• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The Gun Law Discussion

funpig said:
On March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger

Ruger was the founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a major gun manufacturer including the Mini-14.
Click to expand...

So what do you consider "high capacity"? Here are some standard capacity magazines for various guns:
Ruger 10/22 - 10 rounds
Ruger P89 - 15 rounds
Glock - 8-17 rounds depending on model and caliber
AR 15 - 30 rounds
Ak 47 - 30 rounds
Remington 700 - 3-5 rounds depending on caliber

Those are all "Standard Capacity." Those are just a handful of the various types of guns which all have different standard capacities. several of which I own, several I don't. So what would you call "High Capacity"??
 
Things that I would think twice before doing:

1. Walk around wearing a hoodie.

2. Play loud music in my car while parked in front of a convenience store.

3. Give the finger to some driver who cut me off on highway.

4. Do or say anything to upset any socially awkward person.

5. Use my bedroom toilet in the middle of the night without turning on the lights.
 
chrlswltrs said:
So what do you consider "high capacity"? Here are some standard capacity magazines for various guns:
Ruger 10/22 - 10 rounds
Ruger P89 - 15 rounds
Glock - 8-17 rounds depending on model and caliber
AR 15 - 30 rounds
Ak 47 - 30 rounds
Remington 700 - 3-5 rounds depending on caliber

Those are all "Standard Capacity." Those are just a handful of the various types of guns which all have different standard capacities. several of which I own, several I don't. So what would you call "High Capacity"??
Click to expand...

Here is one possible suggestion:

Maximum Permitted Magazine Capacity - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Even with these limits, a vast majority of gun owners would still have more than enough capacity to hunt, defend or kill unless he is in the military, criminal or insane.

Can a line be drawn somewhere? The alternative is absolutely no limit.
 
chrlswltrs said:
...So, someone who lives paycheck to paycheck would have to spend a couple years entire salary just to be able to have a few bullets to be able to protect their family if someone broke in?? You would be ok with people not being able to protect themselves because the price of protection would make it unattainable to so many?
Click to expand...
I'd recommend a shotgun for home protection. It uses shells not bullets.
 
funpig said:
On March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger

Ruger was the founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a major gun manufacturer including the Mini-14.
Click to expand...

very good.... was wondering how long it would take someone to find this on their talking points list

the very idea that a gun manufacturer sides with the fearmongers makes them all giddy inside

I dont suppose you ever considered why Ruger would take such a position?

Ruger didnt sell high capacity magazines (to civilians) for any firearm...... their competition, who was destroying them in sales, did
can you think of a better way to eliminate the competition than to make your competition illegal?

I bet if you asked your boss what the best way to increase your companies profits would be........ he would tell you to outlaw frech fries that dont have the word McDonalds on the packaging
 
dontpanicbobby said:
I'd recommend a shotgun for home protection. It uses shells not bullets.
Click to expand...

So shotgun shells that cause more damage, and are not nearly as accurate should be cheap, but accurate safer bullets should be out of the reach of the average person for defense??

I'm not saying a shotgun isn't a good choice (I have a 12ga sitting by my bed), but it isn't the right choice for everyone or every situation. My wife for example is not comfortable at all with using a shotgun, she prefers her handgun. Also, there are other factors. If you live in an apartment you want to use something like a hollow point bullet that will expand after entry and not go through your target and continue damaging/injuring/killing once it exits out the back like a regular bullet or shotgun pellets, otherwise there is the potential the bullet could go through the intruder, through a wall, and then kill your neighbors.
 
copestag said:
very good.... was wondering how long it would take someone to find this on their talking points list

the very idea that a gun manufacturer sides with the fearmongers makes them all giddy inside

I dont suppose you ever considered why Ruger would take such a position?

Ruger didnt sell high capacity magazines (to civilians) for any firearm...... their competition, who was destroying them in sales, did
can you think of a better way to eliminate the competition than to make your competition illegal?

I bet if you asked your boss what the best way to increase your companies profits would be........ he would tell you to outlaw frech fries that dont have the word McDonalds on the packaging
Click to expand...

