BS: Guns in America

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:42 AM

Ah but that's Maryland not every where.

and your car and mine does have to be registered by someone. and you had to register your car when you bought it, and you must have a license to drive your car and you must pass regular safety inspections for your car ... shall I go one?
So,are you comfortable with national legislation that registers and licenses all gun owners and strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:41 AM

"strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns (ala drugs)?"

And how effective will that be?

"Her two oldest sons, Nick and Jack, were celebrating at high school graduation parties the night before. The boys came home about 12:30 a.m. and checked in with their mom, who had been waiting up.

The next morning, as Savage was picking up laundry in Jack's room, she noticed that he wasn't stirring as she tried to wake him.
"He was unresponsive. I called 911, and I remember hollering for Nick, for him to come up, and how he never came."
Nick, her eldest son, was downstairs sleeping in the basement with friends.
The first responders arrived and tried to resuscitate Jack, and then Savage noticed one of them going downstairs to the basement.
"I had no idea at that point what they were doing in our basement. And then I remember one of them coming up and asking for a coroner. That's the last thing that I remember that day." "


DEAD kids- and the law you say will help with guns IS ALREADY in place with drugs, right?

WHY do you think the laws you propose ( which I am waiting to hear about) will do any better?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:33 AM

"You can, however, sell or give your gun to anyone you like, who can do the same, on down the line."

NO, you cannot. IT IS NOT LEGAL.

I CAN sell my car to anyone I like, and it is the BUYER'S responsibility to register it. If they scrap it for parts, there is NO requirement for any notice to anyone.

On the other hand, I have been hit by someone who was not licensed to drive in the US, had no insurance, and totaled my car. So what did the law do for me?

READ THE DAMN LAWS!!!!


YOU CANNOT LEGALLY make, transfer, buy, or purchase large capacity magazines, or the weapons YOU are talking about in MD.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:23 AM

Bruce
lets take the case of your ownership of one of these weapons we have been discussing and use your analogy of a car or drug comparison. If you own a car you must notify your DMV when you sell it or ever give it to someone else. If you have a prescription drug you can not sell it or give it away at all.
You can, however, sell or give your gun to anyone you like, who can do the same, on down the line. "Bad guys" can and easily do obtain guns this way. So using your analogy are you comfortable with legislation that registers and licenses all gun owners (ala cars) and strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns (ala drugs)?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:13 AM

"My goal is to reduce senseless deaths like the killing of our children in their schools BY limiting the ownership of some types of fire arms. The two are directly connected"


I do not agree.
1. MY ownership of firearms does not cause senseless deaths: In fact, deaths may be prevent by legal ownership of them.
2. Limiting the ownership of those firearms ( as is already the case) WOULD NOT reduce the deaths.

The reduction of deaths would be FAR greater by addressing those factors you want to ignore, such as underage drinking, illegal drug use, and teen driving. Lightning, too.

The POSSIBILITY that there would be a firearm present serves as a deterrent. The KNOWN FACT that law abiding citizens DO NOT have firearms serves to encourage crime.

Have you read the CURRENT MD LAWS yet? WHAT would you add?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:01 AM

My goal is to reduce senseless deaths like the killing of our children in their schools BY limiting the ownership of some types of fire arms. The two are directly connected

Owning such a weapon as a deterrent would only deter someone from attacking the owner IF the owner had sufficiently publicized his/her ownership so that all would be attackers knew about it and were sufficiently intimidated.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:58 AM

Sean Fear,

LOOK at the present laws, and tell me what you would want added. And why you think it would help reduce killings.


https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/firearmsstatutesandcodes-marylandpdf/download

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:56 AM

"I would like to remove these weapons from our society."

I would like to remove these criminals ( the ones who USE weapons of any sort to kill) from our society.

Does that give me the right to take away the rights of ALL citizens?

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:52 AM

I would like to see all murders prevented, and there be no accidental deaths. OK? But I ask,

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

WHAT would you propose AS A NEW LAW?

"The primary purpose of the guns I am concerned about is to shoot a high number of rounds in a short period of time. This is not for hunting or target practice. It is for killing and theses weapons do kill men, women and children over and over again."

You make a statement without any justification. YOUR opinion that that is the primary purpose, ignoring the known deterrence effect of such a weapon BY IT'S PRESENCE , is IMO a biased viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:46 AM

Here are the PRESENT laws on firearms in my state. Please tell me what you would add to them, and what you think it would accomplish, and WHY you think it would be effective.


https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/firearmsstatutesandcodes-marylandpdf/download

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:39 AM

While other elements in our culture do take lives (cars, drugs,etc)their primary purpose is other than taking lives and they are proportionally more beneficial than destructive. Cars and drugs are much more regulated and monitored than are guns. The primary purpose of the guns I am concerned about is to shoot a high number of rounds in a short period of time. This is not for hunting or target practice. It is for killing and theses weapons do kill men, women and children over and over again.

