[Vision2020] Gun Bans

Tue Nov 11 14:13:23 PST 2008

Not off the point at all "Art", I agree with your post entirely.  I don't actually hunt (always willing to take some jerkey off a hunters hands though!) and only target shoot rarely for fun with a veteran friend of mine (because I know I won't get shot by him screwing around)  My point was mainly to show that previous attempts at regulation were focused on the wrong agenda, being the guns themselves and trying to identify which look fancier than the rest vs. regulating who will actually be using them.  

I think it should be a system that's follows our driving regulations where all users will have to pass a course and prove their responsibility in using their weapons and show a penchant for the safety of everyone else on the range or in the fields.  Knowing your backdrop should be lesson #1, I'm shocked at hearing that people still shoot at rustling trees or where they may hit buildings.  I guess my own experience would be a glowing case study for this type of requirement because I myself skirted the law at a show when I was 17 or 18 and ended up shooting my 9mm (sold long ago) through a tv toward a neighboring apartment, luckily it didn't exit the tv but could it could have easily been a tragedy.

I think we sometimes don't realize that gun regulations are written by people from metro areas who do not see the problem from the point of view that we in the fields of Idaho see it.  Child locks are cheap and easy enough to do.  There's really isn't much use for AR-15's or their wooden stock equals in the closets of a house in New York City where it is more likely to be stolen and end up on the street.  The laws stem from idiots like the man in Stockton who shot up the daycare or the man on the subway unloading 16 round 9mm clips.  Maybe there should be geographical restrictions to certain types of guns?  I'm not sure which is why I'm here reading the differing views.

Don

> Message: 3> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:16:03 -0800> From: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Bans> To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>> Message-ID: <947B504F03DE479DBF85F91B951BEC28 at LocalHost>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Somewhat off the main point, but...> > Part of the issues raised about hunting weapons deal with sportspersonship, fair chase, safety, etc and not about gun control as the NRA would have all believe.> > I am in the woods part of the day at least 5 days out of the week. During hunting season (now), I hear lots of semi-automatic weapon fire, both from rifles and shotguns. About two weeks ago, the was a salvo of about 30 shots in just a few seconds.> > I'm showing my age, but when I hunted as a kid in Idaho, semi-automatic weapons were not allowed. Each round had to be pumped or levered into the chamber. Shotguns were only allowed to have the capacity of 3 shots before reloading, and rifles were only allowed to have 5 or six shots. Violators using semi-automatics in those days were called (rightly so) slob hunters, and they were ridiculed and shunned by legitimate sportspersons.> > The point was that if you were a skilled hunter and sportsperson, you didn't take a shot unless there was a very high probability that it would be a lethal one. I wonder what happened to that ethic.> > On a related subject, I was a boy/explorer scout for several years. I went through weapon/hunting safety training at least 6 and maybe 10 times. In addition, I was asked to monitor and to evaluate a weapon/hunting safety course for first-time violators in California. One cardinal rule then taught was: Do not hunt within your weapon's range of any dwelling, highway, main off-road, or campground, or any domestic livestock, horse, or fowl farm/ranch or pasturage.> > I understand that this rule is no longer taught in weapon/hunter safety courses in Idaho. What a pity. Several houses in our neighborhood have been hit by rifle fire or strafed by shotgun pellets. When I lived in Boundary County during the 1980s, it was a rare hunting seasons when some cattle or even horses were not accidently injured or slaughtered either by hunter stupidity/carelessness or stray bullets.> > In addition, when I hunted as a kid, people used to hunt mainly with 30.06s or 30-30s which have a range of about a mile. Now we have these crazys firing high muzzle velocity .222s which have a range of about 2 1/2 miles. In addition, we have other crazys using bulked up .50 caliber rifles; aside from the fact they sound like cannons and can be heard for miles, they have a range of about five miles.> > Not to belabor a point, but some hunters do not clearly identify what they are shooting at, nor do they consider the consequences of missing. Some still shoot at just sounds in the woods, especially toward the end of hunting season (or just after). Not only do hunters and others get killed by careless hunters, but many, many more careless hunters narrowly miss (thankfully) shooting others. I can personally testify to having been a target several times -- the last time about three years ago, two days after the close of hunting season.> > So when people argue that they ought be allowed to hunt with semi-automatics, etc, they fail to sway me. The woods are unsafe enough with single shot weapons. People making such arguments only convince me that they are unskilled slob hunters without regard of the safety of others, or of taking a clean, sportspersonlike shot at their target.