How can we get illegal handguns off the street?

[LIHUNT]

Oh and i know, thats just my opinion not a personal attack. just so that its clear im not breaking any of your rules

[WNYBuckHunter]

Its not that my opinions are golden, they are my opinions, just like the rest of you have your opinions. But, because im a moderator, i get flack for expressing them or discussing them. Now if its a law or something like that, there isnt really a debate. Facts are facts, and if I point them out, I get flack for it.

Btw, just because I disagree with someone, doenst make them my enemy. Theres quite a few people on this board that I have great conversations with, and some that Id consider a friend, that I have disagreed with in the past, and probably will in the future.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Oh and i know, thats just my opinion not a personal attack. just so that its clear im not breaking any of your rules

Theres another one. They arent my rules. Good lord.

[Early]

C'mon Buckhunter...fess up: You play the rules to your advantage. You engage in name-calling, character defamation, and just plain sloppy journalism. As a moderator, you have a position to exercise your God complex while slamming whomever you do not like. You obviously get your jollies by "moderating" this site. Well, grow up....You need to do a better job! (Now, if you choose to ban me...You can kiss my ass!)

[WNYBuckHunter]

Please, prove any of that baseless nonsense. I dare you.

[wooffer]

C'mon Buckhunter...fess up: You play the rules to your advantage. You engage in name-calling, character defamation, and just plain sloppy journalism. As a moderator, you have a position to exercise your God complex while slamming whomever you do not like. You obviously get your jollies by "moderating" this site. Well, grow up....You need to do a better job! (Now, if you choose to ban me...You can kiss my ass!)

The pot calling the kettle black.

[WNYBuckHunter]

But please, do it somewhere other than this thread so that it can get back on topic.

[CoyoteKiller]

gotta love how most of these threads veer off course and just become 2 or 3 people attacking each other and arguing back and forth.

Sort of like Washington DC.

[bubba]

C'mon Buckhunter...fess up: You play the rules to your advantage. You engage in name-calling, character defamation, and just plain sloppy journalism. As a moderator, you have a position to exercise your God complex while slamming whomever you do not like. You obviously get your jollies by "moderating" this site. Well, grow up....You need to do a better job! (Now, if you choose to ban me...You can kiss my ass!)

hmm I sent a private message said just about the same thing. power hungry for sure.

[First-light]

WNYbuckhunter is an asset to this site. Challenge him and go for it. When he is wrong he will admit it.

[Doc]

Back to the topic please.

It was mentioned that hunters need some type of organization that promotes their image? Some of you may not like this thought, but that organization is already there, although many hunters and gun owners hate it as much as the anti's do. That's because they listen to what the mass media says about it, rather than getting their info from the organization itself.

The one expert organization on the subject of guns, gun rights, hunting and target shooting is the NRA. With the inevitable onslaught of gun control measures that are about to be forced upon law abiding gun owners of all stripes, the only thing that is going to stop politicians from suceeding, is a united front on behalf of all gun owners in America. There are only about 3 mllion members in the NRA now, so Obama feels he will be able to get Congress to agree they are not a threat to their re-election down the road. But if there were 50, or 100 million NRA members, the politicians wouldn't even consider making law abiding gun owners pay for the sins of these crazed killers.

I know some will say the NRA is bad, makes us look bad, is extreme, is BS, etc., etc. But the fact is, they are comprised of just regular gun owners, that have always been the big stick in the gun control fight, have had many sucesses in the battle, defend all gun owners and totally support the 2nd Amendment in every respect. Some folks believe they make us all look bad because they don't compromise. But if you understand why they don't compromise and support those positions, you will see the anti-gun agenda and bad gun law proposals stop.

If you don't join the NRA, or worse yet, attack the NRA in public forums like this one, you prove to the anti's a lot of gun owners can be stripped of their rights willingly, to buy a little perceived protection for themselves from the anti's. That means you are willing to let gun ownership become a privilege and forgo the 2nd Amendment rights you currently have. That will be the beginning of the end of gun rights in America.

They may not be perfect, but right now, in this fight, they are the best hope that we have got. If you don't join the NRA now, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment, as we know it today, good-bye.

This is my opinion on the subject. Gun owners didn't cause these problems in America, but they are going to be made to pay the price for them, even if it won't make any effective difference in solving the problem. United we win. Divided, we have already lost.

It is the government's responsibilty to correct the problem, but is our responsibility to see the problem is effectively corrected without taking the rights of American citizens away.

Seriously, as hunters and gun owners this reply is right on target. Once again we are about to come under serious mindless assault, and the only organization that stands between us and the antis is the NRA. That's how it's been for years. Warts and all, this organization has the clout to keep the irrational 2nd amendment enemies at bay. A task that none of us can do individually. They need our support. Yes it's time to put that small amount of money where our mouth is. Invest in what you believe in, or lose it.

[13BVET]

Maybe not, but killing someone with a gun is a hell of a lot easier than slashing his throat, strangling them or killing by any other means. I as a gun owner have no qualms in admitting this, while everyone else here can't seem to understand it. If guns didn't make killing easier, why are most murders committed with them? There most definitely is a correlation between the two, and NO one will ever convince me that there isn't, so NO one need to even try. Sorry.

