Idiots!

[Oso]

this is where some of the people make it hard on the rest of us

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/27/boy.shoots.himself.ap/index.html

no way should an 8 year old have been handling a full auto weapon, i don't care what kind of 'supervision' he was under...obviously it wasn't enough.

a .22 rifle for learning the basics of firearms handling and safety as well as marksmanship skills...maybe a .410 to start learning shotgunning...but, single shot in both cases and under completely controlled circumstances

sheesh :rolleyes: this one will haunt us, especially if we get a fully liberal executive and legislative group this time round.

[taai gihk yahn]

this is where some of the people make it hard on the rest of us

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/27/boy.shoots.himself.ap/index.html

no way should an 8 year old have been handling a full auto weapon, i don't care what kind of 'supervision' he was under...obviously it wasn't enough.

a .22 rifle for learning the basics of firearms handling and safety as well as marksmanship skills...maybe a .410 to start learning shotgunning...but, single shot in both cases and under completely controlled circumstances

sheesh :rolleyes: this one will haunt us, especially if we get a fully liberal executive and legislative group this time round.

I am as about as tree-hugging liberal as you can get on many issues, but this isn't about 2nd Amendment (which, TBH, I support, but in context of rigorous standards of training and teaching appropriate respect for any potentially deadly weapon) - it's about simple lack of intelligence; why on earth are you letting an 8 y/o handle that sort of firearm? heck, I don't let my 4 y/o w/in 50' of me when I mow the lawn!

that instructor should have his license to teach revoked...

[Oso]

then we concur :)

[TenTigers]

I learned to shoot when I was about 10-11, and it was with a Daisy bb gun, and it was always under my Dad's supervision. When I was around 13, I qualified for sharpshooter through the NRA with .22, again always under supervision.
An eight year old handling a firearm, under ANY conditions is completely insane!
That story is incredible.The irresponsibility that the people who ran the gun show, and of course the sheer stupidity of the parents for even considering it.
Well, at least that bloodline is ended.

[Oso]

Well, at least that bloodline is ended.

oooh, you're going to offend someone ;)



i think it depends on the circumstances.

i learned to shoot a Ruger 10/22 when I was 7 or 8. It was my grandfathers and we only shot it at the family farm at targets w/ a huge sawdust pile as the backstop. otherwise, it stayed in his room and you better believe i knew not to mess with it. I don't believe I ever did but the threat of worse punishment than I had ever received before made the thought never cross my mind...well, it did cross my mind, i take it back...but the threat was good enough to keep me from ever touching it unless it was handed to me at the farm.

i think I just summed up the problem with our society. :D



i went on to learn archery the summer of my 8th year, again, under very controlled circumstances.

i don't think 8 is too young to start...maybe my idea of a minimum age.

but, certainly not a full auto uzi

[GreenCloudCLF]

My son started shooting RPG's when he was 4. The problem was his parents waited until he was too old to start the training.:rolleyes:

[uki]

some people have harder and more difficult lessons to learn than others... and then again, some folks have more debt than they can possibly pay off in one lifetime... they'll be disarming the public more aggressively now.

[Becca]

I learned to shoot when I was about 10-11, and it was with a Daisy bb gun, and it was always under my Dad's supervision. When I was around 13, I qualified for sharpshooter through the NRA with .22, again always under supervision.
An eight year old handling a firearm, under ANY conditions is completely insane!
That story is incredible.The irresponsibility that the people who ran the gun show, and of course the sheer stupidity of the parents for even considering it.
Well, at least that bloodline is ended.I grew up shooting; I was hunting with my dad before I was 10 and got my first doe at age 12. That being said, I SEE ABSOLUTLY NO FRIGGIN' REASON FOR AN 8-YEAR-OLD TO HAVE BEEN FIRING A WEAPON MOST ADULTS HAVE TROUBLE PROPERLY CONTROLLING ON FULL AUTO!!!!

Just because a child is big enough to put s short stock in his/her sholder and pull the trigger does not meen they have the motor control and muscle to handle a full auto recoil. They don't. Most adilts don't, either. Machine Gun Kelly got that monicer because he could actually hit what he was aiming at with a Tommy Gun. If that was a common thing, he wouldn't have gotten named for it.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[naja]

An eight year old handling a firearm, under ANY conditions is completely insane!

