Georgians own more than 22,000 machine guns (felony, buying, cost)

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

I'm pretty sure you can shoot hogs with a regular rifle can't you?

Can you tell me the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "regular rifle"?

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

Assault weapons are not used for defensive purposes in everyday life - they are used for mass killings. They have no place anywhere in a civilized society. I'm sorry. I'm betting you'll change your mind when someone shows up with one at your mall, school, or movie theater.

I'm pretty sure you can shoot hogs with a regular rifle can't you?

AR-15 shoots faster, is lighter, easier to handle, etc. . . etc. . . . .


Read the first line of my post again, where i said they're simply fun to shoot. I like having it.



Its my constitutional right to have it.



Cars kill people, cigarettes kill people, bears kill people, hands and feet kill people; do any of these things belong in a civilized society?

[AcidSnake]

I'm realistic about the way this country is.

I don't expect the AR-15s, AK-47s, and other similar weapons to ever go away. America culturally is an aggressive militaristic nation and I don't see this aspect going away for the foreseeable future.

So what would I like to see happen?


1. I would prefer a Federal law banning any weapons to be sold at gun shows without criminal background checks in all states and U.S. territories.

2. I want an end to the practice of straw-purchasing in some ways, possibly by requiring some sort of yearly limit on how many weapons can be bought. I would also prefer for the purchaser to register those weapons and be required to account for those weapons every year.

3. The deadlier weapons should require insurance much like a car, in case those weapons falls into the wrong hands and results in grave damages to life and damage to property. At least this way the purchaser is force to think more about their decision to own such a powerful weapon and whether or not they are ready to assume the huge responsibility of safekeeping it.

4. There should be a method to ensure that any records of a person having been in a mental institution should show up in a criminal background check.

5. There should be a question on the application that asks a person who purchases an assault weapon if they have any mentally-ill family members in their household.

These are suggestions that I would like to see in a weapons bill. I don't even see the possibility of one of these situations even remotely taking place, but hey, it's a good dream to have.

Originally Posted by southgeorgia

Plain and simple, they're fun to shoot.



I've never shot a human being with any of mine, and i never intend to, yet I still like having them.



The only living thing i've shot with an AR-15 is hogs; they cause massive damage to crops, and need to be dealt with swiftly. They travel in packs, so you need the ability to unload on them quickly with as much lead on target as possible.


But anyway, I really like mine, and I'm not giving them up because of a few crazy people out there. A gun ban will not stop guns crimes; in fact statistics in some areas that have banned guns show that gun crimes, murders, and home invasions have risen.

The problem with taking away guns is that the criminals no longer have to be worried that the person they are about to rob may have the ability to shoot and kill them.



A gun ban would stop guns just about as well as a drug ban has stopped methamphetamines.

[flamadiddle]

I see both sides of the argument, but this is clearly a problem with no real solution other than to hope for the best going forward...

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

1. I would prefer a Federal law banning any weapons to be sold at gun shows without criminal background checks in all states and U.S. territories.

i would agree with you on that one.

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

2. I want an end to the practice of straw-purchasing in some ways, possibly by requiring some sort of yearly limit on how many weapons can be bought. I would also prefer for the purchaser to register those weapons and be required to account for those weapons every year.

3. The deadlier weapons should require insurance much like a car, in case those weapons falls into the wrong hands and results in grave damages to life and damage to property. At least this way the purchaser is force to think more about their decision to own such a powerful weapon and whether or not they are ready to assume the huge responsibility of safekeeping it.

4. There should be a method to ensure that any records of a person having been in a mental institution should show up in a criminal background check.

5. There should be a question on the application that asks a person who purchases an assault weapon if they have any mentally-ill family members in their household.

These are suggestions that I would like to see in a weapons bill. I don't even see the possibility of one of these situations even remotely taking place, but hey, it's a good dream to have.

i disagree on all of those for two reasons: invasion of privacy, and the broad range of symptoms that can classify someone as mentally ill.


edit to add:

if you do own a fully automatic weapon, you are required to account for that weapon whenever asked to do so. you also have to register with the sheriff of your county and have their permission to own the weapon; if they say no, you're not bringing it home.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Can you tell me the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "regular rifle"?

Yes, easily, and assault rifle is fully automatic, ie a machine gun. A regular rifle is not fully automatic.

[ATLTJL]

I do believe that there should be a database for those who receive psychiatric evaluations

It's easy to agree with this, but the logistics are actually much more complex.

Do you believe people who seek treatment for depression and/or anxiety should be in a database? What about people who seek grief counseling after the loss of a loved one?

The issue with this is that if people know they are going into a database when seeking mental health treatment, they will be less likely to do so. And the stigma on receiving treatment is already pretty high. So it begs the question: which is more dangerous to society, to not know who is receiving mental health treatment, or to have a bunch of people who need it but aren't seeking it becasue they don't want to be known?

And then you have to ask yourself how wide of a net you want to cast. Do you want to include anybody who has sought treatment for alcohol or drug abuse too? Because they are probably just as dangerous as mentally ill people.

But we all know people who are alcoholics, depressed, anxious, etc. and most of the time they are harmless. Especially when they are in treatment.

[southgeorgia]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Yes, easily, and assault rifle is fully automatic, ie a machine gun. A regular rifle is not fully automatic.

Not all assault rifles are fully automatic.

An AR-15, the same that was used in the Newtown shooting, is not fully automatic.

One pull of the trigger fires one round.

You must have a federal firearms license to buy a fully automatic weapon. It takes a lot of time, money, and verification to get one of these licenses.


I think maybe the misunderstanding of the type of weapons we are talking about is what is leading to most of the outrage.



Sent from my BlackBerry 9370 using Tapatalk

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by southgeorgia

Not all assault rifles are fully automatic.

Yes, they are. That is the definition of the term "Assault Rifle".

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Source: Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An AR-15, the same that was used in the Newtown shooting, is not fully automatic.

Which means it's not an Assault Rifle. Period, end of discussion.

[DentalFloss]