New York Times - Front Page Editorial

[Don M.]

SB... do you own a semi-automatic? IF so... why? Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs? Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in a seconds? If so.... why.... and at who?

Any Weapon that can fire multiple rounds, with a single pull of the trigger is a "machine gun"...which is tightly controlled under present regulations and requires an extensive, and Very Expensive process to procure. Anyone who could fire "50 to 100 rounds in seconds" with a semi-auto rifle/pistol would have the worlds best manual dexterity....and have the weapon equipped with a custom made clip.

 

[BobF]

SB... do you own a semi-automatic? IF so... why? Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs? Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in a seconds? If so.... why.... and at who?

As I understand it, a gun is semi automatic if it fires each time the trigger is pulled. That counts on pistols, shotguns, rifles as well. You don't need to shoot large numbers of shots to be semi automatic.

 

[SeaBreeze]

Simple answer, we don't have to need a firearm, or offer any explanations to buy one. Maybe we just enjoy shooting it, maybe we're just collectors or maybe we just want one because we feel like it. That's the beauty of being an American, we have the freedom to buy and do what we want, as long as it's within the law, we need no excuses.

SB... do you own a semi-automatic? IF so... why? Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs? Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in seconds? If so.... why.... and at who?

Answer to your first question is none of your business. See the above response from me to AZ Jim for the rest of your questions.

 

[QuickSilver]

I suppose that's your business..... But I find guns distasteful... and one "right" I will be sure to never exercise.

 

[SeaBreeze]

That's your choice QS....the beauty of being an American in this great country, we still have choices.

 

[imp]

SB... do you own a semi-automatic? IF so... why? Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs? Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in seconds? If so.... why.... and at who?

QS, the lack of technical understanding makes these terms all the more distasteful to you, I can sense. Don't be offended by my saying this, please. Your career background I take to be pretty darned technical, and one not easily attained; that suggests as a young adult, "finding out" meant as much to you as getting the good grades needed academically. If these are reasonably comprehensive guesses on my part, you won't simply "write off" my following explanation:

Handguns are made in two basic types. Semi-automatic Pistols, and Revolvers, which are made in two types, unimportant to distinguish here. Pistols carry their ammunition supply
in a reloadable magazine, ("clip" is a red-neck, hillbilly term I don't use) which is inserted into the firearm. I have never seen a pistol with a factory-fitted magazine capable of carrying over 16 rounds of ammunition, which would be what is typically termed a "high-capacity" magazine.

Revolvers carry their ammunition in a cylinder, a non-removable type of "magazine". Most have chambers for 6 rounds, some less, and each round must be manually inserted just as they must in a removable magazine for a Pistol. Revolvers are NOT semi-automatic.

So, if one chooses to have a Pistol, it WILL be semi-automatic, other choice present. Choose a Revolver, it WILL NOT be semi-automatic. BOTH TYPES WILL require a trigger-pull to fire EACH AND EVERY round.

Your question of a "regular shotgun or rifle": BOTH are made in the exact same designations I just described. Semi-automatic, or manually-operated.
Question about 50 or 100 rounds in seconds: Magazines ARE made which have capacity of 20, 30, rounds commonly, specialty manufacturers have made larger ones, but only for rifles. Shotgun cartridges are far too large to load large numbers and tote about.

Thanks for reading. imp

 

[QuickSilver]

QS, the lack of technical understanding makes these terms all the more distasteful to you, I can sense. Don't be offended by my saying this, please. Your career background I take to be pretty darned technical, and one not easily attained; that suggests as a young adult, "finding out" meant as much to you as getting the good grades needed academically. If these are reasonably comprehensive guesses on my part, you won't simply "write off" my following explanation:

Handguns are made in two basic types. Semi-automatic Pistols, and Revolvers, which are made in two types, unimportant to distinguish here. Pistols carry their ammunition supply
in a reloadable magazine, ("clip" is a red-neck, hillbilly term I don't use) which is inserted into the firearm. I have never seen a pistol with a factory-fitted magazine capable of carrying over 16 rounds of ammunition, which would be what is typically termed a "high-capacity" magazine.

