Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   assault weapon ban again (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=160792)

esd10 12-30-2012 10:29 AM

assault weapon ban again
 
i have been very nervous about the goverment trying to take away are second ammendment right to bare arms. the problem is the goverment and bleading hearts want to blame the wrong thing instead of looking at the real problem with our horrible mental health servous. i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old and i feel for those familys who have lost there children to that maniac from a senceless act of violence but a firearm is a tool nothing else a firearm doesnt go off bye itself unless someone has to pull the trigger and loads it. there are a bunch of law abbiding citizens in this country with so called assault weapons and you never hear about them because they dont do stupid horrible things with them and follow all laws and regulations and the goverment is trying to take away are rights to own the type of rifle or pistol we want to own. i want to know what you board members think about this issue and like i said guns dont kill people people kill people no mater if its a gun or a hammer or a ballbat.

39special 12-30-2012 11:10 AM

People should be able to bare arms.The horrible mental health service you stated is the way it is because every time there are budget cuts,mental health and social services are the first to get cut.The people in those field are over worked and under paid.My wife has worked in this field for 20 plus years.In the last 2 years her case load has gone from 30 to 85.
So don't blame the the mental heath industry,blame the government!

esd10 12-30-2012 11:18 AM

i miss spoke on the way i put it the goverment needs to put more funds into the mental health field and that should be a priority to get these people help befor they harm others. the goverment just seems to over look the mental health field and pump more and more money in the wrong places just like when they bailed out the banks and auto industry they should have put those funds toward mental health and education.

39special 12-30-2012 11:24 AM

I totally agree!! Maybe they should use some of the money they stuff there
pockets with!

barrysloate 12-30-2012 11:40 AM

Nobody is going to take your guns away, and nobody is going to do away the Second Amendment. Responsible citizens will always be able to own a gun. If there is an assault weapon ban it will be aimed to keep very dangerous weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people. Whether or not it will work is unclear, but at least half the population believes it is worth the try. It's not only bleeding heart liberals who feel this way, it's people in all walks of life.

Try to understand what is going on instead of acting paranoid about it. The tide is turning and America wants to see some changes. You will still be able to owns guns if that is your thing.

And for the record it's "bear" arms. You have "bare" arms when your wear a tanktop.

novakjr 12-30-2012 11:54 AM

Here's an interesting article about the old ban..

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

barrysloate 12-30-2012 12:33 PM

For the record, the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 to give American citizens the right to own a musket. There was virtually no police force back then and the militia was dispersed. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm.

By the 21st century, that amendment has been so misunderstood, and so distorted for the benefit of gun fanatics, that it has become unrecognizable. In no way does it say that any unhinged psychopath has the right to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK-47 rifle with only a minimal amount of red tape. But the NRA has made sure that the Second Amendment has been interpreted exactly the way they want it to be.

I would say most of the people who stand behind the Second Amendment have never read it, nor have a clue what it's all about. And that doesn't surprise me one bit.

drumback 12-30-2012 01:00 PM

Amendment
 
Barry,
It is "amendment", not "ammendment". :). Otherwise, I second everything you have stated.

Mark

drc 12-30-2012 01:07 PM

My opinion is there are multiple contributing factors, and any side (NRA to 'liberal bleeding hearts') saying there is one cause is just one cause is wrong and often being disingenuous.

barrysloate 12-30-2012 01:33 PM

Thanks Mark....my blood pressure rises on these kind of threads, and my spelling gets a little woozy!:)

Runscott 12-30-2012 01:51 PM

It's good to see a thread on these hot topics (gun control and mental health) where everyone involved is making some degree of sense. I won't spoil that trend by adding my own thoughts :)

...Go Cowboys

esd10 12-30-2012 01:55 PM

i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.

barrysloate 12-30-2012 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esd10 (Post 1067888)
i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.

And because you are a responsible citizen you are entitled to own one. Nobody is disputing that.

D. Bergin 12-30-2012 05:44 PM

I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon. :confused:

Maybe the founding fathers approved of semi-automatic muskets, but I have yet to see any evidence of precedence.

The current clamor to turn teachers into glorified, armed bodyguards makes me a little sick to be honest.

D. Bergin 12-30-2012 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esd10 (Post 1067888)
i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.


A tool for what?


