Revolvers for Everyone!

[Monte_RCMS]

Let’s be honest: shotguns are great for home defense in an open floorplan, but the minute you start going down always and into bedrooms it can be more of a hinderence than helpful. In what home defense situation do you have time to line someone up through the scope of a rifle?

How about a shotgun with a revolving magazine. You could load slugs, deer shot, buck shot, flechettes, and beebees.

Maybe a bloop tube with the stock cut off.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Personally I use the term mockingly since it is a term that lefties like to throw around to instill fear in hoplophobics. Technically it is a term for any object that could be used as a weapon in an assault. But here is the definition as understood by most of the public.

From Wikpedia:
An assault weapon is non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms including certain semiautomatic rifles with a specific cosmetic features, some pistols, and some shotguns. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.

There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1] Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.

You can be killed by lots of things from cars to shoestrings that in itself is not a reason to ban anything. So why do you want to ban .22 caliber revolvers but not shotguns and AK47s?

One of my friends does civil war re-enactments. Their guns were considered to be assault rifles because they had bayonet lugs. Single shot, muzzle loaders.

Does the definition of assault rifle include painting flames on the stock to make it look scary?

 

[royal_archer]

One of my friends does civil war re-enactments. Their guns were considered to be assault rifles because they had bayonet lugs. Single shot, muzzle loaders.

Does the definition of assault rifle include painting flames on the stock to make it look scary?

I don’t know, the black plastic stocks already tend to scare the hoplophobes pretty bad. The flames push them over the edge.

 

[gamewell45]

Ahh, so it is concealment. So do you advocate for everyones right to open carry hand guns?

No.

 

[royal_archer]

No.

I am having a hard time finding a logical pattern here. afraid of someone having a 22 in a holster but are fine with AK -47.

 

[gamewell45]

I am having a hard time finding a logical pattern here. afraid of someone having a 22 in a holster but are fine with AK -47.

Royal,

I think your very confused and I honestly don’t think that I can explain it or make it any clearer to you so there isn’t much more to be gained by debating something that i cannot make sense to you on.

 

[wabrams]

I never said that I was scared about .22 Cal revolvers, however, and correct me if I"m wrong, but you can be killed from a .22 Cal revolver? If you agree then its good reason to be leary about that particular weapon as well as others.

Anything that launhes a projectile has the potential to kill you. People have even died from BB guns and pellet guns, though it is few and far between. A .22 at close range can be very effective.

I have a compromise; how about we do both? Increase the laws regarding illegal ownership and eliminate ownership of handguns, automatic weapons?

There are more than enough laws with teeth regarding illegal gun ownership. The problem lies in the laws not being enforced. It also doesn’t help when politicians want to add more laws instead of calling for existing ones to be enforced; but then again politicians think they look better by passing more redundent laws than calling for enforcement of those on the books.

 

[wabrams]

How about a shotgun with a revolving magazine. You could load slugs, deer shot, buck shot, flechettes, and beebees.

Maybe a bloop tube with the stock cut off.

The problems lies not in the rounds a shotgun uses, but the length of the firearm itself. When turning a corner in a tight hallway an assailant can more easily pull it away from you than a handgun do to its length and can be hard to bear on target going around the confinements of a home.

 

[sidbrown]

There are more than enough laws with teeth regarding illegal gun ownership. The problem lies in the laws not being enforced. .

Not true, because guns can be bought and sold at Dunkin Donuts with no ID, no background check and no registration. And it happens more often at gun shows.

 

[wabrams]

Not true, because guns can be bought and sold at Dunkin Donuts with no ID, no background check and no registration. And it happens more often at gun shows.

:yawn: I wish someone would flip the record, I’m tired of hearing the same old song over and over.

BTW, the fact that you immediately jumped on one thing and one thing alone tells me you know absolutely nothing about firearm laws in this country.

 

[Lycorth]

Not true, because guns can be bought and sold at Dunkin Donuts with no ID, no background check and no registration. And it happens more often at gun shows.

And until solid evidence of this being the major contributor to gun crime and to the arsenals of street gangs and the mafia is shown, the so-called loophole will remain just another urban legend.

 

[chriso]

I have a compromise; how about we do both? Increase the laws regarding illegal ownership and eliminate ownership of handguns, automatic weapons?

That way you get to kill two birds with one stone.

Except I have a very real concern that it would be overkill to address a long standing problem perpetuated by the bleeding heart liberal crowd who wont stand for appropriate punishment and enforcement of existing laws… seems pretty convenient to slack off on enforcing existing laws and use that as justification to disarm me.

 

[chriso]

I view assualt weapons as automatic rifles, pistols, etc.

