little cow

NRA versus Gun Control

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, little cow said:

Hunting rifles are not the same as the rifles we are most worried about.  I don't know anyone silly enough to hunt with an AR-15.  Good grief!  There wouldn't be anything to eat afterwards.  

Sometimes the intent is not to eat what you are hunting, especially in the case of pest eradication.  A few examples are prairie dogs, wild hogs and coyotes as these animals need their populations managed, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prairie dogs!?  Assault rifle?  A .22 rifle would suffice for prairie dogs and coyotes.  A hunting rifle is enough to take down a hog.  See, here's what people forget.  These big guns have bullets that can travel about mile.  The range is incredible.  They can also send a LOT of bullets in a general direction, but they are hard to control aim in auto mode.  The only safe place to shoot them (unless you own a LOT of land) is at a gun range or if you own enough land to build a special kind of berm to absorb the bullets.  These aren't trot-off-into-the-woods-a-shoot-a-deer type guns.  The person riding their horse on a trail a mile away could get shot. 

We don't have enough land for one of our guns.  We have to be mindful of what is behind the target and the direction in which the gun is fired.  It's for euthanizing suffering animals.  We have used it once on a cow.  It's in the hunting rifle category.  It is a very powerful rifle.  The military type rifles are even more intense and lay down a lot of ammo rapidly.  I could fire and field strip a military rifle.  Those dang things do not belong on the streets and sure as heck don't belong in the hands of angry or unstable teens.  They require a certain amount of upper body strength just to keep them under control while firing.  At the time I was using them, I could do over 100 push-ups in two minutes.  

Edited by little cow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, little cow said:

Prairie dogs!?  Assault rifle?  A .22 rifle would suffice for prairie dogs and coyotes.  A hunting rifle is enough to take down a hog.  See, here's what people forget.  These big guns have bullets that can travel about mile.  The range is incredible.  They can also send a LOT of bullets in a general direction, but they are hard to control aim in auto mode.  The only safe place to shoot them (unless you own a LOT of land) is at a gun range or if you own enough land to build a special kind of berm to absorb the bullets.  These aren't trot-off-into-the-woods-a-shoot-a-deer type guns.  The person riding their horse on a trail a mile away could get shot. 

We don't have enough land for one of our guns.  We have to be mindful of what is behind the target and the direction in which the gun is fired.  It's for euthanizing suffering animals.  We have used it once on a cow.  It's in the hunting rifle category.  It is a very powerful rifle.  The military type rifles are even more intense and lay down a lot of ammo rapidly.  I could fire and field strip a military rifle.  Those dang things do not belong on the streets and sure as heck don't belong in the hands of angry or unstable teens.  They require a certain amount of upper body strength just to keep them under control while firing.  At the time I was using them, I could do over 100 push-ups in two minutes.  

thank you for this information--I wasn't aware of any of this.     relevant for taking these guns and all semi-automatics  off the civilian market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, little cow said:

Prairie dogs!?  Assault rifle?  A .22 rifle would suffice for prairie dogs and coyotes.  A hunting rifle is enough to take down a hog.  See, here's what people forget.  These big guns have bullets that can travel about mile.  The range is incredible.  They can also send a LOT of bullets in a general direction, but they are hard to control aim in auto mode.  The only safe place to shoot them (unless you own a LOT of land) is at a gun range or if you own enough land to build a special kind of berm to absorb the bullets.  These aren't trot-off-into-the-woods-a-shoot-a-deer type guns.  The person riding their horse on a trail a mile away could get shot. 

We don't have enough land for one of our guns.  We have to be mindful of what is behind the target and the direction in which the gun is fired.  It's for euthanizing suffering animals.  We have used it once on a cow.  It's in the hunting rifle category.  It is a very powerful rifle.  The military type rifles are even more intense and lay down a lot of ammo rapidly.  I could fire and field strip a military rifle.  Those dang things do not belong on the streets and sure as heck don't belong in the hands of angry or unstable teens.  They require a certain amount of upper body strength just to keep them under control while firing.  At the time I was using them, I could do over 100 push-ups in two minutes.  

No, here is what you may have forgotten, or didn't know.  

First, FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS MADE AFTER 1986 ARE ILLEGAL FOR THE PUBLIC TO OWN.  Some people *can* own fully automatic rifles built prior to 1986 but there are *extremely* expensive and difficult regulation hoops to jump through in order to legally own one.  
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/
In addition, AR-15 does not stand for "Automatic Rifle" or even "Assault Rifle", it is an abbreviation of the 1950s developer's name, ArmaLite Rifle.

Next, I agree that guns of any kind do not belong in the hands of angry and/or unstable teens, though I'd argue that angry/unstable adults should be denied access as well.

Finally, hunters using a semi-automatic rifle does not necessarily mean a varmint hunter is "spraying and praying" in an automatic mode like some Hollywood Gangster film set in the Capone era.  Like you, I find that behavior irresponsible and not indicative of a good and ethical hunter. 
However, the fact is .... they CAN'T.  

Quote

"They can also send a LOT of bullets in a general direction, but they are hard to control aim in auto mode."

Good grief!  There is no auto mode on a semi-automatic.  I would hope you know the difference between fully automatic, which is what you are referencing above, and semi-automatic, which is the classification of an AR-15 and what I thought we were discussing?  A semi-automatic can only fire ONE bullet per trigger pull.  It simply automatically loads the next bullet.

The few hunting shows I've seen (BIL watches them while I'm on computer and I Googled a few articles for this response) the hunter uses it for the ability to fire another round w/out having to pull the bolt-action back to release the spent cartridge and chamber another round to fire.  When shooting quick moving targets, saving that step can help eliminate missed shots without sacrificing accuracy due to body/arm movement shifting the rifle around for that extra step to release the spent casing, load the next cartridge and re-locating your next target .... so yes, I see were a semi-automatic is useful in certain hunting situations. 

Edited by Heidi n Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Heidi n Q said:

No, here is what you may have forgotten, or didn't know.  

First, FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS MADE AFTER 1986 ARE ILLEGAL FOR THE PUBLIC TO OWN.  Some people *can* own fully automatic rifles built prior to 1986 but there are *extremely* expensive and difficult regulation hoops to jump through in order to legally own one.  
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/
In addition, AR-15 does not stand for "Automatic Rifle" or even "Assault Rifle", it is an abbreviation of the 1950s developer's name, ArmaLite Rifle.

Next, I agree that guns of any kind do not belong in the hands of angry and/or unstable teens, though I'd argue that angry/unstable adults should be denied access as well.

Finally, hunters using a semi-automatic rifle does not necessarily mean a varmint hunter is "spraying and praying" in an automatic mode like some Hollywood Gangster film set in the Capone era.  Like you, I find that behavior irresponsible and not indicative of a good and ethical hunter. 
However, the fact is .... they CAN'T.  

Good grief!  There is no auto mode on a semi-automatic.  I would hope you know the difference between fully automatic, which is what you are referencing above, and semi-automatic, which is the classification of an AR-15 and what I thought we were discussing?  A semi-automatic can only fire ONE bullet per trigger pull.  It simply automatically loads the next bullet.

The few hunting shows I've seen (BIL watches them while I'm on computer and I Googled a few articles for this response) the hunter uses it for the ability to fire another round w/out having to pull the bolt-action back to release the spent cartridge and chamber another round to fire.  When shooting quick moving targets, saving that step can help eliminate missed shots without sacrificing accuracy due to body/arm movement shifting the rifle around for that extra step to release the spent casing, load the next cartridge and re-locating your next target .... so yes, I see were a semi-automatic is useful in certain hunting situations. 

Little Cow served in the military.  You want to tell me Google is more accurate because it’s the INTERNET?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Heidi is correct. And thats from experience, not Google. And a further statement; a .22 lr bullet can travel almost a mile too, unless it hits something first.

Edited by noponies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an FYI, almost all bullets can travel a mile or more when shot in wide open. Our most common rifle for white tail deer can travel up to 5.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/studyGuide/Know-Your-Rifle-or-Handguns-Range/20105001_700046704/

Also, semi-automatic guns, which are NOT fully automatic, like Heidi said, just automatically eject and reload your shell. Very common for waterfowl, upland birds, skeet shooting, etc. This allows to shoot multiple birds (it's not automatic three consecutive, you still have to pull the trigger after new shell is loaded) in skeet shooting competitions you'll have doubles and have to do two discs. Like I stated before, most guns have plugs that only allow certain number in them. In PA ours must be plugged for 3 shells to be legal. Yes, if someone wanted to do it illegally they could change it. When I go to Saskatchewan in September they have different restrictions so I can convert the gun to that. In Arkansas when my husband hunted he didn't have any restrictions. But none of these guns are hurting a thing. It helps us to successfully harvest meat for the freezer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nick said:

Little Cow served in the military.  You want to tell me Google is more accurate because it’s the INTERNET?!