> > W.> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: donald edwards > To: vision2020 at moscow.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:07 PM> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Bans> > > > I think some people have missed the point in Mike's post. There are weapons on the banned list that have the exact same capabilites and capacity as regular ol' hunting rifles. Banning these based on their appearance alone is kind of a weird premis, right? If you can't buy an M1-Garand that holds a 30 round clip and fires semi-automatically (or just installing a bayonet makes it illegal) but can walk right in a buy a regular looking, wooden stock 30-06 with the exact same capability, than what's the point of the ban? Personally, it's annoying to have to install a wooden dowel into a pump action shotgun so that it will only hold 2 shells vs. 7-8. Not much point again.> > Most gansta's probably prefer .22 small caliber pistols anyway because they are easy to conceal, much quieter, much lighter, pennies per shot vs. quarters, can hold 100 round clips or more, fire semi-automatically (or easily converted to full auto) and the bullets actually either richochet around off of bone and internals or scatter into little pieces inside causing greater damage and infection where a 9mm would zip right through at subsonic speed practically cautorizing the wound as it enters and exits.> > Don> > > > > From: vision2020-request at moscow.com> > Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 29, Issue 125> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:30:11 -0800> > > > Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to> > vision2020 at moscow.com> > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> > vision2020-request at moscow.com> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at> > vision2020-owner at moscow.com> > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> > than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."> > > > > > Today's Topics:> > > > 1. Re: obama election / gun purchases (Scott Dredge)> > 2. Special Comment on Gay Marriage ~ Keith Olbermann (Chasuk)> > 3. Re: obama election / gun purchases (Donovan Arnold)> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > Message: 1> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:26:56 -0700> > From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases> > To: <mike_l_f at hotmail.com>, viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>> > Message-ID: <BAY117-W192BDACC6DD19D1D4ACCBFE4150 at phx.gbl>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"> > > > > > There isn't much support for reinstating the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. There would need to be some kind of catalyst like there was with the Stockton Massacre back in 1989 where some unstable guy got ahold of a semi-automatic rifle and shot up a bunch of school children.> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_massacre> > > > Before the ban took effect, sales increased dramatically on AK-47s and Colt AR-15s.> > > > As far as I know, the VA Tech Massacre last year did not produced any changes in gun control laws or lack thereof.> > > > It's interesting to read about how 'the sky is falling' on 2nd Amendment rights. This Obama character looks to be an unstoppable juggernaut which is quite a contrast to an impotent George W. Bush. I wonder why.> > > > -Scott> > > > > > > From: mike_l_f at hotmail.com> > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com> > > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:26:43 +0000> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases> > > > > > Setting aside anything that Senator Obama may have said or done in the past, > > > people are concerned about his effect on honest gun owners because on the > > > http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/ web site there is this statement -> > > > > > "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent"> > > > > > If you aren't familiar with firearms that may seem reasonable, but when you > > > look at the details it's pretty obvious that it's not an effective tool > > > against crime. First, the government admitted that ?... the weapons banned > > > by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were > > > used only rarely in gun crimes?. (National Institute of Justice, March > > > 1999) Secondly, there was no positive effect. Violent crime has continued > > > to trend downward since the ban was lifted, and rifles of any description > > > continue to be involved in a tiny percentage of crimes.> > > > > > The law was based largely on the way rifles look. Features such as barrel > > > shrouds, pistol grips and other ergonomic features may set them apart from > > > classic walnut stocked sporting rifles, but seem pretty trivial from a > > > criminal perspective. The two mechanical features mentioned are that these > > > firearms have a detachable box magazine which can hold several cartridges, > > > and the self-loading action allows you to fire one shot with each pull of > > > the trigger until the magazine is empty.