I would like to remove these weapons from our society. I would like to see clear and strictly enforced legislation that prevents the buying selling and owning of these weapons by private citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:35 AM

Mrrzy,


You make a statement of your opinion. I disagree with your statement.

And no, you cannot shoot feathers.

And you do not address the purpose of deterrence.


"The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones."

So you would convict all police of murder?


And you do not address my question:
Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:12 AM

The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones. There is no need for bullets to be propelled unless it is to penetrate flesh. That is, to kill or maim or mangle or hurt or damage or yes kill. You could shoot feathers if the point was to hit paper targets, so nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 09:42 AM

Please address:

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:30 AM

Sean Fear,

Thank you ( re 20 Apr 18 - 08:08 AM)

The gulf between the gun control view and the gun qua tool of independence view is wide and deep—perhaps even unbridgeable—and only when we recognize this will we realize why calls for “commonsense” gun reform yield only acrimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:21 AM

Sean Fear,

YOU seem to want to avoid my question:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Until you address that, I fail to see that you are interested in discussion. You seem to insist that others agree with your points, without making a case that others accept. And you do not seem to address any points that do not support your view, even when provided supporting material.

I did answer YOUR question: 18 Apr 18 - 10:32 AM

I am waiting to hear an example of what law YOU think would effectively accomplish your intent- and how it would be enforced.

You want me to agree to what you have not put forward in a clear manner. I understand there is a problem-

We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.


"They are usually obtained legally before they commit the illegal killings. "

I do not agree that you have proven this. It may be true- but you ignore all the cases where guns legally obtained save lives.

Drugs kill thousands. So, since they are legally obtained, and used illegally, they should be removed from our society.
After all, "Drugs are usually obtained legally before they kill people by illegal use. "





Backwoodsman,

Perhaps we can discuss the topic, and not make personal attacks on those you disagree with. Is your reason for supporting gun control so shallow, and based on unmentionable reasons?



Donual,

" few truths"

Please let me know what I have stated that is NOT truth. We can argue about it, but at least you should let me know what you disagree with, so I can present support- even if you do not for your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:08 AM

BW if by Gun-Nut you mean overly enthusiastic like sports-nut or foodie-nut you are probably right. If you mean crazy or dangerous you are probably wrong. While Bruce and I clearly see the issue of guns in America very differently neither of us has written disparagingly or disrespectfully towards each other.
In the past 20-25 years we have been culturally desensitized to behaving and speaking poor;y towards each other ("Reality" TV. political campaigns, Fox News, just to name a few). We have got to find ways to air and hopefully resolve our differences thoughtfully and respectfully. Otherwise we will remain entrenched in camps and divided by fear and anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 02:09 AM

"Your responses are so filled with anger and fear that you over-respond to hide certain basic facts."

People like B.B. are called 'Gun-Nuts' for a good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 05:04 PM

truth is alive but on life support.

One of the few truths bruce alludes to is that this year did see for the first time more people dying from opioids than from the bullets from guns.
but as Sean says, that is still deadly apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 04:48 PM

Bruce
Your responses are so filled with anger and fear and you over-respond to hide certain basic facts.
The weapons we are discussing kill many people quickly
They are easy to get
They are usually obtained legally before they commit the illegal killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:45 PM

Your logic appears to be that

"Some people violate the law and use illegal X to commit terrible crimes.
If we get rid of the legal X, there will be less crime:
Nobody should have X."


I disagree with the logic you offer- Consider- If we castrate all the non-sex offenders, will that have any effect on the rate of sex crimes?
And is the cost worth it?

As I have said, several times,

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

I have pointed out info that supports the fact that citizens legally HAVING guns can serve to reduce the killings. IMO, prohibiting legal gun ownership will result in a LARGER NUMBER of killings by illegal guns. Nothing you have presented has addressed this. Nor have you addressed how you can SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of guns available. I am sure the people of Fergusson will be thrilled to turn over all their weapons to the police. That was what the Jim Crow laws tried to do, and they did not succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:26 PM

" I live in Virginia and can purchase with ease any number of weapons capable of mass killing."

Yes, and if YOU do kill anyone, YOU are committing a CRIME.
If you sell or give them to someone else , YOU are committing a CRIME.

You are saying that you as an individual have no responsibility for your actions, so you would prohibit those who legally can have and use those forearms from having them.

Why not pass a law making it illegal to KILL PEOPLE?


Same effect.


Of course, it ALREADY IS. How well does the law work when you don't bother to enforce it?

Show me the enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS before you demand additional one.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:18 PM

" can and regularly do get highly dangerous weapons from people who have obtained them legally"

AND THAT IS ALREADY A CRIME.


