Friday, 06 November, 2009

1. By . Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @07:12pm:

   Video game guns tend to have all the firepower I need. Besides, privately-owned guns are illegal in my city (pending some lawsuit, I'm sure).
2. By MrFred. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @07:18pm:

   They are around $1,000 right now. Look for them to go up. They are pretty over priced IMO.
3. By Dog. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @07:18pm:

   Not too much if you work in the military.
   Also from Wikipedia ...
   The Five-Seven and 5.7x28mm ammunition were the target of brief controversy in the United States in 2004 when it was claimed by the Brady Campaign that commercially available SS192 penetrated a Level IIA vest in testing.
   Commercially available variants of the 5.7x28mm cartridge are classified by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as being not armor piercing and it was claimed that the SS192 and SS196 cartridge variants did not penetrate Kevlar vests.
   On November 5, 2009, U.S. Army psychiatrist Malik Nadal Hasan opened fire at the Ft. Hood military base, killing 13 and wounding 30. He was reportedly armed with two handguns, one of which was a FN Five-Seven.
   The Five-Seven pistol and 5.7x28mm cartridge were specifically targeted for a U.S. federal ban in 2005, which failed.
4. By Christopher. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @07:39pm:

   Yay!
   Guns Galore!
5. By Ace. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @08:15pm:

   Yeah, They are now talking about putting this caliber gun (5.7, which is only slightly larger than a .22 magnum) under a different ATF ban, one that limits the sale or use of to only Law enforcement or military personnel, Somewhat similar to the regulations regarding Automatic ("machine-guns") and suppressed (Silenced) Firearms. The danger with this caliber gun is, that the round it fires can penetrate body armor at over 300 yards. So it could be dangerous if the "bad guys" start using it, like what happened yesterday.
   
   Also, a note on "magazines": Personally, Magazine limits/bans are a infective way to control gun violence, if somebody is going to kill people or persons, they will do it anyway regardless if the magazine holds 2 or 20 rounds. What we need to do is stop creating bans that target law abiding gun owners and start targeting the criminals instead.
6. By wok. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @08:21pm:

   Ace, are you not paying attention fully? That round is not an 'armor piercing' round.
7. By . Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @08:23pm:

   That's a very pretty gun. I wouldn't mind getting one. Any idea how much they cost?
   
   Would you consider used?
8. By Don Coyote. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @08:27pm:

   "What we need to do is stop creating bans that target law abiding gun owners and start targeting the criminals instead."
   
   Targeting the criminals is a good idea. How about an Open Hunting season?
9. By . Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @08:50pm:

   What we need to do is stop creating bans that target law abiding gun owners and start targeting the criminals instead.

   
   Ace, isn't it true that Hasan would have been considered a "law abiding gun owner" and not a "criminal" under your suggestion?
   
   I believe every law-abiding citizen should have the right to own a gun - I won't compromise on that - but I also believe there is absolutely NO REASON for any private citizen to own an automatic weapon - they should be banned.
   
   That's just my opinion.
   
   Not a bad idea, Don Coyote.
10. By wok. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @08:55pm:

    So you're all about the Old West, then.
    
    Single Action revolvers only? Or are Double Actions okay?
    
    I could live with just wheel guns. I'd guess manufacturers would probably start making 12 shot .357's somehow, but that'd be neat, anyway!
11. By . Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @10:08pm:

    Koran + Guns = Carnage
12. By Dar. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @10:27pm:

    Muslims - Weapons = Peace
13. By . Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @10:41pm:

    My brother used to work for FN Machine Gun. I always told him they should print up some t-shirts with the slogan, "FN Machine Gun: We take the U out of FUN!"
    
    I apologize to anybody I offended last night, but doesn't this make it seem any less unlikely that one guy could mow down that many people?
14. By Bisbonian. Comment posted 06-Nov-2009 @11:21pm:

    "FN Machine Gun: We take the U out of FUN!"

    
    I must have mis-heard that. I always thought they said "we take you out, for fun."
15. By Joe. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @12:18am:

    The problem with gun control, like drug control, is that no one knows what the right mix is that will benefit society as a whole the most. A lot of bans just ban "mean looking" guns.
    
