Forums | MacLife

ScifiterX wrote:

Daniel wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I say take how long does it take to do a thorough background check & a training course for the license and add a business week for the gun.

The scary thing is, a thorough background check these days is, in fact, instant.  The extant waiting periods do nothing as far as additional checking is concerned.

You don't need a license to buy guns in FL, either.  Only to carry handguns concealed.  So what purpose does the business week serve?

It reduces the chance of a person from buying weapon to kill person before having a chance  to calm down.

If I ever wind up at the conclusion that someone just needs killing, a waiting period will not change my mind.  That is a specious argument at best.

Daniel wrote:

jkahless wrote:

Daniel wrote:

You've never lived in a city, have you?

Two actually, one of which has a major drug problem.

Then you should know just how ridiculous it is to expect people to be able to simply move out of a bad neighborhood just because they want to.

Yep.  Being afraid for life and limb though is a very very good reason to expect people to move.

jkahless wrote:

Daniel wrote:

jkahless wrote:

Two actually, one of which has a major drug problem.

Then you should know just how ridiculous it is to expect people to be able to simply move out of a bad neighborhood just because they want to.

Yep.  Being afraid for life and limb though is a very very good reason to expect people to move.

jkahless wrote:

Daniel wrote:

jkahless wrote:

Two actually, one of which has a major drug problem.

Then you should know just how ridiculous it is to expect people to be able to simply move out of a bad neighborhood just because they want to.

Yep. Being afraid for life and limb though is a very very good reason to expect people to move.

hmmm...

Obama and Guns

I don't think you'll see any major initiative out of this White House:

Washington: Barack Obama will be sworn as America's first black President on Tuesday under the tightest security ever, shielded by a new, heavily armoured Cadillac limousine, bullet-resistant glass, fighter planes overhead and Secret Service SWAT teams toting automatic weapons.

The President-elect himself will wear bullet-resistant clothing, speak behind a protective glass shield and ride in the inauguration parade in an armoured Cadillac limousine, with doors and windows so thick that he probably would survive a bomb blast, according to law enforcement officials.

If anyone should be "afraid for life and limb" that family should. Still, he won't want to fire up the Palinites, et al.

Now, Congress is another beast altogether. Another VT incident, for instance. I doubt Obama would veto such a response.

Daniel wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

As a civilian in a nation relatively free of armed conflict that action range argument is ludicrous especially when 10 rounds per clip is a relatively high amount of ammo in most non-combat situations. Beyond that, not having the melee option on the rifle doesn't prevent you from having a melee option.

You're going to have to do better.  The first sentence of that post was an unsourced personal opinion combined with a flat-out incorrect statement (10 rounds is definitely not a lot).  The second sentence just plain did not make sense.

Ok how often do you hear about some big shooting (IE Columbine or Virginia Tech). Once every few years. Never really connected never in the same area. Some exchanges of gunfire, sure. I'd call that relatively free of armed conflict. In a hunting area the less rounds it take to get one's animal or animal's the easier it is to repeat the process and the less you are likely to disrupt another hunter's ability to do the same thing. In a city the more uninterrupted rounds you deal with the more likely bystanders are going to be involved.

ScifiterX wrote:

Oh and ear protection devices are a more consistent, cheaper, and longer lasting means of protecting one's hearing than suppressors. Some firearms can't effectively be suppressed and suppressors take a lot of abuse wear out and lose effectiveness.

That's a poor reason to ban them. Some people choose suppressors, some people choose earmuffs. I prefer both when possible.

10 round magazine limits make about as much sense as a 5 gallon limit in your car's gas tank.

And again with the bayonet lug. A bayonet has been a standard firearm part for hundreds of years. Are you afraid of drive by stabbing or something?

avkills wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Why hello, my 7.62x54R friend! I just got an 800 round box of Czech Silvertip military surplus ammo for my PSL-54C.

Why the hell do you need military ammo -- that right there is why your statements make me think your a bit psycho when it comes to guns.

That statement right there tell me you simply do not know what you are talking about. 5.56, 7.62, 22lr, 30-30, 8mm mauser, 30-06, .308, and just about every other round out there is a military round or a military style round.
The only exception that I am aware of is the 270.

Daniel wrote:

Finally, I can drop an empty magazine, insert a new one, and cycle the action on my AK in about a second and a half.  All high-capacity regulations do is inconvenience me at the action range.

And damn, we sure would not want you to be inconvenienced at the shooting range.
-mark

What is your hobby? I assume that I know nothing about it. Would you like that I start making up rules to inconvenience you?
That is all a magazine limit is. An inconvenience. The same way that a gas tank size limit is.

I have no idea if they work or not, but Dan's argument against them is worse than the one he was criticising, which was my point.

I'm sure that plenty of murders occur waiting period or not. Heck, our country's history for numbers of murders not using is higher than most country's total number of murders. What a waiting period does is limit impulse killings using guns, nothing more nothing less.

ScifiterX wrote:

What a waiting period does is limit impulse killings using guns, nothing more nothing less.

No, it doesn't.  I already have plenty to choose from.  A waiting period serves absolutely no purpose when I go out to buy another.

Daniel wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

What a waiting period does is limit impulse killings using guns, nothing more nothing less.

No, it doesn't.  I already have plenty to choose from.  A waiting period serves absolutely no purpose when I go out to buy another.

Obviously there are limits to what said restrictions will stop. If there were not, I would have used the word prevent rather than limit. A waiting limit will not prevent you from using a gun one already has, or a gun they choose to steal or a throwaway one illegally acquired off of some shady character. It is also not going to stop an intent killer from trying other means of killing their intended victim. However it is an obstacle (even if it is a small one) they have to deal with (and possibly show their hand in doing so.)

ScifiterX wrote:

You really missed the point and by a wide margin. The existence of alternate, more effective ear protection is no a reason to ban. It's a counter to the you shouldn't ban something that can potentially hide evidence of a crime due to the need for ear protection tact being taken.

Potentially hide evidence of a crime? Silencers don't do it the way hollywood suggests. The noise is still pretty damn loud, just tolerable. More importantly, police don't come running at the sound of gunfire. Someone has to call them. When they arrive, they will take the bullet and do a ballistics check the same way they would with an unsuppressed weapon. For the police, nothing changes.

Silencers are courteous to your shooting buddies and help protect your hearing.

If we lived in a combat zone I might agree on the magazines. We do not.

I hate to rehash this argument, but I must.
Limits on magazine size are as silly as gas tank limits on cars. Everything is exactly the same, one is simply required to stop and refill more often.

A bayonet has been a standard military firearm part for hundreds of years. Most of us are civilians and I dont know about you but when I last hunted I had a rifle and a good blade and it provided a hell of a lot more flexibility than a mounted blade ever would have.

When narrowed to the scope of hunting, you are right. I don't hunt with a bayo attached excluding my mosin, where it is an integral part of the gun. But where your reasoning falters is outside of the hunting arena. I have bayos on rifles built as recently as this decade and some built in the 40's. For collectors, taking a hacksaw to a rifle to remove the bayonet lug is an abomination.

I am aware of a hunter who would take a fixed bayonet to the hunting arena. He would attach it, spear the rifle into the ground, and hang a "do not disturb" sign on it. He enjoyed taking a nap out in the woods where it is quiet while everyone else hunted.

I think I'm going to start a collection of weapons grade plutonium. Just, you know, as a hobby.

I was joking, of course.  I'm still trying to imagine someone being decapitated in the student union though.  What a grizzly scene.