Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: taurususa.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to taurususa.com.

Comments · 9

  1. Re:Nobody's going to worry abou intent with a 17" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1 · on Digging Into the Legal Status of 3-D Printed Guns

    It's even more stupid than you think it is, when you realize how they distinguish between pistols and rifles. Basically, if it has a stock, it is a rifle; if it doesn't, it is a pistol. So, for example, this is a pistol - and, as such, is perfectly legal and not regulated in any special way. But if you add a stock to it, it becomes a "short-barreled rifle", and now it's regulated as an NFA item. And keep in mind that a stock is anything that you can use to support it against your shoulder - i.e. a bent piece of wire duct taped to the receiver would qualify.

    Shotgun/rifle distinction is also kinda weird. Rifles are, well, rifled, while shotguns are not. But you can still fire shot from rifled barrels, and there are rifled slug guns and even revolvers that do just that. Because they are classified as rifles, the limit on barrel length is 16", as opposed to 18.5" for shotguns, and no limit at all for handguns. My understanding is that originally there was only a limit for shotguns, and its purpose was to ban sawed-off shotguns (as they were seen as strictly close-range offensive weapon useful only for criminals and not for any legitimate purpose like self-defense, hunting or militia service). But today, the only thing that forbids rifled sawed-off "non-shotguns" firing large-size shot is not the barrel limit - since they would technically qualify as handguns - but rather the restriction on caliber (everything above .50 is a "destructive device"; 12 gauge is .729, and 20 gauge is .616). Hence why you can do it with .410 shotshells, but not with 12 or 20 gauge. Still, someone could make a "custom" .50 cal shotshell (and make it long to fit more shot in it) and design a handgun for it that would be legal and not specially regulated, while technically offering all features and benefits of a sawed off shotgun...

    The problem is that firearm laws in US have evolved "organically", meaning that it is a hodge-podge of hastily adopted resolutions to address public outcry to some crimes that drew attention, various "common sense" hacks, hacks on top of those hacks etc. Even worse is that a lot of it is not even clearly spelled out in law, but is basically up to BATFE to decide - so a single unelected bureaucrat can considerably change policy either way by issuing an executive directive. E.g. bump fire "full auto" guns are not considered truly full auto by BATFE today, but they may become that tomorrow. On the other hand, even under existing policy, if a weapon accidentally double-fires (an uncommon but possible malfunction in any semi-auto), it could be reclassified as a full-auto, and its owner would then immediately become a felon.

    We really need to just ditch this whole mess and rework it from scratch as a single coherent law based on well-defined policy. Of course, for that, we'd need to decide on policy, and that is very much a hot topic these days, with no consensus in sight.

  2. Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on TSA Limits Lithium Batteries on Airplanes

    The weapon you are referring to is The Judge manufactured by Taurus. It fires .45 rounds as well as .410 2-1/2" shot rounds (a common round that is used in place of a 12 gauge, usually found in a long gun). http://www.taurususa.com/products/gunselector-results.cfm?series=41

  3. Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again by BirdDoggy · · Score: 2, Informative · on TSA Limits Lithium Batteries on Airplanes

    You're talking about the Taurus Judge. Chambers .410 shotshell and .45 Colt. Touted as a vehicle defense weapon.
    http://www.taurususa.com/whatsnew/revolvers.cfm

  4. Re:Guns by gunner800 · · Score: 1 · on Supreme Court Rules against Grokster
    Your definition of "gun" threw me, too, but I can't very well argue with a Master Sergeant even by proxy.

    You can find handguns promoted for hunting or defense easily enough. Firearm makers have had to watch what they say for a long time, so promotions are always carefully tailored to deal with responsible, legal uses of guns. There's an ongoing scuffle about some being advertised as resisting fingerprints and thus (arguably) more suitable for criminal use, but that's the only thing I can thing of as even a borderline case of promoting bad behavior. So they should be safe, generally, from Groksteresque legal woes.

    Amongst civilians, the most powerful handgun ammunititions (.454 Casull, .50 AE, and such) are primarily for hunting, because the recoil and bulk make them impractical for self defense.

    Plus are you really going to hunt a bear with a pistol...something vastly inaccurate at any distance more then 10-15 feet.


    Funnily enough, my dad used to do exactly that, with a .44 magnum revolver. He was a world-class shot back then though, because he was a pistol marksman in the army for several years.

    10-15 feet is very pessimistic. If you're basing this on ROTC training, you probably only ever used military pistols and perhaps mostly shot standing up. Hunters can use handguns with longer barrels and scopes, and they'll get into as steady a position as they can.

