gun control

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

What's your opinion?

Poll ended at 2003-02-12 12:07pm

To quote Charleton Heston of the NRA "It's man GOD-GIVEN right to own guns!"
14
36%
Only the police and the military should be able to own guns
5
13%
Let people own handguns and hunting rifles and ban all the ridiculous guns (uzi's, automatics and semi-automatics)
17
44%
Guns should only be allowed in the country where you need them if you have to hunt for food, shoot a wolf, etc
3
8%
 
Total votes: 39

User avatar
Raptor 597
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3338
Joined: 2002-08-01 03:54pm
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana

Post by Raptor 597 »

Alyeska wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I don't quite fit in any of the above. I agree with a friend of mine, who is a hunter. Rifles and shotguns are fine, but any other gun is useless. That includes Mac 10's, assault rifles and handguns.

Also, I think there should be stricter tests to see if you could handle a gun.
A handgun is far from useless. It serves multiple purposes.

Defense weapon
Recreational device
Hunting weapon

For those who can use a handgun safely to do any of the following, I have no problem.
Yeah, it's a real problem with recreational dumbasses trying too shot a gun 'Ghetto' style and watching them nearly hit people or the gun the flying out out of their hands due too a lack of good grip.
Formerly the artist known as Captain Lennox

"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." - Sir Isaac Newton
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

Captain Lennox wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I don't quite fit in any of the above. I agree with a friend of mine, who is a hunter. Rifles and shotguns are fine, but any other gun is useless. That includes Mac 10's, assault rifles and handguns.

Also, I think there should be stricter tests to see if you could handle a gun.
A handgun is far from useless. It serves multiple purposes.

Defense weapon
Recreational device
Hunting weapon

For those who can use a handgun safely to do any of the following, I have no problem.
Yeah, it's a real problem with recreational dumbasses trying too shot a gun 'Ghetto' style and watching them nearly hit people or the gun the flying out out of their hands due too a lack of good grip.
I would not classify that under recreational. I would call it "Trying for the Darwin Award the wrong way". Recreational is using proper saftey precautions and taking the pistol to a proper place to shoot and having fun shooting at targets.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Raptor 597
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3338
Joined: 2002-08-01 03:54pm
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana

Post by Raptor 597 »

Alyeska wrote:
Captain Lennox wrote:
Alyeska wrote: A handgun is far from useless. It serves multiple purposes.

Defense weapon
Recreational device
Hunting weapon

For those who can use a handgun safely to do any of the following, I have no problem.
Yeah, it's a real problem with recreational dumbasses trying too shot a gun 'Ghetto' style and watching them nearly hit people or the gun the flying out out of their hands due too a lack of good grip.
I would not classify that under recreational. I would call it "Trying for the Darwin Award the wrong way". Recreational is using proper saftey precautions and taking the pistol to a proper place to shoot and having fun shooting at targets.
Yes, but it is recreational they are trying too have fun and probabbly kill themselves. It's not a sfe way for recreation with a gun, but recreation onetheless.
Formerly the artist known as Captain Lennox

"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." - Sir Isaac Newton
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

Captain Lennox wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Captain Lennox wrote: Yeah, it's a real problem with recreational dumbasses trying too shot a gun 'Ghetto' style and watching them nearly hit people or the gun the flying out out of their hands due too a lack of good grip.
I would not classify that under recreational. I would call it "Trying for the Darwin Award the wrong way". Recreational is using proper saftey precautions and taking the pistol to a proper place to shoot and having fun shooting at targets.
Yes, but it is recreational they are trying too have fun and probabbly kill themselves. It's not a sfe way for recreation with a gun, but recreation onetheless.
Don't be a fucking idiot. You know exactly WHAT I meant with my statement. The fact that I ended the statement with "For those who can use a handgun safely to do any of the following, I have no problem." should clearly indicate what I mean. People who find it fun to randomly shoot at people are NOT conducting proper firearm saftey.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

The most important thing to remember, especially for either the firearm-ignorant or those outside the US, is that the so-called "assault rifle" that the media carps about all the time doesn't truly exist. It is a media meat puppet used to scare people.

The average person in the US cannot get any sort of full-auto weapon. It is impossible without getting a special liscence, a background check, and paying a hefty yearly tax. Of the few thousands of legally owned full-autos that have ben owned in the U since this law, only 1 has been used in a crime. That is a better record than legal car owners by far.

