Or sudafedQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
http://www.ctpharmacists.org/i4a/pag...fm?pageid=3456
Printable View
Or sudafedQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
http://www.ctpharmacists.org/i4a/pag...fm?pageid=3456
yes I've seen those - and other types as well. I know there are several shotguns out there on the market that have rapid fire capabilities including cylinder-style magazines (illegal in Calif although semi-auto shotguns ARE legal), steel chambers to prevent overheating and even some kind of cooling system to prevent over heating during rapid fire with lots of rounds. I have a Mossberg 12-ga. pump action shotgun myself (with an 18 inch barrel - shortest allowed in Calif) that holds 9 rounds, and had a Remington 12 - gauge riot shotgun when in the CG. Because we had to qualify on that for tactical law enforcement shooting as well as military shooting (two very differrent modes of engagement) we had to learn to shoot and reload single shells and fire them individually (often on the run) rapidly once our ammo was out. Basicly turned the thing over and and popped a round in each time while shooting it upside down from the hip. I'm not that fast but I did qualify at the "expert" level (higher then Markman and Sharpshooter - same with the other weapons we had to qualify on) but I can see how someone who does that a lot can become very very fast at single shot reloading. But of course no one has ever pimped out their Mossbergs to full or semi auto assault style weapons like below - they only ever do them as single shot firearms. Not! These wouldn't be part of a ban (although I imagine it is illegal everywhere to change your shotgun to full auto)Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/att...1&d=1358014588
From Wikipedia: One simple reason that a shotgun - especially a legal semi-auto shotgun that can hold 10 rounds of .00 buckshot and would nott be part of the semi-auto rifle ban - can do as much or more harm then an assualt style rifle with a large capacity clip:
The multiple projectile ability of a shotgun greatly increases the probability of a hit on an assailant, and the multiple projectiles increase the likelihood of a disabling hit. Though many sizes and configurations of shotshell are used, among the most common is the 12-gauge 23⁄4-inch (70 mm) 00 ("double-ought") buckshot shell, which consists of 8 or 9 .33 caliber (8.5 mm) round lead balls, each of which is similar in size and velocity to a 9mm/.38 caliber handgun bullet. This shot spreads out to a greater or lesser degree depending on the barrel choke, and can be effective at ranges as far as 75 yards (70 m).
The delivery of the large number of projectiles simultaneously makes the shotgun the most effective short range weapon commonly used, with a hit probability 45% greater than a submachine gun, and twice as great as an assault rifle.[
Yeah but if you are a 120 pound female enraged that your 200 pound male hubby dumped you, then the knife, blunt object, hands and feet attemps at murder probably aren't going to be very effective. where as getting your dainty little hands on a gun may be. Of course, since we don't regulate shotguns or hunting-style rifles it's all a moot point anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
What about Maxwell's Silver Hammer or Colonel Mustard's lead pipe, and Ms. Scarletts wrench :-)! Unlike some other gun owners, I am one of those gun owners who DOES believe in more restrictive laws to buy a gun (and that means all firearms that can fire successive rounds without the need to reload by hand) but I think requiring EVERYTHING that could cause harm to another to be registered is a bit of overkill (pardent he pun!). If that was the case my cooking would be registered as not only a deadly weapon, but a weapon of mass destruction :-)! But my personal feeling is that most firearms are potentially deadly weapons (just like a car is a deadly weapon) and people should have some sort of training, licensing and/or registration required as well as a waiting period, backgrounds checks, etc... for new gun owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
My views are pretty simple:
1) I believe that 99.9% of all legal gun owners have not, and will not, ever engage in any kind of criminal activity or mass shooting irregardless of the kinds of firearms they own or the amount they own.
2) I believe that anyone who can meet some basic qualifications, background checks, training and standards should be allowed to own whatever firearms are legal in their state, and as many as they want.
3) I believe that bans on one very specfic firearm is useless at stopping mass shootings, because of the ease and ability to do the same thing with other non-banned firearms.
4) I believe that to ban a specific firearm like a semi-auto rifle to prevent or reduce mass shootings can actually be dangerous because it lulls people into a false sense of security, one which will prevent them (both the public and the law and policy makers) from looking further at the issues that cause these kinds of shootings in the first place, and thus they will not enact other ways to deal with mass shootings and attempted mass shootings - things like mental health and social issues as well as tougher gun laws for ALL firearms and not just one small classs of them.
5) I believe that bans do infringe on my 2nd ammendment rights, and the rights of the 10's of millions of safe, sane, and lawful gun owners in this country. I do not support bans, ammo restrictions, or limits on the amount of firearms I can own, but I do support increasing and tightening regulations.
OK now I'm really done. Back to my Sat morning coffee and chocolate crossiant :-)!