You are so silly!  LOL 
Serving in the military doesn't make her automatically correct and Googling something on the internet doesn't automatically make me wrong.  What I am telling you is LC has mistakenly accused the AR-15 of something it cannot do.
PS, I Googled to determine and verify reasons why hunters would use a semi-automatic rifle.

Regardless, this doesn't change the FACTS.
FACT: a semi-automatic rifle (like the AR-15) can only fire one bullet per trigger pull.
FACT: a fully automatic can fire bursts of rounds with one trigger pull - and are Federally regulated to the nth degree.  
FACT: I was discussing the merits of using the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle, in hunting situations.  
FACT: LC mentioned (three times!) FULLY AUTOMATIC rifles in her rebuttal to my post.
FACT: a semi-automatic and a fully automatic rifle are NOT the same thing.  

I do not know if LC knows the difference between military fully automatic weapons and civilian semi automatic rifles, if perhaps she did not, my reply would help clear any confusion.  Maybe she became confused between the two?  Otherwise, I have no clue why she would mention military automatic weapons in reply to my defense of a semi-automatic rifle used in particular hunting scenarios.
 

Edited by Heidi n Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, my experience is with military rifles.  We don't own an assault rifle.  I have no desire to own one. 

If semi-auto rifles can reload without pulling the action back each time, it is possible for it to fire many rounds over a short period of time, correct?  If they add on a high capacity magazine it can shoot a lot more rounds than three (illegal or not).  Isn't this something we don't want crazy people to get a hold of?  Isn't that the issue?  Not talking about machine guns here, but something that can shoot a lot of rounds in a short period of time.  A shotgun cannot do this, unless it's modified, which is illegal, correct?  A regular hunting rifle cannot hold high capacity magazines, correct?  

And gun shows.  I have seen many investigative reports about people buying guns at these venues without proper checks.  Please don't remind me about gun shows.  They worry me.

Our gun culture is killing us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, little cow said:

Why is that helpful? I knew that a hand gun vs a high velocity rifle would be different. The FPS is drastically different in the two...add in long barrel to short - it changes things, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, little cow said:

Hmm, my experience is with military rifles.  We don't own an assault rifle.  I have no desire to own one. 

Very few civilians own "assault" rifles and those who do are heavily regulated. 
Assault rifle, by definition is "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."  IMO, "infantry use" implies military and not available for the general public.  Further, ANY firearm can become a weapon of "assault" when it is used upon people.  Even the rifle you use on your farm, if it fell into the wrong hands, could be used to kill people.   

Quote

If semi-auto rifles can reload without pulling the action back each time, it is possible for it to fire many rounds over a short period of time, correct? 
If they add on a high capacity magazine it can shoot a lot more rounds than three (illegal or not). 
Isn't this something we don't want crazy people to get a hold of? 
Isn't that the issue?  Not talking about machine guns here, but something that can shoot a lot of rounds in a short period of time. 
A shotgun cannot do this, unless it's modified, which is illegal, correct? 
A regular hunting rifle cannot hold high capacity magazines, correct?

Yes. It is possible to fire numerous rounds over a short period of time.  (depending on how hot the barrel becomes before it fails
Yes. A high capacity magazine increases the amount to greater than three.
Yes. BUT this, and ANY gun, is something we don't want crazy people to have access to.
Yes. The issue you present, is shooting multiple rounds in a short period of time.
Yes. A shotgun would need to be modified - and No, I do not know if it is legal or illegal.  (a quick Google tells me most shotguns hold between 2-5 rounds but "riot shotguns" can hold 6-10. I am unfamiliar with a "riot" shotgun and assume it to be military or law enforcement simply based on terminology)
I don't know.  I think regular hunting rifles can hold high capacity magazines though each state differs on what they call "high capacity".