Self-Defense? Do you feel as if you're constantly in danger and in need of a rapid fire clip to defend yourself?

vintagetoppsguy 12-30-2012 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin (Post 1067951)
I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon. :confused:

I think it's comments like this that makes the OP nervous. It makes me nervous too. Why should I have to give up my semi-automatic handgun? Why should hunters have to give up their semi-automatic hunting rifles?

vintagetoppsguy 12-30-2012 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esd10 (Post 1067888)
i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1067892)
And because you are a responsible citizen you are entitled to own one. Nobody is disputing that.

Barry, read post #14 below yours. It says, "I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon." So yes, somebody is disputing that. That attitude is exactly why gun owners get nervous when talking about any kind of gun/magazine or ammo restrictions.

D. Bergin 12-30-2012 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1067984)
Barry, read post #14 below yours. It says, "I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon." So yes, somebody is disputing that. That attitude is exactly why gun owners get nervous when talking about any kind of gun/magazine or ammo restrictions.


Yeah, that was me.

Do you have an answer other then the usual "out of my cold dead hands."?

Why would you get nervous? I don't have any power and I'm not political.

I live 1/2 an hour from Newtown. I've been through there dozens of times. Adam Lanza had access to semi-automatic weapons because his mother had access to semi-automatic weapons. Can you give me a good reason why Adam Lanza's mother or anybody else needs a semi-automatic weapon?

To protect yourself from the people who want to take your guns?

Let's call a spade a spade.

..........and nobody's gonna take your guns. Any legislation will have so many loopholes it won't matter a lick. You'll get grandfathered in, or at worst you'll have to slightly modify the guns you already have.

barrysloate 12-31-2012 04:58 AM

Hi David- I think there are two things going on here. The first is a responsible citizen, especially one who has served in the military, has the right to own a gun. That point is beyond dispute.

The more important one to me, and I think this is what Dave was saying, is in what context does any citizen need to own or carry a weapon? We hear stories about Aurora and Sandy Hook but the fact is the chance of any of us confronting a crisis like that is about as likely as being struck by lightning. Furthermore, how many people would be able to react with nerves of steel in such a situation? From what I've read, and can imagine, people in a crisis situation tend to panic and freeze up, and the chances of actually being a hero and killing a potential attacker aren't great.

Earlier this year we had a gunman at the Empire State Building. The police got there in time and shot and killed him. They also wounded nine innocent people who were standing in the vicinity of the gunman. If trained professionals are that inaccurate, I'm pretty certain I don't want school teachers or principals packing heat.

So I make a distinction between the legal right to own a gun, and the actual need for private citizens to be armed. That's a debatable point.

esd10 12-31-2012 05:58 AM

a tool to protect my family and my property from people who would do me harm and have you seen the police responce times? i would have to wait 5 min or longer for a police officer to show up to protect me and thats enough time for me and my family to be killed so my ar15 and my glock 22 is my protection from people trying to do me harm. so a glock for instance carrys between 15-16 rounds so if that kid would have just brought in just the 2 handguns and no extra mags he would have had between 30-32 rounds and woud have shot all those rounds in the same amount of time as a so called assault weapon. these so called assault rifles fire just as fast as a handgun and what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto so what they call a assault rifle just looks the part but doesnt do the same because its semi auto. do you know the worst school shootings up till now happened in country's with strict gun laws?

vintagetoppsguy 12-31-2012 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin (Post 1068035)
Do you have an answer other then the usual "out of my cold dead hands."?

I have several answers: Personal protection. Hunting. Competitive target shooting.

Saying that no one other than military or police have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon is frightening. This is the same mentality that has spiked gun and ammo sales in the last few weeks.

Go NRA!!!

vintagetoppsguy 12-31-2012 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1068055)
Hi David- I think there are two things going on here. The first is a responsible citizen, especially one who has served in the military, has the right to own a gun. That point is beyond dispute.

The more important one to me, and I think this is what Dave was saying, is in what context does any citizen need to own or carry a weapon?

Barry, re-read you're post. You're saying one thing and then turning around and saying another. You're saying a responsible citizen has the right to own a gun, then you're turning around and questioning why does any citizen need to own a gun.

I'm confused. I really am.

barrysloate 12-31-2012 06:23 AM

It's not confusing at all. The law allows a citizen to own a gun. That doesn't mean every citizen should have an arsenal of weapons. The OP is concerned that he needs all these weapons to protect himself and his family from harm. And I'm saying should he live to be a hundred, he will never have to use his weapons even once. There are millions of people stockpiling tens of millions of guns, for what amounts to a snowball's chance in hell of ever having to need them.