The so-called "assault rifle" is also almost NEVER used in any crimes. It cannot be concealed, after all, and criminals tend to prefer stealth and not be weighed down by heavy weaponry.

And pistols? Useless? They are ideal personal defense weapons that don't get in a person' way. The just sit there on the belt-- like a Policeman's, who would probably argue that pistols are truly useful indeed.

If we want to do something about crime in our society, there are so many other things we could do-- social problems that could be addressed. Remember, during the Ninties when everyone was getting rich, gun ownership increased but crime went way down. The prosperity we felt addressed adequate social needs that let people thrive, and they didn't have to turn to crime.

We have a right to own firearms. People that fuck up have that right removed; but it is unjust to punish an entire society for it.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
Exonerate
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4454
Joined: 2002-10-29 07:19pm
Location: DC Metro Area

Post by Exonerate »

Knife wrote:
Exonerate wrote:Actually, I WAS thinking about hosing down a crowd of people. Or something similar to that effect.
In witch case a shot gun would be more handy. Realy a M16 or AR15 is a rifle with a 3 round burst and is a 223 caliber(5.56 if you want mm). The civilian models are still semi-auto so you come up with a 22 rifle. OOOHHH, the mass damage that can be done with that. In a tight situation with alot of people, a shot gun is way more deadly than the M16 would be. In alot of cases a modern hunting rifle is just as good as the M16. You can't base your opinions on how the gun looks, can you?
I was thinking a full-auto M-16, not some pansy civilian version of it.

BoTM, MM, HAB, JL
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

Exonerate wrote:
Knife wrote:
Exonerate wrote:Actually, I WAS thinking about hosing down a crowd of people. Or something similar to that effect.
In witch case a shot gun would be more handy. Realy a M16 or AR15 is a rifle with a 3 round burst and is a 223 caliber(5.56 if you want mm). The civilian models are still semi-auto so you come up with a 22 rifle. OOOHHH, the mass damage that can be done with that. In a tight situation with alot of people, a shot gun is way more deadly than the M16 would be. In alot of cases a modern hunting rifle is just as good as the M16. You can't base your opinions on how the gun looks, can you?
I was thinking a full-auto M-16, not some pansy civilian version of it.
Not very useful because it would be inaccurate as hell. If you want to cause utter chaos in public, a good shotgun will do.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14770
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

Even a full auto M-16A1 isn't going to do that much good hosing down a crowd of people. It's not like the movies where you have the infinite magazines (tm) and never have to reload, hold the trigger down and you'll empty the magazine in under 3 seconds, which doesn't give you much of a chance to sweep the fire around to kill people. If you're lucky you might be able to take out 5-6 people, which ain't any better than a shotgun or a semi-automatic rifle
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
AdmiralKanos
Lex Animata
Lex Animata
Posts: 2648
Joined: 2002-07-02 11:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by AdmiralKanos »

AR-15's are not a problem, but you can make a good argument for the notion that handguns are.

Let's put it another way: if you wanted to commit a crime, would you use a concealable weapon? Of course. And does the inferior range matter? Of course not; most criminal shootings occur at point-blank range, and in most armed crimes, the gun is never even fired, but rather, used as a threat (ie- you're walking away from the bank machine and find a .38 pointing at you).

Conversely, if you're hunting, would you use a handgun? Of course not. Handguns are the best weapon for most criminal activities. Therefore, if any argument is going to made about regulating a particular type of weapon, it should be handguns.
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment!

Image
"This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

Exonerate wrote:
Knife wrote:
Exonerate wrote:Actually, I WAS thinking about hosing down a crowd of people. Or something similar to that effect.
In witch case a shot gun would be more handy. Realy a M16 or AR15 is a rifle with a 3 round burst and is a 223 caliber(5.56 if you want mm). The civilian models are still semi-auto so you come up with a 22 rifle. OOOHHH, the mass damage that can be done with that. In a tight situation with alot of people, a shot gun is way more deadly than the M16 would be. In alot of cases a modern hunting rifle is just as good as the M16. You can't base your opinions on how the gun looks, can you?
I was thinking a full-auto M-16, not some pansy civilian version of it.
Even the military stopped using the full automatic M16. That should tell you something about its effectiveness.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

AdmiralKanos wrote:AR-15's are not a problem, but you can make a good argument for the notion that handguns are.