Personally, I think magazines of 10 would be sufficient for most hobbyists and larger ones could be removed from sale and/or sold and heavily regulated like fully automatic weapons.  This said, I do not think semi-automatic rifles or handguns should be banned or restricted from qualified purchasers.  What I do think needs to happen is a better screening process for purchases, mental competency testing, mental health issues made nationally available to screening/investigating agencies to prevent mentally ill from purchasing firearms and in-home-access safety measures to prevent mentally unstable people from having access in the home. 

I see this more as a mental health issue than a gun issue as there are innumerable mentally competent people who legally own firearms and do not use them illegally.  We need to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people, devise effective methods of treating mental illness and something needs to happen when treatment is unsuccessful and the person is a danger.

I share this article again.  I do disagree with the closing comment of the general public needing to have the ability to fire 20-30 rounds, as I feel a limit with a 10 round clip is sufficient for most applications.  
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/why-american-citizens-need-assault-rifles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Heidi.  

I'm not sure about 10 rounds, but that is better than 20.  

The screening process currently sucks.  It doesn't matter what laws Florida passes if people just drive to Georgia and buy what they want.  Until it is nationwide and stops people on serious medication or with a diagnosis of concern, it isn't going to help.  We also need a nationwide database for people with restraining orders.  In fact, I'm in favor of temporarily taking custody of the weapons owned by anyone with a restraining order.  If you can't be civil, you don't need a gun.  I also think people with severe depression should have guns removed.  I'm tired of reading about a depressed person shooting his entire family.  That is sick.  Obviously more was going on there than depression, but we have to be more proactive.  

People who are mentally stable and civil to others should be able to own guns.  If you can store, handle, transport and use your guns safely, have fun!  If I know that a hunter understands not to fire a rifle in the direction of a trail or campground, I will feel better.  If they are mentally stable, that's fine.  

Here's the laws I would want to see:

-If you have a restraining order against you because you freaked someone out with your inappropriate behavior, such as stalking or threatening them, you should turn in your guns for protective custody at the police station. And this should be in a national database.

-If you are diagnosed with severe depression, you should turn in your guns, for your safety, and anyone else who might be in your vicinity.  It might eliminate repeated SWAT call outs to homes where someone is depressed and barricaded.  That happens WAY too often.  It's dangerous for everyone and, too often, children get caught in the crossfire. This should also be in a national database.  

-If you brandish a firearm from a car or any place other than your own property, for example, don't you think something needs to happen?  Turn in your guns until you face a judge.  This should be a strike against you in a database.  

-If drugs or alcohol are involved with any of the above incidents, there should consequences.  I think there are already enough laws associated with drugs, drug dealing, and guns.  

-More funding for mental health!  People need a place other than the street.  If you are seriously disturbed and refuse your medication, well, something needs to happen, for everyone's safety.  The pendulum needs to swing in the other direction.  The rights of mental health patients need to be protected.  We don't need to go back to the bad old days of lobotomies and Nurse Ratchet, but, yes, violent or unpredictable people who pose a threat should not walk around free.  

We already have a database for people.  The cops run your name when they pull you over.  Add this information onto it.  It's not that hard.  If you are in this database and you get pulled over, with a gun in your car, there should be consequences.  

Outlawing guns, and raising the age to buy guns, only does so much.  If we focus on behavior, rather than the gun, we will be better off.  You have to punish inappropriate and irresponsible behavior.  You also have to prevent violence when people are suffering from mental illness by having them turn in their guns.  

What do you guys think?  Is this more reasonable?

Edited by little cow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidi, what additional laws regarding the guns themselves should be passed?  Limit of ten round for rifle magazines?  Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, for those of you who think that isn't enough, my husband says we should have gun licenses.  If you are 18 or over (he makes a good point about Marines or other military members who enjoy target shooting with their own guns) you can take a safety course and a test and then buy any guns you want.  If you screw up, the license is pulled.  If you are caught with guns after your license is pulled, there are serious consequences. 

For those that bellyache over licenses and government tracking, we have the government tracking our cars.  So what?  You can buy whatever cars you want, but, yes, they are licensed.  So, you can buy whatever guns you want.  If someone steals them, they are tracked more easily.  It isn't the UK where you have demonstrate a need to own a type of gun.  You have the right to own guns without being questioned as to why. 