It does not take a lot of skill to super-size a bag of French fries and it is not an engineering feat to increase the size of a magazine. Ruger is one of the leading gun manufacturers in the US. From 1990 to present, its stock has gone from about $4 to about $55 per share. They make semi-auto and auto guns fully capable of using high capacity magazines. Mr. Ruger was certainly one of a kind to advocate what he did. The limit he proposed would have applied to his company as well as others.
 
funpig said:
It does not take a lot of skill to super-size a bag of French fries and it is not an engineering feat to increase the size of a magazine. Ruger is one of the leading gun manufacturers in the US. From 1990 to present, its stock has gone from about $4 to about $55 per share. They make semi-auto and auto guns fully capable of using high capacity magazines. Mr. Ruger was certainly one of a kind to advocate what he did. The limit he proposed would have applied to his company as well as others.
Click to expand...

actually 1990-2000 were the worst years in the companies history..... they nearly went out of business (these are the years after Sr. retired and gave the business to his son, after he made said statements).... they turned it around in 2000 after Jr stepped down

and no this would not have applied to them...... they did not sell high capacity..... all of their weapons were sold with 5 rounds in mind

if youve ever owned a mini14 (their semi at the time, also one of the current ones being suggested to ban) you would know why they sold 5 round clips .... the mini14 cannot perform accurately past 5 rounds

youll also note above I said "their semi at the time" in ref to the mini14...... Ruger wasnt a notable semi-automatic weapon company... they primarily sold revolvers.... which were made nearly irrelevant once the semis gained popularity in the late 80s - early 90s

it wasnt until 2000 when the new CEO redesigned the line and made high capacity the standard for Ruger as well that the company turned around

he did it for 1 reason and 1 reason only....... to eliminate competition from Glock..... who made high capacity their standard size... and was quickly destroying his business
 
copestag said:
actually 1990-2000 were the worst years in the companies history..... they nearly went out of business (these are the years after Sr. retired and gave the business to his son, after he made said statements).... they turned it around in 2000 after Jr stepped down

and no this would not have applied to them...... they did not sell high capacity..... all of their weapons were sold with 5 rounds in mind

if youve ever owned a mini14 (their semi at the time, also one of the current ones being suggested to ban) you would know why they sold 5 round clips .... the mini14 cannot perform accurately past 5 rounds

youll also note above I said "their semi at the time" in ref to the mini14...... Ruger wasnt a notable semi-automatic weapon company... they primarily sold revolvers.... which were made nearly irrelevant once the semis gained popularity in the late 80s - early 90s

it wasnt until 2000 when the new CEO redesigned the line and made high capacity the standard for Ruger as well that the company turned around

he did it for 1 reason and 1 reason only....... to eliminate competition from Glock..... who made high capacity their standard size... and was quickly destroying his business
Click to expand...

Where do you get your information?

I have no direct knowledge but some simple searches seem to refute a lot of what you say.

After Ruger was first listed on the NYSE in 1990, its stock price enjoyed steady growth from less than $4 to about $20 in 1997 (500%):

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. Co Stock Chart | RGR Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance;

Ruger first manufactured the mini-14 in 1974:

Ruger Instruction Manuals & Product History#

A magazine is a very simple device. I believe that the late Mr. Ruger would have had the ability to manufacture a larger capacity magazine. Currently, you can buy 30-40 rd clips to fit the mini -14 for about $20-30:

Ruger Mini 14/Mini 30 Gun Magazines

In any event, Mr. Ruger passed away years ago. You should feel reassured that the people running Ruger today are probably no different than the rest of the gun manufacturers who are all more interested in selling more guns and resisting any debate on limits.
 
first consider Ruger has been publicly traded since 1969.... despite not being listed on the NYSE until 1990.......... then take a glance at other manufacturers at around the same time periods.... youll note that Ruger was not keeping pace

then take note that despite being able to buy high capacities now........ for all I know someone might be running around with a 6000 round clip attached to 3 elephants and a donkey........ you could not get them for the most popular Ruger weapon in that period...... the mini14

you couldnt even purchase a 20 round at that time

where did I get that information........ Ive owned one for many moons

and yes I know Mr Ruger is dead (see previous posting) ... he left the company to his son...... who failed miserably...... who then handed it over to someone else who revamped their lines including higher capacity... which finally sent them on a growth trajectory

none of which changes the simple facts..... and point of mentioning Ruger to begin with

When Sr. made those statements and recommendations he did not sell high capacity magazines to more than a microscopic percentage of his customer base (non-civilians who were all exempted from the law)...he also had no plans of changing that... he preferred a more classical approach and was happy with his lineup... he had absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from a high capacity ban.... it would halt his competition.... of course we know that failed since the competition just worked around the law
 
copestag said:
When Sr. made those statements and recommendations he did not sell high capacity magazines to more than a microscopic percentage of his customer base (non-civilians who were all exempted from the law)...he also had no plans of changing that... he preferred a more classical approach and was happy with his lineup...
Click to expand...