    Gun ownership by a population can be a deterrent to crime, or it can allow easy access to guns for the crazy. As far as I know, no one who has gone through the trouble of getting legal access to machine guns and silenced guns has ever committed a crime with those weapons.
16. By kashmarek. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @03:19am:

    http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/fnusg_021207/index3.html
17. By Broccoli. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @07:48am:

    Canada's paliament just voted the end of the controversial gun registry that was supposed to cost a few millions and end up costing a billion dollar (I don't even knoe how this can be possible).
    As much as I like the idea of restricting gun ownership, this bureaucrat idea wasn't working very well.
18. By Chris Weagel. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @08:20am:

    I don't trust a gun I can't balance on my head for the duration of a 500-meter sprint, thank you.
19. By Ace. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @09:51am:

    Spokane Mary, True, But take a look at MAPLE LEAF's formula: Muslims+Guns=Carnage. In my little rant on gun control, I failed to mention that yes, Hasan would have been considered a "law abiding citizen." You are always going to have your criminals, your psychos and crazies. No matter what weapons they do or don't have access to. I seem to remember a move to ban pointed kitchen knives in Britain. Will that be next? What about box cutters? Hey let's ban and control broken glass bottles, all knives, and yes cars, people have used them for killing others, and baseball bats while we are at it. Axes, mauls, shovel handles, and, yes make Ammonium Nitrate totally illegal. Where will the list end? Look at Japan, they have the most stringent gun regulations in the world, so it must be a pretty safe place to live, right? No, instead, they have the highest suicide rate in the world. Now, don't get me wrong here, I don't mean to be "in your face" about this...
20. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @02:18pm:

    Ace, I already said this:

    I believe every law-abiding citizen should have the right to own a gun - I won't compromise on that -

    
    so, if you don't mind, save the rant against all the anti-gun people for someone else. I agree with you - if a person wants to kill another person, they'll find a way. Pipe bombs and knives are perfectly acceptable substitutes.
    
    My reservation against automatic weapons is that the ONLY use for them is to take out a whole bunch of people at a time - and that's just not something your everyday law-abiding citizen has a need for.
21. By banjo brad. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @04:04pm:

    I own a 9-shot 22 caliber revolver that belonged to my dad. My brother has the 22 caliber single-shot Remington rifle that was dad's also.
    
    We grew up shooting longbows and making our own arrows and strings.
    
    I have no problem with legal possession of multiple-shot weapons, including pump shotguns or repeating rifles, but I see no reason for any law-abiding citizen to own any of the "assault" guns that are so popular nowdays. Any hunter should be able to place his shots so he doesn't need to spray the area to assure his trophy.
22. By Goosefeather. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @04:04pm:

    
    
    . . only in America - a bag limit on military spec weapons . .
23. By John. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @04:44pm:

    My reservation against automatic weapons is that the ONLY use for them is to take out a whole bunch of people at a time - and that's just not something your everyday law-abiding citizen has a need for.
    
    The weapon pictured above is not automatic. With a handful of vintage exceptions, automatic weapons are illegal for private citizens.
24. By wok. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @04:48pm:

    How about just flint locks? You can hunt with them, you could defend your house with four or five of them, I guess.
    
    Also, we've gotta do something about these forks. And blunt instruments. There should be a government plan to wrap foam cushioning around any object that might come near children.
25. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @05:27pm:

    You're so dense, wok; Ace already covered that in #19.
    
    John, I'm no gun expert, so I probably used the wrong term when I said "automatic" - what I'm against are what might be called "assault" weapons, meaning exactly what I said - weapons whose only purpose is to take out an entire group of people in one sweep; there's just no reason for anyone to own such a gun in this country.
    
    Clearly, there would have been much less carnage at Ft. Hood had his weapon been capable of firing six shots before reloading instead of 20.
    
    Now I'm not going to argue guns with you boys - you can outshout each other about the virtues of one gun over another - and, again, I do stand behind the right of every law-abiding citizen to own a gun - but there's a limit to how much firepower you really need and I'll continue to stand on that, too.
26. By wok. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @05:38pm:

    Feel free to call me dense liberally, ya kook.
27. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @06:03pm:

    gun + MPs = take this bastard down before he could kill 12 and injure dozens more!
    
    It shouldn't have taken a female cop to take this bastard down.
    
    Shame on the US policy of not allowing MPs to run around with sidearms. Did you impose that policy, Jimmy Carter?
28. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @06:05pm:

    America - Muslims = peace.
29. By banjo brad. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @06:17pm:

    ron imanuel
    
    The "female cop" (and I would refer to her as a "cop." was there because the Armed Services have had to contract with civilian law enforcement to perform the functions of the Military Police, who are busy overseas in war zones.
30. By Banjo Morgin. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @08:13pm:

    @Spokane M: I basically agree with you, but the constitution is very clear on the issue of gun ownership: It shall not be infringed. We can argue all we want that this is rigth, or wrong, but it is what it is.
    
    (Which is why I believe I should be allowed to own a bazooka, but that's another story).
31. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @09:13pm:

    what mary doesn't get is that the FN 5.7 is NOT an automatic weapon....I own one.
32. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @09:21pm:

    since mary will say it....the FN 5.7 is not an assault weapon either, no more than any other handgun. there is a lot of civilian ammo that is armor piercing, which this gun tends to get a lot of attention. what no one has said yet, is that the military gets a whole different grade of this ammo......just as they due for .223 etc. It is (and should be) this way. but before commenting, please know your facts with regards to ballistics, etc.
33. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @09:36pm:

    vettes and guns: Do you have a problem reading or a problem understanding what you read?
    