Again, this seems to be part of the misinformation spread around by those with a “gun phobia”

“automatic rifles. pistols. etc” are already HIGHLY regulated by the NFA provisions. Have you found ANY instance where a crime has been commited by a NFA “automatic weapon” owner? I doubt it.

The problem with this issue is that the folks with a phobia against gun ownership have so sensationalized and misrepresented he facts of the discussion that we cannot carry on an intelligent discourse. Its all boiled down to what you and some other like-minded folks have come to “view” as assult weapons… rather than understanding that what you are describing is already heavily regulated and not somethign to be fearfull of.

 

[chriso]

Not true, because guns can be bought and sold at Dunkin Donuts with no ID, no background check and no registration. And it happens more often at gun shows.

It’d be an interesting eye opener for you were you to research the number of background checks performed at an average sized gun show over a weekend in a typical american city. Most transactions taking place there involve a licensed dealer on one side or the other, and result in background checks being performed. (ref: personal observation and experience buying firearms at gunshows over the past several decades)

 

[royal_archer]

Not true, because guns can be bought and sold at Dunkin Donuts with no ID, no background check and no registration. And it happens more often at gun shows.

Wanna explain why you feel someone who is licensed by the government to opperate a very deadly and mobile piece of machinery should not own a gun?

 

[sidbrown]

It’d be an interesting eye opener for you were you to research the number of background checks performed at an average sized gun show over a weekend in a typical american city. Most transactions taking place there involve a licensed dealer on one side or the other, and result in background checks being performed. (ref: personal observation and experience buying firearms at gunshows over the past several decades)

But according to the gun owners here, it is not just at the gun shows where this loophole of no id, no background check and no registration exists. It also exists at Dunkin Donuts. And if this loophole exists at Dunkin Donuts, it also exists at many other places, such as Church halls for example.

 

[HelenaMT]

But according to the gun owners here, it is not just at the gun shows where this loophole of no id, no background check and no registration exists. It also exists at Dunkin Donuts. And if this loophole exists at Dunkin Donuts, it also exists at many other places, such as Church halls for example.

It’s not a loophole, it’s just a natural extension of the right we have to sell or transfer personal property without government intervention. You can only make a coherent argument on the grounds that you believe guns demand special treatment under the law, as opposed to knives, baseball bats, or any other tool that has a potential for use in violence. But I haven’t heard one yet.

A gun is no more than a tool, whether for hunting or target shooting, or self-defense.
You don’t need to be authorized by the government to sell your car, it just needs to be recorded, so that’s not a comparable example. Since owning a car is NOT a right guaranteed by our constitution, any more than owning a house, it can be regulated by states for revenue purposes, etc. if voters allow it.

Background checks are not really the answer to everything, though for commercial gun sellers, they are a good measure. A rapist can acquire a knife from any store. A terrorist can make a bomb from ordinary, unregulated things. You can’t just pass more and more laws because it’s too hard to attack the root causes of problems head on without the country morphing into a total nanny state, with citizens relying on outside authorities to secure their well-being. Just look at NY, where trans-fats are illegal and some are now talking about banning salt in restaurants. Is that really the sort of country you want to live in? It’s all connected.

 

[sidbrown]

Background checks are not really the answer to everything, .

I disagree. If you see that a person is a criminal and has killed several people already, then I would not want him to be able to buy more guns. According to the Dunkin Donut loophole, he would be able to do just that either at Dunkin Donut or at a gunshow, with not id, and no background check.

 

[HelenaMT]

I disagree. If you see that a person is a criminal and has killed several people already, then I would not want him to be able to buy more guns. According to the Dunkin Donut loophole, he would be able to do just that either at Dunkin Donut or at a gunshow, with not id, and no background check.

Background checks are a tool and nothing more. In general, it is good that criminals can’t just go to a gun store and buy a gun, but that doesn’t mean someone with a clean record and just hasn’t acted yet can be prevented from doing so, nor does it mean a criminal can’t steal a gun, buy one on the black market, use a different lethal weapon, or even make one with a little skill. The number of crimes committed with guns from gunshows or any other private sales is so low it’s a silly argument. If you really want to argue for gun control, you need to make better arguments or else, just talk to people who already agree with you.

 

[sidbrown]

Background checks are a tool and nothing more. In general, it is good that criminals can’t just go to a gun store and buy a gun, but that doesn’t mean someone with a clean record and just hasn’t acted yet can be prevented from doing so, nor does it mean a criminal can’t steal a gun, buy one on the black market, use a different lethal weapon, or even make one with a little skill. The number of crimes committed with guns from gunshows or any other private sales is so low it’s a silly argument. If you really want to argue for gun control, you need to make better arguments or else, just talk to people who already agree with you.

The question concerned whether or not background checks are useful. I say that they are.