No it isn't. The majority of people just don't have enough common sense to be responsible with firearms.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I thought there was an age limit for firearm use in the US, no?

[SimonM]

I have to support TT's statement.

Darwin Award for the moron who let their 8 year old child handle an uzi.

PS: I still maintain that sensible firearms control is NOT a matter of disarmarment so much as sensible armarment. There is no valid reason for ANYBODY to use an Uzi.

They are too inaccurate for police, useless for hunting, endanger others in the realm of home defense and make sh!tty military firearms.

The uzi is the nunchaku of the gun world.

And back to my old mantra:

Pistols
Revolvers
Breach Loading Shotguns
Bolt Action Rifles

[bodhitree]

Here the other week a 9 year old boy outside of Pittsburgh accidentaly shot and killed his twin brother with his father's gun

[CFT]

An eight year old handling a firearm, under ANY conditions is completely insane!No it isn't. The majority of people just don't have enough common sense to be responsible with firearms.Do you want to engage your common sense and rethink your statement?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have to support TT's statement.

Darwin Award for the moron who let their 8 year old child handle an uzi.

PS: I still maintain that sensible firearms control is NOT a matter of disarmarment so much as sensible armarment. There is no valid reason for ANYBODY to use an Uzi.

They are too inaccurate for police, useless for hunting, endanger others in the realm of home defense and make sh!tty military firearms.

The uzi is the nunchaku of the gun world.

And back to my old mantra:

Pistols
Revolvers
Breach Loading Shotguns
Bolt Action Rifles

Never been a fan of the Uzi, prefer the HKMP-5 or 7 myself and no automatic firearm is needed for civilians.

[SimonM]

I 100% agree.

As a note: although I find firearms slightly distasteful I recognize that they are just tools.

As such I believe that those tools that serve a valid purpose should be available. Furthermore if one of those tools ever becomes useful for me (f'rinstance if I move out to Northern BC which is bear country) I will purchase one. Which I will happily license and store in compliance with Canadian law.

It perplexes me that people get so obsessed over proper regulation and control of firearms. After all most people don't have a problem with proper regulation and control of other potentially deadly tools such as the automobile; nor do many people assert that they NEED a tank just because the army has one and a tank can beat a hummer.

Training, regulation, licensing, background checks, what's the effing big deal?

You wouldn't want a drunk driver buying a truck. Why would you want a person with a history of violent crime to buy a gun?

[CFT]

It perplexes me that people get so obsessed over proper regulation and control of firearms. After all most people don't have a problem with proper regulation and control of other potentially deadly tools such as the automobileSorry, being dense here. You agree with the regulation and control of access to motor vehicles right?

[SimonM]

Absolutely!

Actually I'm in favor of periodic mandatory re-testing to retain licenses.

My argument is this:

Firearms are a tool.

Automobiles are a tool.

The four categories of firearms I am in favor of leaving available for civilian access serve every use of this tool just fine while throwing around the minimum number of bullets that might accidentally hit a passer-by and cause injury or death. These functions are: home defense, hunting.

The function of maintaining a counter-point to the state military is moot. The army has better vehicles and a tank trumps an uzi any day. A stealth bomber with smart-bombs on it furthermore trumps just about anything. So automatic and semi-automatic weaponry (with the exception of semi-automatic pistols which I accept have a valid home-defense use) really aren't going to allow for the formation of a militia that could overthrow a corrupt government that controls the military. It's a pipe dream left over from a past age.

So let's return to some common sense on the issue. Cars can be dangerous. So we want to make sure that people who use cars know how to safely operate the vehicle and do not have a past history of using them irresponsibly. I don't think ANYBODY would argue that vehicle saftety laws are a bad thing.

Guns can be dangerous. One would think that we would want to make sure that people who use guns know how to safely operate the firearm and do not have a past history of using firearms irresponsibly. And yet people fight tooth and nail against that.

[naja]

do you want to engage your common sense and rethink your statement?

...stfu...

[SimonM]

What a pithy comeback. :D

[naja]

What a pithy comeback. :D

I thought it was appropriate. :p

[David Jamieson]

I could think of a few valid reasons for using an uzi.

say, spelling my name in OBL's corpse?
Introducing myself to Taliban members?

and so on...

having said that, letting a kid have access to that firepower should leave the parents or guardians charged with criminal negligence causing homicide and I really don't care how badly they feel about it.
hindsight on a tragic death doesn't count. Pay a penalty.

