« Sanemagogna |
| Las Vegas ctd »
To my surprise, the NRA says it could support bump stock restrictions.
Posted at 03:30 PM in Front Page | Permalink
This is not surprising to me at all. What surprised me is that the ATF issued letters allowing their sale as long as they did not contain functioning mechanical parts or springs -- and that that happened while President Obama was in office.
The NRA really isn't evil -- they most oppose laws that are either senseless or end up requiring registration. And they raise funds. I hate their fund-raising arm -- the only one I've run across that equals it in relentlessness is the ACLU.
Donna B. |
Saturday, October 07, 2017 at 08:49 PM
I wonder if they would support a ban on high capacity magazines. It would seem that restricting that would do a lot more toward public safety than trying to ban "silencers" which in fact at most lower the sound about 30%.
Allowing them would make shooting ranges slightly less of noise nuisance and would limit the damage to the hearing of target shooters and hunters.
Sunday, October 08, 2017 at 01:34 PM
I don't know, but I suspect it wouldn't be as easy as a restriction (not ban -- that word is 'triggering', ya know). First, it's relatively easy to define a bump stock. It's relatively easy to define suppressors. (Silencer is triggering to a different subset of people.)
However, high capacity and magazine are not so easy to define. I think the NRA would be just fine with restrictions on 100 round drums. According to Wikipedia, "The National Rifle Association (NRA) defines high-capacity magazine as "[an] inexact, non-technical term indicating a magazine holding more rounds than might be considered 'average."
And that inexact, non-technical aspect eventually ends up as a discussion of specific firearms and that probably won't get a lot of support. And definitions. While you're defining 'high capacity' define 'reasonable'. Define where, to which guns, and to whom restrictions would apply.
I grew up in the mountains of Colorado and New Mexico. There was always at least one rifle (30.06) handy. Bears were a threat, deer and elk were food. And in New Mexico, outlaws were threatening forest service agents, loggers, and shooting up jails and courthouses. This is why national 'bans' on "scary" guns don't work so well.
The last time I carried a gun as a matter of course was when I regularly drove through W Texas on I-20 and I-10 and then through New Mexico and Arizona. It was the scarcity of humans that made me wary. Cell phone coverage is iffy and traffic is very light for a hundred+ miles. Flat tires and malfunctioning radiators were my concern. My gun was for snakes, coyotes, and other non-human predators. I also carried plenty of water. Restrictions that *might* make sense in downtown Chicago do not make sense in the west... even on the interstates.
Donna B. |
Monday, October 09, 2017 at 04:49 AM
In Canada, things are some what different. Magazines for rifles are mostly regulated to 5 rounds. Carrying, transporting or storing a loaded weapon is illegal. Other than when going hunting, firearms can only be transported from home to a registered shooting range.
Ownership of guns for self defense against humans is not considered a valid use.(If you apply for a permit and state that you will be refused.) Ownership for self defense against animals is allowed but isn't easy to get. For instance, I live on Vancouver Island, which has the world's highest population of both Cougars and Black Bears per area as well as plenty of timber wolves and spent the largest proportion of my working life in the woods in forestry and gathering wilderness products, as well as much time hiking and fishing. About 30 years ago they pretty much made it impossible to carry a firearm for self defense on Vancouver Island, although it is still possible on the adjacent mainland in areas where there are grizzly and brown bears.
There are still a fair amount of guns in Canada, 33/100 vs. 88/100 in the US but are mainly owned by hunters and people that live in more rural areas.
Monday, October 09, 2017 at 04:42 PM
Thank you for the Canadian views. The ones on self-defense don't really make sense to me, as I do believe that's a natural right.
That doesn't mean I'd be able to kill someone trying to kill me. I'm really not sure I could do it. I'd like to think I would be able to if it were my children or grandchildren being threatened. I'm pretty sure that if I didn't try to defend them, I'd not be able to live with myself afterward.
Donna B. |
Friday, October 13, 2017 at 02:42 AM
Interesting statistic I just came across in regard to self defense from animals.From wikipedia:
At least 20 people in North America were killed by cougars between 1890 and 2011, including six in California. More than two-thirds of the Canadian fatalities occurred on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Fatal cougar attacks are extremely rare and occur much less frequently than fatal snake bites, fatal lightning strikes, or fatal bee stings. Children are particularly vulnerable. The majority of the child victims listed here were not accompanied by adults.
Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 07:41 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text. URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address
Subscribe in a reader
My Chicago Photos-----------------
Click To View Vintage Photos----------------------------------
Vintage Photo Index