Gun Control issues

mookiemookie · 09-02-10, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

Lead pellets was removed from shotgun shell rounds here in Australia a few years back. There wasn't much of a fuss.

Because no one was looking to use this as some weired "omg he's dun stealin' our guns!" thing.

Ducimus · 09-02-10, 08:27 PM

We do have steel shot you know. Primarly for environmental reasons i think. Not sure if its mandantory for things like duck hunting or not.

As gun control goes, it's always been a slippery slope IMO. Some items, I agree, have no business in the hands of a civilian. Say for example, a 50 caliber sniper rifle, or an M-16 or AK varient. I say that with GREAT hesitation, because M-16's and the like ARE fun to target shoot with, and I'd hate to advocate for anything that would deny me the opportunity to enjoy some fun at the range with said firearms. Infact, once in awhile, i find myself feeling nostalgic, wishing I could handle one again. But I degress, i wouldn't want said firearms in the hands of Gang bangers (who manage to get them anway)

But one has to draw a line. Banning things like M1 Garands, in any way shape or form is going over that line. Way over that line. That's just idiocy. M1 Carbines, im not so sure about. I think that might be going a little over the line too. But If we were talking fully automatic Thompsons, or BAR's, id be singing a different tune as gun control goes.

August · 09-02-10, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

But If we were talking fully automatic Thompsons, or BAR's, id be singing a different tune as gun control goes.

Not me. Legal full autos are already highly regulated and the people who own them are investigated very thoroughly. In their hands these weapons would be safer than if they stay sitting in some ill guarded foreign warehouse unwanted and forgotten.

09-02-10, 08:28 PM

The best gun control is with two hands and close to your body.

August · 09-02-10, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Because no one was looking to use this as some weired "omg he's dun stealin' our guns!" thing.

The proposed EPA lead ban was on all types of ammunition, not just shotgun pellets. Since the substitute, copper, is far more expensive it's mainly an attempt to price the cost of ammo out of even more peoples ability to buy it and pissing off every gun owner in the process.

Dumb move in an election year Democrats...

Ducimus · 09-02-10, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

The proposed EPA lead ban was on all types of ammunition, not just shotgun pellets. Since the substitute, copper, is far more expensive it's mainly an attempt to price the cost of ammo out of even more peoples ability to buy it and pissing off every gun owner in the process.

Dumb move in an election year Democrats...

I missed the buss on that one. When was that? Not something currently in legislative process I hope.

August · 09-02-10, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I missed the buss on that one. When was that? Not something currently in legislative process I hope.

Last weeks news. To their credit the EPA rejected it;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ishing-tackle/

09-02-10, 08:43 PM

Notice of Proposed Rule which lasted two or three days last week.

Ducimus · 09-02-10, 09:01 PM

Switching all shot, bullets, and sinkers to something not lead, is as ludicrious as it is impractical. I mean, seriously the very notion that there's THAT much lead flying around outdoors to warrant such a change, youd think the outdoors was was big massive war zone.

There's only one instance where I can see a reasonable argument against lead, and thats in the case of water foul. As for any enviromental contamination by lead from firearms, the only example ive ever seen was what might as well be called a "redneck shooting range". I spent alot of time at Lytle creek as a kid. It was a dry river bed in a gulch, with an access road down one side, where several "lanes" and parking areas existed from repeated use. Back up your truck, drop the gate, lay out your pieces, put out your targets, and away you went. Man, I shot the hell out of some water jugs, tin cans, etc there. I even shot skeet out there. I heard they had to close it down for some years because of the lead. But that was after several years, and I'm guessing thousands of shooters, all concentrated in one area.

09-02-10, 09:03 PM

So water foul are less worthy of a quick death than other game animals?

August · 09-02-10, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Third Man

So water foul are less worthy of a quick death than other game animals?

What?

09-02-10, 08:27 PM	#2
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	We do have steel shot you know. Primarly for environmental reasons i think. Not sure if its mandantory for things like duck hunting or not. As gun control goes, it's always been a slippery slope IMO. Some items, I agree, have no business in the hands of a civilian. Say for example, a 50 caliber sniper rifle, or an M-16 or AK varient. I say that with GREAT hesitation, because M-16's and the like ARE fun to target shoot with, and I'd hate to advocate for anything that would deny me the opportunity to enjoy some fun at the range with said firearms. Infact, once in awhile, i find myself feeling nostalgic, wishing I could handle one again. But I degress, i wouldn't want said firearms in the hands of Gang bangers (who manage to get them anway) But one has to draw a line. Banning things like M1 Garands, in any way shape or form is going over that line. Way over that line. That's just idiocy. M1 Carbines, im not so sure about. I think that might be going a little over the line too. But If we were talking fully automatic Thompsons, or BAR's, id be singing a different tune as gun control goes.

09-02-10, 08:28 PM	#4
The Third Man Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	The best gun control is with two hands and close to your body.

09-02-10, 08:43 PM	#8
The Third Man Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Notice of Proposed Rule which lasted two or three days last week.

09-02-10, 09:01 PM	#9
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Switching all shot, bullets, and sinkers to something not lead, is as ludicrious as it is impractical. I mean, seriously the very notion that there's THAT much lead flying around outdoors to warrant such a change, youd think the outdoors was was big massive war zone. There's only one instance where I can see a reasonable argument against lead, and thats in the case of water foul. As for any enviromental contamination by lead from firearms, the only example ive ever seen was what might as well be called a "redneck shooting range". I spent alot of time at Lytle creek as a kid. It was a dry river bed in a gulch, with an access road down one side, where several "lanes" and parking areas existed from repeated use. Back up your truck, drop the gate, lay out your pieces, put out your targets, and away you went. Man, I shot the hell out of some water jugs, tin cans, etc there. I even shot skeet out there. I heard they had to close it down for some years because of the lead. But that was after several years, and I'm guessing thousands of shooters, all concentrated in one area.

09-02-10, 09:03 PM	#10
The Third Man Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	So water foul are less worthy of a quick death than other game animals?