The most prolific serial killers in U.S. history never used a gun. The Green River killer being a prime example.

[MountainHunter]

To my knowledge they already have these programs in place at least at the local level. It would be great to do this at a higher level like at the state or federal. The key would be to make the incentive (money) great enough for some criminal want to trade his gun for the cash. The ONLY reason I get upset about the gun control nuts going after guns is because they paint the entire gun owning community with a very broad brush.

We now more than ever, as members of the hunting community, need to distinguish ourselves as extremely responsible and ethical individuals that enjoy the sport of hunting. My biggest fear of gun control is not being able to do one of the things I absolutely love; to hunt.

Does an organization exist or should one be started that is for hunters against gun crimes? I believe an organization of this nature can help preserve our love of the sport of hunting and the implements we utilize, while providing a face, voice and venue where a common ground can be established between gun nuts and responsible gun owners; in this case us, the hunting community.

-Cme

Here is some sensibility right here!! The guns for cash piece could be difficult and problematic but it is good to be having the conversation.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Scot

[MountainHunter]

I see posters here saying the only guns that get turned in are the ones from someones father or husband that died and they don't know what to do with them.

That is a start!! These same guns can fall into the hands of criminals and addicts who break into homes and find these guns. These same guns can end up being sold on the street as well.

A few posters here are actually thinking about ways in which we can, as a society, make things safer. Others seem to just repeat the same old rhetoric over and over.

We can be a part of the solution and take a stand toward a safer society or we can sit back and watch others who don't share our love of hunting, shooting and carrying make those decisions.

We need to form an organization that is a gun loving group of law abiding citizens who care that the same guns we love do not get in the hands of people who want to use them for crime and murder.

I am in agreement with this. You have to start somewhere and at least giving the appearance that you care and are trying to do something about it is meaningful. There is a lot of room to influence things that can matter.

[Doc]

I see posters here saying the only guns that get turned in are the ones from someones father or husband that died and they don't know what to do with them.

That is a start!! These same guns can fall into the hands of criminals and addicts who break into homes and find these guns. These same guns can end up being sold on the street as well.

A few posters here are actually thinking about ways in which we can, as a society, make things safer. Others seem to just repeat the same old rhetoric over and over.

We can be a part of the solution and take a stand toward a safer society or we can sit back and watch others who don't share our love of hunting, shooting and carrying make those decisions.

We need to form an organization that is a gun loving group of law abiding citizens who care that the same guns we love do not get in the hands of people who want to use them for crime and murder.

Lol .... From what I saw laying on the table after the last Rochester gun buy-back, they would have been better off to give that collection to some of the gang-bangers so they could blow themselves up trying to use them. What a pile of junk.

[accman]

First off, giving teachers guns is not going to be the answer. Or even giving one or two teachers in the school carrying permits, cause, somewhere, sometime, one of them will flip and they'll be talking about how they destroyed lives, and are just as crazy. Imagine if every one could now carry, road rage would take on new meaning. Small arguments would now take on an escalation factor where disaster would be around the corner of every block.

I'll never turn in my guns, period. I think that one of the problems is the assault rifle and sure, it's our right to own it, but do we need it. If they banned assault rifles, then the only ones who'd have them would be the "crazies". As for the "once they take away the assault rifles, they'll come after yours" scenario just doesn't cut it here. If he only used a handgun, or a rifle, he'd be able to inflect just as much damage. He got into an advanced security system controlled school. No matter how much we try to make the system secure from bad elements, if they want to get in, they will. In the weeks to come, the story will unfold as to what "may" have triggered such outrage. We'll try to figure out if there's any possible solution to this horrific problem, and we'll realize, there isn't.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

ACC...It bothers me to see people that keep throwing out the "assault rifle" term. What do you consider a rifle in that category and how does that really differ from the rifles that people typically consider for "hunting"?

Edited December 17, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[accman]

It's easy. Mine only holds 5 rounds before reloading and it's not a magazine clip. What can assualt rifles hold? 30 or more. Each one those kids had multiple shots. He had enough magazines to take on a small army. It's the shear speed of the weapon that makes it the "problem".

[MountainHunter]

First off, giving teachers guns is not going to be the answer. Or even giving one or two teachers in the school carrying permits, cause, somewhere, sometime, one of them will flip and they'll be talking about how they destroyed lives, and are just as crazy. Imagine if every one could now carry, road rage would take on new meaning. Small arguments would now take on an escalation factor where disaster would be around the corner of every block.

I'll never turn in my guns, period. I think that one of the problems is the assault rifle and sure, it's our right to own it, but do we need it. If they banned assault rifles, then the only ones who'd have them would be the "crazies". As for the "once they take away the assault rifles, they'll come after yours" scenario just doesn't cut it here. If he only used a handgun, or a rifle, he'd be able to inflect just as much damage. He got into an advanced security system controlled school. No matter how much we try to make the system secure from bad elements, if they want to get in, they will. In the weeks to come, the story will unfold as to what "may" have triggered such outrage. We'll try to figure out if there's any possible solution to this horrific problem, and we'll realize, there isn't.

