Quote:
Originally posted by debaser
In my military experience I have never encountered teflon or caseless ammunition. As far as I know they are not used my the US military.
|
But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, does it? As near as I can remember, caseless ammunition is a slug set directly into a block of solid propellant. This propellant is more energetic and burns cleaner, so that a greater portion of the reaction energy is available to propel the slug from the weapon with greater velocity and efficiency. It also produces no "brass", the spent propellant casings ejected by semiautomatic weapons after the round has been fired. Brass, by the way, is a fairly critical tool in forensic analysis of gun crimes. There is no conceivable civilian use for this ammunition. But how long d'you think it'll be before it's the ammo of choice for people who don't want to leave behind clues? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first to come up with that idea, either. What I can't be sure of is whether the other folks who've thought of it are as nice as I am.
Quote:
Very well:
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster
Now who holds more weight?
|
That depends upon whether Mr. Webster, great orator though he was, had actually said something that invalidated Hinckley's comment. This particular snippet doesn't.
Quote:
|
But criminals don't get "bigger" guns. They just move to places where no-one is armed (like California).
|
You can't possibly be serious in claiming that nobody in California is armed. Have you ever been to East Palo Alto? Oakland? Emeryville? East Los Angeles? Compton? Tracy?
Quote:
|
There isn't an "arms race". Criminals use whatever they can get their hands on.
|
If this is true, then why not take steps to limit what they can "get their hands on?" Right now, they're getting their hands on guns. Your stated counter to that is to have more people get guns. That's an arms race.
Quote:
|
The world is jamm packed with idiot. I think a solid education is an acceptable start.
|
General educational policy is not germane to a discussion on gun control. I'm talking here about the requirements we place on people to drive cars, and why we have nothing even remotely so stringent in the case of firearms. You have to have a license and insurance to drive a car, and that car must be registered. Why don't we do similar things with guns, which are vastly more efficient in killing people than cars are?
Quote:
|
We are were talking about the legal definition of an assault weapon, remember. It is very specific. Stop dodging the issue.
|
That's a bit hypocritical, given the way you sidestepped the issue of gun education and insurance. But I'll let that slide with just a polite mention. My point is that laws are not black and white. I chose to make that point by drawing a comparison with another type of law. The plain point is that the words of laws take much longer to change than do the things those laws deal with. This creates gray areas. Gun laws are not nearly so black and white as you like to think they are. Neither are tax laws. Nor any other law, for that matter.
Quote:
|
I think this goes back to the hopeless idealist reference earlier...
|
Idealistic? Not so much. Hopeless? Not a chance. Pragmatic? Very.