SkydiverRick 0 #301 January 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteSounds great. As soon as the criminals stop carrying guns, we can too. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I already stopped - in 1977. Wow! kallend carried a firearm until 1977. Very interesting, indeed! So, Prof. why did you stop? Why was it okay for you until 1977, but now that you've stopped, it's not okay for the rest of us? Or, have I just read too much into the vagueness of your arguments? I am very interested in your experience and decisions on this matter. He sounds like a reformed smoker. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #302 January 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo, fine, let's treat guns just as we treat cars... I would be in great favour of treating guns just like cars... I'm glad to hear that. OK, let's treat guns just like cars. We'll register our guns just like cars and license gun owners, just like driver's licenses. But in return, you'll have to grant gun owners the following favors, just like cars: ... Deal? Well, you missed some stuff. You can be disqualified from driving without committing a felony. Most localities DO have special laws, like restrictions on performance (aka speed limits), parking restrictions, no entry signs, lanes restricted to public vehicles only, etc. You have to pass a test to drive, and for bigger vehicles you need a more stringent test. Periodic re-testing is common. Vehicles are subject to periodic inspection for compliance with laws that can vary from state to state and city to city. Very specific federal construction, safety and performance codes have to be complied with. Each vehicle must have a unique ID, and you can't conceal vehicles in your pocket, there are size and weight limits, and their use is generally restricted to certain prescribed areas (roads, private property, and designated off-road sites). Tampering with the device that records useage (odometer) is illegal. High performance vehicles are generally not allowed on public roads but are restricted to private racetracks. I think that subject to an equivalent set of restrictions of that nature, guns could well be treated like motor vehicles.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #303 January 15, 2004 - No restrictions on owning high-performance guns, like machine guns. there are restrictions on high performance cars, such as speed regulators - No restrictions on "assault weapons" just because of how they look. the appearance of a gun or a car is irrelevant - No restrictions on inexpensive guns. but inexpensive guns, as well as cars, must meet minimum safety requirements - No restrictions on importation of guns. other than standard import restrictions that any other object would also fall under, no prob here - No background check for purchase of a gun. nope, but we do have the right to revoke your gun license, temporarily or permanently, should you fail to follow appropriate laws - No waiting period for purchase of a gun. no, but possession of a valid gun license must be required to carry the gun off the purchase premises - No government approval required prior to purchase of a gun. we require licenses of car drivers, gun users should fall into the same category, and have to take a "Gun Ed. Class" obtain a learner's permit, operate a gun under the supervision of a licensed gun user age 24 or over, take a written and physical test, and have "gun insurance" - No gun storage laws mandating how they must be kept. no prob here. but if someone is injured, the owner could be held liable, the same as if they were irresponsible with anything else they owned - No prohibitions on who can own guns. you can't own a car til you're 18. You can't own ANYTHING until you're 18, because you're a minor. same deal with a gun. Also, people who operate vehicles irresponsibly are no longer permitted to drive them. People who operate guns irresponsibly should no longer be permitted to use them either. - No restrictions on carrying guns in public places. no problem with that. - No restrictions on traveling with guns interstate. no prob with that either - No license revocations for first or second offenses of laws. you can lose your license for a first time drunk driving offense. it depends on the nature of the offense - No restrictions limiting gun purchases to only your state of residence. no prob here - No restrictions on mailing guns interstate. no prob - No restrictions on purchasing guns by mail. no prob - No restrictions on adults aged 18 to 21 preventing purchase of handguns. no, but if they don't have a valid gun license, they would not be allowed to carry the gun out of the store - And all of the above apply uniformly nationwide, no local exceptions. sounds good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #304 January 15, 2004 QuoteThe NRA has lots of members and is scary tp politicians, but it's still only a tiny fraction of the population. It's only scary to those politicians who would try and restrict the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. It's scary to them because they keep gun owners informed, so that they can vote appropriately to their concerns. Fortune Magazine, May 2001 The top 25 most influential lobbying groups: #1 National Rifle Association The National Rifle Association has replaced the American Association of Retired Persons as the group with the most clout in the capital. Although city slickers might be aghast at the ascendancy of the NRA, this is a highly focused, well-financed organization. Despite high-profile school shootings and unrelenting pressure from gun-control advocates, the NRA has held gun-control legislation at bay. How? By electing its supporters to Congress and, last year, to the White House. In particular, the NRA as pivotal in defeating Al Gore in Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia--all states that usually vote Democratic. If Gore had won just one of them, he would now be President. Nothing inspires zealotry like a threat, and few people feel more threatened than gun owners, more and more of whom are finding comfort in the NRA. It has 4.3 million members, up one million since last year, and two million since 1998. Its budget increased from $180 million to $200 million last year, including $35 million for political campaigns. The money supports a state-of-the-art lobbying machine with its own national newscast, one million precinct-level political rganizers, and an in-house telemarketing department. The NRA's pre-election rallies in 25 cities last year drew 5,000 to 9,000 people each--often more than Gore drew. The "Power 25" list is based on responses to a survey sent to over 2,900 people, including every member of Congress, senior Capitol Hill staffers, senior White House aides, professional lobbyists, and top-ranking officers of the largest lobbying groups in Washington. http://www.fortune.com/fortune/power25 All of this is simply democracy in action! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #305 January 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think when we're talking about something as important as a life, the life of myself, or my family, that it's not silly at all. I agree, that is why I live in a country where I don't need a weapon to make myself or my family feel safe. So do I, even though I'm in the same country as the gun-nuts. Don't take the diatribes you see in this forum as representative of your southern neighbors. We don't all bolster our egos with firearms and throw around police slang about "perps" to make attempts at vigilantism seem justified. Lots (not Lotts) of Americans are comfortable with both the level of police protection we have and with the frequently underestimated power of common sense. We don't all see the need to personally and violently strike back at every misdeed with equal or greater force. We don't see the point in chasing down and confronting criminals at gunpoint, only to increase our own likelihood of injury and death. Next time you and your family are near Washington DC, drop by my place. We'll sightsee, shop and dine downtown without fearing for our lives or carrying an arsenal, then retire to my house in the suburbs, where we'll sleep soundly and safely without a gun nearby. Those gun advocates in the forums who aren't nuts (you know who you are) are welcome to partake in the last offer as well, as long as your guns don't enter my home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #306 January 15, 2004 Quote He sounds like a reformed smoker. I am a reformed smoker. I quit in 1966.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #307 January 15, 2004 Well, I think you just made my point for me. Very scary, but not representative.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #308 January 15, 2004 Quote The NRA has lots of members... but it's still only a tiny fraction of the population. The NRA may only have 3.5 to 4 million members, but there are many more gun owners out there who are sympathetic to the work the NRA does, even though they aren't members. And polls show that somewhere around 35% to 50% of all Americans own a gun.. That's a significant number. Especially when it comes to voting. So when politicians propose laws that restrict the rights of one-third to one-half of their constituency, that's asking for trouble... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #309 January 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou don't believe it's asinine for the police force to carry guns, why not? Because it is a safety tool required to do their job. Why shouldn't ordinary citizens be allowed to have the benefit of the same safety tool that the police use? Those citizens are the ones that are out there getting attacked, to which the police respond. If it's necessary for the police to carry a gun to respond to a crime in-progress, then it should certainly be okay for a citizen to carry a gun to defend themselves against those same crimes in-progress. Your position is illogical. It also shows a basic distrust in the judgement of your fellow citizens... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #310 January 15, 2004 QuoteLots (not Lotts) of Americans are comfortable with both the level of police protection we have Going off topic for this thread, but hey, it's a party! Anyhow, how much police protection do you really have? If you or your family are the victims of a violent crime what protection do you expect from the police? Most likely they'll show up after the fact, how much protection do the police really provide? Unless you want to live in a police state with a policeman on every corner, in every office, in every house. . . the answer is simply not enough. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #311 January 15, 2004 QuoteThe police with the guns works to keep the small minority with guns away from the majority who like to live without guns... your question fails to show an understanding that eventhough society leans in a certain direction, it does not follow that everyone in the same society leans in that direction. Just a majority. Those who don't like guns do not get to rule over everyone else. Even if they were a majority, which they are not. We are supposed to be a society where the rights of others are respected, even if we disagree with them, as long as they aren't bothering anyone. And law-abiding gun owners do not harm or threaten anyone. So the anti-gun folks should learn to live with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #312 January 15, 2004 Unfortunately, that article doesn't portray the bigger picture of the NRA's clout. NRA has 4.whatever million members, currently. By most estimates, there are at least 80 million gun owners in the country. That's almost a third of the population. The 4 mil+ members bear the burden of funding and operating the organization that watches lawmakers and blows the whistle when they try to enact a knee-jerker or any other unfounded gun-control law. That whistle is heard by the 80 million. That's where the real power is. 4 million would barely make a difference in an election, but 80 million? That's a whole other story. That's why politicians are scared of the NRA. That's why Dems lost power in 1994 when they enacted the bs Clinton "Assault Weapons" Ban. That's why, if that gun ban gets through again this year, we'll see both republicans and democrats losing seats and libertarians gaining a lot of ground. My bet: That they let that cancer-ridden, flea-infested dog die quietly out behind the shed. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #313 January 15, 2004 QuoteI agree, that is why I live in a country where I don't need a weapon to make myself or my family feel safe. Are you aware that Canada has a higher violent crime rate than the United States? Here is a comparison I did back in 1998: * * * Canada has a violent crime rate of 1,080 per 100,000. The U.S. rate is only 610 per 100,000. Thus, Canada has a 77% higher violent crime rate than the U.S. Sources: US: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/98cius.htm Canada: www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Justice/legal02.htm Canada has all sorts of gun restrictions compared to the U.S., yet they still have 50% higher violence! * * * And since then, America's crime rate has dropped dramatically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #314 January 15, 2004 Quote>Why? If your society is polite and not prone to violence, why do the police need guns? Same reason that our air force needs F-14's but your average citizen does not. (Note that if you really want to buy an F-14 to fly around I'd have no problem with it, but I would have a problem with a cult leader who buys 10 of them and wants to arm them with JDAM's.) So you believe in forfeiting your right to ensure your own personal safety, and putting your security entirely in the hands of the government and police? I would say that the crime rates in this country prove that that philosolpy doesn't work too well. "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen." - Samuel Adams "Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now we bleat like sheep for security." - Norman Vincent Peale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #315 January 15, 2004 Quotein Canada it is illegal to walk around with a firearm. That way we prevent people from constently shooting eachother Ahhh... The naive belief that criminals obey the law, and forego carrying a gun, even though they may reallly want one. I'd like to sell you the London Bridge. Cheap! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #316 January 15, 2004 QuoteYou can be disqualified from driving without committing a felony. The same is already true with firearms. For example, if you commit a misdemeanor domestic violence, you are barred from ever touching a gun again as long as you live. QuoteMost localities DO have special laws, like restrictions on performance (aka speed limits) Speed limits don't limit the performance of a car. However, regulation of machine guns and magazine limits, do regulate the performance of a firearm. For guns to be like cars, we should be allowed to have magazines as big as we want, and only be punished if we misuse the gun to commit a crime. Cars, on the other hand, can be souped up with all kinds of horsepower, and be capable of doing 150 mph. That's not against the law. It's only a problem if you use that capability to violate the law. QuoteEach vehicle must have a unique ID Same with guns. Quote their use is generally restricted to certain prescribed areas (roads, private property, and designated off-road sites). Same with guns. Quote Tampering with the device that records useage (odometer) is illegal. Tampering with gun serial numbers is illegal. You haven't really provided much to distinguish cars from guns... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #317 January 15, 2004 QuoteThen there are other types of laws, which go far beyond prohibiting dangerous and harmful behavior. And that's where many of the gun laws have gone. For example, prohibiting handgun magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or prohibiting guns with pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. These kinds of things do nothing to harm anyone by themselves. These are the type of useless laws which should be revoked. Then there are other types of laws, which go far beyond prohibiting dangerous and harmful behavior. And that's where many of the gun laws have gone. For example, prohibiting handgun magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or prohibiting guns with pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. These kinds of things do nothing to harm anyone by themselves. These are the type of useless laws which should be revoked. The only way to hurt someone with a flash suppressor is to unscrew it from the end of your gun barrel and throw it at someone. But I can do that with a rock. If flash suppressors were legal, it would make them more available. Consequently they would probably facilitate crime alone, because there is no conceivable legal use for one. And don't tell me they wouldn't help criminals, that's retarded. If you are going to want to get away with a shooting, it only makes sense to use a silencer. And why does anyone need a handgun with more than ten rounds? If you can't hit a guy with 10, 12 will probably not make much difference. Until now I didn't notice I was debating gun laws with a texan. My participation in this thread has come to an end. "frustration is to circle the border of one's own mind, and find the journey shorter than expected" -meLife is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #318 January 15, 2004 QuoteDon't take the diatribes you see in this forum as representative of your southern neighbors. We don't all bolster our egos with firearms and throw around police slang about "perps" to make attempts at vigilantism seem justified. We don't all see the need to personally and violently strike back at every misdeed with equal or greater force. We don't see the point in chasing down and confronting criminals at gunpoint, only to increase our