I guess it's a debate that will never be settled: half the country believes there are two many guns in America, and the other half believes we should have even more guns to protect ourselves. I don't have an answer, only an opinion. If you think I'm wrong that's your prerogative.

vintagetoppsguy 12-31-2012 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1068065)
It's not confusing at all. The law allows a citizen to own a gun. That doesn't mean every citizen should have an arsenal of weapons. The OP is concerned that he needs all these weapons to protect himself and his family from harm. And I'm saying should he live to be a hundred, he will never have to use his weapons even once. There are millions of people stockpiling tens of millions of guns, for what amounts to a snowball's chance in hell of ever having to need them.

I guess it's a debate that will never be settled: half the country believes there are two many guns in America, and the other half believes we should have even more guns to protect ourselves. I don't have an answer, only an opinion. If you think I'm wrong that's your prerogative.

You're misrepresenting the facts. Nobody said any citizen should have an "arsenal of weapons" and where did you get that the OP has "all these weapons" to protect himself because I didn't read that. The OP said he had two weapons. Maybe he has more, who knows? But the point is that you're making things up.

If you (or anybody else) wants to continue the debate, let's be fair and use facts. And, just as a point of reference, what is an arsenal? More than 1 gun? More than 5 guns?

barrysloate 12-31-2012 08:01 AM

Hi David- obviously you don't want to really have this discussion, as you already have your mind made up. Have a healthy and happy new year. I've said all I could, and I'm done.

novakjr 12-31-2012 08:06 AM

I have to start by saying that I don't own a gun, and have NEVER fired one. Hell, I've only ever held one once(unloaded), and that was when helping a military friend move. Clearly, we all agree that the 2nd amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms. Duh! Where we all differ is in our opinions on why and the extent of guns we should be limited to.

The right to bear arm in America pre-dates the Bill of Rights. It was an existing right, that was to be protected or preserved by its inclusion in it, rather than established in it. Pre-bill of rights. the right to bear arms was viewed necessary for one of many reasons.

deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Now many of these reasons can be viewed as unnecessary, given the current law-enforcement and military programs, and I would agree However, deterring tyrannical government is the main reason that WE have the right to carry anything that the Military and Police do. Because they can be manipulated against us by a tyrant on any level.(Personally, to an extent, I can see how it can be argued that they already have, but that's a completely different topic for discussion)..

We have the right to carry any weapon we feel necessary due to these reasons. If someone could come at us with a semi-automatic or assault weapon, we ourselves have the right to be equally armed for protection. I understand the argument that putting more of them out there increases the odds of them falling into the wrong hands, however, you're foolish if you believe that the "wrong hands" can/will be stopped from achieving any level of firepower that they choose.. Accidents and wackos are a different story and they aren't the norm. But we should not be dictating law-abiding citizens based on these anomalies.

vintagetoppsguy 12-31-2012 08:40 AM

One last thing...
 
Gun control laws do not/will not keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do others harm. The case of the guy who shot the two firefighters this past week prove that. By law, he was not allowed to own a gun (he was a convicted felon). Instead, he had his neighbor purchase them for him. He's now dead and the neighbor is now facing federal charges. This does not bring back the lives of the two firefighters. My prayers go out to their families.

For those who want stricter gun laws, please tell me what could have been done differently in this situation? The system itself worked, it prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm. The problem is that criminals will always find a way around the legal system. To think otherwise is foolish.

Leon 12-31-2012 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1068112)
Gun control laws do not/will not keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do others harm. The case of the guy who shot the two firefighters this past week prove that. By law, he was not allowed to own a gun (he was a convicted felon). Instead, he had his neighbor purchase them for him. He's now dead and the neighbor is now facing federal charges. This does not bring back the lives of the two firefighters. My prayers go out to their families.

For those who want stricter gun laws, please tell me what could have been done differently in this situation? The system itself worked, it prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm. The problem is that criminals will always find a way around the legal system. To think otherwise is foolish.

I agree with almost everything you say David. The criminals will always have guns. What we do when we create laws is we keep the good people from doing something bad not the bad people from doing something bad. Bad people will always find a way. I think we can appease folks with a law about automatic (or semi automatic) weapons but I don't think it really helps the problem.

Runscott 12-31-2012 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1068142)
I think we can appease folks with a law about automatic (or semi automatic) weapons but I don't think it really helps the problem.

If it results in less carnage during these attacks, then I'm for it. People can find another way to kill wild hogs.

teetwoohsix 12-31-2012 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novakjr (Post 1068097)
I have to start by saying that I don't own a gun, and have NEVER fired one. Hell, I've only ever held one once(unloaded), and that was when helping a military friend move. Clearly, we all agree that the 2nd amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms. Duh! Where we all differ is in our opinions on why and the extent of guns we should be limited to.

The right to bear arm in America pre-dates the Bill of Rights. It was an existing right, that was to be protected or preserved by its inclusion in it, rather than established in it. Pre-bill of rights. the right to bear arms was viewed necessary for one of many reasons.

deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Now many of these reasons can be viewed as unnecessary, given the current law-enforcement and military programs, and I would agree However, deterring tyrannical government is the main reason that WE have the right to carry anything that the Military and Police do. Because they can be manipulated against us by a tyrant on any level.(Personally, to an extent, I can see how it can be argued that they already have, but that's a completely different topic for discussion)..

We have the right to carry any weapon we feel necessary due to these reasons. If someone could come at us with a semi-automatic or assault weapon, we ourselves have the right to be equally armed for protection. I understand the argument that putting more of them out there increases the odds of them falling into the wrong hands, however, you're foolish if you believe that the "wrong hands" can/will be stopped from achieving any level of firepower that they choose.. Accidents and wackos are a different story and they aren't the norm. But we should not be dictating law-abiding citizens based on these anomalies.

Great post David, well said.

Sincerely, Clayton

drc 12-31-2012 01:37 PM

I must admit that people who earnestly envision a war with the invading US Army sound rather scary. And bunker-in-the-back-yard cooky.

The second amendment seems (to me) to be a relic of another century, a time when we were preparing a revolution against the British.

But the second amendment is the law, and I don't argue otherwise. If people don't like a particular amendment, they can try and repeal it the standard, legal way.

esd10 12-31-2012 02:41 PM

one thing during ww2 the japanese emperor wanted to invade the usa but one of his commanders isoroku yamamto basically told him if they invade the US the american people are more a threat than our military and what he basically said was in america there is a firearm behind every blade of grass. So the 2nd amendment has protected us in the past with our right to bare arms that stopped a foreign invasion from happening so whats to say it would never happen again?

drc 12-31-2012 02:58 PM

Clearly, I'm not pro gun, but that doesn't mean I don't see valid reasons for people owning them. Though the the Japanese attacking San Luis Obispo doesn't seem like one :)

esd10 12-31-2012 05:48 PM

i'm very much pro gun and believe a law abiding citizen should be aloud to own what ever firearm with in reason to protect your family and property from the bad guys who wish to do you harm.

steve B 12-31-2012 08:21 PM

I've lived and worked in a few areas that weren't great. And I've never been in a situation where a gun would have been of any use.

I'm all for ownership, probably more for it than most. But it's got to be on reasonable grounds. A panicky "I've GOT to protect myself" is exactly the sort of attitude that gets people hurt. Especially family members coming home a bit late or something.
Short of the deranged the last sort of person who should own or use any sort of firearm is someone panicky.
(Btw the panicky totally wrecks your aim)

Seriously, if your neighborhood is that bad you really need to move.

I do think that some limits on who owns what are good. Sadly by my standards a couple commenters here wouldn't make the grade, while others would likely be allowed a very free hand. You decide which group you think I'd put you in........

But outright banning something based purely on cosmetics is just silly. -the actual wording of the now lapsed "assault weapon" ban was almost purely about cosmetics- is only valid if you put it in terms of whether that sort of weapon attracts a larger percentage of people who shouldn't be trusted. (I think it does, just like sports cars attract a larger percentage of people who might just drive faster than others) I don't know of anyone that puts it like that.

No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then. That's right, 0.

When you buy an "AK-47" all you get is a lookalike. And a pretty poor one at that. (I've handled but not shot 3 real ones and one copy. The copy was worse than the one made in Bulgaria.)

The flip side for me is that any piece of hardware is just that, a chunk of metal and plastic and maybe some other stuff.