Spot on Accman! Common sense isn't so common.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

It's easy. Mine only holds 5 rounds before reloading and it's not a magazine clip. What can assualt rifles hold? 30 or more. Each one those kids had multiple shots. He had enough magazines to take on a small army. It's the shear speed of the weapon that makes it the "problem".

So that would put in the rifles like the Remington 7400? So you are suggesting any exterior magazine with the possibility of having a mag over 5 shots should be banned?

If you look at the desire to cause damage in a a spot of unarmed and umarmoured people like a school or even the theater that previously happened. The arm to cause the most casualities and damage would not be the "asault rifle". If we are going to ban weapons based on potential threat we should be taking shotguns away first. Grab the speed loaders for the shotguna and load it with 00 buck. Have you ever seen how easy they load the shotguns in a competition?

[steve863]

ACC...It bothers me to see people that keep throwing out the "assault rifle" term. What do you consider a rifle in that category and how does that really differ from the rifles that people typically consider for "hunting"?

Mechanically they don't differ much, but in my view an "assault rifle" is a high-powered rifle (not rimfire) that can have a large-capacity magazine attached to it. Yeah, arguments can be made about a Remington 7400 and a Browning BAR being mechanically the same, BUT, I don't see 30 round or more magazines sold for them like they are for AR and AK rifles. You can get them anywhere for these rifles, while someone would have to concoct something for the 7400 or the BAR out of sheet metal to hold nearly as many rounds, if it were ever made to feed properly. That's the BIG difference here. Have we seen the Remington or Browning used in a mass shooting?? I don't know, but we all do know that AR and AK style guns have been. So there you have it.

[Doc]

I think that one of the problems is the assault rifle and sure, it's our right to own it, but do we need it. If they banned assault rifles, then the only ones who'd have them would be the "crazies". As for the "once they take away the assault rifles, they'll come after yours" scenario just doesn't cut it here. If he only used a handgun, or a rifle, he'd be able to inflect just as much damage. He got into an advanced security system controlled school. No matter how much we try to make the system secure from bad elements, if they want to get in, they will. In the weeks to come, the story will unfold as to what "may" have triggered such outrage. We'll try to figure out if there's any possible solution to this horrific problem, and we'll realize, there isn't.

I have been hearing a lot of sportsmen and gun users playing into the hands of the anti-gun element by expressing a willingness to sacrifice the AK style of semi automatic rifles. What bothers me is the willingness to outlaw the other guy's rifle. I don't own one, and what the heck they cost so much that I'm not likely to ever buy one. And if they were outlawed, I would never miss it. All very true statements for me and my particular wants and desires and conditions. Seems like a good piece of meat to throw the antis to keep them off my back. But if you think that this will not simply embolden the gun banners I have to ask what makes you think that?

Apparently very few of us understand that there is no functional difference between those kinds of guns vs your everyday semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun ....none! The only difference between them all is the "appearance". Appearance ... is that how we want the legality of our firearms to be decided? Wouldn't you want to base it on something that promises a difference? As far as pacifism, I will tell you that there is no placating these people and they will come for your semi-auto next. It is a simple concept .... If they can't have immediate total disarmament of the US citizens, they will content themselves with precedent setting incrementalism. One make and model at a time. And we seem to be all too willing to begin that process based soley on the "appearance" of a certain style of gun.

Don't be fooled. You voluntarily give away the next guy's weapon, you are accelerating the process that eventually will have them coming for your favorite gun. That's not just fanaticism talking. That is simple logic.

[steve863]

Apparently very few of us understand that there is no functional difference between those kinds of guns vs your everyday semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun ....none!

BS, Doc! Point to an online site where you can buy a 30 round + magazine for the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR rifles or the Remington 11-87 shotgun? I can give you dozens of sites that sell them for AR-AK type rifles, though.

[accman]

So that would put in the rifles like the Remington 7400? So you are suggesting any exterior magazine with the possibility of having a mag over 5 shots should be banned?

No, just the ones that have large capacity capability. Does the 7400 really need a 10 round clip. Last time I looked, I never had to empty a weapon when shooting a deer.

[Elmo]

I live in NYC so I already live with the 5 round limit ban. That prevents me from owning several guns. Ruger was the only manufacturer to make a 5 round magazine for the 10/22 which allowed me to own one. If a 5 round limit was expanded to several other jurisdictions, I think more manufacturers would jump in a make 5 round versions of their current product.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying let's do this. But I do agree that if the politicians met and came away saying we have to give up one item, being forced to give up on the assault rifle while certainly would not be good but it would also affect me the least. To be honest, other than rimfires, I never hunt with more than 2 or 3 rounds in the gun anyway. Mainly out of laziness but also because I never forsee myself having to fire that many rounds where I would have to reload. I hunt with a 1 shot 1 kill mentality.