[SimonM]

Waste of bullets.

All it takes is one.

Waste-not want-not.

I would rather our soldiers out of afghanistan. As far as I'm concerned that's not a war we will win. The deaths of the soldiers who died there are already pretty much in vain. The best way we can support our troops is to bring them home and redeploy them for peacekeeping missions and domestic disaster relief. That being said as long as our troops are stuck in that morass I would prefer them on a hill, a kilometer away, with a sniper rifle than down in the thick of it with a gun known for being "inaccurate at the range of the length of a bed".

[CFT]

...stfu...So you don't think it is completely insane that an eight year old is handling firearms under any conditions?

[Lucas]

an 8 year old doesnt need to fire any type of gun. he may want to, his parents may want him to, but he certainly doesnt NEED to.

many 8 year olds want to be astronauts....are we going to send them into space now too?

[GreenCloudCLF]

Just because certain forum members "shot guns when I was XXX" and did not have any negative consequences, does not in any way make children handling guns any less stupid or dangerous. If you closed your eyes and ran across the Autobahn and lived, I would not tell people this behavior is safe. The sun even shines on a dog's bum every so often.

[naja]

So you don't think it is completely insane that an eight year old is handling firearms under any conditions?

No. My father is a gunsmith, and works out of his house. He's been doing this for nearly 50 years. I grew up in that house and have never had any inclination to point a firearm at myself or anyone else. Loaded or unloaded. It comes down to common sense by adults who are teaching children, of whatever age, how to handle firearms.

[TenTigers]

The four categories of firearms I am in favor of leaving available for civilian access serve every use of this tool just fine while throwing around the minimum number of bullets that might accidentally hit a passer-by and cause injury or death. These functions are: home defense, hunting.

The function of maintaining a counter-point to the state military is moot. The army has better vehicles and a tank trumps an uzi any day. A stealth bomber with smart-bombs on it furthermore trumps just about anything. So automatic and semi-automatic weaponry (with the exception of semi-automatic pistols which I accept have a valid home-defense use) really aren't going to allow for the formation of a militia that could overthrow a corrupt government that controls the military. It's a pipe dream left over from a past age.



Guns can be dangerous. One would think that we would want to make sure that people who use guns know how to safely operate the firearm and do not have a past history of using firearms irresponsibly.

ok, then why shouldn't reponsible adults (over eight) be allowed to own semi autos?

That's like taking away my Marshalls and telling be to play through a Fender Champ, or a small combo,because I don't play big arenas.
And if I did, I could always mike them up. Many pros do.
-sure, but I still want my Marshall stack. And if I am not hurting anyone, blasting it out my window and pi$$ing off the neighbors, as the punks with the monster audio systems in their cars do, then why the heck not?

pretty soon, you'll be telling me that I only need ONE rubber love doll.
Sheesh! What's the world coming to?

[naja]

ok, then why shouldn't reponsible adults (over eight) be allowed to own semi autos?


You can. You just need a license for NFA Title 2 weapons.

[SimonM]

ok, then why shouldn't reponsible adults (over eight) be allowed to own semi autos?


Semi-automatic rifles are unsportsmanlike in a hunting context.
They are overkill in home defense scenarios.

Using a semi-automatic rifle for purposes a bolt-action rifle will serve just fine is like using a jackhammer to pound nails into your wall.

And, you will note, I am not opposed to the use of semi-automatic pistols. It's automatically repeating weapons I have the biggest beef with.

[Lucas]

i think im one of the few people who think all hunting should be done with a bow or a spear.

unless of course our ancestors were far superior to us....they did it for thousands of years.....something someone said one time bout how we are supposed to be superior....cept we need guns to kill a deer......

I know a few hunters who only use bows, and I commend them.

[Becca]

I thought there was an age limit for firearm use in the US, no?No, there isn't. There are certain laws governing the supervision of a child while they use a weapon, but nothing that absolutely bans a child from using one with supervision. This child did have the minumum supervision by law. And now he's dead.

Not that I don't agree that parents should have the right to introduce thier children to fire arms in the maner of thier chosing, but if kids are getting killed, then there needs to be a bit more regulation. Full auto weapons have no place in civilian society and absolutly no place in the hands of a child.