> > > > > > By comparison I was looking at a 1950's Remington Woodsmaster rifle in Sure > > > Shot sporting goods last week. It has a fine walnut stock, is self-loading, > > > has a detachable box magazine and fires the 30-06, a far more powerful > > > cartridge than almost all of the rifles on the "Assault Weapons" list. > > > There are many hundreds of thousands of rifles similar to that in hunter's > > > closets around the country. Do you wonder that they are concerned about > > > laws banning similar firearms?> > > > > > But people say they only want to ban firearms which can shoot 20 or 30 times > > > without reloading. It would be pretty easy to put a larger magazine on the > > > Woodsmaster or it's cousins, and I wonder when they will decide that also > > > includes shotguns. If you load your pump shotgun with five 00 buckshot > > > cartridges and fire until it's empty, you will have sent 45 heavy lead .33 > > > caliber balls at your target. They won't travel as far as a rifle bullet, > > > but anyone within 100 yards will be in deadly danger.> > > > > > In other words, banning a category of weapons which are only cosmetically > > > different than common hunting rifles, and no more lethal than common > > > shotguns seems like a cynical first step towards - what? There is no > > > evidence it's for crime control.> > > > > > In 2003 the Center for Disease Control published a review of studies from > > > several countries. They state that they found "insufficient evidence to > > > determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for > > > preventing violence". (Wikipedia) It seems that criminals are willing to > > > break laws to get weapons. There have been several academic studies which > > > revealed many benefits that honest citizens gain from owning firearms for > > > self defense, but this is already too long to go into that.> > > > > > This country has done well over the last two centuries for several reasons. > > > One of them is the balance of power. We have been suffering through a > > > period where one group has been acting to restrict some of our rights. This > > > years election can probably be seen as a reaction to that. The pendulum > > > swings. If the government distrusts the citizens so much that it fears > > > leaving them effectively armed, at some future date will the party in power > > > decide that elections are too dangerous, and they now have the power to stop > > > the pendulum?> > > > > > - Mike> > > > > > Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,> > > hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.> > > -- H. L. > > > MENCKEN> > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________> > Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/> > -------------- next part --------------> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> > URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081111/320cc833/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------> > > > Message: 2> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:18:22 -0800> > From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>> > Subject: [Vision2020] Special Comment on Gay Marriage ~ Keith> > Olbermann> > To: Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>> > Message-ID:> > <ef6f41de0811110118g3726c791i63a3d901c26e968c at mail.gmail.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1> > > > I know that Keith can be bombastic, but this is good.> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE> > > > > > > > ------------------------------> > > > Message: 3> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:30:06 -0800 (PST)> > From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com, Mike Finkbiner <mike_l_f at hotmail.com>> > Message-ID: <840716.25759.qm at web38103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"> > > > Mike,> > ?> > The majority of weapons used in murder are actually handguns. So banning weapons on the bases of how often they are used as a murder weapon is not always?practical. > > ?> > Most people agree with banning assault weapons because they are dangerous machines that can be used only in?tragic ways and go well beyond?the need of self-defense. > > ?> > The rate of murders are not caused by the type of weapons available so much as they are based on the economic and social conditions of the culture at the time. Meaning, murders go up or down based on how desperate the people are for a decent living. > > ?> > I think it is the right of every law abiding decent human when?properly trained?to own a handgun for personal protection from harm against him/her their family and property. They should also have the right to a rifle or high power weapon for killing game. But I think an assault weapon designed to kill hundreds of people in a few minutes is beyond what an average citizen could possibly need for legitimate purposes. I think if someone wants such a weapon, they should have to demonstrate a reasonable need for it, and get special license for it. > > ?> > Best Regards,> > ?