If my contractor builds my porch wrong I don't blame the hammer. (previous weapon of choice of the nut in NY)
If a card is trimmed I don't blame the scissors.
If someone gets shot I don't blame the gun. (Except in the actually unusual circumstance of one that's defective- It happens, not commonly, but it happens.)

Steve B

drc 12-31-2012 09:33 PM

One one side of my home is a blind guy with three cats and on the other side is an elementary school teacher. Never felt the need to protect my family or property from them.

Though I must admit, if the blind guy got a gun, I might be a bit nervous.

vintagetoppsguy 12-31-2012 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1068369)
No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then.

ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

teetwoohsix 01-01-2013 03:43 AM

When an individual stepped on to one of my fellow bus driver's bus and pummeled him unconcious with a 2 by 4, and left him lying in a pool of his own blood, I wished someone on that bus was a CCP holder with a loaded firearm to come to his rescue. He was lucky to live, with all of those staples in his skull.

We weren't allowed to carry ANY type of weapon, had we been able to carry SOMETHING, he may have been able to defend himself.

The only time I truly felt safe driving the bus was when I was transporting off duty security officers who were carrying a firearm.

The "assault weapon ban" is nothing but a political agenda, and has been in the works for a long time. Wake up people, damn. I'll save the history lesson, as "no one thinks those things can happen here" (but I encourage you to study countries that banned their citizens from owning firearms, and what followed).

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...wtown-massacre

Sincerely, Clayton (an individual who does not own a gun but believes in peoples right to defend themselves any way they see fit)

novakjr 01-01-2013 09:14 AM

Great post Clayton. The attached article was a very good read as well.

steve B 01-01-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1068379)
ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

The way the ban defined them was stuff like folding stocks etc.

That can also be found on wikipedia.

Selective fire is a form of full auto, and as I said has been tightly regulated since 1934. Although I don't think there were any selective fire guns made at the time.

Steve B

esd10 01-01-2013 12:27 PM

selective fire firearms are still made bye a couple of people in the usa under strict laws and regulations but its like 2 or 3 people so a very small amount.

Leon 01-01-2013 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1068151)
If it results in less carnage during these attacks, then I'm for it. People can find another way to kill wild hogs.


As was previously stated, but I haven't personally confirmed it, there have been 0 instances of legally owned automatic weapons being used in a massacre. I don't understand why people grasp onto something that has never happened in 75+ yrs? But hey, if it makes you feel better about there being less carnage, go for it. I have heard worse fallacies.

I can easily see a ban on fully automatic assault weapons just to appease the folks that want a ban on them (as I stated). It will help 0 though in what is the real problem (and I am in the camp it's more the mental issues going untreated). No one in their right mind goes on a shooting rampage against un-associated people.

Runscott 01-02-2013 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1068523)
As was previously stated, but I haven't personally confirmed it, there have been 0 instances of legally owned automatic weapons being used in a massacre. I don't understand why people grasp onto something that has never happened in 75+ yrs? But hey, if it makes you feel better about there being less carnage, go for it. I have heard worse fallacies.

I can easily see a ban on fully automatic assault weapons just to appease the folks that want a ban on them (as I stated). It will help 0 though in what is the real problem (and I am in the camp it's more the mental issues going untreated). No one in their right mind goes on a shooting rampage against un-associated people.

Sorry, Leon - I didn't see the previous weapon to 'automatic'. I'm talking about the firepower needed to kill the wild hogs, which I think is around 40-60 rpm, according to the wild hog hunters on this board.

I totally get the fixation on the word 'automatic' by both sides - the non-gun people don't understand the term, and the gun people will fixate on the use of that term to avoid dealing with the issue, which is mass-killings by guns that aren't actually necessary for hunting, self-defense or anything else other than mental [male member] enlargement. Just my thoughts - I'm all for citizens being able to own guns - BIG guns. Just not that big.

Edited to add: I was responding to "automatic (or semi automatic) weapons". I thought 'semi automatic' was the term used for the 40-60 rpm guns such as the one used by the killer in Connecticut? If not, what are such weapons called?

vintagetoppsguy 01-02-2013 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1068770)
Edited to add: I was responding to "automatic (or semi automatic) weapons". I thought 'semi automatic' was the term used for the 40-60 rpm guns such as the one used by the killer in Connecticut? If not, what are such weapons called?