Since 99.9999999% of the respopnsable parents wouldn't let thier 8-year-old touch an assault rifle in the first place, making a minumum age for the handling of assault rifles will only crimp they style of those too foolish to protect thier children without Uncle Sam hovering over thier sholder.

[TenTigers]

"you'll get my marshalls when you can pry them
from my cold,dead hands!"

[SimonM]

"you'll get my marshalls when you can pry them
from my cold,dead hands!"

I wonder if anyone did that to Heston in the end... :cool:

[TenTigers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGkRKT0Q-L4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmmu0FRLPr4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8h-8rkHp6Q&feature=related

[SimonM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGkRKT0Q-L4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmmu0FRLPr4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8h-8rkHp6Q&feature=related

:confused:

IF that's a response to my comments please use your words. I can't access youtube from work.

[TenTigers]

nope, it's just something I found that I thought was relevant to the discussion.

pretty shocking, don't you agree?

[SimonM]

Since I have absolutely no clue what those youtube links lead to my answer is one of the neutrality of the honestly ignorant. I can not be shocked by a link I have not followed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Since I have absolutely no clue what those youtube links lead to my answer is one of the neutrality of the honestly ignorant. I can not be shocked by a link I have not followed.

Its a 3,9 and 4 year old shooting automatic weapons.

[SimonM]

head
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
desk

[Oso]

i think im one of the few people who think all hunting should be done with a bow or a spear.

unless of course our ancestors were far superior to us....they did it for thousands of years.....something someone said one time bout how we are supposed to be superior....cept we need guns to kill a deer......

I know a few hunters who only use bows, and I commend them.

i agree, or even better yet: only hunt w/ your hands and feet...course, we'd be overrun w/ deer now that we've killed all the wolves out...

[Oso]

Since 99.9999999% of the respopnsable parents wouldn't let thier 8-year-old touch an assault rifle in the first place, making a minumum age for the handling of assault rifles will only crimp they style of those too foolish to protect thier children without Uncle Sam hovering over thier sholder.

xactly the point of my title and first post :)

[Oso]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGkRKT0Q-L4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmmu0FRLPr4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8h-8rkHp6Q&feature=related

RULE #1: If you can't squeeze the trigger w/ one finger you are too small to handle the weapon.



on the other had, in the 1st and 3rd clip (Uzi and AK) there was control of the weapon by the adult.

clip 2: stoopid ***** was technically in FRONT of the shooter...been sorta funny if she had been capped.

but still, I do think all those kids were too young to be handling guns period.

Reiteration: 8 can be a good age for the basics.

[Oso]

Its a 3,9 and 4 year old shooting automatic weapons.

umm, wasn't the Uzi the only 'auto'?

if the 9mm AR was full auto, it was on single shot mode.

I couldn't really tell about the AK but I don't think it went full auto either.

[Oso]

FTR, today I took the morning off to:

#1 Change DL since I've moved
#2 Register my change of address with county officials in compliance with my concealed cary permit
#3 Vote early

:D

[taai gihk yahn]

8 or 9 sounds like a good age to start, primarily from the perspective that, IMPO, if you are going to handle a firearm, you should have the emotional maturity to understand the consequences of what its use can do, namely, kill something; watching the 3 and 4 y/o shoot, they really were just passively involved; I got the feeling that it was more for the parents entertainment than the kids education: first kid wanted to quit after one volley - clearly he had no investment in what he was doing; AK-47 kid also seemed to be just going along for the ride as well - so not only was the psychological piece absent, the motor-learning aspect was minimal to non-existent (trust me, you are not instilling anything for future reference); now the 9 y/o was different - he was actually learning, engaging in an activity involving sustained skill building under feedback conditions - he "understood" what he was doing, and was therefore being afforded the level of respect concomitant to that understanding by the instructor; also, the setting for the 3 & 4 y/o seemed very informal - I mean, mr. Ak-47 was just wandering around out of his dad's field of vision while daddy was doing his militia" gig - that seems a bit risky (4 y/o's do tend to "bolt" in unpredictable directions for no reason...); again, the 9 y/o was in the proper venue...

BTW, the other thing to consider is physically where a kid is at - the difference between a coordinated 9 y/o and a spastic 8 y/o is enormous; but personally, I wouldn't be inclined to give a fully auto weapon to someone that young - I mean, even that 9 y/o, who seemed relatively skilled, looked like he was moving around a fair amount and seemed to be working pretty hard to keep the weapon aligned...

question - if you are worried about recoil / kickback where the weapon flies upward, why are the adults holding the weapons from underneath? is it because the top of the barrel gets too hot? (use gloves?); I would just think that if the weapon was going to "get loose", you'd want to ground it, and that would be easier from the top - please explain the error in my logic...

