Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
The number of types of caseless weapons "in production" is a misleading argument: several more are in development; one has even been tested by the U.S. Army, as well as the German army. Now, given the rate at which technology advances, how long d'you think it'll be before someone gets the bright idea of producing a caseless weapon for the masses?
Good news for the dumb ones, then: before long, they won't have to worry about their brass when they shoot someone!
|
Well the G11 was tested in 1990, and nothing has been done since. So that is how fast technology advances...
Quote:
Two points. One, you claimed that people "don't have guns" in California. Exactly how is this possible if California has the highest rate of gun crime? Two, I've never said that more restrictive is the answer. Smarter, yes. Better-defined, yes. More formative, yes. More restrictive, not necessarily.
|
California has the lowest gun ownership per capita as a result of its restrictive gun laws, yet it still has the highest rate of gun violence.
Quote:
That's traditionally the way you do it in this country, yes. You pass a law to deal with conduct deemed unsafe, or unfit for society. It's quaint, I know, but I prefer it to the alternative. How about you?
On a less flippant note, the whole point is to pass laws that make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and that make it easier for law enforcement to do something about it when they do, and to make the rest of us generally safer in the meantime.
|
The point is that criminals don't follow the law, so a law designed to keep guns out of their hands would be pretty pointless. There are thousands of gun laws on the books, very few of which are enforced. Yet someone always crys for more.
Quote:
Mmmmmm, no. We don't force students to learn to drive, we let them do it at their option, BUT we do require it if they're going to drive on our streets. We have driver's education programs and schools; why not gun education programs and schools? I don't believe in forcing people to learn about guns any more than I believe in taking all the guns away.
|
Gun safety should be part of the health course taught at all high schools. Is it not a public safety issue? That way you would drasticly reduce the number of accidental shootings, which makes up a high proportion of the number you quoted earlier.
Quote:
As far as your posting of the AWB goes, let's examine a rifle from the hypothetical weapons manufacturer WM, who makes wooden workalikes of Heckler and Koch weapons (which are not mentioned specifically under the ban, so lookalikes and modifications are technically legal). Assume he sells a rifle, called the WM-16, that has no threading for a silencer, a wooden or polycarbonate stock, and no bayonet - it has only the pistol grip. That hypothetical weapon, the WM-16, would be legal under the ban. And it would be every bit as deadly as any of the weapons listed in that ban.
That's what we call a gray area.
|
Well, I am a bit confused about the "wooden workalike" bit.
If it is in fact made of wood, it would not function as a firearm.
If you are refering to the stock and furniture being made of wood, it is absolutely irrelevant.
If someone makes a weapon with the features you described it would not be an assault weapon. There is no gray area.
Yes it would be functionally identical and every bit as lethal, but it would not be an assault weapon.
Do you see now why I think most gun legistlation is a fucking joke?
Look at the guns I posted earlier in the thread, can you tell which is an assault weapon?
Quote:
b]
I'm sorry you feel that way, although I'm compelled to point out that you've got no basis in fact to make that claim - just your own opinion - since some of what I'm talking about has never been tried before. [/B]
|
How to stop gun violence:
If someone uses a gun in the commision of a crime, sentence them to 20 years without parole. That will solve the problem.