” I have .308 full metal jackets for my L1A1, which could shoot through a bullet-proof vest just fine, but I only get them because they are cheaper. The hunting loads actually do more damage, even if less penetrating.

I am in complete agreement here. Safety and danger come from the user, not the weapon. If I am dangerous with a fully automatic rifle, then I should not be trusted with a bb gun either. If I am safe and responsible with a revolver or a single-shot pistol, then there is no conceivable reason why I would not be so with a machine gun.

Period.

And if I have demonstrated no reason for you to believe that I am unsafe or irresponsible with a rifle, then why would I be less so when that rifle is equipped with a sound-supressor? That is just as silly as claiming guns cause violence. They don’t. Violence has been an integral part of human nature since the dawn of history, and we are quite good at it, whether with firearms or without.

Whether a rifle is military in appearance, suppressed, capable of fully automatic fire, etc, has no effect whatsoever on my fitness to wield it (other than minor issues such as whether I have learned to handle it safely), and should have no bearing on its legality.

Mr. Zambezi said

You’re suggesting that the Constitution protects things that didn’t exist at the time it was written? That’s a friendly interpretation. I think we should clone Jefferson and the rest of the gang and ask them what they think, because I wouldn’t presume to speak for them.

You mean things like the radio, computer, and television.

Marc

MGibson wrote

I imagine you meant that to refute my point, but yes I’d include those as well.

“The monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us… avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils.”

-Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Dumbguy:

You’re suggesting that the framers of the Constitution were unable to anticipate that new technology would arise in the future? Based on the fact that they built a quite successful (so far) government that grew into a world superpower, I think that we can safely say that they were smart people. While they probably didn’t foresee things like automatic weapons, cars, or computers, I have no doubt that they were capable of predicting that guns would become better as the years went by. The fact that they made no specific mention of “advanced guns developed in times to come” or some such seems to indicate that they meant “guns”. Period. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, laser guns… whatever you want to call it. It’s a “gun”, and protected.

Anyway, enough on that subject for now…

With silencers, I would imagine that, ideally, they’d be legal to assist with hunting purposes or to lessen the noise created while target shooting (earplugs can, after all, be annoying). However, we don’t live in an ideal world, and there’re too many people (in my opinion) who would take advantage of the stealth granted by a good suppressor by using it against their fellow man. While I don’t like the fact that we can’t have silencers, I don’t see it as any great loss.

Saturday Night Specials are an insult to guns, in my mind. While some anti-gunners will call me a nut, I consider a firearm to be a work of art. It’s masterfully crafted for strength, durability, and reliability. I take care of our guns… just earlier today, I was polishing a 1974 silver-plated .357. That thing is amazing… perfectly weighted, designed flawlessly, fits into my hand perfectly… a work of art. SNS’s, on the other hand, are like cheap Michelangelo copies. A shoddy imitation that gives all guns a bad name.

As for plastic parts… sounds good, I think. A lot of airports no longer rely solely on metal detectors for finding guns/bombs/whatevers. Dogs, for example, should be able to smell the gunpowder in the bullets (yes, a dogs’ schnozz CAN detect that). Of course, I hardly think that we should scrap metal detectors entirely… but I don’t think plastic guns would be the threat that they would have been a decade ago. And if they make a gun lighter… well, it’d be easier to aim, better target-shooting… I’d be all for it.

And about automatic weapons… an untrained gunner with an MP-5 would be less dangerous than a trained gunner with a simple handgun. The main danger of an automatic weapon, however, is the potential collateral damage. With so many more bullets flying through the air, the potential for hitting innocent bystanders well-away from the scene increases quite a bit.

Certainly they were smart people, smart enough even to recognize the limits of their own intellects, which seems to be an exceedingly rare and generally unappreciated virtue.