Expert Actress on Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
I just looked that up, and the mandatory buy back was on prohibited weapons only:

• a calibre that is greater than .38”, (unless the handgun is used to participate in a specially accredited event, in which case a handgun of up to .45” calibre will be permitted).

• a barrel length of less than 120 mm for semi-automatic handguns and 100 mm for revolvers and single-shot handguns; and

• a magazine/shot capacity that exceeds 10 rounds.

Yet you have a valid point. On the other hand, that ended their mass shootings, a point pro-life people should consider.
Click to expand...
Banning these weapons would make it harder for mass shootings to occur (not perfectly though, e.g. Cumbria shooting), but it is not necessary. We can also greatly reduce mass shootings by strengthening security at schools and our background check. How many mass shootings do you see done by cops and military who carry assault rifles? Little to NONE.

All we need to do is require the same background checks (routine, and not one time) and some training that cops and soldiers go through. Going the way you mentioned reduces the citizen ability to defend him or herself which should be the main factor.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thing… you can make a really, really nasty round in less than .38" calibre. Perhaps the most lethal round in the U.S. is the .22LR; ironically it also has very high one-shot threat ending capacity too, with percentages nearly equal to say a .45ACP (though one-shot-stop doesn’t really work that well as a comparison with service/duty calibres). And, with its ease of control, you can accurately put a lot of rounds down range in a pretty short period of time. Also, the cartridge itself is very light weight, so a lot of them doesn’t weigh a ton.

All of this talk about gun issues is really making the ammo market go nuts. That’s really annoying for those of us who follow the rules, and either like to shoot, or need to practice for carrying.

My usual carry Sig P238 appears to be one of those prohibited things as its barrel is a bit under 3". I hardly think that a P238 is going to be a mass shooter’s choice of weaponry. The same goes for my sometimes carry P938 (workbench queen) with a barrel less than 120mm.

All this anti-gun B.S. has also made me realize that maybe I should buy a few things that I want before stuff becomes harder to find. A couple of 10mm autos, maybe a Tokarev just for the heck of it. The criminals certainly haven’t downgraded their arsenals.
 
Contrary to some claims by Democrat representatives, I’ve found that it’s possible to own a fully automatic weapon (commonly referred to as class 3 weapon) as a US civilian. There are plenty of restrictions of course, has to be made before 1986, registered with the feds, routine checks, and “extensive background checks”. Here’s one sourcehere).

How many mass murders or any murders are committed by LEGAL (not drug gangs) class 3 gun owners? Little to none. (Keep in mind, those who illegally modify their semi-auto assault rifles don’t count here). Why can’t we implement the same process for any type of gun?
 
Last edited:
gun ownership is a right any adult 18 yr and older, has the right to exercise it without permission from the govt, unless they are mentally incompetent or are a convicted felon. background checks have been required for decades and are screened by the FBI. no knee jerk reaction passing unconstitutional laws can stop a determined killer. You are responsible for your personal protection. the police. as stated numerous times by the Supreme Court have no duty under the law to protect, the individual citizen. What you are left with is deciding whether your going to be a sheepdog or a sheep.
 
krhill49er said:
no knee jerk reaction passing unconstitutional laws can stop a determined killer.
Click to expand...
The logic error is the use of undefined adjectives that change everything.

Unconstitutional - This word is too often used to mean “my opinion of the Constitution.” This is the usage here, as there can be nothing but personal opinion about a law that does not yet exist and had not been tested. The legal meaning of the word is something that has been found by the highest court to consider the matter as unconstitutional.

Determined - This is a word that has no one meaning. How determined does one have to be to be “determined.” The fact is, many would-be killers have been stopped. Also, the amount of determination needed to do something that is easy is not the same amount that is needed to do something difficult.

I think with every death the country becomes more fed up with these excuses. Just because not every crime can be stopped is a sorry excuse for inaction.
 
krhill49er said:
gun ownership is a right any adult 18 yr and older,
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not mention an age. If the argument from absence made ownership of guns a right for 18 year-olds, the same argument could be used for eight year-olds.
 
No, because 8 year olds are not deemed competent to manage their own affairs. 18 is the legal age of adulthood.
 
starshiptrooper said:
No, because 8 year olds are not deemed competent to manage their own affairs. 18 is the legal age of adulthood.
Click to expand...
In some matters (such as age of consent for sex, being able to drive, get a job or join the military) people may be deeemed “adult” at 16 or 17. And in some matters (eg drinking alcohol) one might not be deemed “adult”.until 21. So being adult is a somewhat fluid concept.
 
I think a lot of people are ignorant and simplistic about this whole age of adulthood thing. There are a lot of variables. At 15, kids can be tried as adults. At 17, they are always tried as adults. At much younger ages, they can consent to sex with someone of the same age. At 25, a person can still be carried on insurance as a dependent child. Age 18 does some things, but it does not end child support. At age 21, one can buy alcohol. Moving the age of being able to buy guns to 21 will likely pass constitutional muster, but we will see.
 
I do agree that the age limit could be set at almost any reasonable age, without infringing on one’s rights.
When looking at an age limit if, one looks at this through the lens of recent event, it does appear reasonable.
In Montreal a reasonable age limit would have not prevented the Polytechnique event.
What we can not measure is the effect of laws in terms of prevention. We have laws and we have jails and we have jails because current laws are ineffective? Should we look at the penalties as being ineffective because laws are broke. Even the harshest penalties do not deter laws from being broken.
 
pnewton said:
I think a lot of people are ignorant and simplistic about this whole age of adulthood thing. There are a lot of variables. At 15, kids can be tried as adults. At 17, they are always tried as adults. At much younger ages, they can consent to sex with someone of the same age. At 25, a person can still be carried on insurance as a dependent child. Age 18 does some things, but it does not end child support. At age 21, one can buy alcohol. Moving the age of being able to buy guns to 21 will likely pass constitutional muster, but we will see.
Click to expand...
The laws are all over the board in regards to what someone under the age of 18 can do. In IL they can have an abortion without parent approval but cannot take a Tylenol at school without parental approval. Not sure how this make any sense, but it is IL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top