So at the time, Ruger could manufacture and sell high capacity magazines to civilians but chose not to do so? You can see why some would tip their hat off to him.
 
chrlswltrs said:
So shotgun shells that cause more damage, and are not nearly as accurate should be cheap, but accurate safer bullets should be out of the reach of the average person for defense?? ...
Click to expand...
Yes that's my opinion. This whole conversation has been brought up because of the recent spree killings involving high capacity weapons. Now I know there are very high capacity shotguns available but they are hardly what you would call affordable to the average person or very concealable for that matter.
SttrikerStreetsweeper_zps4843fc07.jpg
Can you imagine the reaction if someone were to pull out one of these things anywhere? Instant evacuation, everyone would leave or try to take cover.
 
funpig said:
So at the time, Ruger could manufacture and sell high capacity magazines to civilians but chose not to do so? You can see why some would tip their hat off to him.
Click to expand...

I could see where you might think that... except

he did sell 15 round magazines.... which were effected by the law

this still didnt effect his company however........ the 15 round magazines were widely unpopular

as I said above....... the mini14 is very inaccurate after about 5 rounds... it was just designed poorly in that regard

of course getting even closer to back on track......

even if we assume for a moment that his actions were honest intentions because it was his opinion that high capacity was unacceptable...... it was simply that........ 1 mans opinion..... which shouldnt carry more weight than yours or mine simply because hes in the business..... as I said its not like he had anything to lose by it and everything to gain

Im sure if you asked every member of every family ever effected by a crime using a high capacity weapon........ which wouldnt be that high of a number ironically....... since few crimes comparatively are committed using this type of weapon........ you would find more than one who believe a ban is wrong....... does that mean their opinion is right?

there is nothing about a 30 or that 6000 round magazine (carried on the elephants and donkeys) that is any more dangerous than a 6 shot revolver.... are those next on your ban list?
 
dontpanicbobby said:
Yes that's my opinion. This whole conversation has been brought up because of the recent spree killings involving high capacity weapons. Now I know there are very high capacity shotguns available but they are hardly what you would call affordable to the average person or very concealable for that matter.
Click to expand...

Actually, a Saiga 12 semi automatic shotgun with a removeable magazine is about $1000-1500. An AR15 that has received so much negative attention lately can be had for about the same price.

Tip to tip my AR is just as long as my shotgun, so why do you think one is more concealable than the other??

Plus, the shooting at Sandy Hook, the killer only used handguns. I haven't read or heard anything regarding the capacity magazines that he used.

Other than Aurora what killings are you referring to as using "high capacity magazines"
 
The more recent "killing spree" that is the base for most debates (Sandy Hook) didn't even involve a assault rifle. He used 3 hand guns, they found a shot gun and a Bush Master .223 in the trunk of his car.
The fact that it was found in his car made it easy for media to claim it was found in the school and was accountable for the shooting. In fact if you were watching the news that day when it happened, in interviews with the investigators you should be able to recall them even saying the assault rifle was found in the vehicle..

It is said full reports of the sandy hook shooting won't be available until as early as May, so the capacity for the magazines to determine whether or not they were extended mags will remain unknown to us until that time.
 
pbf98 said:
The more recent "killing spree" that is the base for most debates (Sandy Hook) didn't even involve a assault rifle. He used 3 hand guns, they found a shot gun and a Bush Master .223 in the trunk of his car.
The fact that it was found in his car made it easy for media to claim it was found in the school and was accountable for the shooting. In fact if you were watching the news that day when it happened, in interviews with the investigators you should be able to recall them even saying the assault rifle was found in the vehicle..

It is said full reports of the sandy hook shooting won't be available until as early as May, so the capacity for the magazines to determine whether or not they were extended mags will remain unknown to us until that time.
Click to expand...

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
funpig said:
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Even NBC, CBS, and ABC had to tell the truth. THERE WAS NO AR15 USED IN THE SHOOTING, ONLY HANDGUNS!!!