"Because these weapons are so readily available it makes it easy for the bad guys you worry about to get them."

NOT LEGALLY.

So, you state that the criminals get the weapons by violating the law. HOW DO ADDITIONAL LAWS stop them?


If we confiscate 250,000,000 there will still be 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 of them out there.

https://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/product-category/build-a-glock/complete-80-glock-kits/

And this is NOT controlled by ANY laws- it is not even a "firearm" by the BATF definition. (neither was the bump-stock, according to the Obama administration)



It looks to me like you want to pass new laws. LAWS only control those who obey them. YOU are saying that law-abiding citizens should not have them- AND NOT KEEPING THE CRIMINALS from getting them.



We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:03 PM

People who commit the awful acts we have been discussing can and regularly do get highly dangerous weapons from people who have obtained them legally. I live in Virginia and can purchase with ease any number of weapons capable of mass killing. Virginia is a steady pipeline to the illegal trade of guns in NYC. Also remember, most weapons used in mass shootings in the USA have been obtained legally. Because these weapons are so readily available it makes it easy for the bad guys you worry about to get them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 02:43 PM

" IF criminals were effectively deprived access to highly dangerous firearms that can kill large numbers of people in short periods of time, would you still want to own such a weapon? "


Tell me how you would do that- they are ALREADY prohibited from access to firearms OF ANY KIND. Yet they seem to have all that they want.

So what dream world would you have, where the criminals obey your laws?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:49 PM

We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.

THAT I can agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:47 PM

"We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of guns with in our culture"

I do NOT see that the case has been made to support this. THAT is a fundamental difference that you do not address.

Were I to say that" We have a genuine problem with the Liberal tolerance of crime in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues does not change that." and THEREFORE we should make being Liberal illegal, you MIGHT not agree with it. But I do not insist that YOU HAVE to agree with such a conclusion, as YOU just have of me

But it seems you are stating that you wish to prevent law-abiding citizens form getting weapons, NOT that you want to reduce the numbers of people killed.



Ain't gonna happen. How do you keep people WHO ARE PRESENTLY PROHIBITED from possessing firearms form getting them? Much less the ones who legally CAN own them?


https://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/build-a-glock/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:17 PM

Bruce
The continual deflection of the dangers of guns in our country onto other issues such as cars or drugs is simply an avoidance tactic. We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of guns with in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues does not change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:10 AM

Sorry, Mrrzy,

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet into a target. OR intimidate someone FROM action - which is what the police do all the time. They have lethal force available IN ORDER to STOP CRIMINALS. The THREAT presented by a firearm will often PREVENT the use of one.


"* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

If one imagines that guns in civilian hands are used solely as murder weapons, it makes sense to ban or strictly regulate them.

But millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns as well as the lives lost by criminal use."


The CHOICE of target is the operator's- So perhaps you will offer laws that KEEP CRIMINALS from getting guns, instead of keeping ONLY law-abiding citizens seeking self defense from doing so. What has been offered up does NOT keep criminals from getting firearms, but DOES prevent law-abiding citizens from having self-defense available.


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#7e20c50e5edc


https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html?__source=ya

http://observer.com/2016/03/must-pack-heat-the-case-for-mandating-gun-ownership/






A lot of people miss the fact that ALL drugs are poisons. Just have to give a high enough dose. Look at the number of fatal overdoses each year: Can we remove them from our society? Just because there are benefits from their use is obviously NOT good enough to justify the danger presented by them, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:09 AM

Bruce no don’t own a 223. I shoot a 243 it’s not as fast but bigger and a good deer gun

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:06 AM

Going to try for a moose again this year. Last year only one I saw but was not sure it was a legal size so just let him pass. Moose meat is the best ever

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 10:18 AM

Yeah, a lot of people miss the fact that guns only have one purpose, while most other things that can kill you are being used INcorrectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 03:37 PM

I just don’t have any use for one or really see a use

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:24 PM

I do a lot of long range shooting and reload my own special rounds
You are right I have a lot of friends who love them and that’s ok with me

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:19 PM

If you can do even 300 yds with a .223 (even bolt action), my hat is off to you. My preference is 22LR, Win 52B with Redfield Olympic iron sights. But I know many who use AR derivatives, and they are happy with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:18 PM

Best varmit gun made 22/250 bolt action my choice

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:15 PM

Disagree my friend Barrels are to short and the optics are limited and the weight is too light for long range varmit hunting. At the range most of those guys can only do 200 yards with three inch groups. I do under that at 500 yards with a 243 Winchester

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:09 PM

Olddude,

An AR-15 clone with a scope is as good as a bolt action. For the limited range the cartridge allows, they are almost identical in performance.

Not as pretty, though, I will give you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:06 PM

Jeri,
So is the intent to remove guns from law abiding citizens, or reduce the number of children ( and others) killed by accident and illegal actions?

