It's amusing to see people alternately arguing that we shouldn't have access to "military-style" weapons and then arguing that the military will vastly outgun us. It's true that tanks and the like would be problematic, but on the other hand I like to think our rebels would learn from Iraq and work around civilian areas where heavy weapons can't be used.
"Assault weapon" is a made up term that has no actual meaning.
Keepign them at the range makes the range a nice target for theft. The range that I've been to the most is in the sticks and doesn't have anyone there most of the time. Perfect for stealing tons of guns. And what happens when I want to go to a different range? Or not go to a range at all? I live out in the sticks, I have enough land available to do shooting on my own. Both of the options you're suggesting woudl be enormous inconveniences while doing next to nothing to prevent sprees.
"Extended"? Probably standard capacity as high-capacity magazines are cripplingly expensive. I've seen 60 and 100 rounds mags, but they're WAY too expensive for me.
We'll have to have everyone register them as lethal weapons, take classes in their safe use and have a safety certified observer on hand whenever they are used.
They aren't special. 5.56 rounds tumble and fragment in flesh. IIRC it actually wasn't a design goal when the bullets were being designed but the result of the design fragmented.
Mag changes don't take long, most of the sprees end because the shooter kills themselves or is stopped. If you reduce the capacity of magazines the sprees will simply last longer.
You can, but you'll have to get a tax stamp and fined someone willing to sell you one (Nothing made after 1986 is transferable). So you'll have to pony up a few thousand.
The "assault rifle" is almost certainly an AR-15, which is, of course, nothign of the sort.
I have a friend who probably goes through a thousand rounds a month, ammo prices fluctuate greatly so when you're going through that much ammo if the price drops you buy, a lot.
IIRC many prisons are run by for-profit corporations, it benefits them to have more prisoners
Weed is a competitor for many medications which brings heat from pharmaceutical corps
Weed is a competitor for recreational use which puts it in conflict with booze
Hemp has a wide range of uses that put it in conflict with paper and textile industries
Suppliers for law enforcement benefit by our constantly pumping money into a failed war
I'm not certain as I've never investigated but what I have seen indicates that weed cultivation is easy to do on a small scale, most of the supply would probably be provided by small local growers leaving relatively little room for big corps to make their way in. Remember, there's very few people who smoke a packs worth of joints per day.
I built my computer for less than 50% of what it would have cost to buy it and it except for when I pushed the under-volting too far it's worked perfectly.
In a word: No.
More completely, if the invention was made on company time using company resources then the company should own part of it, if not then they shouldn't own any of it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's amusing to see people alternately arguing that we shouldn't have access to "military-style" weapons and then arguing that the military will vastly outgun us. It's true that tanks and the like would be problematic, but on the other hand I like to think our rebels would learn from Iraq and work around civilian areas where heavy weapons can't be used.
"Assault weapon" is a made up term that has no actual meaning.
Keepign them at the range makes the range a nice target for theft. The range that I've been to the most is in the sticks and doesn't have anyone there most of the time. Perfect for stealing tons of guns. And what happens when I want to go to a different range? Or not go to a range at all? I live out in the sticks, I have enough land available to do shooting on my own. Both of the options you're suggesting woudl be enormous inconveniences while doing next to nothing to prevent sprees.
"Extended"? Probably standard capacity as high-capacity magazines are cripplingly expensive. I've seen 60 and 100 rounds mags, but they're WAY too expensive for me.
[Citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Hunting rifle.
Granted it took actual marksmaship in that case so your point isn't totally invalid, but it's perfectly doable.
Now now, don't go bringing FACTS into a discussion about gun control. That won't do at all.
We'll have to have everyone register them as lethal weapons, take classes in their safe use and have a safety certified observer on hand whenever they are used.
They aren't special. 5.56 rounds tumble and fragment in flesh. IIRC it actually wasn't a design goal when the bullets were being designed but the result of the design fragmented.
Shorter barrels cause less fragmentation.
Mag changes don't take long, most of the sprees end because the shooter kills themselves or is stopped. If you reduce the capacity of magazines the sprees will simply last longer.
You can, but you'll have to get a tax stamp and fined someone willing to sell you one (Nothing made after 1986 is transferable). So you'll have to pony up a few thousand.
What are the stats pre-ban? The DIFFERENCE is what the previosu poster was talkign about, not the absolute numbers.
Going up != high. Going up = going up.
The "assault rifle" is almost certainly an AR-15, which is, of course, nothign of the sort.
I have a friend who probably goes through a thousand rounds a month, ammo prices fluctuate greatly so when you're going through that much ammo if the price drops you buy, a lot.
You draw the line at a 1-inch mostly dull knife, aren't you thnking of the CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!?
A+ 5 star post
Requiring that guns be secured when not in use is one of the few things that coudl actually help without infringing on the 2nd Amendment
There were no assault rifles involved, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Unless you think that an AR-15 is an assult rifle in which case you need to check your definitions
IIRC many prisons are run by for-profit corporations, it benefits them to have more prisoners
Weed is a competitor for many medications which brings heat from pharmaceutical corps
Weed is a competitor for recreational use which puts it in conflict with booze
Hemp has a wide range of uses that put it in conflict with paper and textile industries
Suppliers for law enforcement benefit by our constantly pumping money into a failed war
I'm not certain as I've never investigated but what I have seen indicates that weed cultivation is easy to do on a small scale, most of the supply would probably be provided by small local growers leaving relatively little room for big corps to make their way in. Remember, there's very few people who smoke a packs worth of joints per day.
I've actually wondered about what woudl happen if the Koreas unified, even if SK was the lead it wouldn't be pretty for them.
I actually kind of doubt that China would pick NK over the US, one of use is worth a LOT more to their economy. Not to say they'd be happy about it.
We have a winrar. I have a Surface and I'm eagerly awaiting this since the Video app on the Surface kinda sucks.
I built my computer for less than 50% of what it would have cost to buy it and it except for when I pushed the under-volting too far it's worked perfectly.
In a word: No. More completely, if the invention was made on company time using company resources then the company should own part of it, if not then they shouldn't own any of it.
Second. W8 isn't the big deal that it's made out to be.
Which wasn't really even a scandal since MS ended up extending the warranty for an additional 2 years to the affected customers.