    Try again - read my comment #25. If you can shoot 20 shots off this thing, in a hurry, without reloading - it's more than what you need - call it whatever you want to call it, Mr. Gun Man.
    
    As for this:

    but before commenting, please know your facts with regards to ballistics, etc.

    
    Puhleeze. I could as well say this to you:
    
    But before commenting, locate and learn to use your Shift key.
    
    But I won't.
    
    You don't have to know one gun from another to know this man had too much firepower in his hands. Of course, the biggest problem is that he was an unstable, angry man and he was in the Army; he'd been there long enough to attain the rank of Major, yet he'd exhibited bizarre and irrational behavior repeatedly without intervention. Because no one intervened, he had the opportunity to obtain weapons to kill a large group of people. Zip.
34. By J Smart. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @09:40pm:

    The right to bear arms is not granted by the government, it's simply listed in the Bill of Rights so that, like the other rights, it's remembered as something the government cannot take away from you. Because if they do, they've violated one of your fundamental human rights. It's not open to discussion.
    
    And the reason the Framers thought this was important is that they expected that someday a tyranny of one sort or another would take hold, and the people would be bound to take back their liberty. Those are important words: the people would have to take their own liberty back. You or I may disagree whether that liberty was imperiled more by Bush or Obama. Doesn't matter, either way you own your liberty-- with your gun. You're a fool if you don't recognize that.
    
    Semantics of what type of gun or ammo you should be 'allowed' to have are signs of a tyranny afoot, and must be resisted with all due course.
35. By Don Coyote. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @09:49pm:

    "...they've violated one of your fundamental gundamental human rights. It's not open to discussion."
    
    Especially if the discussion is with someone holding a gun.
36. By J Smart. Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @09:59pm:

    If you choose not to protect yourself, that's your business.
    
    You don't have a right to deny me my right.
37. By . Comment posted 07-Nov-2009 @10:49pm:

    J Smart, you were doing fine and had no disagreement from me until you brought up the whole "tyranny must be resisted" business; that rang some bells.
    
    I'm a little slow, but I think I've heard this before; check this out: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/militia_m.asp?xpicked=4&item=19
    
    Militia groups - of course.
38. By Jeff. Comment posted 08-Nov-2009 @09:42am:

    Oh please. There is so much BS on this comment thread.
    
    The FN was legally purchased. However, it was illegally brought on to the military installation. And may I remind folks that both attempted murder and murder are crimes?
    
    There are huge numbers of ammunition rounds that are more than capable of defeating the best body armor. Many of those are also handgun rounds, so what. Killing a person, whether or not they are wearing armor is a crime already.
    
    An assault weapon is a media term based upon the "looks" of a weapon. An AR15 is no more powerful than a hunting rifle in the same caliber. The whole mowing down thing is a red herring. True assault rifles are capable of fully automatic fire. Those weapons number very little and civilian ownership is almost non-existent. To put a fine point on it, your so-called assault weapon AR in .223 would just annoy a charging elephant. But a .600 Nitro with a traditional wood stock and iron sights would put it down with around a single shot.
39. By Dave (TDC). Comment posted 09-Nov-2009 @09:34am:

    "the constitution is very clear on the issue of gun ownership"
    
    It's also very clear on the USA never having a standing army, and the 2 are connected through citizen’s militia.
    
    Last time I looked the USA did have at least one or two people in a standing army. So your point is?
40. By NoHelp. Comment posted 09-Nov-2009 @11:53am:

    Well, on the positive side, there have been 39 increasingly heated posts and no mention of Hitler yet.
    
    Oops.
    
    Kind of like saying out loaud at the top of the 9th inning "say, it looks like he's got a no-hitter going."
41. By . Comment posted 09-Nov-2009 @01:47pm:

    "the constitution is very clear on the issue of gun ownership"

    
    Yes, it is; of course, a "gun" in those days was a little different, wasn't it? When the Constitution was written, a Flintlock pistol or musket was what they were talking about; do you seriously believe the men who wrote that document over 200 years ago would agree that every citizen has a right to own an automatic/semi-automatic/assault/you-know-what-I'm-talking-about-so-quit-pretending-you-don't type weapon?
42. By . Comment posted 09-Nov-2009 @02:02pm:

    Now that Hitler is present ...
    
    

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

    
    ~~Adolf Hitler, From Edict of March 18, 1938
    The above is found on page 149 of The Second Amendment Primer Copyright 1996 by Les Adams. Published by Odysseus Editions, Birmingham Alabama.
    
    Yeah, yeah, we know - Godwin's Law - yadda yadda.
    
    The quote is significant to the discussion, so Godwin can go soak his head.

Original content © 2010, John Walkenbach