catbarf on 26/3/2018 at 16:00
Quote Posted by Starker
Couldn't you, say, ignite a gas tank with incendiary ammunition, though? Is it available in the US?
A gas tank would be a tough shot even for trained snipers, and even incendiary ammo has a hard time igniting gasoline in a closed vessel. The military did a (
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800109.pdf) study on incendiary rounds igniting fuel in aircraft fuel tanks back in 1948, and found that the lack of oxygen inside a tank prevents it from igniting. That said, frankly, I'd be fine with incendiary ammo being taken off the market entirely- idiots shooting incendiary rounds in dry brush are a forest fire waiting to happen.
heywood on 26/3/2018 at 16:02
Quote Posted by Starker
There's also no sense in permitting people to have just any gun as long as no crime has been committed with it.
If you think that banning particular weapons could reduce gun deaths, surely it makes sense to start by looking at the weapons that kill the most people, not the ones that kill the least.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, a weapon designed to take out attack helicopters should not be in civilian hands in the first place. At the very least, it should be restricted to collectors and shooting ranges.
We have a basic right to arms. It's like free speech. People don't need to justify what they say or what they shoot. These aren't unlimited rights. We place some limits on speech for public safety and to avoid undue harm to others. And we have some restrictions on firearms (i.e. NFA) for the same reasons. I think there is cause for some additional reasonable restrictions, but they have to be justified by a public safety argument. If we had a recurring problem with shit heads shooting down helicopters with .50 cal rifles, we'd have a reason to restrict them. But that problem doesn't exist today.
LarryG on 26/3/2018 at 16:05
I still like the idea of restricting "heavy" (tbd) weaponry to "armory clubs," that is to specially licensed clubs with the weapons to remain on premises and controlled by licensed custodians. That way gun enthusiasts could fire whatever they wanted in a safe place without endangering other's lives. I would have no problem with tanks, anti-tank guns, cannon, howitzers, bazookas, whatever in such a compund. Then you could legitimately restrict hunters to just hunting guns, and self-protection folk to just handguns.
heywood on 26/3/2018 at 16:32
It seems reasonable to limit certain types of heavier arms to "armory clubs" or regulated civilian militia organizations on the basis that they require special training or facilities to operate safely. Where you lose me is suggesting that private citizens should be limited to hunting or self-protection and guns designed specifically for those purposes.
jkcerda on 26/3/2018 at 16:36
Quote Posted by LarryG
I still like the idea of restricting "heavy" (tbd) weaponry to "armory clubs," that is to specially licensed clubs with the weapons to remain on premises and controlled by licensed custodians.
That way gun enthusiasts could fire whatever they wanted in a safe place without endangering other's lives. I would have no problem with tanks, anti-tank guns, cannon, howitzers, bazookas, whatever in such a compund. Then you could legitimately restrict hunters to just hunting guns, and self-protection folk to just handguns.
you are seemingly implying people are firing in the streets and the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting .
LarryG on 26/3/2018 at 16:57
Quote Posted by heywood
It seems reasonable to limit certain types of heavier arms to "armory clubs" or regulated civilian militia organizations on the basis that they require special training or facilities to operate safely. Where you lose me is suggesting that private citizens should be limited to hunting or self-protection and guns designed specifically for those purposes.
Not at all. You could own a tank if you wanted one. You would just have to store it at an armory club under the care of a specially licensed custodian, and it could not be taken from the armory club premises except for transport to another such armory. It would be your tank. The armory might also have weapons for rent and use on premises. The idea is that especially dangerous weapons would be properly managed and regular inspections would ensure that all is as it should be. If you wanted to keep a tank at your house, you could apply to get a license as an armory, and if you met all the requirements and became licensed as a custodian, you could do so. Regular hunting rifles / shotguns and self-defense handguns (tbd) could be licensed and sold as per usual.
jkcerda on 26/3/2018 at 17:05
no thanks Larry, not one more inch.
LarryG on 26/3/2018 at 21:10
Quote Posted by jkcerda
no thanks Larry, not one more inch.
I'm sorry. I am unaware of any inches you have moved towards compromise. Please, where are you willing to move towards and from what prior position?
jkcerda on 26/3/2018 at 21:54
from 0 to BG checks for private and store purchases.
Starker on 26/3/2018 at 22:51
Quote Posted by heywood
If you think that banning particular weapons could reduce gun deaths, surely it makes sense to start by looking at the weapons that kill the most people, not the ones that kill the least.
We have a basic right to arms. It's like free speech. People don't need to justify what they say or what they shoot. These aren't unlimited rights. We place some limits on speech for public safety and to avoid undue harm to others. And we have some restrictions on firearms (i.e. NFA) for the same reasons. I think there is cause for some additional reasonable restrictions, but they have to be justified by a public safety argument. If we had a recurring problem with shit heads shooting down helicopters with .50 cal rifles, we'd have a reason to restrict them. But that problem doesn't exist today.
So, the moment someone shoots down a helicopter with one, it's banning time, not before?
No, limiting deaths would not be the reason to ban particular weapons like these. The reason would be that they are a way too dangerous and destructive to have in civilian circulation. Weapons like these have been confiscated from terrorist organisations and organised crime armories. It's the same reason you don't allow Stingers (I assume) to be in the civilian market just because only a few people die to them. And, at least in the US, there is no recurring problem of people shooting down helicopters with Stinger missiles either.
On the other side of the coin, what would be the reason to allow them to be widespread? They are impractical for hunting or self-defence. And all the recreational shooting would be covered by them being restricted to collectors and gun clubs.