[Oso]

yep :o

will fix


and your logic is sound

[taai gihk yahn]

and your logic is sound
any comment about my question about how the adult was holding the barrel?

[Toby]

Maybe to allow the children to still effectively sight?

I find threads like this hard to comprehend. I just don't understand the purpose of weapons like these, or rather, what people who own or would like to own weapons like these think their purpose is.

[Mr Punch]

sheesh :rolleyes: this one will haunt us, especially if we get a fully liberal executive and legislative group this time round.Obama's overall stance is that it's perfectly OK for states to make their own legislation about gun control. He has leaned towards strictness in Illinois, but there is nothing to suggest he would do so nationally.

Obama's main position statements/record:

1) Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass) (my opinion: seems a bit pointless anyway). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense (this was letting people off having unlicensed weapons when they use them in self defence - it seems reasonable to me that if you don't have the appropriate licence that should be the end of it), but also voted in 2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

2) "It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot... (but there's nothing wrong with) cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. "

3) He supports more background checks for permit applications nationwide... which seems reasonable.

4) He supports banning automatic and semiautomatic weapons... I'm kind of with Toby in that I don't see why people would want weapons like that, but then I've never fired one and can understand why people may make it a hobby. Otherwise banning these weapons seems reasonable to me: club permits for people to use them at the shooting range or on 'club outings' if you wanted to fire off a few thousand rounds in the desert somewhere might be a good compromise if a little easy to get around.

Above from here. (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

On another note, but a relevant one: his father is a director of emergency medicine at a hospital - a highly positioned doctor. He was 10 feet away. How an educated man in a position of responsibility over other people could be so irresponsible is beyond me but perhaps is a good argument in favour of there being some minimum tested skill set or awareness tests before anyone is given gun licences.

Even with strict laws, common sense needs to be applied:

From 'Time':

'Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. It is legal in Massachusetts for children to fire a weapon if they have permission from a parent or legal guardian and they are supervised by a properly certified and licensed instructor, Nunez said.'


I am as about as tree-hugging liberal as you can get on many issues, but this isn't about 2nd Amendment (which, TBH, I support, but in context of rigorous standards of training and teaching appropriate respect for any potentially deadly weapon) - it's about simple lack of intelligence; why on earth are you letting an 8 y/o handle that sort of firearm? heck, I don't let my 4 y/o w/in 50' of me when I mow the lawn!This is the point, as you agreed, Matt, regardless of 'liberal this' and 'liberal that'...


that instructor should have his license to teach revoked...In the very least. Criminal negligence on him and the father would seem to make sense.


A stealth bomber with smart-bombs on it furthermore trumps just about anything...Pah, you have no kung fu! :p

[Oso]

TGY: no, for better control over the weapon, they should have been covering the top of the weapon.

but, Toby has a point about possibly letting the kids be able to sight...

...however, that brings me back to the point of 'if you can't handle the size of the weapon (weight, recoil, trigger pull) you shouldn't be using the weapon.


Toby: to kill other people. euphimisms abound: 'home protection', 'self defense'. but, if you own a firearm for any reason, it's to kill things. if you own a pistol w/ less than a 6" barrel length, you have at least thought about killing people. same for most long arms except for definite purpose shotguns and rifles...like SimonM's bolt action rifle...they haven't been designed to kill people since WWI...ok, with the exception of 'sniper' rifles i guess...

Mr. Punch: i was mostly just being inflammatory...:)

I agree with your points. Gun control issues, as far as more stringent legislation, is pretty much at the bottom of my list of concerns in this election. But, I would still say that if there is a liberal majority in the legislative branch and a basically liberal president we will probably see more gun control legislation. I don't think any liberal/democrat president would buck the rest of the party and attempt to veto.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I find threads like this hard to comprehend. I just don't understand the purpose of weapons like these, or rather, what people who own or would like to own weapons like these think their purpose is.

I was in the military and I didn't like automatic weapons.

[taai gihk yahn]

I was in the military and I didn't like automatic weapons.

yes, but we all know that you only joined for the "camaraderie" and the travel...