    I'm a casual target shooter who's never hunted, but I have a strong hunch I could kill a deer (standing still) at 50 feet with my short .357 Magnum revolver and sights. A serious hunter with a scope would outdo me by a wide margin.

    That said, you're basically right that most hunters use rifles or shotguns, and rifles and shotguns are actually better for it. A sizeable minority use handguns because of the increased challenge and reduced weight and cost. Same reasons people hunt with bows.
  5. Re:Guns by gunner800 · · Score: 1 · on Supreme Court Rules against Grokster
    Your definition of "gun" threw me, too, but I can't very well argue with a Master Sergeant even by proxy.

    You can find handguns promoted for hunting or defense easily enough. Firearm makers have had to watch what they say for a long time, so promotions are always carefully tailored to deal with responsible, legal uses of guns. There's an ongoing scuffle about some being advertised as resisting fingerprints and thus (arguably) more suitable for criminal use, but that's the only thing I can thing of as even a borderline case of promoting bad behavior. So they should be safe, generally, from Groksteresque legal woes.

    Amongst civilians, the most powerful handgun ammunititions (.454 Casull, .50 AE, and such) are primarily for hunting, because the recoil and bulk make them impractical for self defense.

    Plus are you really going to hunt a bear with a pistol...something vastly inaccurate at any distance more then 10-15 feet.


    Funnily enough, my dad used to do exactly that, with a .44 magnum revolver. He was a world-class shot back then though, because he was a pistol marksman in the army for several years.

    10-15 feet is very pessimistic. If you're basing this on ROTC training, you probably only ever used military pistols and perhaps mostly shot standing up. Hunters can use handguns with longer barrels and scopes, and they'll get into as steady a position as they can.

    I'm a casual target shooter who's never hunted, but I have a strong hunch I could kill a deer (standing still) at 50 feet with my short .357 Magnum revolver and sights. A serious hunter with a scope would outdo me by a wide margin.

    That said, you're basically right that most hunters use rifles or shotguns, and rifles and shotguns are actually better for it. A sizeable minority use handguns because of the increased challenge and reduced weight and cost. Same reasons people hunt with bows.
  6. Re:Not A Good Idea by multiplexo · · Score: 1 · on In-Dash DIN-form-factor Car PC

    Actually instead of a bag of rocks you should get one of these and load it up with some Aquila 115 grain high velocity (1450 fps) hollowpoints. Inattentive drivers, such as the old fuck who ran into me and destroyed my left leg, cause all sorts of bad shit to happen to other people, especially motorcyclists, it's about time someone made bad things happen to them.

  7. Pepsi? You mean Armalite, of course! by mangu · · Score: 2 · on Pop-up Ads Coming to A TV Near You

    Isn't the whole idea behind pop-up ads that they would be more effective if content-related? In Quake, you would strat from small arms pop-ups, going through more powerful stuff, all the way to those lovely smart missiles pop-ups.

  8. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Subversive Gifts for New College Students?

    Get her a nice carry weapon and the courses on how to use it. Once she's passed the course, depending on the state laws, a concealed carry permit would complement it off nicely.

    Of course this assumes that she's sane, not prone to outbursts of temper, is responsible, and has vast respect for human life. Otherwise this would be the worst possible thing to give her.

  9. Re:Brazil... by mangu · · Score: 1 · on Requiring Software Freedom
    Let's recapitulate: first, you said the last American presidents were fools (actually you wrote "tools" but I interpreted it as a typo), and you said no country had any president that was any good. I mentioned that the current Brazilian president has some degrees and qualifications that put him in the "not-fool" category. I did not "endorse" him, I never even voted for him, but I just mentioned he is, at least, intellecutally endowed.


    Then you accused the Brazilian president of corruption. I did not defend him, if anybody has some concrete evidence, it's his or her duty to present that evidence in the proper court, and let the accused defend themselves. I just mentioned that the Brazilian political system can be favourably compared to the American one, since in Brazil a corrupt president is removed from office, while in the USA a president isn't ever tried for corruption. I showed a recent example where serious evidence was presented against an American president, and he wasn't even tried. IF he had been innocent in the affair, a proper trial would have been the best way to prove his innocence.


    So, my point is this: you said Latin Americans are statistically corrupt, based on a correlation you perceive between the local crime rate and the proportion of latinos in the neighbourhood where you live. I say that's bullshit.


    As a footnote, I think it's curious that Brazil and USA are both justified in accusing each other of increasing violent crime in the other country. In Brazil, the drug dealers' favourite guns are American Armalite rifles. In the USA, some of the most popular handguns are Brazilian Taurus pistols and revolvers. I think the causes of crime are too complex and still too much dependent on unknown parameters to allow an easy generalization.