Yeah, I doubt you’d kill but a fraction of the 1000 proposed deer with either of those unless you chained the deer down…especially the metal storm. No, what you want is one of these…and one of these for the deer (slightly bigger for 1000 deer, of course).
Sadly, none of these fine weapons are available to the general public, despite 'dopers apparently thinking Americans can get any type of gun they want anytime they want it, and if they want ‘something that can fell 1000 deer in under a minute?’ they can just get it.
I think the question still remains what kind of firepower is it reasonable for a private person to have? When would one need more than a six-shooter and a shotgun? If the Sandy Hook shooter had to reload every six shots, what would the death count have been? Six shots were enough for Dirty Harry (do you feel lucky, punk?), why does one need more?
Speed-loader. When I was a deputy sheriff, some of the older guys who had been trained in the 60’s or 70’s still carried revolvers. They reloaded with these about as fast as most deputies could switch magazines out in an autoloader.
Shotgunsaren’t always what you seem to think they are, either.
But your typical mass murderer may not be highly skilled in reloading and is going to be so full of adrenaline it might be even harder. I think whatever can be done to slow this kind of person down is a positive thing.
Why does one need that many (would be the next progression)? Why do you need more than one shot with your handgun perhaps one shell limit in the shot gun? Then…why does one need that many? How about one spitball and perhaps a paper football you can bat at someone? Then…why does one need that many…
BTW, I’m not sure if you know this or not, but a speedloader can reload a revolver as fast as a clip can be reloaded into a semi-automatic pistol. And even saying one is taking the time to reload a revolver isn’t saying that much unless you have the shells loose in your jeans pocket or something. With an extractor and even minimal practice it might take you 6 seconds to reload a revolver by hand and get it back into action.
Oh boy! Another thread about Guns – God’s Gift to the Exceptional Nation™.
It seems rather clear that BobLibDem deliberately set up a scenario that depicts the voters deciding. (Is the Exceptional Nation™ still a democracy?)
Perhaps it’s rude to assume that you read the post you respond to, but if you did, it sounds almost like you’re saying that when the voters make a decision you consider not “sensible” you needn’t abide by it.
Naw…it’s yet another in the long list of ‘America? Evil AND stupid, or just evil? Or just stupid?’ threads. And everyone is coming out of the woodwork to chime in and get their digs in. Thanks for joining the party, btw.
Let’s flip it around a bit- when has a private citizen ever had to fire more than six shots to repel a home invasion? It seems to me that society should balance that frequency vs. the times that someone has come out with guns blazing and mowed down multiple innocent victims. My take is that our elected representatives should be assessing the relative risks and pass laws accordingly.
Voters have, through the officials they have elected, decided all sorts of dumbass or evil, or both, things were sensible. Do I need to list some for you? They are pretty well known…slavery, for example, as well as all the Jim Crow laws that followed in its wake.
If our elected officials got to decide what the relative risk was to the public for anything and ‘pass laws accordingly’ (and if they could be trusted to actually make a good and fair assessment AND pass laws accordingly) we’d have nuclear power plants everywhere, none of us would be allowed to drink a drop of alcohol or smoke a single cigarette (or use any tobacco product at all), and McDonald’s would be out of business tomorrow.
As to your 6 shots to repel a home invasion, I’m not going to bother looking that up since it’s irrelevant. When does the average American need an 480 HP big block engine (or a high performance sports car)? How often does the average American need most of the things they have?
In Wisconsin one does have the right to carry knives and swords. At least openly.
Legislation to get rid of the concealed carry license requirement to conceal edge weapons recently passed as did a repeal of the stupid ban on switchblades. Been in my state senator and assembly reps ear on that idiotic law for years.
Now we just have to get rid of the dumb requirement for a license to carry a firearm concealed. One doesn’t need to be licensed to carry it openly, or to carry concealed on private property, why on Earth should you need a license to cover it up while in public?
I’m saying ‘need’ is not the driving force behind what people want. We don’t base every decision in society on ‘need’. We don’t ‘need’ alcohol or tobacco, yet we want them. We don’t ‘need’ that double cheese burger, cart sized fries and a trough sized coke (along with that double frapachino thingy and an apple pie) either…but we want it. Most of us don’t ‘need’ a gun in our house from a probability perspective, and we don’t ‘need’ a 12 shot or 20 shot or 50 shot clip either…but we wants it, yes, we WANTS IT MY PRECIOUS!!
As Bone points out above, there’s case law that does hold that blades are protected by the Second Amendment. The Connecticut Supreme Court, to pick another example, said in State v. DeCiccio, 105 A. 3d 165 (Conn. 2014):
That case quotes with approval Oregon’s State v. Delgado, 692 P. 2d 610 (Ore. 1984):
The Oregon case rests on state constitutional grounds, but pre-dates Heller and MacDonald.
I’m not a lawyer much less a constitutional expert. But I think a reasonable definition of “arms” as the term in used in the Constitution is “the kind of weapon an individual soldier might use”. So the constitutional right moves along with new technology. In 1789, it covered muskets. In 2015, it covers handguns and rifles. If it had existed in 1500, it would have covered longbows and swords and in 2200, it might cover phasers.
The other part of this standard is the difference between a weapon used by an individual and a weapon used by a unit of men. A single person can use a rifle or a handgun but it takes a group of people to operate artillery or a tank or a fighter jet or a destroyer or a nuclear weapon. So giving people the right to operate these weapons would mean giving people the right to form private military forces. And the Constitution doesn’t give any right to form private armies.
Not to answer for him, but my response would be that what I need is none of your business. Our constitutional rights don’t get parceled out based on your view of how much of them I need.