Revolvers carry their ammunition in a cylinder, a non-removable type of "magazine". Most have chambers for 6 rounds, some less, and each round must be manually inserted just as they must in a removable magazine for a Pistol. Revolvers are NOT semi-automatic.

So, if one chooses to have a Pistol, it WILL be semi-automatic, other choice present. Choose a Revolver, it WILL NOT be semi-automatic. BOTH TYPES WILL require a trigger-pull to fire EACH AND EVERY round.

Your question of a "regular shotgun or rifle": BOTH are made in the exact same designations I just described. Semi-automatic, or manually-operated.
Question about 50 or 100 rounds in seconds: Magazines ARE made which have capacity of 20, 30, rounds commonly, specialty manufacturers have made larger ones, but only for rifles. Shotgun cartridges are far too large to load large numbers and tote about.

Thanks for reading. imp

Yes IMP...... THAT and having my 10 year old son shot point blank in the face by another 10 year old who got his hands on his mother's handgun... Seeing your child with a huge hole in his face can do that to a person.... don't you think? I personally don't give a F$%k about "technical" terms OR your lecture... Gee... think what would have happened to my son with a Glock...... his brains would have been all over the neighborhood...


Thanks for reading...

 

[The Inspector]

Chose come with consequences. More guns more, guns deaths.

 

[imp]

So if someone felt like owning a hand grenade or army tank would refusing them these impinge on their freedom?

Here, again, the lack of congruency compels. We are discussing firearms, are we not? If so, a direct answer to your question would not have any bearing whatsoever on resolution of the firearms controversy, would it?

If you REALLY care to know, hand grenades are specifically regulated under the NFA 1934 (National Firearms Act) and arelegally-ownable by individuals by registration as specified in the Act, under "Explosive Devices". But I doubt personally, that you do care.

The tank? Let's not bother with that. Let's rather inform the uninformed, just for fun, perhaps, that NFA specifically allows legal ownership of firearms suppressors, commonly called silencers, under the same provisions as "Class III" firearms, Machine Guns. imp

 

[imp]

Yes IMP...... THAT and having my 10 year old son shot point blank in the face by another 10 year old who got his hands on his mother's handgun... Seeing your child with a huge hole in his face can do that to a person.... don't you think? I personally don't give a F$%k about "technical" terms OR your lecture... Gee... think what would have happened to my son with a Glock...... his brains would have been all over the neighborhood...


Thanks for reading...

I did read, QS. And I feel for you. The gun caused the tragedy. Not the person wielding it. What would your reaction be had the gun been a shovel, or cleaver, or something else? imp

Edit: It seems you keep asking questions, but do not really want an answer to them.

 

[Warrigal]

You are missing the point Imp. It was the owner of the gun who was the problem. And the fact that guns are designed to be instruments of death.
Or am I mistaken and they actually have a different primary purpose such as fashion accessory or paper weight?

 

[QuickSilver]

I did read, QS. And I feel for you. The gun caused the tragedy. Not the person wielding it. What would your reaction be had the gun been a shovel, or cleaver, or something else? imp

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with an answer.....

And once again I have broken my rule.... that is to NOT discuss guns with people who have no idea what horror they can cause... and I mean FIRST HAND... not from watching on TV.... No idea, of the pain people and families go through.. but are only concerned with some misinterpreted RIGHT....and to hell with the rights of others.

 

[imp]

QS, pls re-read as I added an Edit.

How could an answer to a question pre-proclaimed as "stupid", dignify it? imp

 

[imp]

You are missing the point Imp. It was the owner of the gun who was the problem. And the fact that guns are designed to be instruments of death.
Or am I mistaken and they actually have a different primary purpose such as fashion accessory or paper weight?

And I guess I am missing your point also, Warri. I am fully aware, obviously, that the owner of the gun was the problem. And the user, if intent prevails. How do you read otherwise? I know we talk the same basic English.

Your last two sentences insert fuzzy definitions: Guns are DESIGNED to function in a specific way. What is done with the manufactured product has nothing whatsoever to do with it's design.

Pointless, I suppose, to mention developed skill in Marksmanship, or that our Elected Leaders, despite their various failings, have supported National Civilian Marksmanship programs from day one. imp

 

[Shalimar]

Anyone who has ever seen a child wounded or killed by gunfire that could have been avoided never forgets. Frankly, it becomes personal--as it should. Attempting to twist semantics is a straw argument at best.,these are innocent victims not cerebral statistics. The kindest spin I can put on it is one of naïveté.

 

[mitchezz]

Here, again, the lack of congruency compels. We are discussing firearms, are we not? If so, a direct answer to your question would not have any bearing whatsoever on resolution of the firearms controversy, would it?

If you REALLY care to know, hand grenades are specifically regulated under the NFA 1934 (National Firearms Act) and arelegally-ownable by individuals by registration as specified in the Act, under "Explosive Devices". But I doubt personally, that you do care.

The tank? Let's not bother with that. Let's rather inform the uninformed, just for fun, perhaps, that NFA specifically allows legal ownership of firearms suppressors, commonly called silencers, under the same provisions as "Class III" firearms, Machine Guns. imp

Go suck eggs.

 

[Shalimar]

Imp do you really not understand the emotional impact of what you are saying, or are you deliberately playing with people's emotions in order to be provocative?

 

[Warrigal]

And I guess I am missing your point also, Warri. I am fully aware, obviously, that the owner of the gun was the problem. And the user, if intent prevails. How do you read otherwise? I know we talk the same basic English.

Your last two sentences insert fuzzy definitions: Guns are DESIGNED to function in a specific way. What is done with the manufactured product has nothing whatsoever to do with it's design.

Pointless, I suppose, to mention developed skill in Marksmanship, or that our Elected Leaders, despite their various failings, have supported National Civilian Marksmanship programs from day one. imp

My last sentence was pure irony Imp. My last but one was simply stating the obvious.

 

[Shalimar]

Some people are oblivious to irony. It require lateral thinking. An imagination helps also?

 

[Warrigal]

Guns are not the only killing machines that should be restricted. Here is a list of all the prohibited weapons in NSW.
It is a long list.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data...1/Prohibited_Weapons_Schedule1_April_2012.pdf

 

[imp]

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with an answer.....

And once again I have broken my rule.... that is to NOT discuss guns with people who have no idea what horror they can cause... and I mean FIRST HAND... not from watching on TV.... No idea, of the pain people and families go through.. but are only concerned with some misinterpreted RIGHT....and to hell with the rights of others.

QS, Yer pushing me to write more, further inflaming the G. D.mnd. wound. When I was 25, my new wife 20., I had to step over her parent's dead bodies to get to the phone., to call the cops. Her Dad had shot her Mother in the back, then called us, (that's why I was there, as first on the scene), then himself, in the temple. Our lives were instantly thrown into turmoil, as I'm sure was yours, due to your own horrible tragedy.

Please, accuse me not of having no idea of pain families go through. I know all about that. We adopted my wife's brother & sister, 16 and 11 then. Our lives were thrown into an ever-deepening pit, yet, we got through it, scarred, yes, mentally unhinged, yes, so please review what I'm saying here.

Her Father was nuts. He killed her Mother, then himself. She was 20, a child herself. Think she "hated guns" after that? When we divorced, almost ten years later, the ONE THING she asked of me was to let her choose which handgun she could have for self-protection. After the horrible experience, she still was able to perceive that GUNS are not the threat.

Seems pretty easy to see, from my point of view. You can hate guns for the remainder of your life, campaign against guns for the rest of your existence, hate gun owners, hate supporters of self-defense rights, but even though I feel truly deeply for your own gun-related loss, I MUST stand by my beliefs. imp

 

[Shalimar]

Sometimes there is no right--only kindness.

 

[Warrigal]

One of our lesser poets wrote a fairly trite little ditty that is often quoted but he really was onto something.

Life is mostly froth and bubble,
Two things stand like stone,
KINDNESS in another’s trouble,
COURAGE in your own."