United States Gun Control [Read the first post before posting, like, every bit of it]

[BigLutz]

the ban is also going to affect most handguns, you linked to an article saying these were the main offenders and i already went over this? so sane people will still be able to have a small handgun effective for self defense, insane people won't be able to load up on 15-20 round handguns and shoot up schools....??????

From what I found there is no article saying it will affect "most handguns" it will effect guns with clips over 10 bullets, but that is rather useless, as not only can anyone make a longer clip, but they can easily reload as well.

??? what? how is an assault rifle ideal for hunting? the ideal hunting rifle is a decent caliber single shot bolt or lever action rifle, preferably with a scope. you don't need to unload a clip of 20 rounds into a deer to kill it

They provide low recoil and very high accuracy, which is why the military uses a similar design.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-daniel-foster

[moot]

From what I found there is no article saying it will affect "most handguns" it will effect guns with clips over 10 bullets, but that is rather useless, as not only can anyone make a longer clip, but they can easily reload as well.

try looking at the most popular firearm brands. like 90% of models produced have a 13-20 round magazine size

They provide low recoil and very high accuracy, which is why the military uses a similar design.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-daniel-foster

recoil shouldn't affect hunting. if you hit it first shot like you're supposed to, the animal will go down. if you need to take multiple shots in quick succession hunting is probably not for you. as for accuracy, rifles like the .308 winchester are effective over several hundred metres and work on animals as large as moose and elk.

[BigLutz]

try looking at the most popular firearm brands. like 90% of models produced have a 13-20 round magazine size

And yet they only have to ban the manufactures from making such large clips, such as putting in a simple plastic block that would cover the extra rounds. So I think you are confusing hand guns with regulating clips.

recoil shouldn't affect hunting. if you hit it first shot like you're supposed to, the animal will go down. if you need to take multiple shots in quick succession hunting is probably not for you. as for accuracy, rifles like the .308 winchester are effective over several hundred metres and work on animals as large as moose and elk.

As the article states it is more for hunting smaller animals like rabbets, and by the way if you miss on the first shot which many people do, the animal more than likely isn't going to stand around and let you take a second.

[moot]

And yet they only have to ban the manufactures from making such large clips, such as putting in a simple plastic block that would cover the extra rounds. So I think you are confusing hand guns with regulating clips.

if they become illegal they're obviously going to adapt to their largest market. why even leave the option on the table

As the article states it is more for hunting smaller animals like rabbets, and by the way if you miss on the first shot which many people do, the animal more than likely isn't going to stand around and let you take a second.

first point: you're obviously not going to be hunting rabbits from long range, a small rifle will do fine for smaller critters. also don't need multiple shots, because you're not going to hit a hare/rabbit moving at full speed. as for the second, yeah that's what i said. you don't need more than a single shot weapon when you're hunting, because if you miss and just spray bullets from an AR15 trying to hit it hunting may not be the sport for you.

[BigLutz]

if they become illegal they're obviously going to adapt to their largest market. why even leave the option on the table

I don't think you are understanding me, the ban deals with high capacity clips, all they need to do is shorten the number of bullets that the clips can hold.

first point: you're obviously not going to be hunting rabbits from long range, a small rifle will do fine for smaller critters. also don't need multiple shots, because you're not going to hit a hare/rabbit moving at full speed. as for the second, yeah that's what i said. you don't need more than a single shot weapon when you're hunting, because if you miss and just spray bullets from an AR15 trying to hit it hunting may not be the sport for you.

Okay this is becoming incredibly subjective, you may not think they need it, but as we covered in this thread already, there are alot of things we do not "need" to do things in life.

[Silvershark]

recoil shouldn't affect hunting. if you hit it first shot like you're supposed to, the animal will go down. if you need to take multiple shots in quick succession hunting is probably not for you. as for accuracy, rifles like the .308 winchester are effective over several hundred metres and work on animals as large as moose and elk.

Ideally, yes you should only need one shot, but in the field things aren't always ideal. Not everyone is a perfect shot all the time, and even if they were, sometimes a perfect shot in the vitals isn't enough. I have seen first hand deer that just would not go down after a heart or lung shot. Deer and elk, especially elk, can be more than capable of running several hundred yards after being shot. Yes, ideally you do make that perfect shot, most of the time that will be enough to drop the animal, but there are always those exceptions. Better to be able to limit how far the animal gets in those cases and increase your chances of retreiving the animal than letting it go to waste.

And yes, recoil does affect hunting. It affects the accuracy of the firearm, which is vital to making ethical shots.

Though I do agree that .308 Winchester is one fine and effective caliber.

[moot]

I don't think you are understanding me, the ban deals with high capacity clips, all they need to do is shorten the number of bullets that the clips can hold.

I understand very clearly. I was saying if it's just left to the manufacturers, high capacity clips wouldn't be illegal, they'd still be on the market and psychos could still buy them. That is not a very effective idea.

Okay this is becoming incredibly subjective, you may not think they need it, but as we covered in this thread already, there are alot of things we do not "need" to do things in life.

It became subjective when you said the AR15 is the ideal hunting weapon, all I was saying was that it's overkill. You can kill an animal easily enough with a lesser gun.

Also Silver shark, obviously you're not going to get a clean kill everytime, but you would get the same problem with an AR, too. There is no perfect weapon for it, but I think it's fairly easy to say the AR15 is totally overkill while still not being flawless.

[BigLutz]

I understand very clearly. I was saying if it's just left to the manufacturers, high capacity clips wouldn't be illegal, they'd still be on the market and psychos could still buy them. That is not a very effective idea.

Which is why I believe we were speaking of the Feinstein bill. That being said, as I said before making a high capacity magazine is not THAT hard.

It became subjective when you said the AR15 is the ideal hunting weapon, all I was saying was that it's overkill. You can kill an animal easily enough with a lesser gun.

I was speaking of the design and provided you a link to back it up, it being overkill or not is up to the hunter.

[Silvershark]

Also Silver shark, obviously you're not going to get a clean kill everytime, but you would get the same problem with an AR, too. There is no perfect weapon for it, but I think it's fairly easy to say the AR15 is totally overkill while still not being flawless.

That's for the hunter in question to decide. For an elderly or disabled hunter, an AR-15 could be ideal with its simple, light weight, low recoil design.

[darkjigglypuff]

That's for the hunter in question to decide. For an elderly or disabled hunter, an AR-15 could be ideal with its simple, light weight, low recoil design.

In fact, my grandmother uses an AR-15 for home defense for this reason. It's very easy to handle and maintain for more fragile people, and 30-round magazines let her defend herself even with shaky aim.


Here's a tip, by the way: You need to prove, with an actual statistic, that the number of gun-related murders would go down, or that mass shootings would be less dangerous, if only 10-round magazines were available. You need to prove this, because otherwise it's baseless speculation. Prove to me that only allowing the sale of small magazines will decrease murder-rates, because otherwise, you're doing something entirely based on a kneejerk reaction.


Also, relating to an early post in the thread: No, actually, .22 is NOT a good personal defense round. It is a plinking and varmit round, and will do jack to a full-grown man bent on raping/killing/whatever. And only 10 rounds of it, in semi-automatic fire? You'd be lucky to even startle them.


And hey, here's another thing: As a general trend, as the 'destructive potential' of weapons goes UP, it so happens that the amount of crime committed with them goes DOWN. In fact, the least powerful weapons notably, small pistols which hold less than 20 round anyways) are the ones most used in crimes, while more 'destructive' firearms are more commonly used for home defense, recreation, and hunting.

So, the 'Assault Weapons Ban' is entirely useless.

[Lord_Kain]

Support. Gun Control laws are a joke as they are now. Anyone can own an ASSAULT rifle. Yes, we have the right to bear arms. However, when that was written, ARMS DID NOT REFER TO AUTOMATIC WEAPONS that can take out tens and tends of people in seconds. The NRA needs to get their sh*t together.

but they DID have cannons....

[master3019]

Haha. I came late to the discussion. So I personally don't think we need stricter gun control laws, but I am in favor of a background check. The second amendment states that it CAN'T BE INFRINGED. Limiting our second amendment rights would be unconstitutional. However, if we do background checks, a) responsible gun owners won't have their rights limited, and b) insane people will have trouble getting guns. But limiting our gun rights will only take the weapons from the hands of good people. Last time I checked, criminals don't obey the law. Why should it be different for this one?

[WizardTrubbish]

The second amendment states that it CAN'T BE INFRINGED. Limiting our second amendment rights would be unconstitutional.

Constitutional rights are not unlimited. The first amendment protects freedom of speech but it's not unrestricted. Death threats, libel, and copyright violations are all illegal. By your logic, banning death threats would also be unconstitutional.

[7 tyranitars]

Haha. I came late to the discussion. So I personally don't think we need stricter gun control laws, but I am in favor of a background check. The second amendment states that it CAN'T BE INFRINGED. Limiting our second amendment rights would be unconstitutional. However, if we do background checks, a) responsible gun owners won't have their rights limited, and b) insane people will have trouble getting guns. But limiting our gun rights will only take the weapons from the hands of good people. Last time I checked, criminals don't obey the law. Why should it be different for this one?

Well you atleast try to give criminals a hard time trying to get the weapons. Otherwise it just sounds like giving up.

[WizardTrubbish]

Also, if criminals don't follow laws, then why do we have laws in the first place?

[BigLutz]

Constitutional rights are not unlimited. The first amendment protects freedom of speech but it's not unrestricted. Death threats, libel, and copyright violations are all illegal. By your logic, banning death threats would also be unconstitutional.

All of those cause personal harm or damage to another person. By your logic, everyone can have whatever gun they wish as long as they do not shoot or aim it at some one.

[master3019]

If someone wants a weapon for protection, go for it. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have their uninfringable gun rights infringed. I just don't want to sell them to psychos. And I want armed guards at school doors. Had there been one at Newtown, it wouldn't have happened.

[moot]

there was security at columbine and that still happened

[master3019]

there was security at columbine and that still happened

More security, then.

[BigLutz]

there was security at columbine and that still happened

The security was not actually inside of the school, he exchanged fire with the shooter and then he waited until police to arrive, in other words he did nothing resembling actual school security.