Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Firearms Safety
For those who don't already know, the fully automatic fire (multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger) shown near the end of the video, is not a capability that a standard AR-15 has. Owning a full auto requires a full background investigation, FBI approval, approval of the chief local law enforcement official, and payment of a $200 tax stamp. Not to mention that a legal transferable full auto AR-15 (M16) costs about $30,000 now, and may no longer (since 1986) be produced. OTOH, they are still produced for sale to cops; and to them they cost no more than a semi-auto-only rifle (under $1000).
One more thing. The ready availability of gun locks is a good thing. Manufacturers including a gun lock with new guns is a good idea. The government requiring that people keep a lock on the gun, however, is a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I know you're probably going to disagree with me on this one, but I'd have no argument whatsoever with gun ownership if everyone who owned firearms was required to take a safety course. If you've got to be able to pass a driver's test to use a car, seems like it's not unreasonable to ask people to prove they're competent to own a rifle or handgun. Maybe then there'd be fewer cases of 3-year-olds shooting themselves because their moronic parents left loaded weapons where kids could find them. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347249,00.html
I'll let you be quitely amused by the irony of me using a Faux News story to bolster an argument.
Can't legislate stupidity.
It seems to me that the more responsibility the government takes upon itself, the more people do irresponsible things. I have my own thoughts about that.
But have you noticed that the more gun laws are passed, the more crime is committed using guns? I'm talking about violent crime, not stuff that is only a crime because the new laws have made it so.
Think about this, seriously: how many laws actually prevent what has been outlawed?
Generally, laws don't prevent any activity; they only tax that activity while giving government ever more power.
the firing in the background was annoying and distacting. for that
reason I did not watch all of the video.
Nan said...
I'd have no argument whatsoever with gun ownership if everyone who owned firearms was required to take a safety course.
Nan,
could a bureaucrat who hates guns write a safety test that no gun owner could pass???
I would prefer no controls at all on firearms. I wish you could buy a beltfed machine gun, or Thompson submachine gun, OTC without any paperwork.
You could do that before 1934.
Did you know that firearm suppressors aka "silencers" are not controlled in Finland? Yet Finland has less crime than USA.
here are details of
National Firearms ACt of 1934.
http://tinyurl.com/ydyj2s
NFA 34 has not stopped criminals from using guns in crime.
The law says you must have RX to buy narcotics. Yet you can buy dope on every street corner and schoolyard.
You're absolutely right, Vlad. Also, the effect GCA '68 had was to cause street punks to start carrying .357 Magnums instead of cheap .22 and .25 "Saturday night specials". And if hr 1022 or the like ever passes, I don't think it will be long before we start seeing real, full-auto AK-47s and the like being smuggled in. After all, if semi autos are a felony to possess, lots of people are gonna opt to get the real thing, since the penalty won't be any higher.
Post a Comment