own likelihood of injury and death. You grossly mischaracterize the nature of people who are licensed to carry concealed handguns. And carrying a handgun does not increase your chance of injury or death in a criminal attack - it greatly lessens it. I've got the statistics to prove it. Would you like to see them? QuoteNext time you and your family are near Washington DC, drop by my place. We'll sightsee, shop and dine downtown without fearing for our lives or carrying an arsenal, then retire to my house in the suburbs, where we'll sleep soundly and safely without a gun nearby. Ah yes, Washington, D.C., the murder capital of America, with a higher per capita murder rate than any other place in the entire country. And even if you did want a handgun in your home for self defense, you couldn't, because the law in D.C. doesn't allow it. Do you suppose that the two facts that D.C. is the murder capital of America, and also doesn't allow handgun ownership by it's citizens, are correlated? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #319 January 15, 2004 We interrupt this program to bring you... http://www.lifelibertyetc.com/t-shirts.aspx We apologize for this interruption and return you to your regularly scheduled bickering, already in progress. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #320 January 15, 2004 >I'm glad to hear that. OK, let's treat guns just like cars. We'll register > our guns just like cars and license gun owners, just like driver's > licenses. And require mandatory yearly inspections and insurance. OK. Otherwise: >No restrictions on owning high-performance guns - You can own any gun that meets US safety regulations, but cannot buy a foreign gun that does not meet safety or design regulations. >No restrictions on importation of guns. - See above. >No background check for purchase of a gun. - Actually, your background would be checked for violations, and your license would be revoked for serious infractions. >No government approval required prior to purchase of a gun. - To buy a gun you will need a gun license, proof of insurance and the registration papers. Full service gun dealers will have insurance and registration handled right there, for a fee (of course.) >No gun storage laws mandating how they must be kept. - Several laws will regulate where your gun can be kept. It cannot travel on roads not approved for guns, and it cannot be brought into designated areas (like malls.) It must be inspected once a year. >No prohibitions on who can own guns. - As long as they can afford the insurance and registration, pass the "drivers" test, and do not have anything in their background that would prohibit their usage. >No restrictions on carrying guns in public places. - Sorry! No guns in marked public places. You can't bring your car with you into the movie theatre, now, can you? >No license revocations for first or second offenses of laws. - Immedate license revocation and confiscation of the gun if you are ever found carrying it intoxicated, or if you use it recklessly. >No restrictions on purchasing guns by mail. - As long as all licensing, insurance issues etc are complied with. >No restrictions on adults aged 18 to 21 preventing purchase of handguns. Provided they jump through all the hoops. >And all of the above apply uniformly nationwide, no local exceptions. - Sorry again! Each city and state sets their own regulations on where you can carry it, under what conditions, and what you have to have on you. Each state has different insurance requirements, registration requirements, safety requirements etc. Methinks you would not like a place where guns were licensed like cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #321 January 15, 2004 PMing, as to avoid feeding the trolls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #322 January 15, 2004 QuoteUnfortunately, that article doesn't portray the bigger picture of the NRA's clout. NRA has 4.whatever million members, currently. By most estimates, there are at least 80 million gun owners in the country... Correct! QuoteMy bet: That they let that cancer-ridden, flea-infested dog die quietly out behind the shed. Correct again! The democrats learned in the last national election that gun-control is a proposition that costs votes. If they hadn't been so fervent in their cries to regulate guns, Al Gore would now be President. The pendulum has swung as far as it is going to swing, and now the cycle is going back the other way. The die-hards still want to ban and restrict guns, they're just keeping their mouths shut about it. They don't want to rally gun owners against them. So they'll be coy about it, and tap dance around the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #323 January 15, 2004 I am sorry, but you really have no clue what you're talking about. Flash suppressors are an object which affixes to the end of a barrel to reduce the flash (light, not sound) signature of a rifle. In the late sixties, they were used, but are completely outdated as now most rifle powders have little or no flash signature and what flash there is, is usually completed while the bullet is still within the barrel. As a matter of fact, the M16A2 service rifle does not have a flash suppressor, it has a muzzle brake. Muzzle brakes, otoh, are very useful in reducing recoil and muzzle rise on a firearm. They look nearly identical to a flash suppressor. Nonetheless, neither is a sound suppressor or silencer. Quite the contrary, both redirect sound to make it louder beside and behind the shooter than without one. Magazine restrictions are insane--utter stupidity. I can give you a 15-round magazine and I will take two 8-round magazines and I will bet you a dollar that I will empty both magazines more accurately and faster than you (or most people) could with the single 15-round magazine. As for a rifle, I would give you one 30 rounder and take three 10-rounders and make the same bet. Bottom line, it is an unfounded law that only addresses the cosmetic appearance of a firearm, and not the firearm itself or its operation. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdweller 0 #324 January 15, 2004 I can't imagine that this TROLL is going to change peoples idea either for or against gun control------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #325 January 15, 2004 QuoteIf flash suppressors were legal, it would make them more available. Consequently they would probably facilitate crime alone, because there is no conceivable legal use for one. And don't tell me they wouldn't help criminals, that's retarded. If you are going to want to get away with a shooting, it only makes sense to use a silencer. Apparently you do not understand the difference between a flash suppressor and a silencer. They are two different things. Flash suppressors only mute the muzzle flash - the fire coming out of the barrel. They also mute the shock wave a bit, which is kind to your fellow shooters beside you. It in no way silences the gun. They were banned, basically because they make a rifle "look scary" to some people. QuoteAnd why does anyone need a handgun with more than ten rounds? What limit would you like to impose upon handguns? Fill in the blank: "I don't think any handgun should be allowed to have a magazine capacity of more than ___ cartridges." There are handgun competitions where big magazines are useful. And when target shooting, you just have to stop and reload less often. Besides, it only takes about a second to change magazines. Do you really think that the one second a criminal loses changing his magazine is going to substantially increase the odds in favor of the people he's trying to kill? Like you said, if he can't kill his victim with 10 rounds, then why would he need 20? Quote Until now I didn't notice I was debating gun laws with a texan. So? What difference does that make? P.S. "Texan" is spelled with a capital "T". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 13 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JohnRich 4 #322 January 15, 2004 QuoteUnfortunately, that article doesn't portray the bigger picture of the NRA's clout. NRA has 4.whatever million members, currently. By most estimates, there are at least 80 million gun owners in the country... Correct! QuoteMy bet: That they let that cancer-ridden, flea-infested dog die quietly out behind the shed. Correct again! The democrats learned in the last national election that gun-control is a proposition that costs votes. If they hadn't been so fervent in their cries to regulate guns, Al Gore would now be President. The pendulum has swung as far as it is going to swing, and now the cycle is going back the other way. The die-hards still want to ban and restrict guns, they're just keeping their mouths shut about it. They don't want to rally gun owners against them. So they'll be coy about it, and tap dance around the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #323 January 15, 2004 I am sorry, but you really have no clue what you're talking about. Flash suppressors are an object which affixes to the end of a barrel to reduce the flash (light, not sound) signature of a rifle. In the late sixties, they were used, but are completely outdated as now most rifle powders have little or no flash signature and what flash there is, is usually completed while the bullet is still within the barrel. As a matter of fact, the M16A2 service rifle does not have a flash suppressor, it has a muzzle brake. Muzzle brakes, otoh, are very useful in reducing recoil and muzzle rise on a firearm. They look nearly identical to a flash suppressor. Nonetheless, neither is a sound suppressor or silencer. Quite the contrary, both redirect sound to make it louder beside and behind the shooter than without one. Magazine restrictions are insane--utter stupidity. I can give you a 15-round magazine and I will take two 8-round magazines and I will bet you a dollar that I will empty both magazines more accurately and faster than you (or most people) could with the single 15-round magazine. As for a rifle, I would give you one 30 rounder and take three 10-rounders and make the same bet. Bottom line, it is an unfounded law that only addresses the cosmetic appearance of a firearm, and not the firearm itself or its operation. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #324 January 15, 2004 I can't imagine that this TROLL is going to change peoples idea either for or against gun control------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #325 January 15, 2004 QuoteIf flash suppressors were legal, it would make them more available. Consequently they would probably facilitate crime alone, because there is no conceivable legal use for one. And don't tell me they wouldn't help criminals, that's retarded. If you are going to want to get away with a shooting, it only makes sense to use a silencer. Apparently you do not understand the difference between a flash suppressor and a silencer. They are two different things. Flash suppressors only mute the muzzle flash - the fire coming out of the barrel. They also mute the shock wave a bit, which is kind to your fellow shooters beside you. It in no way silences the gun. They were banned, basically because they make a rifle "look scary" to some people. QuoteAnd why does anyone need a handgun with more than ten rounds? What limit would you like to impose upon handguns? Fill in the blank: "I don't think any handgun should be allowed to have a magazine capacity of more than ___ cartridges." There are handgun competitions where big magazines are useful. And when target shooting, you just have to stop and reload less often. Besides, it only takes about a second to change magazines. Do you really think that the one second a criminal loses changing his magazine is going to substantially increase the odds in favor of the people he's trying to kill? Like you said, if he can't kill his victim with 10 rounds, then why would he need 20? Quote Until now I didn't notice I was debating gun laws with a texan. So? What difference does that make? P.S. "Texan" is spelled with a capital "T". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