ABC, CBS, NBC Admit No Assault Rifle Used at Sandy Hook - YouTube

Now PLEASE STOP SPREADING THE LIBERAL'S LIES!!!! If this tragedy is going to be used to try and take away our rights at citizens, at least use the truth about what happened, not a lie made up to demonize a scary looking weapon.
 
Here is the Demacrat's whole thinking when it come to using Sandy Hook as a case for gun control:

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
―Adolf Hitler
 
I don't know why this has turned into a handgun versus long arm discussion. Either way it is the person that kills not the tool. No amount of discussion or legislation can stop a criminal or a mentally disturbed person from killing be it with a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. Those people do not care about laws or public opinion. They only care about themselves. Why that is is another discussion entirely.
 
Here's another idea then...... Tax the hell outta guns, make it very expensive to buy one!

I got this idea from the health care thread I started, as anon said " if you want a gun you pay for it. Why not the same for healthcare?"

Well surely health care is in most peoples eyes, more of a priority that owning a gun? If so then make a gun more expensive than hospital care!

I believe that rights are more along the lines of clean water, freedom if speech etc and these must take priority!

By increasing tax on guns, you are not impeding the right to keep and bear arms (who says arms must be a gun? Sword is an "arm"!, but I know it says must not be impeded etc....) You are merely making it harder to do so, bit like health care! Maybe have a first gun is "x" while any there after is "x + $1000" this allows you to keep a gun for protection at a better price!
 
sntaylor said:
Here's another idea then...... Tax the hell outta guns, make it very expensive to buy one!

I got this idea from the health care thread I started, as anon said " if you want a gun you pay for it. Why not the same for healthcare?"

Well surely health care is in most peoples eyes, more of a priority that owning a gun? If so then make a gun more expensive than hospital care!

I believe that rights are more along the lines of clean water, freedom if speech etc and these must take priority!

By increasing tax on guns, you are not impeding the right to keep and bear arms (who says arms must be a gun? Sword is an "arm"!, but I know it says must not be impeded etc....) You are merely making it harder to do so, bit like health care! Maybe have a first gun is "x" while any there after is "x + $1000" this allows you to keep a gun for protection at a better price!
Click to expand...

We have already talked about this. By doing that you are putting personal protection out of the reach of thousands of people that live in high crime, low income areas. Also, not that it has anything to do with our second amendment rights, but why should it be that expensive if I want to go hunting or just have a gun for the enjoyment of target shooting? We already have way too many taxes, we do not need anymore!

And the right to protection is equal to the right to free speech or any other right.
 
the reason it turned into "hand gun vs long arm" is because gun laws affect the long arms heavily compared to the hand guns.

And I don't need to be shown wikipedia for facts, I've done my own fact checking. And if you look you will find newscasts from that day with investigators saying the bushmaster was found in the trunk of his car.

chrlswltrs don't forget the protection of your rights. If you give up your right to bear arms, you give up the your protection of your other rights. Not saying that it will happen but if the government limits what guns its people can use, it will make it easier to take away other rights with out much of a fight. Sure it would cause mass protests, but with freedom of speech gone protesting would not be protected and you could be arrested.

Like I said not saying it will happen, but less guns makes it easier for the government to try to get away with things like that

I was watching an old tv show from the 50/60s (The Rifleman) yesterday and the episode was about a good friend being killed by a gun. And the son of the rifleman blamed the gun, and wanted absolutely nothing to do with guns. Then the rifleman had a line in that episode that went like
“Don’t blame the rifle, Mark. It didn’t trigger itself"
Seems they had the same opinion back then that fewer of us view now..
 
pbf98 said:
the reason it turned into "hand gun vs long arm" is because gun laws affect the long arms heavily compared to the hand guns.

And I don't need to be shown wikipedia for facts, I've done my own fact checking. And if you look you will find newscasts from that day with investigators saying the bushmaster was found in the trunk of his car.

chrlswltrs don't forget the protection of your rights. If you give up your right to bear arms, you give up the your protection of your other rights. Not saying that it will happen but if the government limits what guns its people can use, it will make it easier to take away other rights with out much of a fight. Sure it would cause mass protests, but with freedom of speech gone protesting would not be protected and you could be arrested.

Like I said not saying it will happen, but less guns makes it easier for the government to try to get away with things like that

I was watching an old tv show from the 50/60s (The Rifleman) yesterday and the episode was about a good friend being killed by a gun. And the son of the rifleman blamed the gun, and wanted absolutely nothing to do with guns. Then the rifleman had a line in that episode that went like
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom