Gun control laws. Reasonable or stupid?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Well the idea that a man can purchase a 50 and use it on people is very realistic, but even though it hasn't happened yet, doesnt mean a law should be in place to ban people from getting the rifle

Nobody's calling for a ban. I do think it's worth considering whether the Barrett should be regulated by the NFA.

And as the link I've posted shows, it has happened. The IRA used Barrett rifles to kill British soldiers in Northern Ireland during the 1990s.

[Excalibur]

I remember reading a report during New Orleans when they were cleaning up after Katrina and then asking people to surrender their firearms, a group of Nation Guardsman went to some rich guy's place, big mansion and all and were kind surprised to see that the guy living there with his buddies got bigger guns than them and noted at a Barrett among them. I don't know if they surrender their guns or not, but it actually scared the guardsmen.

[Yournamehere]

I kind of feel like the price and the amount of training/skill it takes to properly utilize a Barrett are regulatory enough on their own. I don't know any people who have on in the U.S. at least on the civilian level, and if we don't, I doubt criminals do.

I also agree that the regulations on machineguns are fair, though the Pre 86 deal is a bit stupid. On the other hand I'm on the fence about whether or not the current requirements for obtaining a machinegun, along with the price drop that would come, would stop people from just buying the machinegun instead of the semi-automatic variant; if the Pre 86 clause was abolished and modern machineguns were available, it might botch the "civilian market". It would be nice to have a fully automatic Assault Rifle, but to know that nearly anyone else can have one too makes it a bit more frightening. If they do fall into the wrong hands, they could potentially mean much more trouble than their semi-automatic counterparts. I can think of any well known shooting incident (except maybe North Hollywood where they DID have automatic weapons) and say "what if they had a machinegun too?" and only imagine how much worse it might have been.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not against the ownership of machineguns by responsible civilians, but as of now I can't justify allowing them to be as available or abundant as the semi-automatic variants, at least not with the current laws.

[Excalibur]

Well the bankers at North Hollywood got those AKs illegally and the ammo illegally so what's to say they wouldn't have tried to get a machine gun as well. It would have made the situation a lot worse for the cops if the robbers had a browning or even a SAW

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

The guy must have been skilled

He was former SWAT.

[Yournamehere]

He's talking about Jeremy Renner in the SWAT movie guys, it didn't actually happen as far as I know. Even so, I doubt that they'd pass a law because of events that happened in a movie.

Also, when I say "machinegun" I mean it as a general word for automatic weapon, like in civilian context, not the specific classification of frearm like the M249 and the M60 fall into. The North Hollywwod guys had automatic weapons i:e "machineguns".

[Excalibur]

Or the term "Assault Weapon"

[S&Wshooter]

Assault Weapon: anything from a toothpick to an ICBM

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

He's talking about Jeremy Renner in the SWAT movie guys, it didn't actually happen as far as I know. Even so, I doubt that they'd pass a law because of events that happened in a movie.

Yeah, in the movie. But with how paranoid the anti-gun crowd is these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it is true.

[k9870]

I think you should be able to buy pistols at 18, not just long guns.