[sanjuro_ronin]

yes, but we all know that you only joined for the "camaraderie" and the travel...

This is true, long showers to the wee hours of the morning with other men, traveling to places like Bosnia, yes, what a wonderful life !
LOL !

[Toby]

Toby: to kill other people. euphimisms abound: 'home protection', 'self defense'. but, if you own a firearm for any reason, it's to kill things. if you own a pistol w/ less than a 6" barrel length, you have at least thought about killing people. same for most long arms except for definite purpose shotguns and rifles...like SimonM's bolt action rifle...they haven't been designed to kill people since WWI...ok, with the exception of 'sniper' rifles i guess...Yeah, I get it. It just doesn't make sense to me. I also fail to understand when people say that the answer to preventing random gun crime is for everyone to carry concealed weapons. These sorts of things seem like a recipe for disaster to me. It's a cultural thing I guess.

Also, while everyone owning weapons and having military training might work in some cultures (i.e. certain northern European countries it seems to work well), I would argue that sort of thing doesn't/wouldn't work well in other countries (like America, England, Australia, Canada (? - actually I suspect Canada would do better than the others, at least the Canada I've seen (parts of BC and Quebec)*. Maybe not Ontario)). Seems the ones that don't have a problem view weapons as tools, the ones that do glorify weapons esp. in pop culture and media.

A cultural analogy would be when I spent time in Austria. I was led to believe that their welfare program entitled you to 80% of the earnings of your previous job for 6 months, then minimal or nothing after that. To qualify you only had to work 6 months. So basically, work for 6 months a year and get 90% of your income for the full year. It worked fine for them and I only ever met one person who was willingly unemployed (small sample size in village areas though, but I met a lot of people and spent many years there). If you offered the same sort of thing in Canada there'd be tree planter/ski bums living like kings. If you did it in Australia there'd be mining industry/surf bums. It simply wouldn't work. Countries without a problem have a different mindset, work is a way of life and people generally work hard. Countries that would have a problem glorify the pursuit of leisure and selfishness. I'll put my hand up, I'd definitely work 6 months a year if I could.

Anyway, (pretty much total) gun prohibition works well for us. I like it the way it is. Guns aren't really an issue. Knives and other weapons increasingly over the last two decades but still not that bad. Seems gun crime is an everyday occurrence in larger American cities.

* Yes, that's the rare triple-nested paragraph.

[SimonM]

Also, while everyone owning weapons and having military training might work in some cultures (i.e. certain northern European countries it seems to work well), I would argue that sort of thing doesn't/wouldn't work well in other countries (like America, England, Australia, Canada (? - actually I suspect Canada would do better than the others, at least the Canada I've seen (parts of BC and Quebec)*. Maybe not Ontario)). Seems the ones that don't have a problem view weapons as tools, the ones that do glorify weapons esp. in pop culture and media.


I am in Ontario. In Toronto there are some issues with gun violence... Mostly gang related. Aside from that... not much. Single-digit ****cide figures are not unheard of in the smaller cities of southwestern Ontario. Bikers will occasionally shoot each other but... well that's bikers.

Honestly I'd be more concerned of getting stabbed than getting shot. And we have reasonable gun control laws here. Because our fathers of confederation were smart enough not to include a vague-ass militia clause in our constitution. And so in Canada we see firearms as a privilege that can be lost rather than an inalienable right...

And yet...

The evil jackbooted government hasn't come and overthrown democracy.

[Becca]

umm, wasn't the Uzi the only 'auto'?

if the 9mm AR was full auto, it was on single shot mode.

I couldn't really tell about the AK but I don't think it went full auto either.

The defining difference between an automatic weapon and "full auto" is a biggin. The term "automatic weapon" is a reference to its action type. i.e. automatic, bolt action, black powder, breach, ect... An automating weapon self chambers the next round after self ejecting the spent casing. "Full auto" is a firing mode controlled by a sear cam. Any weapon with a sear can be made into a multi firing mode weapon.

[Oso]

The defining difference between an automatic weapon and "full auto" is a biggin. The term "automatic weapon" is a reference to its action type. i.e. automatic, bolt action, black powder, breach, ect... An automating weapon self chambers the next round after self ejecting the spent casing. "Full auto" is a firing mode controlled by a sear cam. Any weapon with a sear can be made into a multi firing mode weapon.


ok, ime, you would always define between 'semi' and 'auto'. i think it's the media that has blurred the lines between the two for common usage. in my recent classes there was always the distinction of the 'semi auto' pistol...it was never referred to as an 'automatic' pistol.


