Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds? - Page 5
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 87

Thread: Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds?

  1. Interesting point.

    Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    I think if you can afford to buy, maintain, and arm an A-10, you should be able to own one. If you are ballsy enough to unleash its 30mm Gatling Gun upon society, I hope you're a great pilot since you'll have the best combat pilots looking to shoot you down.

    Same goes for a tank.

    Same goes for a sniper rifle.

    Same goes for a snub nosed revolver.

    "Arms" are not defined. I just hope the BG's aren't nearly as good at using them as the GG's.
    Thank you for this post. It really made me stop and think about the possible deterrents to someone using larger arms. On the other hand, don't you think that the people who can afford it -- ie: the very wealthy might be tempted to engage in oppressive behavior? I'm having apocalyptic visions of corporate America staging a military coup as opposed to the soft tactics they're using now. I dunno what I think yet - just a thought. but your point really hit me -- no pun intended. . . . *snicker, snicker*
    Last edited by BoomChick; 10-01-2008 at 09:58 AM.

  2.   
  3. Question Regulations on Ammo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canis-Lupus View Post
    Yup, BoomChick,
    Back to your question #1, when the general public can start buying and using Depleted Uranium rounds, any cal, I would wonder who would clean up a substance with a 1/2 life of 4.5 BILLION years (the earth formed around 4 billion years ago!), emitting lethal gamma radiation into the air, water and ground. A fave with our forces fighting in 2 war-zones. I don't think our Founding Fathers had DU rounds in mind when they drew-up the 2nd.
    So this brings up another interesting point, that I hadn't thought of.

    What about regulations on ammo?

    Depleted Uranium?
    Poisoned rounds? -- like mercury, cyanide or something else like that?
    What about ammo that just wounds to varying degrees?
    What about things like large weapons that emit sound and cause people to puke their guts out until you turn it off?
    Or that one that heats up the person from several yards away until they can't stand the pain and run off?

    First: I don't think I like the sort of ammo that seems to be more about cruelty than defense. For instance, I think I'm against things like poisoned ammo. Can someone make an argument for it?
    Second: Non-lethal weapons freak me out. Seems more for controlling civilian populations than aggressors. Anyone got an argument on this one?

    I really appreciate you folks helping me sort this stuff out. This is great.

    Thanks for the reply!

  4. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Canis-Lupus View Post
    Yup, BoomChick,
    Back to your question #1, when the general public can start buying and using Depleted Uranium rounds, any cal, I would wonder who would clean up a substance with a 1/2 life of 4.5 BILLION years (the earth formed around 4 billion years ago!), emitting lethal gamma radiation into the air, water and ground. A fave with our forces fighting in 2 war-zones. I don't think our Founding Fathers had DU rounds in mind when they drew-up the 2nd.

    Canis-Lupus
    Radiation is the most blown-out-of-proportion scare since the Cold War. EVERYONE gets "dosed", DAILY. Most people don't realize that smoking a pack of cigarettes will expose you to more radiation than laying in a tanning bed for a month. Depleted uranium's extremely long half-life indicates just how LOW its "volatility" is. Its radiation dose is only about 60% of NATURAL uranium. It takes much refining just to get it to the levels of fuel or weapons grade.

    Depleted uranium munitions are controversial because of unanswered questions about potential long-term health effects. DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury, and is only very weakly radioactive because of its long half-life. While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive epidemiological data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by BoomChick View Post
    So this brings up another interesting point, that I hadn't thought of.

    What about regulations on ammo?

    Depleted Uranium?
    Poisoned rounds? -- like mercury, cyanide or something else like that?
    What about ammo that just wounds to varying degrees?
    What about things like large weapons that emit sound and cause people to puke their guts out until you turn it off?
    Or that one that heats up the person from several yards away until they can't stand the pain and run off?

    First: I don't think I like the sort of ammo that seems to be more about cruelty than defense. For instance, I think I'm against things like poisoned ammo. Can someone make an argument for it?
    Second: Non-lethal weapons freak me out. Seems more for controlling civilian populations than aggressors. Anyone got an argument on this one?

    I really appreciate you folks helping me sort this stuff out. This is great.

    Thanks for the reply!

    Less than lethal devices like Taser Guns are great defensive tools. I feel that with proper training, all citizens who are of legal age (mainly 18 or older) should be able to have one. This is a great option for those who for whatever reason have a problem with taking the life of another. The Taser offers a level of protection without necessarily taking a life.

    Other types of rounds like "bean bag", "rubber bullets", etc. have specific uses. I don't feel that ordinary citizens should be prohibited from having them, however, I do feel that citizens should have proper training on how they work and what the limitations of those rounds are before they use them.

    Never heard of comercially made "poison" rounds. I don't see a need for round to contain a toxic substance. Proper shot placement should be exercised.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  6. great post Canis. I shudder to think what the future holds for me I was poking around in some of those tanks and BMPs. See you at the VA center I guess.
    ["Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
    - Ben Franklin
    FONT]

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    Less than lethal devices like Taser Guns are great defensive tools. I feel that with proper training, all citizens who are of legal age (mainly 18 or older) should be able to have one. This is a great option for those who for whatever reason have a problem with taking the life of another. The Taser offers a level of protection without necessarily taking a life.
    gf
    I'm trying to think of a scenario where I'd want to just incapacitate someone. . . . Taser, etc. doesn't seem appropriate for any of the ones I can think of, but maybe I'm being naive. Can you give me an example situation for that?

    I've always been a bit biased against Taser myself. But I'm open to hearing why you like them.

  8. #47
    Well, CL, I'm not trying to bust your chops, but my quotes were based on hypothetical concentrations similar to what someone might buy for their own personal use. I'm sure high concentrations of anything, especially any form of uranium, will give damaging doses.

    More later, I gotta go.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Green Valley (Henderson) NV
    Posts
    853

    My take on this.

    • Restricted areas.
      Only the secured area of mental health facilities and prisons. There is a reason that the firearms are outside of the general population area of a prison or mental health facility and non-lethal alternatives are only allowed inside that area. We know that carry in K-12 schools works UT being the poster State example of that. I am also in favor of civilian commercial airline carry.
    • Restricted firearms.
      Anything that can safely be handled by an individual. I don't care if my neighbor has a .50 cal Barrett in his garage as long as he can legally and responsibly own it. I am also in favor of repealing the Hughes Amendment to the CGA of 1968 which would legalize post-1986 civilian ownership of machine guns. Keep in mind that we have classifications of class III firearms known as destructive devices. I wouldn't want someone to own something that could level my house if they pointed it at my house and had an oops. But then again if someone wants to level my house all they have to do is plow through the garage and hit the gas meter or water heater. Realistically that is much more real threat with a drunk driver. You don't need a class III destructive device to destroy someone's home.
    • Restricted persons.
      Anyone old enough to vote or go into the armed services who are not violent felons. If you're old enough to vote and die for this country you should be allowed to legally purchase firearms and alcohol. The present restrictions per the CGA of 1968 are alright. The mental illness criteria is if you've been declared mentally incompetent by a judicial authority. It does not encompass voluntary admissions. I am also in favor of repealing the Lautenberg Amendment of the CGA 1968 which retroactively prohibits persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Unfortunately what judicial challenges that have arisen from that have not resulted in overturning of that law. Many active duty military and law enforcement had to resign once that amendment became law. The lucky ones were able to obtain a leave of absence to get the domestic violence conviction expunged and the federal firearm prohibition recended.
    • Ammunition
      It boils down to intent. Use of conventional ammunition shows you only intended to stop your attacker. Poison the round and you show intent to murder. Poisoning is illegal as far as I know in all jurisdictions of the US. Whether poison was delivered through a small arms round is irrelevant. There's also the issue of the accidents or negligence. You complicate the recovery process by allowing poisoning of rounds. I have no issue with having AP rounds unrestricted to the general public who can legally own firearms. Depleted uranium is a hot issue as you're dealing with possible radiation. Most of your conventional AP rounds use red metals to defeat level IIIA or lesser body armor. We also have had a few instances where a subject used body armor in a mass murder. The most recent being the Tyler TX courthouse massacre. TX LEs and a CHL instructor responded. The TX CHL instructor got two confirmed hits of the subject in that incident. Had AP rounds been easily available there would have been less loss of life. There is little to no body armor control. Typically criminal use body armor apply to using body armor in the commission of a crime. In most States, anyone can go out and buy body armor over the Internet.
    • Non-lethal alternatives.
      Not everyone has the mindset to use a firearm. They need less than lethal alternatives. Just like we all here have made the decision to CCW we must not forget those who choose not to. I have acquaintences and friends who respect my stance on the 2A and agree with it, but carrying or owning firearms is not for them. I have had prospective students tell me that CCW is not for them. I give them some non-lethal alternative resources and wish them well.

    There is also the argument that if you legalize something, the crime associated with that activity or item goes down. Legalize it so you can make a profit from it, control it and promote responsibility associated with it. That's been the philosophy of Nevada for many years and one of the reasons I like living here.

    We're the only State to have legalized prostitution in rural areas and have had legalized gambling forever. Our mayor wants to have a legal brothel on Fremont Street. Why not? We've legalized it so it can be regulated in the interest of public health and safety as a result of legalization you decrease illegal prostitution because of lesser demand. Same thing can be said for firearms. It definitely can be said with alcohol and our Prohibition era.
    Last edited by netentity; 10-02-2008 at 03:35 PM.
    Know the law; don't ask, don't tell.
    NRA & UT Certified Instructor; CT, FL, NH, NV, OR, PA & UT CCW Holder
    Happy new 1984; 25 years behind schedule. Send lawyers, guns and money...the SHTF...

  10. Talking Thank You Netentity

    I am really enjoying reading your post more than once. It is a big help. I think my personal rationale will end up being something like yours. The reasons you give are super. I truly appreciate you giving up the time to write your opinion in detail and back it up with logic.

    I like what you said about the areas that should be restricted and especially the implication that those areas would have to be properly secured already.

    Also agree about the "anything that can be safely handled" in terms of small arms. I have traditionally thought that I wouldn't mind restrictions as much if they involved weeding out the folks who can't hit a BG or miss me rather than focusing on what was being used. Also have no problem with "machine guns."

    As to who: I agree with you again, and like your reasoning.

    Ammo: yep. totally agree. dunno what I think about armor restrictions -- but probably against much if any. My CZ-52 puts bullets through armor quite well.

    non-lethal: hmm.. . . still hung up on this one. like the reasoning you gave though. will have to think about it more. I guess it depends on the non-lethal technology being used and whether it's more for personal or mass use. Still have a problem with taser though.

    Again, thanks so much!

    boomchick

  11. #50
    This thread gives me a bad bad feeling. Sorry. I probably should just keep my mouth shut.
    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast