Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've got no problem with any of your ideas. But, if we focus on the gun we are doing an injustice to every victim. It has to be about more than that.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<Customers would not be allowed to enter or leave with any ammo in their possession>> This is pointless, a guy can stash ammo in his car. As far as I know owning fully automatic weapons are against the law. <<<Am I leaving the ability of a person to defend him or herself with a handgun? Yup.>>> Nope. Why outlaw semi-suto? This is is the kind of weapon one would need for safety. Having a non semi-auto would be like having a musket. One shot, if you miss, you are dead. <<<It would be difficult for the shooter to acquire the amount of ammunition that he carried with him.>>> Wrong. Let's say you limit the amount of ammo to say 50 rounds. That's not unreasonable for an outing in the woods. I'd use far more than that practicing, but still let's say you did limit it to even 25 rounds. I could go to 4 or 5 different dealers within a 15 miles radius and guess what, I have 250 rounds. Big deal.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Should gun mfg's be held accountable for crimes committed with their products?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Are car manufacturer's held liable when their vehicles kill people? Not when they have operated the way they should. Of course, we are also in an age when people sue McDonald's when they get fat from eating their food...so anything is possible these days.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Now see there, DVC Dad, there's definitely some common ground here. I agree with much of what you said in #58. And I've already said this, but I'll say again that some of this should be nationalized. If state laws differ too radically, it's too easy (especially in the northeast, where states are small) to skirt local laws. Would any of this have prevented yesterday's shootings? Impossible to say at this point. We don't know how long ago he got the weapons, what his state of mind was, how long he'd been planning this... and we may never know. I did read he was being treated medically for depression; if this was something that would disqualify ownership if found in a background check, then perhaps that would have stopped it. It's hard to say. I would guess that it probably wouldn't stop a spectacular event like this, but could stop smaller, one-on-one shootings where someone just wants to shoot the girlfriend who just dumped him or something, then two weeks later has cooled off about it.
Originally Posted By hightp "As far as I know owning fully automatic weapons are against the law." Actually, this is incorrect. Full Auto firearms are legal in most states but they require a federal National Firearms Act tax stamp, and a special background check. The stamp costs $200 per each firearm you wish to purchase. All full auto firearms must be sold through special Class III dealers. Firearms owners may only purchase and sell their guns through Class III dealers.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut dont they also have to be manufactured as fully auto and not converted? Not up on all the current gun laws but I thought that was one of them.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think there are other and better ways to relieve stress than firing off an automatic weapon. I see absolutely no real need for anyone to have such a device.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka If you need to fire a gun to relieve stress then you are probably one of the last people who should own a gun.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< Full Auto firearms are legal in most states but they require a federal National Firearms Act tax stamp, and a special background check. >>> I'm not surprised that I have never heard of this, becuase I have never felt like I needed such a thing. But I'll be checking on this because I have never heard of it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I found this: <a href="http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000351.php" target="_blank">http://www.indcjournal.com/arc hives/000351.php</a> Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934, available only to police, military personnel, and private individuals who manage to obtain permission from the US Treasury Dept, pass an extensive background check, fully register the firearm and continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm and pay a $200 transfer tax. Some states require state permission as well. The US Treasury Dept. lists only a few hundred thousand lawfully owned fully automatic weaponss. The BULK of these are owned and used in the motion picture industry. I'm not sure how reliable it is, still checking...
Originally Posted By hightp That's a fairly accurate description of the full auto laws. As for who would own one, many collectors do. They are quite valuable and fun to shoot. After purchase, they appreciate in value. There are also, shooting events that feature full auto firearms.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<They are quite valuable and fun to shoot.>> You don't really need to have a gun to have something that is quite valuable and fun to shoot. I guess if the one didn't work too well though, a gun would probably be OK. ;-)