There is NO valid reason to have automobiles with more than about a 75 HP engine.

Cars are not needed if you take cabs or buses.
Guns are needed if the police do NOT live in your house.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]


Your dismissal of other's concerns is what is Stupid, and desperate

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:04 PM

A bolt action 223 with a scope for ground hogs yes an ar no not really very good at all

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:00 PM

Cars are necessary for many people.
Guns aren't.
The primar use of a car is transportation.
For a gun, it's to kill.

Stupid, desperate comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:50 PM

"Comparing automobiles and guns is a red herring and honestly not helpful to a clear discussion on guns. "

IF the object is to remove guns, than I would agree. I was under the impression that the object is to save lives. In which case to focus ONLY on guns is not helpful to a clear discussion. ( always look for the tall pole)

So is the intent to remove guns from law abiding citizens, or reduce the number of children ( and others) killed by accident and illegal actions?

WHICH IS IT?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:40 PM

Sorry, olddude. The AAR-15 and it's clones is a fine varmint gun-

"In the last decades, many companies have started developing varmint rifles and the most popular rounds so far are the .222 Remington and the .218 Bee. However, the newer rounds that offer a higher velocity have started replacing these two classics. The most common calibers used in a varmint hunting rifle are the .223 Remington, the .22-250, the .220 Swift and the .25-06. For an air rifle varmint, even calibers smaller than .22 are capable of doing a good job. The .17 Remington and various other .17 caliber (4.5 mm) wildcats have a vocal following, and the new .204 Ruger is well suited to varminting, and may be the first in a new line of .20 caliber (5mm) rounds"



As for target shooting, they lack rangebut NO military firearm are even below average for target shooting- they like to hit what they aim at.

but the .223 cartridge is NOT one that will put a bullet through a wall. In country, they would be deflected by leaves and such- strictly line of sight. One would have to go to .30 or .45 to go through wallboard without deflection, and the proper frangible bullet will prevent that even at those calibers.


BTW, got a 4992B for the sweep second hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:30 PM

Also miserable for home defense why would anyone want it. If you think it would protect you home, it would go through your walls and your neighbors also. Only good for war

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:36 AM

Sean I hate the ar rifles they are miserable to hunt with and just as bad for target. They are great for war and that’s it. I could care less if they all got thrown in the abyss

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:34 AM

Bruce
Comparing automobiles and guns is a red herring and honestly not helpful to a clear discussion on guns.
Unfortunately I am now called away from my chat with you. I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts. I will think about what you have written. I hope you will think about what I have written.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:20 AM

"Present gun laws allow for millions and millions of highly dangerous weapons to flood our society."

Of the 350,000,000 estimated guns presently in the US, HOW MANY are used illegally, and why are the laws against that use NOT enforced?



" People with all sorts of antisocial agendas can and do legally purchase weapons that can and do kill large numbers of innocent people."

I disagree- in almost all cases, there is a violation of the law, and the person SHOULD NOT have had access to firearms. But should the failure of the police and government agencies ( that are the ones who will "protect" you when only the criminals have guns) mean that law-abiding citizens must have their rights removed? If they cannot stop the criminals from getting guns, how can I expect them to protect me and my family? They have stated that they are NOT responsible for ensuring citizen's safety.

-------
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
-------


"This happens and has been happening regularly for years. "

The number of cases where "assault rifles( your term)" kill people is orders of magnitude less than the number killed by misuse of automobiles- so why not restrict cars and alcohol and save more lives ? ( See Prohibition for how effective that is- a pity that History is no longer required for a "liberal" education)
And it is more likely that a student will be killed by a lightning strike than by a semi-automatic rifle of any sort.




"I believe we should legislate rational limits to the type of weapons private citizens can own, just as we regulate and limit other sorts of dangers within our society. "

I agree- but we differ on what are rational and EFFECTIVE limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:13 AM

Bruce - IF criminals were effectively deprived access to highly dangerous firearms that can kill large numbers of people in short periods of time, would you still want to own such a weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:11 AM

"It’s illegal to: use any knife in a threatening way"
So the murders in London were done in a non-threatening way?????

No, that means that using a knife to threaten someone, even if you don't follow through on the threat, brings it under the heading of "knife-crime". The penalties there may be harsher than for 'assault'.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:04 AM

Thank you, Nigel.


"It’s illegal to: use any knife in a threatening way"
So the murders in London were done in a non-threatening way?????



Sort of like the US "It is illegal to shoot people."

I would be in favor of EFFECTIVE, REALISTIC laws to control CRIMINAL access to firearms. When you propose that, try looking for support here from those who place the desire to remove guns from law-abiding citizens above the desire to save lives.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/4-major-problems-with-gun-control-arguments/