Automatic and semi-automatic are really terms used to describe the action that is required to move the bullet from the feed tube (or magazine) into the chamber. There are basically 4 types of rifles:

1.) Lever action. These are my personal favorite. I own five of them. There is a lever on the bottom of the rifle that has to be cocked every time before a bullet is fired. The lever is pulled down and the expended shell is ejected. The lever is pulled back up and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube into the chamber. The gun is ready to fire again. You see these types guns in old westerns, they've been around forever.

2.) Bolt action. Has is a sliding bolt that is pulled back and the expended shell is ejected and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube or magazine by pushing the bolt forward again and locking it into place. Very popular in WW2.

Most hunters are going to either use a lever action or bolt action rifle.

3.) Pump action. Pump action is mostly for shotguns, some older .22s. There is a fore stock (grip) that has to be slid (pumped) back and forth. The sliding of the fore stock ejects to expended shell and when you slide it back it extracts a shell from the feed tube into the chamber.

4.) Automatic/Semi-automatic. No action is required. This is the main difference. After each shot, the shell automatically ejects and a new shell is extracted from the magazine into the chamber.

So what's the difference between automatic and semi-automatic? On an automatic rifle, you pull the trigger and it fires continuously until your finger lets off the trigger. On a semi-automatic rifle, you have to pull the trigger each time it is fired - it is not capable of continuous fire. It will only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Now think about this. Let's say you want to buy a rifle for home defense, nothing more. If someone were to break into your house and you had an opportunity to grab your rifle, do you want a rifle that requires an action (lever, bolt or pump) every time you want to fire, or do you want a rifle that automatically does it for you? In other words, do you want to waste valuable seconds cocking the gun each time you want to fire a shot or do you want to pull the trigger however many times it takes until he is dead?

Runscott 01-02-2013 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1068796)
Automatic and semi-automatic are really terms used to describe the action that is required to move the bullet from the feed tube (or magazine) into the chamber. There are basically 4 types of rifles:

1.) Lever action. These are my personal favorite. I own five of them. There is a lever on the bottom of the rifle that has to be cocked every time before a bullet is fired. The lever is pulled down and the expended shell is ejected. The lever is pulled back up and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube into the chamber. The gun is ready to fire again. You see these types guns in old westerns, they've been around forever.

2.) Bolt action. Has is a sliding bolt that is pulled back and the expended shell is ejected and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube or magazine by pushing the bolt forward again and locking it into place. Very popular in WW2.

Most hunters are going to either use a lever action or bolt action rifle.

3.) Pump action. Pump action is mostly for shotguns, some older .22s. There is a fore stock (grip) that has to be slid (pumped) back and forth. The sliding of the fore stock ejects to expended shell and when you slide it back it extracts a shell from the feed tube into the chamber.

4.) Automatic/Semi-automatic. No action is required. This is the main difference. After each shot, the shell automatically ejects and a new shell is extracted from the magazine into the chamber.

So what's the difference between automatic and semi-automatic? On an automatic rifle, you pull the trigger and it fires continuously until your finger lets off the trigger. On a semi-automatic rifle, you have to pull the trigger each time it is fired - it is not capable of continuous fire. It will only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Now think about this. Let's say you want to buy a rifle for home defense, nothing more. If someone were to break into your house and you had an opportunity to grab your rifle, do you want a rifle that requires an action (lever, bolt or pump) every time you want to fire, or do you want a rifle that automatically does it for you? In other words, do you want to waste valuable seconds cocking the gun each time you want to fire a shot or do you want to pull the trigger however many times it takes until he is dead?

David, perhaps there are people who live in situations where they need guns that they can fire rapidly, in order to defend their homes. I'm not there and it's hard to imagine, but it sounds like that's the situation you are living in. Please keep posting so that we know you are okay.

edited to add: (that last comment was meant to be humorous, not sarcastic) By the way, I used to live in southeast Houston, in a bad area. My girlfriend's home was robbed while we were at a movie back in 1982, so I bought a gun the next day. I sold it when my kids got older, as I felt that a gun in my home (any gun) would have much more likelihood of being used accidentally, or against me, than by me. I still feel the same way, but if I lived in a different environment I might feel differently. Certainly I would want a gun if I lived out in the middle of nowhere.

vintagetoppsguy 01-02-2013 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1068836)
My girlfriend's home was robbed while we were at a movie back in 1982, so I bought a gun the next day. I sold it when my kids got older, as I felt that a gun in my home (any gun) would have much more likelihood of being used accidentally, or against me, than by me. I still feel the same way, but if I lived in a different environment I might feel differently. Certainly I would want a gun if I lived out in the middle of nowhere.

