<p>I was agreeing with you. I believe there should be background checks and waiting periods. The point to those who think that banning them would do the job instead is that if you don’t care about the law you can get one any time you like. I actually did some research and the number of handguns stolen and used in crimes is surprisingly low. I figured it would be higher but it wasn’t.</p>
<p>I don’t think they should be banned, regulation is fine. I don’t think the average joe should be able to own some of the more exotic weaponary without additional scrutiny and training. There are legitimate collectors and firearms afficianodos who purchase them the same as one would purchase a Monet or an ancient sword.</p>
<p>A good start would be to lose the inflammatory terminology of the left in defining firearms.</p>
<p>For example, California defines an “assault rifle” as any semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine that can have more than ten rounds of ammunition.</p>
<p>Federal law, on the other hand, classifies actual assault rifles as machineguns due to the way such weapons operate.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand your point, parent2noles. What’s inflammatory about “assault rifle?” “Machinegun” sounds just as bad. As does any description, however coy or convoluted, of a gun designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. That sounds like military weaponry to me, not something your average Joe citizen ought to be packing. But then, I’m just a simple lefty.</p>
<p>The problem is that California’s definition is incorrect. They simply chose certain features and made any semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one shot) gun that has them an “assault weapon”. </p>
<p>However, the true definition of an assault weapon is a fully automatic (one trigger pull = continuous firing as long as trigger is held) military rifle.
CA’s definition has nothing to do with the functionality of the rifle, and everything to do with aesthetics. Basically, it “looks scary”. But these guns are offered in the same calibers and are no more “dangerous” than any standard hunting-style rifle.</p>
<p>We’ve discussed this before, but I would offer that demonizing or making more horrible a perfectly legitimate rifle which is a common military arm is an effort to politicize a fairly simple issue that has finally been clearly called, by the SCOTUS, a personal right. It is time for this type of labeling to stop, as this is an unacceptable curtailment of personal rights under A2.</p>
<p>Singling out the current day military weapon (AK47, M16, etc) for special restraint (as in CA laws) is unacceptable as it denies law-abiding people the ability to possess common military arms. By any legitimate definition these rifles are the standard military arm of today in their machinegun configuration. These rifles are the Brown Bess of the American Revolution.</p>
<p>Echoing how Switzerland addresses the issue, all members of the active military and reserve (virtually all male adults) have a fully automatic weapon at their personal disposal at home. The machinegun functionality is disabled by a locking rivet and it is a crime to remove that rivet unless you are called to, or on, active duty. Such is as it should be in the U.S. with M16s and other government approved firearms.</p>
<p>Waiting periods, background checks, fitness for duty exams (not the Soviet kind, so get that out of your head right now) all would be acceptable, I would suggest under A2. </p>
<p>“Licensing” leaves me perplexed…how can a right be licensed by an authority that does not have the power to grant that right? As long as the “license” comes from G*d, then its ok.</p>
<p>Note that this regulation would not apply to pistols, only fully automatic rifles. Destructive devices (grenades, land mines, artillery, bombs, etc) all would be prohibited, as none are common military rifles.</p>
<p>I’m not a fan of gun control at all but I agree with Hindoo. Except in special cases, why would someone need an Uzi or M-16? Don’t try to pass off the 2nd amendment and regulated militia stuff. Some things aren’t necessary and it’s those that argue they need them that give fodder to the gun control crowd. Wow Hindoo, 2 in a row. I’m meet ya in Crittenden! lol</p>
<p>Who knows? Personal preference, collecting, rifle competitions, plinking, shooting vermin, preparing for burglars…whatever. Unless its used in a crime, its really not our business to question. </p>
<p>Hunting is usually restricted to firearms with limited magazine capacities and emphasis on sporting use.</p>
<p>I used to work with a guy that sold interesting kinds of weapons (blowdarts, crossbows, etc.) and he would bring them into the office along with a target and some of the people in the group would try target practice in the office.</p>