> > Donovan> > > > --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Mike Finkbiner <mike_l_f at hotmail.com> wrote:> > > > From: Mike Finkbiner <mike_l_f at hotmail.com>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com> > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 8:26 PM> > > > Setting aside anything that Senator Obama may have said or done in the past,> > people are concerned about his effect on honest gun owners because on the> > http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/ web site there is this statement -> > > > "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban> > permanent"> > > > If you aren't familiar with firearms that may seem reasonable, but when you> > look at the details it's pretty obvious that it's not an effective tool> > against crime. First, the government admitted that ?... the weapons banned> > by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were> > used only rarely in gun crimes?. (National Institute of Justice, March 1999) > > Secondly, there was no positive effect. Violent crime has continued to trend> > downward since the ban was lifted, and rifles of any description continue to be> > involved in a tiny percentage of crimes.> > > > The law was based largely on the way rifles look. Features such as barrel> > shrouds, pistol grips and other ergonomic features may set them apart from> > classic walnut stocked sporting rifles, but seem pretty trivial from a criminal> > perspective. The two mechanical features mentioned are that these firearms> > have a detachable box magazine which can hold several cartridges, and the> > self-loading action allows you to fire one shot with each pull of the trigger> > until the magazine is empty.> > > > By comparison I was looking at a 1950's Remington Woodsmaster rifle in Sure> > Shot sporting goods last week. It has a fine walnut stock, is self-loading, has> > a detachable box magazine and fires the 30-06, a far more powerful cartridge> > than almost all of the rifles on the "Assault Weapons" list. There> > are many hundreds of thousands of rifles similar to that in hunter's closets> > around the country. Do you wonder that they are concerned about laws banning> > similar firearms?> > > > But people say they only want to ban firearms which can shoot 20 or 30 times> > without reloading. It would be pretty easy to put a larger magazine on the> > Woodsmaster or it's cousins, and I wonder when they will decide that also> > includes shotguns. If you load your pump shotgun with five 00 buckshot> > cartridges and fire until it's empty, you will have sent 45 heavy lead .33> > caliber balls at your target. They won't travel as far as a rifle bullet,> > but anyone within 100 yards will be in deadly danger.> > > > In other words, banning a category of weapons which are only cosmetically> > different than common hunting rifles, and no more lethal than common shotguns> > seems like a cynical first step towards - what? There is no evidence it's> > for crime control.> > > > In 2003 the Center for Disease Control published a review of studies from> > several countries. They state that they found "insufficient evidence to> > determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing> > violence". (Wikipedia) It seems that criminals are willing to break laws> > to get weapons. There have been several academic studies which revealed many> > benefits that honest citizens gain from owning firearms for self defense, but> > this is already too long to go into that.> > > > This country has done well over the last two centuries for several reasons. > > One of them is the balance of power. We have been suffering through a period> > where one group has been acting to restrict some of our rights. This years> > election can probably be seen as a reaction to that. The pendulum swings. If> > the government distrusts the citizens so much that it fears leaving them> > effectively armed, at some future date will the party in power decide that> > elections are too dangerous, and they now have the power to stop the pendulum?> > > > - Mike> > > > Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,> > hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.> > -- H. L.> > MENCKEN> > > > > > =======================================================> > List services made available by First Step Internet, > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > > http://www.fsr.net > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> > =======================================================> > > > > > > > -------------- next part --------------> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> > URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081111/b44c38a0/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------> > > > =======================================================> > List services made available by First Step Internet, > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > > http://www.fsr.net > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> > =======================================================> > > > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 29, Issue 125> > *******************************************> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > =======================================================> List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> =======================================================> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081111/7765639a/attachment.html > > ------------------------------> > =======================================================> List services made available by First Step Internet, > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. > http://www.fsr.net > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> =======================================================> > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 29, Issue 135> *******************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081111/de523e46/attachment-0001.html 