Guess we better ban bows too

[Greatoutdoors]

I guess we had better go ahead and ban bows and arrows while the government is already going after the guns. An eight year old was shot through the leg at a museum while they were on a school field trip. Here is the news story.

 

[EmberMike]

I guess we had better go ahead and ban bows and arrows while the government is already going after the guns. An eight year old was shot through the leg at a museum while they were on a school field trip. Here is the news story.

Well, to be fair, if you want to compare this to the assault weapons legislation (the government isn't going after all guns, despite the erroneous suggestions of many folks), then we'd be talking about banning high-capacity semi-automatic military-style bows and arrows.

Of course those don't exist (as far as I know), so the comparison is ridiculous.

But, since you brought it up...

Hypothetically replace the bow used in this case with an AR-15. Think the outcome would still just be 1 injured girl?

 

[bsmit212]

you don't need to ban bows, just limit the arrow size to under 1 foot. haha.

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

Actually there were magazine-fed crossbows. I guess those were the "assault weapon" of the day.

Also, in WWI the British Army (The Old Contemptibles) laid such a high rate of fire on the Germans at Flanders that the Germans though they were being machine-gunned. The rifles being used- the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) bolt-action. It DID have a 10-round removable box magazine though, so it might be arguably a "High-capacity" weapon.

 

[ppine]

The last time I checked there were 300 million legal guns in this country.

 

[TakeAHike]

Well, to be fair, if you want to compare this to the assault weapons legislation (the government isn't going after all guns, despite the erroneous suggestions of many folks), then we'd be talking about banning high-capacity semi-automatic military-style bows and arrows.

Of course those don't exist (as far as I know), so the comparison is ridiculous.

But, since you brought it up...

Hypothetically replace the bow used in this case with an AR-15. Think the outcome would still just be 1 injured girl?

I could not have said it better myself Mike. The comparison people are making between a high capacity semi-automatic weapon and things like a baseball bat, bow and arrow and other things is ridiculous because you can't mow down an entire school, church, movie theater, etc in mere minutes( or seconds) with any of those things. As you said, the government isn't banning all guns.

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

I could not have said it better myself Mike. The comparison people are making between a high capacity semi-automatic weapon and things like a baseball bat, bow and arrow and other things is ridiculous because you can't mow down an entire school, church, movie theater, etc in mere minutes( or seconds) with any of those things. As you said, the government isn't banning all guns.

You mean , like the standard issue pump shotgun, with a 5-shot magazine, which you can load as you are firing and keep it filled, which launches anywhere from 12 (OO Buck) to 20 (#4 Buck) projectiles at once. Which can be fired at a high rate of fire, and mow down a large number of people at a time? That kind of weapon?

 

[cabinfever]

I have to admit to being indecisive on this issue. Part of me sees no reason for people to own high-capacity automatic firearms. You don't hunt with a machine gun - at least, not animals.

I also see reasons to improve gun registration methods. I don't want my crazy-as-a-coot neighbor owning a gun. I just don't.

However, I also see it as a toehold for those who want to ban gun ownership altogether and that I'm against.

Like I said, indecisive on this one.

 

[EmberMike]

...However, I also see it as a toehold for those who want to ban gun ownership altogether and that I'm against...

It's really not a toehold. I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest banning all guns. I was watching the news today and one of the parents of one of the Newtown victims was on, and he's actively pushing for gun control reform but openly admits that he supports the 2nd Amendment and has no desire to see it go away. A similar statement was made by a woman from a group that is also advocating for new gun control legislation.

The idea of this being the start of a complete disarming of the American public is nothing more than a scare tactic. And we've got some recent history on the subject to back this up. We've had an assault weapons ban before, and yet the 2nd Amendment is still alive and well.

 

[Diver97]

I could not have said it better myself Mike. The comparison people are making between a high capacity semi-automatic weapon and things like a baseball bat, bow and arrow and other things is ridiculous because you can't mow down an entire school, church, movie theater, etc in mere minutes( or seconds) with any of those things. As you said, the government isn't banning all guns.

Actually all you need is a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and you can take out the whole theater ( in seconds). The problem is not the tools people use but that fact we live in a violent society.

 

[Diver97]

I have to admit to being indecisive on this issue. Part of me sees no reason for people to own high-capacity automatic firearms. You don't hunt with a machine gun - at least, not animals.

