Personally, I'm against gun control. Though, I am in favor of better background checks, including mental health issues. On that note, a person living near me who I had known for a few years had been in and out of the psych unit at the hospital. In the fall, during hunting season, he took his own life just a hundred yards or so from where I usually sit (I wasn't out that day.) He should never have had a gun, and I believe that with a history of mental illness, having threatened to kill himself in the past, etc. - stuff like that should have disqualified him from owning a gun.
As far as "assault weapons," it's foolish. First of all, "assault weapons" are less deadly than semi-automatic rifles. Very few people would ever take an AR15 out deer hunting. Why? Because it's not deadly enough to deer. They're good for coyote hunting though. If I shoot a deer in the shoulder with a hollow point, I'm going to lose all of the meat in both shoulders - there won't be anything left. Further, the effective range of many hunting rifles that would be used for, say, deer, is much greater than the effective range of most "assault" weapons. In fact, my range with the 30.06 is limited only by the glass in my scope. At 300 yards, I'm certain of my shot. I'd be comfortable shooting at 400 yards.
Secondly, banning weapons based on cosmetic features is probably the most illogical reason to ban something. I cannot figure out how someone can argue in favor of banning pistol grips. (Please argue this point if you disagree.) They don't improve the weapon's effectiveness.
Thirdly, on the limit on magazines. If I'm protecting my farm from a pack of coyotes, limiting the number of shots I can take at a group of running animals reduces my effectiveness. Likewise, limiting the speed at which I can shoot my rifle (semi-automatic) severely impacts the ability to defend my farm against predators. Not that I should need a reason for more than (in NY) 7 shots. I find it incredibly annoying to think that my magazine for my .22 cannot be loaded with more than 7. It's annoying enough as it is to keep swapping it out with 10.
Fourth: limits on ammunition. I've taken both sons out target shooting for fun when they were little. Both were excellent shots. I'm not ashamed to admit that even at the ages of 10 and 12, they could consistently group their shots tighter than I could. But, we could easily burn through a box of 500 rounds in an afternoon. With the three of us, it's 33 shots per round.
Fifth, our founding fathers made it quite clear what the purpose of the 2nd amendment was. It's not so that the government has superior firepower over the people; but rather, so that the people would be able to stand up to the government if it ever came down to that.
(I just thought I'd have a thread here, waiting for the new members to join in on.)
As far as "assault weapons," it's foolish. First of all, "assault weapons" are less deadly than semi-automatic rifles. Very few people would ever take an AR15 out deer hunting. Why? Because it's not deadly enough to deer. They're good for coyote hunting though. If I shoot a deer in the shoulder with a hollow point, I'm going to lose all of the meat in both shoulders - there won't be anything left. Further, the effective range of many hunting rifles that would be used for, say, deer, is much greater than the effective range of most "assault" weapons. In fact, my range with the 30.06 is limited only by the glass in my scope. At 300 yards, I'm certain of my shot. I'd be comfortable shooting at 400 yards.
Secondly, banning weapons based on cosmetic features is probably the most illogical reason to ban something. I cannot figure out how someone can argue in favor of banning pistol grips. (Please argue this point if you disagree.) They don't improve the weapon's effectiveness.
Thirdly, on the limit on magazines. If I'm protecting my farm from a pack of coyotes, limiting the number of shots I can take at a group of running animals reduces my effectiveness. Likewise, limiting the speed at which I can shoot my rifle (semi-automatic) severely impacts the ability to defend my farm against predators. Not that I should need a reason for more than (in NY) 7 shots. I find it incredibly annoying to think that my magazine for my .22 cannot be loaded with more than 7. It's annoying enough as it is to keep swapping it out with 10.
Fourth: limits on ammunition. I've taken both sons out target shooting for fun when they were little. Both were excellent shots. I'm not ashamed to admit that even at the ages of 10 and 12, they could consistently group their shots tighter than I could. But, we could easily burn through a box of 500 rounds in an afternoon. With the three of us, it's 33 shots per round.
Fifth, our founding fathers made it quite clear what the purpose of the 2nd amendment was. It's not so that the government has superior firepower over the people; but rather, so that the people would be able to stand up to the government if it ever came down to that.
(I just thought I'd have a thread here, waiting for the new members to join in on.)