Your girlfriend’s home was burglarized, not robbed. My home was burglarized too many years ago when I was not home. I called HPD and told them "my house has been robbed" and the dispatcher quickly corrected me and told me that it was burglarized, not robbed. Evidentially there is a difference. I have a few choice words for her and told her I wasn't there to argue semantics, but to report a burglary :D

Anyway, it's not the bad part of town you have to worry about. I can choose to stay away from there. The problem we have (as I'm sure in other parts of the country) are home invasions in the nicer parts of town. And it's never just one person, but several people. They usually tie the victim up and ransack the house looking for valuables.

Think about it, if you're wanting to invade a home, do you choose the house in the hood (where the homeowner probably isn't going to have anything of value to take) or do you choose a house in the nicer neighborhood (where there homeowner is more likely to have something of value)?

So, I still have the same question. If I have to shoot 3 or 4 home invaders, do I want a gun that I have to keep cocking every time I want to fire a shot, or do I want a gun that can shoot just as fast as I can pull the trigger? I prefer the latter.

esd10 01-02-2013 07:05 PM

there is no difference between a semi auto hand gun which fires a larger round than a ar15 which shoots a 5.56mm or the .223 which is a tad bit bigger than a .22 and they fire at the same rate besides the 30 round to a 16 round magazine. the handgun bullets come in a wide variety of sizes and most of you know that and they do so much more damage than a .223 then why arent you calling for a ban on handguns and .22 rifles then just get ride of all firearms and we can be a socialist country where are goverment tells us what we can or cant do and they will protect us.

Runscott 01-02-2013 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1068886)
So, I still have the same question. If I have to shoot 3 or 4 home invaders, do I want a gun that I have to keep cocking every time I want to fire a shot, or do I want a gun that can shoot just as fast as I can pull the trigger? I prefer the latter.

That's a tough way to live. I live in downtown Seattle and the issue of how quickly I can fire a gun, is not an issue. If it gets to that point, I'll either move or get a gun, but I still doubt that defending my home will ever require the same firepower that it takes to mow down a herd of wild hogs.

teetwoohsix 01-03-2013 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novakjr (Post 1068458)
Great post Clayton. The attached article was a very good read as well.


Thanks David.

I just think it's a shame that they use a tragedy to push an agenda which results in taking away people's rights instead of adressing the real issue- why are people doing things like this? What is going on in society that's making people snap?

I recently read that the Columbine tragedy happened during the last "ban on assault weapons". So, of course, the "new ban" will be way more restrictive & I wouldn't doubt it if they went as far as to try to ban all guns eventually. I'm sure this is why the gun stores can't keep much of anything in stock.

I think everyone is in agreement that certain people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, and checks and balances (which are already in place, by the way) should be used when selling a firearm to someone. But I feel they should be looking at fixing the social problems in our society rather than taking away everyones rights. But they would have to look inward to do that, so it won't happen.

Sincerely, Clayton

Runscott 01-03-2013 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix (Post 1068987)
Thanks David.

I just think it's a shame that they use a tragedy to push an agenda which results in taking away people's rights instead of adressing the real issue- why are people doing things like this? What is going on in society that's making people snap?

...

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, no offense but you missed as well. You are certain that it is NOT guns, so you then make an assumption about what the problem actually is. Others who are against guns in general, are using these events as excuses to claim that the problem IS caused by guns.

A better way to approach this would be to look at the individuals who are committing these acts, and ask "why?" I've said this so many times that my fingers are getting worn out, but eventually some of you will read it: most of these acts are perpetrated by people who are mentally ill. Not a problem with society - a problem with the perpetrator's brain.

Society as a whole does not want to deal with such problems, as they are unpleasant and costly, so in that respect it IS a problem with society. So if we aren't willing to spend more on mental illness, that really leaves us with few other choices than better security (more guns in the right hands) and gun control (fewer guns in the wrong hands). Seriously, with no increase in mental illness funding, what other solutions would your propose?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:15 PM.