I also see reasons to improve gun registration methods. I don't want my crazy-as-a-coot neighbor owning a gun. I just don't.

However, I also see it as a toehold for those who want to ban gun ownership altogether and that I'm against.

Like I said, indecisive on this one.

Automatic weapons were basically banned in 1936 by the national firearms act. They can still be purchased in some states but they are very expensive and it will take 6-9 months to complete the purchase. It requires one to send in fingerprints, photographs and having a full background check performed. It also requires a signature of a local law enforcement official who may deny your request for any reason.

The weapons that are currently being discussed are semi automatic. They are just like the rifles that many of us have given to our sons for many years. You pull the trigger one time and one bullet fires. The only differences are cosmetic. If it is black or has a pistol grip on it must be evil.

They also want to ban semi automatic shotguns that are commonly used for hunting and sport.

 

[Diver97]

It's really not a toehold. I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest banning all guns. I was watching the news today and one of the parents of one of the Newtown victims was on, and he's actively pushing for gun control reform but openly admits that he supports the 2nd Amendment and has no desire to see it go away. A similar statement was made by a woman from a group that is also advocating for new gun control legislation.

The idea of this being the start of a complete disarming of the American public is nothing more than a scare tactic. And we've got some recent history on the subject to back this up. We've had an assault weapons ban before, and yet the 2nd Amendment is still alive and well.

Senator Feinstein is one of the biggest and most well known gun grabbers there is. Is is on record as stating that she would like to send the police door to door to confiscate every gun out there if she could. This remains her ultimate goal.
Her bill as originally written would ban weapons based on features such the type of grip they have of if they have any type of detachable magazine. Based on it's use of a detachable 4 round magazine the Ruger American which is a good entry level hunting rifle would be banned along with many others used for hunting.

 

[dinosaur]

Interesting article. Very strange. The "arrow" is definitely a crossbow bolt, too short to be an arrow and no string knock. It also has no warhead but a field tip generally used for target practice. There also appears to be a stop or slide installed on the shaft. This is a very specific purpose bolt. The flat shooting capabilities of a crossbow give it a range of only about 75 yards and this is optimum. It is more than likely this bolt was fired from a lesser distance. It is somewhat surprising no one saw the shooter.

As far as banning bows is concerned, you can ban the manufacture but it would be very difficult to ban the basic skills involved in making bows. You'd have to ban trees, fiberglass, steel, chordage of all types, flint, lead, steam, and all animals other than man. Good luck with that one.

 

[Grandpa]

It's really not a toehold. I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest banning all guns. I was watching the news today and one of the parents of one of the Newtown victims was on, and he's actively pushing for gun control reform but openly admits that he supports the 2nd Amendment and has no desire to see it go away. A similar statement was made by a woman from a group that is also advocating for new gun control legislation.

The idea of this being the start of a complete disarming of the American public is nothing more than a scare tactic. And we've got some recent history on the subject to back this up. We've had an assault weapons ban before, and yet the 2nd Amendment is still alive and well.

Biden: Assault Weapons Ban is "Just the Beginning" | Independent Journal Review

 

[Hikenhunter]

I have to admit to being indecisive on this issue. Part of me sees no reason for people to own high-capacity automatic firearms. You don't hunt with a machine gun - at least, not animals.

I also see reasons to improve gun registration methods. I don't want my crazy-as-a-coot neighbor owning a gun. I just don't.

However, I also see it as a toehold for those who want to ban gun ownership altogether and that I'm against.

Like I said, indecisive on this one.

The second ammendment was written so all the people could defend themselves against a government that decides to take our freedoms awAy from us. The government can't take on the people of this country by force if the people of this country are armed and can fight back. To fight back effectively we need to have weapons that are as effective as those fighting against us. These weapons that the government and the media have labeled as "ASSAULT WEAPONS" are not automatic but semi automatic. This alone puts the people at a disadvantage if we ever have to fight our own government because our government does have fully automatic weapons. You don't want your "crazy-as-a-coot neighbor" owning a gun but if he is truly crazy, if he truly sets his mind on harming you or your family, then I believe you will fare best if you are armed and you take him out before he gets to you and yours.

 

[ppine]

The toehold arguement is weak.
I can guarantee that there will be more mass shootings this year.
The chances of fighting the US Government are slim to none.
Anyone that gets in a shootout with the Feds is sure to lose.
Three hundred million guns is a great deterrent whether they are semi-auto or not.

If the Feds really want you they will have rocket propelled grenades, mortars, tanks, armor-piercing bullets in .50 cal or more, etc. Does anyone have plans to stockpile those? How about an armored personnel carrier or a bazooka? The whole discussion is a fantasy that sells guns and ammo like there is no tomorrow.

 

[Theo]

The toehold arguement is weak.
I can guarantee that there will be more mass shootings this year.
The chances of fighting the US Government are slim to none.
Anyone that gets in a shootout with the Feds is sure to lose.
Three hundred million guns is a great deterrent whether they are semi-auto or not.

If the Feds really want you they will have rocket propelled grenades, mortars, tanks, armor-piercing bullets in .50 cal or more, etc. Does anyone have plans to stockpile those? How about an armored personnel carrier or a bazooka? The whole discussion is a fantasy that sells guns and ammo like there is no tomorrow.

You know, I wish someone would have told that to North Vietnam. It sure would have saved a lot of lives on both sides.

 

[Grandpa]

Yeah, we really showed them who was boss in Afghanistan too.

And when you think about it, what chance did a handful of farmers with squirrel guns have against the might of the British Army and Navy? Even with their Divisions of Hessian Mercenaries.

 

[Lorax]

I have to admit to being indecisive on this issue. Part of me sees no reason for people to own high-capacity automatic firearms. You don't hunt with a machine gun - at least, not animals.

I also see reasons to improve gun registration methods. I don't want my crazy-as-a-coot neighbor owning a gun. I just don't.

However, I also see it as a toehold for those who want to ban gun ownership altogether and that I'm against.

Like I said, indecisive on this one.

Let's look at this post....
First of all, 15 rounds is standard capacity, not high capacity in many pistols. Many have always been manufactured with say, a 15 round capacity.

Secondly, nobody is hunting deer with a machine gun. Not legal. My AR15 is in fact legal to hunt with in my state as well as many other states. But then again, the AR15 is not a machine gun. It's not even a military gun at all. It functions totally different.
Here's the proof: Not one army in the world has now or ever used the AR15 as a service rifle. NOT ONE. It's all out there for anyone to do a quick search and find this out for themselves, but they won't.

Like 99% of this whole firearms debate, we all carry technology at our fingertips in our pockets to fact check but refuse to do so. In such an emotional issue, who's got time for facts?

Like the OP, I have no problem with a more decisive background check system. I'm not so sure about registration though, as the whole issue is being pushed by politicians (many who are gun owners themselves like Finestien and Bloomburg) using not facts, but fear tactics that the people are lapping up without looking at solid proven facts. This makes me very suspicious of what I feel is their true goal.

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

Let's look at this post....
First of all, 15 rounds is standard capacity, not high capacity in many pistols. Many have always been manufactured with say, a 15 round capacity.

Secondly, nobody is hunting deer with a machine gun. Not legal. My AR15 is in fact legal to hunt with in my state as well as many other states. But then again, the AR15 is not a machine gun. It's not even a military gun at all. It functions totally different.
Here's the proof: Not one army in the world has now or ever used the AR15 as a service rifle. NOT ONE. It's all out there for anyone to do a quick search and find this out for themselves, but they won't.

Like 99% of this whole firearms debate, we all carry technology at our fingertips in our pockets to fact check but refuse to do so. In such an emotional issue, who's got time for facts?

Like the OP, I have no problem with a more decisive background check system. I'm not so sure about registration though, as the whole issue is being pushed by politicians (many who are gun owners themselves like Finestien and Bloomburg) using not facts, but fear tactics that the people are lapping up without looking at solid proven facts. This makes me very suspicious of what I feel is their true goal.

The devil is in the details for background checks. The AFT has a huistory of NOT deleting the records from the background check we already have. I'm SURE that no one there is salivating over the idea of EVERY transfer being checked. Also, the bill out there creates a number of new FELONIES involving loaning guns, and other activities that most people don't even consider "transfers".

Considering that the ATF doesn't even bother going after people who falsified the 4473 form, I don't see that this folderol wil do anything but hassle law abiding people who make innocent errors...much easier than actually going after people with a history of violence.

Finally, registration is just a prelude to confiscation. It worked that way in Britain, and Australia. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this is the ultimate goal of such persons ad Feinstein, Biden, Schumer, etc.

I'm tired of being "reasonable". I'm going to fight against ANY new gun laws.

I think a large number of people feel the same way I do.