Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
The purpose of a Ferrari is to move from point A to point b. Yes it could wreck havok or destruction but that is not it's purpose. The purpose of a 50 cal is to wreck havok or destruction. Using your logic people should be able to own and drive tanks.
A large "sniper" rifle does not provide any more defense then an ordinary rifle but does provide the ability to do a lot more damage that we don't want people doing. While were talking about weapons how about sub-machine guns? Or any other spray & pray type weapons. To me it is clear that those weapons are way to dangerous to be in the hands of everyday people.
Personally I think we could probably keep most weapons legal but would need to increase the penalties for gun violations. If we can send a first time drug offender to prison under minimum sentencing guidelines for 20 years then the same should be true for careless gun owners. Plaxico Burress should have a minimum sentence for 20 years for what he did.
|
A Ferarris purpose is to test the limits of automotive engineering. Sure it will get you from point A to point B, but so will a Honda Civic. Why should anyone be able to own a car capable of reaching 200 mph when the highest national speed limit is 75mph? Because a car capable of 200 mph is appealing to some people. Its just damn good fun.
Please understand that Im not espousing the "defensive" qualities of a 50 caliber rifle. The reason a 50 cal rifle is so appealing is its considered by some to be the Ferarri of guns. Its big, loud, expensive and it is capable of reaching out farther than most other rifles. I cant imagine a defensive scenario where you would need to shoot anyone from 2,000 meters. But then again I cant imagine a scenario where I would need to drive 200 mph.
Im saying that a 50 caliber rifle is no more dangerous than an unassuming hunting rifle. There is simply a stigma about the 50. The fact of the matter is that both bolt action hunting rifles and 50's are capable of a high level of accuracy, defeating body armor, causing death/destruction, etc from a great distance. If you choose to make illegal 50 caliber rifles based upon their potential lethality, logically you would also have to outlaw grandpa's old hunting rifle.
Like it or not, "Spray and Pray" machine guns are available now to the general public, provided they take the time to follow BATF regulations. As far as I know, no civilian has used a legally owned automatic weapon to commit mass murder.
I dont agree with mandatory sentences for anything. I believe that takes away the courts option to address each case based upon its own unique circumstances. I am all for harsh sentences for violators of gun laws or those who use guns to commit an act of violence but I believe that the federal sentencing guidelines we have in place now are more than adequate. Instead of trying to keep guns out of the publics hands, I believe it would be better for the governing bodies to provide uniform gun safety training and trigger locks available to all and free of charge. Honestly, I feel that all of this nonsense about tougher gun laws, etc is based around an frightened publics knee-jerk reaction to the violence inherent in all societies.
As for Plaxico Burress...the guy should be doing time simply for playing for the Giants. Go Skins!
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 04 : 38 : 54-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
20 years for shooting yourself in the leg? pretty harsh, don't you think?
|
You have to put aside all of your personal emotions/opinions about whether or not the NYC gun laws are unconstitutional. Mr. Burress was carrying a gun in a place that he knew it to be illegal. He knowingly broke the law and must now face the consequences of his actions.
That being said, while I dont approve of NYC's stance on guns, Plaxico Burress is a douchebag that made us all look bad. The guy took a loaded Glock, stuck it in the waist band of his sweatpants and went on to get shithouse drunk in a public place. Thats beyond irresponsible.