Let's put it another way: if you wanted to commit a crime, would you use a concealable weapon? Of course. And does the inferior range matter? Of course not; most criminal shootings occur at point-blank range, and in most armed crimes, the gun is never even fired, but rather, used as a threat (ie- you're walking away from the bank machine and find a .38 pointing at you).

Conversely, if you're hunting, would you use a handgun? Of course not. Handguns are the best weapon for most criminal activities. Therefore, if any argument is going to made about regulating a particular type of weapon, it should be handguns.
Most law enforcment and/or self defense situations occur at the same ranges(coincidence?). If you can absolutely assure me that no one, and I mean NO ONE, can get a hand gun then your solution of banning handguns will work. But since that is improbable, then I'd perfer a weapon that I can hide in my jacket to protect myself.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Exonerate
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4454
Joined: 2002-10-29 07:19pm
Location: DC Metro Area

Post by Exonerate »

Let me put it this way. If you take a shotgun, and walk down the street with it, chance are that the police will think you're an criminal, and they'll never believe that you're carrying that around for self-defense. Handguns are popular because they're relatively easy to use and conceal.

BoTM, MM, HAB, JL
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

AdmiralKanos wrote:AR-15's are not a problem, but you can make a good argument for the notion that handguns are.

Let's put it another way: if you wanted to commit a crime, would you use a concealable weapon? Of course. And does the inferior range matter? Of course not; most criminal shootings occur at point-blank range, and in most armed crimes, the gun is never even fired, but rather, used as a threat (ie- you're walking away from the bank machine and find a .38 pointing at you).

Conversely, if you're hunting, would you use a handgun? Of course not. Handguns are the best weapon for most criminal activities. Therefore, if any argument is going to made about regulating a particular type of weapon, it should be handguns.
Tell that to the tens of thousands who hunt with them. Handguns are perfectly fine for many types of hunting and get used quite heavily for it.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

There actually are many hunting applications for pistols.

In a way Darth Wong has a point-- if there would be a need to tighten regulations on any kind of firearm it would be the ability to acquire a pistol. He didn't say that they should be banned, just the requirements tightened.

I like the NICS: National Instant Check System-- the instantaneous computer check that just says 'yes/no' and does not give a reason why. It should be nationwide (not state by state) and it should include people who have a history of mental instability (of a dangerous type).

But most of the populace would still be able to get them.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10619
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV

Post by Beowulf »

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:If you start a gun turn-in program, criminals aren't going to flock there to turn their firearms in.
If it's one of those no questions asked gun-turn in programs, you'd likely have an increase in crime, since the criminals know that they have a firm buyer for their stolen warez. In addition, you'd have criminals turning in guns used in crimes after wiping them for fingerprints. Great way to dispose of them.

If they ask questions, then you won't end up getting the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Gun turn-ins can't work...

My opinion is that most of the gun laws in place are rather useless, and that instead of adding yet another useless gun control law, better enforcement of existing useful crime control laws would work better.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
User avatar
Exonerate
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4454
Joined: 2002-10-29 07:19pm
Location: DC Metro Area

Post by Exonerate »

Beowulf wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:If you start a gun turn-in program, criminals aren't going to flock there to turn their firearms in.
If it's one of those no questions asked gun-turn in programs, you'd likely have an increase in crime, since the criminals know that they have a firm buyer for their stolen warez. In addition, you'd have criminals turning in guns used in crimes after wiping them for fingerprints. Great way to dispose of them.

If they ask questions, then you won't end up getting the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Gun turn-ins can't work...

My opinion is that most of the gun laws in place are rather useless, and that instead of adding yet another useless gun control law, better enforcement of existing useful crime control laws would work better.
I think I've heard of one where they pay the owner money equal to the value of the gun. Worked fairly well.

BoTM, MM, HAB, JL
User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10619
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV

Post by Beowulf »

Exonerate wrote:I think I've heard of one where they pay the owner money equal to the value of the gun. Worked fairly well.
If you don't have to show proof of ownership, then gun theft goes up... easy to get the guns sold. If you do, then the criminals won't turn in their guns. In neither case will crime and the number of guns in use by criminals decrease.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

HemlockGrey wrote: Automatics and such should be available to gun collectors and their ilk but at a rather high price; in addition to extensive psych/shooting competence test, clean record, and a license renewal every few months.
http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... ar/bar.htm

Image

Is that evil? should It be regulated?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Coyote wrote: I like the NICS: National Instant Check System-- the instantaneous computer check that just says 'yes/no' and does not give a reason why. It should be nationwide (not state by state) and it should include people who have a history of mental instability (of a dangerous type).
BWHAHAHAH A HAHA
HAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
A HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA


Sorry, I just had to laugh at the part about "instanteous".