Toby: i hear you. I wasn't taking a jab at you or your point of view...just pointing out that even americans will dance around the real objective with having a pistol.

[Becca]

in my recent classes there was always the distinction of the 'semi auto' pistol...it was never referred to as an 'automatic' pistol.

You add the "semi" onto it, you get a weapon that can be fired repetedly, but won't fire continuously even if you keep the trigger depressed. There are automatic pistols out there, but they are commonly called machine pistols. Just as there are semi-automatic rifles like the Ak-47. all you need to do is change the sear to make that puppy fire what ever round burst you want.

The fthe other common type of pistols is the revolver.

[TenTigers]

unfortunately, the tech-9 which can be altered by filing the sear to full-auto, the Mak-10, and the uzi all come in pistol-size. There are also methods of altering a standard blow-back reciever in a semi-auto handgun to fire full-auto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA6cInTTLlc

now, the general public is not aware of this, and neither are the bill passers, as they are not firearm enthusiasts.

[Becca]

Filing the sear would qualify as changing it, yes? Safer to have a gunsmith machine you a proper sear, but filing works, assuming you don't ruin the temper, file it to the point the safety won't malfuntion if it's dropped, ect....

[Oso]

You add the "semi" onto it, you get a weapon that can be fired repetedly, but won't fire continuously even if you keep the trigger depressed. There are automatic pistols out there, but they are commonly called machine pistols. Just as there are semi-automatic rifles like the Ak-47. all you need to do is change the sear to make that puppy fire what ever round burst you want.

The fthe other common type of pistols is the revolver.

right, i know that.


my general point is that it seems to me that the media is basically responsible for referring to semi-automatic firearms as automatic firearms as part of thier reporting on the evils of guns.

[Becca]

right, i know that.


my general point is that it seems to me that the media is basically responsible for referring to semi-automatic firearms as automatic firearms as part of thier reporting on the evils of guns.
They also are the inventors of the "found a dead body in such and such a place...." Of course it was a dead body; there's nothing news worthy of live bodys in cars...:rolleyes:

But I also suspect part of it may have come from "gun people." I have been told that an uzi is a submachine gun there for it isn't also an assault rifle.

[CLFLPstudent]

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/halloween.slaying.ap/index.html) is a good reason why people need to own assault rifles?

Really sickening. What is an ex-con doing with an AK-47? Why fire 29 shot's through the front door and walls? After hearing a knock on Halloween?

How will Heston explain this away?

The system has really failed this poor boy's family. As a father of a 4 year old, I can not imagine the hurt and anger I would feel if this was my family.

This is a good reason for public execution in the most painful way in my opinion.

Truly awful.

-David

[Becca]

Don't imagine Heston will be able to explain anything away seeing as he died of pnimonia this past April.... But your point is will taken. That is absolutely sad. Some gun enthusiests keep saying the gun control won't keep assault riles out of the hands of criminals. But gun controll can create the type of atmosphere where the avaerage moron doesn't think of getting an assault rifle as the result of a past home intrusion. My responce to being broke into several years ago was to move after the land lord refused to let me get a dog.....

[SimonM]

[
How will Heston explain this away?


Heston won't be explaining much as the words "cold" and "dead" now apply to his hands in the most literal of senses.

[TenTigers]

IMHO, the best home defense firearm is the 12 guage pump shotgun. Stopping power, range, spread, and any intruder would instantly recognize the unmistakable sound of a 12 guage being racked.
That being said, a 12 guage would've gone right through his door and into the kid as well.
It doesn't matter whether it was an AK47, a Mossberg 500, or a flintlock. Give a nutcase a firearm is like....well, it's like giving a nutcase a firearm!

[SimonM]

One of the most common things done in Canada to control firearms is the inclusion of a firearms ban for convicted felons.

And yet IIRC we let them vote... just not carry guns.

Seems like some states have this ass-backwards.

[Becca]

Fellons aren't allowed to own firearms in the U.S, either. Not that it stops them.... Only changing the culture to make it sociolly unacceptable will do that.

[Oso]

yea, that was another terribly horrible situation, he should not have had a gun of any sort...but, i'd have to wager that he would have done something at some point even if it was with a spork....