WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[Mad Mike]

Muzzle brakes are a must on many caliber a of guns and an important safety feature in many cases

That said, I'm unsure why anyone would need a flash suppressor for civilian use. But, these things do not add to the lethality of a weapon and can be fabricated in a garage in 20 minutes. Unsure what making hem illegal would do.

Besides reducing flash, muzzle breaks can help control recoil.

I'm just a poor man and don't have the money to spend on such things but if I did, I would love to have a suppressed handgun. Of course no one really needs them, but It would be helpful if you are forced to fire your weapon in a closed space. And it is still illegal to own or make a suppressor without the proper licensing.

[Destino]

I'd argue that the right to unreasonable search and seizure has been eroded far more extensively than the second.

[Jumbo]

I'd argue that the right to unreasonable search and seizure has been eroded far more extensively than the second.

I'd agree.

[CTskins]

Are there any gun control measures that you would support in the meantime while we are waiting to revamp the mental health system nationwide?

Make the legal gun owner to whom the gun is registered personally responsible and liable (and I don't mean a slap on the wrist, I mean mandatory jail time) for anything regarding that individual gun. The intended consequence being that the irresponsible gun owner will become responsible right quick or lose the privilege to own. To me, this is a good first step. This will force proper security of the firearm by its rightful ownership, no? Any new prisions are ether private or a portion of the annual gun license fee can offset this cost. So can a portion of the periodic 3rd party inspection cost as well as the insurance premium. But CTSkins, there is no annual renewal, inspection, or insurance required. To which I ask Why not? Make it so...We are required to have car insurance, why not firearm insurance?

Someone challenged me yesterday with the argument of the slippery slope of a stolen car (Which I don't think is really comparable). Is the car owner responsible for a vehicular crime committed by the burglar? To which I ask, Isn't the stolen car typically reported as such in a timely manner? What will be worse, legal reprocussions for an unsecured weapon or a potential death directly involving said weapon? Either way, you're doing 30 days in County. Might as well come clean...

How about a filed off serial number? Going forward the serial number gets etched multiple places, including where the attempted alteration results in disabling the gun, such as the chamber. I don't know if this is possible, but if my wife's engagement diamond has a microsopic serial number, they can figure out a way to identify a gun in this manner or some how else...

If you don't like it, don't own a gun. As I said this is not about the responsible gun owner.

[zoony]

Besides reducing flash, muzzle breaks can help control recoil.

I'm just a poor man and don't have the money to spend on such things but if I did, I would love to have a suppressed handgun. Of course no one really needs them, but It would be helpful if you are forced to fire your weapon in a closed space. And it is still illegal to own or make a suppressor without the proper licensing.

I think we are talking about two different things

Muzzle brakes redirect gases to help with recoil. Integral part of several factory made guns. They also make aftermarket brakes that can be retrofitted.

Flash suppressors reduce the flash coming out of short barreled carbines so the shooter isn't blinded

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'd argue that the right to unreasonable search and seizure has been eroded far more extensively than the second.

The 2nd Amendment has been dramatically expanded in the last 30 years or so. Gun lobbies and conservative jurists have created a private right to gun ownership that simply never existed for about 200 years.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" broadly, there is a right to private ownership of an ICBM. And that is the problem with all interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. If it creates a right to private ownership, how do you have any limitations? If it does not, what the hell are we arguing about?

That's the fundamental question here: Is gun ownership a private right?

It's a tribute to the incredible power of the NRA, that it is widely accepted that it is a private right. It's a discredit to our Constitutional literacy, that no one really seems to understand the large-scale ramifications of that.

[PleaseBlitz]

How far along is the technology that would only allow the registered purchaser to use the gun. I mean, when I go deposit a check at my bank they use biometrics, my PHONE can read a fingerprint, would this be very hard to implement on a firearm?

[CTskins]

The 700 will be the most accurate from long range. It is a bolt action and hence more accurate. However it's rate of fire is much slower than a semi auto. But if its a 7mm a 500 yard shot with accuracy is not out of the question. Even farther if you're gifted.



The AK is a 7.62mm, so probably the largest caliber, though with less powder than most Remington 700 rounds which tend to be large caliber with lots of powder. A 7.62 is a larger projectile traveling slower. Accuracy on an AK is probably half what it is on a Remington 700 ceterus perebus However being semi auto, rounds can be cycled as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The ar15 is a 5.59 caliber but with a lot of powder. So a small projectile traveling quickly. Semi auto like the AK. Marines are accurate at 500 yards but a more realistic number for most is 250 yards

So, to answer your question which is the most deadly, need a lot more info about the situation.

They all pierce flesh, yes? That's it. End of discussion. They are all equally deadly. The real question is what is the primary purpose (key word = primary)?

[DaGoonie55]

OK so you would ban things that have never been used in mass killings and already require extensive licensing (suppressors), and things that will have no effect (hi cap mags), but collapsible butt stocks are OK because you like them?

I'm not trying to slam you too hard because you do raise some good points, but you seem to have been caught up in the "do anything even if it does nothing" mentality.

Limit barrel length?, caliber?, what restrictions are we discussing? I merely conceded the above points of discussion. Mostly, I was trying to be funny - apparently I missed. I'm willing to change my thoughts and my stand on gun ownership, is the other side so willing?

[Mad Mike]

I think we are talking about two different things

Muzzle brakes redirect gases to help with recoil. Integral part of several factory made guns. They also make aftermarket brakes that can be retrofitted.

Flash suppressors reduce the flash coming out of short barreled carbines so the shooter isn't blinded

Yeah, I tried to define the difference. Evidently not too well. :-)

[CTskins]

The 2nd Amendment has been dramatically expanded in the last 30 years or so. Gun lobbies and conservative jurists have created a private right to gun ownership that simply never existed for about 200 years.

Quite amazing given the word count is about 26...

If you read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" broadly, there is a right to private ownership of an ICBM. And that is the problem with all interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. If it creates a right to private ownership, how do you have any limitations? If it does not, what the hell are we arguing about?

Technically, an ICBM is the ammo. your interpretation gives you the right to own the silo...just sayin'

That's the fundamental question here: Is gun ownership a private right?

It's a tribute to the incredible power of the NRA, that it is widely accepted that it is a private right. It's a discredit to our Constitutional literacy, that no one really seems to understand the large-scale ramifications of that.

I maintain it is a privilege, that can and should be taken away when abused or otherwise.

[zoony]

They all pierce flesh, yes? That's it. End of discussion. They are all equally deadly. The real question is what is the primary purpose (key word = primary)?

I don't think that's the end of discussion at all. If the shooter had a Remington 700 with a 5 round magazine I bet someone could have charged him and taken him down.

It happened at the church shooting here in Knoxville. Which, IMO, could have been one of the worst in us history. Thankfully the shooter used a pump action shotgun and someone snuck up on him. Had he used a semi auto assault rifle I bet 50 people would have died in church that day. Instead I think it was 1 or 2 iirc

[Jumbo]

I think we are talking about two different things

Muzzle brakes redirect gases to help with recoil.

Flash suppressors reduce the flash coming out <edit> so the shooter isn't blinded

I need to fit my keyboard with both for when I'm on ES.

I already have a silencer button.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Technically, an ICBM is the ammo. your interpretation gives you the right to own the silo...just sayin'

I've always sort of secretly wondered why don't we just ban bullets. You can have all the guns you want...but no bullets.

[Jumbo]

I don't think that's the end of discussion at all. If the shooter had a Remington 700 with a 5 round magazine I bet someone could have charged him and taken him down.

It happened at the church shooting here in Knoxville. Which, IMO, could have been one of the worst in us history. Thankfully the shooter used a pump action shotgun and someone snuck up on him. Had he used a semi auto assault rifle I bet 50 people would have died in church that day. Instead I think it was 1 or 2 iirc

Nothing you said matters. Bat, knife, tire iron, eagles soaring.

Ok, I'll quit--don't ban me.