Think about the above laws I suggested.  How on earth do we know that someone turned in their guns if we don't know what guns they have?  Do we want cops searching people's houses?  No, that's stupid.  Make it simple and license guns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best suggestion about guns I ever saw was on here, I think. Someone said it should be law that you carry liability insurance if you're a gun owner. Insurance companies would make darn sure a person had a background check and mental stability. You have to have insurance to drive a car, so why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really IS a good idea. But many people drive without insurance too, so how to enforce it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they would have to get the insurance before the gun? It would take a while to get all the existing ones though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have neighbors who had to get insurance to license their car, then drove the next year with no insurance, as they only paid for the first month. Happens pretty often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe,  but they had to have a valid driver’s license and jumped through the hoops to be able BUY a car.  

 

Buying a car is very difficult and you have to demonstrate that you can responsibly own and operate one.  Why is this different for guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, noponies said:

I have neighbors who had to get insurance to license their car, then drove the next year with no insurance, as they only paid for the first month. Happens pretty often.

But they had to have valid drivers’ licences to buy and insure the car right?  Had to pass “a test”.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LC, I love ALL of your suggestions!  I have long thought there were MANY things that needed to be NATIONAL in nature and not state-by-state.  Driver's Licences would be one.  I loved all of your suggestions for screening, licensing and having information about restraining orders, felonies, misdemeanors, mental health changes readily available to law enforcement and those performing background checks in a national database and having certain laws be NATIONAL as well - no more this state says this, that state says that - make it a happy medium across the board so there can be no confusion.  We are Americans and we are ONE country and each state needs to stop behaving as if they are there own little dictatorship.

Edited by Heidi n Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nick said:

Maybe,  but they had to have a valid driver’s license and jumped through the hoops to be able BUY a car.  

 

Buying a car is very difficult and you have to demonstrate that you can responsibly own and operate one.  Why is this different for guns?

When's the last time you took a drivers test? Its a joke. Any 10 year old could pass it easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, GEE! I thought we were discussing an AMERICAN gun problem! So why would what happens overseas have ANYthing to do with it?  Silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Heidi n Q said:

LC, I love ALL of your suggestions!  I have long thought there were MANY things that needed to be NATIONAL in nature and not state-by-state.  Driver's Licences would be one.  I loved all of your suggestions for screening, licensing and having information about restraining orders, felonies, misdemeanors, mental health changes readily available to law enforcement and those performing background checks in a national database and having certain laws be NATIONAL as well - no more this state says this, that state says that - make it a happy medium across the board so there can be no confusion.  We are Americans and we are ONE country and each state needs to stop behaving as if they are there own little dictatorship.

Wow, thanks Heidi!  That means a lot to me.  You have a stronger knowledge base on civilian rifles, so I'm glad I came up with something that made sense.  :). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2018 at 11:28 AM, nick said:

But they had to have valid drivers’ licences to buy and insure the car right?  Had to pass “a test”.  

Nick, it must be very difficult to watch this drama from overseas.  I remember hearing bits of news here and there while I was deployed and thinking, "What the h--- is going on back home?!". 

BBC News is especially alarmist about the US and guns.  They have their own troubles with illegal guns coming in from Eastern Europe, so focusing on our troubles makes them feel better about themselves. 

We'll be okay.  You know how it is.  It takes a long time to rile the public because we abhor even seeming like we are depriving anyone of their freedoms, but I think we are finally getting to the 'enough is enough' point.  

I'll work on getting this sorted out before you come home.  :P  Actually, I am contacting politicians that I think might listen to these ideas we brought up.  Why not?  Maybe they are ready to listen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance idea isn't a bad one, but I don't think they have the backbone.  Already, the issue of guns and home ownership is only barely touched on for homeowner's insurance.  We have a gun safe, but I don't think that even has an effect on our insurance rates.  They don't really care except about the value of the guns you want to include on your policy.  But they'll tell you which breeds of dogs you can't own, lol!

Edited by little cow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there have been more americans killed from gun violence since 1970 than all who served and fell for their country in every war.  1,3 million.    say what??    America is a travesty ad a joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not sure about 10 rounds, but that is better than 20.  

Frankly, in most LEGAL actions, if you can't do it in 5, it ain't going to get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now