NICS is often offline with depressing regularity....usually
during weekends, which coincidentially is when all the
gun shows are...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
C.S.Strowbridge
Sore Loser
Posts: 905
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:32pm
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Contact:

Post by C.S.Strowbridge »

Alyeska wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I don't quite fit in any of the above. I agree with a friend of mine, who is a hunter. Rifles and shotguns are fine, but any other gun is useless. That includes Mac 10's, assault rifles and handguns.

Also, I think there should be stricter tests to see if you could handle a gun.
A handgun is far from useless. It serves multiple purposes.

Defense weapon
Recreational device
Hunting weapon

For those who can use a handgun safely to do any of the following, I have no problem.
Handguns are second rate weapons for all of those. The big plus they have is small size, which is more important to criminals than to citizens.

And there are some guns which are made for really only one purpose, crime.
User avatar
C.S.Strowbridge
Sore Loser
Posts: 905
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:32pm
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Contact:

Post by C.S.Strowbridge »

Alyeska wrote:
weemadando wrote:I support a system similar to Australia's where you can still own guns but there are many restrictions on who can own them and what you can own.

I believe there is a 10rnd magazine limit. You can't own ANYTHING automatic. It was a reasonably well constructed piece of legislation. Some bugs and kinks, but thats to be expected in any such process.

Ownership and license approval is a fairly involved process. You have to have a reason to own the weapon. The application process is about 6 months in length including psychological testing and a 3 month cooling off period.
Having magazine size restrictions and not allowing fully automatic weapons is pointless. A criminal is not going to pay attention to the laws and will aquire fully automatic weapons and high capacity clips if the want to. All these restrictions do is make life a pain in the ass to the law abiding people.
If you can't legally buy them and manufactures can't legally make them, where are the criminals going to get them? Magic?

That's the point of restricting guns, the less people have, the less criminals can get. The criminals don't make the guns themselves, they don't have the industry to do that.
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14770
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:If you can't legally buy them and manufactures can't legally make them, where are the criminals going to get them? Magic?

That's the point of restricting guns, the less people have, the less criminals can get. The criminals don't make the guns themselves, they don't have the industry to do that.
Ever heard of something called a machine shop? With a metal lathe, CNC machine, and some basic tools you could make all the parts needed for a gun. No your typical gangbanger punk won't be making them, but you can sure as hell bet that organized crime will be doing it. It ain't that hard.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Falcon
Fundamentalist Moron
Posts: 399
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:21pm
Location: United States of America

Post by Falcon »

Besides which, there are already millions of guns out there and most people won't just hand them in, especially not criminal types. Guns would simply be purchased on a black market and smuggled in from rogue nations (if needed). Think illegal drugs..
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14770
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

That too, and having worked at Customs I *know* that the boarders leak like a sieve, and there's no real way to fix that without crippling our trade. There's no way in hell to inspect every container coming into the country, so it ain't that hard to smuggle a few containers full of firearms into the country. They could just drive the damn things right off from the docks and bingo, that's a few thousand more guns headed for the black market.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
weemadando wrote:I support a system similar to Australia's where you can still own guns but there are many restrictions on who can own them and what you can own.

I believe there is a 10rnd magazine limit. You can't own ANYTHING automatic. It was a reasonably well constructed piece of legislation. Some bugs and kinks, but thats to be expected in any such process.

Ownership and license approval is a fairly involved process. You have to have a reason to own the weapon. The application process is about 6 months in length including psychological testing and a 3 month cooling off period.
Having magazine size restrictions and not allowing fully automatic weapons is pointless. A criminal is not going to pay attention to the laws and will aquire fully automatic weapons and high capacity clips if the want to. All these restrictions do is make life a pain in the ass to the law abiding people.
If you can't legally buy them and manufactures can't legally make them, where are the criminals going to get them? Magic?

That's the point of restricting guns, the less people have, the less criminals can get. The criminals don't make the guns themselves, they don't have the industry to do that.
Which is why they get them on the black market from shipments over seas or across the borders.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Post Reply