<p>He also told me about the time that he went to a place where the owner owned a lot of land and had old cars on it. People would pay to shoot up the old cars with their automatic weapons. Sounds like an expensive hobby given the price of bullets. Anyone have a problem with this kind of “sport”?</p>
<p>Sorry noles, can’t back ya up on this one. Some defined circumstances or whatnot is fine but not everyone. It doesn’t really matter much what you or I think, it’s the legislators and SCOTUS but that’s too far for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would actually be quite cool. I would consider that. I can see that as a case where that purveyor would be licensed to have those types of weapons and they couldn’t leave his premises or had to be used under supervision. I never said that no one could have them. Just don’t believe everyone should have access.</p>
<p>They shouldn’t be as easy to obtain as a hand gun. I understand what you are saying but am just having a hard time with it. My step-father and his brother own many different types of weapons. I believe there is probably an “assault rifle” mixed in there. They have property and go down and shoot them. Do I trust them with them, absolutely. Has my son gone down and fired them, yes. Do I think that there should be some sort of higher standard for owning them, of course.</p>
<p>Don’t let labels such as “assault rifle” throw you off. Here’s a link to the Civilian Marksmanship Program where surplus military rifles are sold to the public: [CMP</a> Home](<a href=“http://www.odcmp.com/]CMP”>http://www.odcmp.com/)</p>
<p>An eight-round M1 Garand, even if it is 1930s technology, is a fearsome military rifle in the hands of a trained shooter. It is THE assault rifle of WWII, but holds less than 10 rounds. It may be reloaded in a few seconds and is far more powerful than the M16 or AK47.</p>
<p>I’m not. I put it in " "'s for just that reason. Like someone said earlier…they want some banned because they look scary. I’m not a gun hater by any stretch.</p>
<p>“Assault weapon” is a political term, coined by the gun-control crowd. The gun-control crowd likes to twist names to make things sound scarier (the president of Handgun Control Inc. admitted this). For example an M1911 pistol, like the “.45” your grandfather used in WWII, would be considered a “machine gun” in DC. In California, an AR-15 (semi-automatic rifle that looks like an M16) would be banned unless its magazine was pinned in place and the pistol grip was removed…thus making it no longer an “assault weapon” by California’s terms. The 1994 Clinton AWB determined if rifles were “assault weapons” based on things like what kind of grip the rifle had, if it had a bayonet lug (0.5in piece of metal), a barrel shroud (which the author of the bill could not correctly describe), or an adjustable stock. Even with such stupid definitions, “assault weapons” are used in less than 2% of crimes committed with firearms.</p>
<p>An “assault rifle” is the correct term for a select fire (semi or full-auto at the flip of a switch) rifle which uses an intermediate caliber cartrige (like .223 remington or 7.62x39mm russian). These rifle cartriges are actually LESS powerful than most other hunting rounds (although .223 remington is exceptionally popular as a target shooting and small game round).</p>
<p>If lax gun laws increase crime, can anyone explain why states that expanded their concealed carry laws saw a decrease in crime? Why does Vermont, with no gun restrictions (that’s right, it is legal to carry firearms without any license or training–concealed or exposed) ranks as 49th in violent crime?</p>
<p>The US doesn’t have a gun problem, we have a crime problem!</p>
<p>We have a crime problem that is exacerbated by the easy availability of guns. I read that the Swiss has more fire arms per capita than the US, but a lower crime rate. The Canadians has lower firearms per capita and a lower crime rate. In Toronto, the police cite one of the reasons in the increase in gun violence as illegal firearms smuggled from the US.</p>
<p>ETA: I am not familiar with firearms, but I read the weapon used by Eric Harris of Columbine was “The TEC-9 was originally designed by Swedish company Interdynamic AB of Stockholm as the MP-9, intended as a cheap submachine gun based on the Carl Gustaf M/45 for military applications”. (from wikipedia) It has bullet proof vest penetrating capabilities and was nicked named “cop killer”. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to have that kind of weapons widely available.</p>
<p>Could you clarify what you mean by crime rate? Is this violent crime, crime with firearms, robbery, burglary, assault, etc? You’re tossing around terms which are vague which can be easily misconstrued when comparing countries.</p>
<p>USA #24 in the world, 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Canada #44 in the world, 0.0149063 per 1,000 people<br>
Switzerland: #56 in the world, 0.00921351 per 1,000 people</p>