Machine gun shoot

[Winnipesaukee]

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! It's the law-abiding citizens who must pay $100, go through 2 background checks, be photographed and fingerprinted (to real criminals this is called BOOKING), and wait at least 6 weeks. Or one can save some time and money by simply visiting a shady part of Dorchester or Roxbury (I'm not kidding.).

It is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in MA--if your police chief likes you and decides to grant you a permit for one.

Misty, I don't think the Founding Fathers would appreciate you pulling words out of their mouths. You have no way of telling what they were meant by their wording.

That particular FBI statistic is not credible. Too many variables, inclusions, and exclusions (vague). Not credible whatsoever.

Now, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1976 when the DC handgun ban (which was recently ruled unconstitutional) was put into place, the violent gun-related homicide rate rose TWO HUNDRED percent between then and 2001.

On accidents, read this. And note Gary Kleck is a renowned (very liberal) criminologist. Source of statistics is the National Safety Council.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

You mentioned that when the second admendment (from the "bill of rights") was written when the common weapons were flintlock round ball rifles and pistols. As you said, 4 rounds per minute and 100 yds. max. I suggest that our founding fathers used the word "ARMS" rather than "GUNS" because they realized that weapons would change.

Had the constitution been written two hundred years ealier, arms to them might have ment swords. Had they written it two hundred years later they would possibly have assumed automatic weapons. I believe that they asumed that the word ARMS would maintain currency within the ammendment.

The Constitution of the United States and it's creators facinate me. Their forethought was outstanding.

When I raised my hand all those many years ago the oath that I took was to defend the Constitution from all enemys, Forign and Domestic.

That's certainly a defensible position. Not one that I happen to agree with, but defensible.

And I'm not sure whether that last sentence was aimed at me

In any case, thank you for your service.

Originally Posted by Pineedles

While the Statemaster chart shows gun deaths in Mass is nearly 1/2 of what NH is, these relate to all gun deaths, including suicide, accidents, and law enforcement acts. While the infoplease chart refers to crime statistics and the murder rate in NH is less than a third than that of Mass. Violent crime rate too is very telling, as I would expect that many violent crimes involve guns and Mass' rate is 3 times higher. Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources. One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.

I would keep an eye on the crime rate in DC, now that the Supremes have decided to allow reasonable legal posession rights. Although DC politicos are already trying to cast that decision to the wind.

So you're saying that NH lends itself more to suicide and death-by-cops?

Many violent crimes involve guns, but not all. Just as many murders are committed with guns, but not all. The difference between gun violence in NH and MA is probably not as wide as would be indicated by "gun deaths", but also probably not as significant as the "murder rate" would suggest.

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! It's the law-abiding citizens who must pay $100, go through 2 background checks, be photographed and fingerprinted (to real criminals this is called BOOKING), and wait at least 6 weeks. Or one can save some time and money by simply visiting a shady part of Dorchester or Roxbury (I'm not kidding.).

It is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in MA--if your police chief likes you and decides to grant you a permit for one.

Misty, I don't think the Founding Fathers would appreciate you pulling words out of their mouths. You have no way of telling what they were meant by their wording.

That particular FBI statistic is not credible. Too many variables, inclusions, and exclusions (vague). Not credible whatsoever.

Now, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1976 when the DC handgun ban (which was recently ruled unconstitutional) was put into place, the violent gun-related homicide rate rose TWO HUNDRED percent between then and 2001.

On accidents, read this. And note Gary Kleck is a renowned (very liberal) criminologist. Source of statistics is the National Safety Council.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Any idea where those guns in Dorchester (or D.C.) originate?

Whether you agree with the exclusions or not doesn't make the table incredible. Whether it applies in this case is the issue. If a burglary is committed in which victims are present and force is used or threatened, it becomes an aggravated assault, and thus a violent crime. The definition seems fine to me. It is not, however, suggestive of the overall crime rate.

As for guncite - yes, I saw that before my earlier post. But I'm not sure how it proves that MA has more accidents than NH.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! ...

No, I have it forwards.

To buy a gun illegally you must find a person that will sell to you. That is more "restrictive" than walking into the nearest gun shop.

An illegal gun will cost you a lot more, another "restriction".

If the seller is in fact an undercover police officer you will find the sale to be VERY "restrictive".

An illegal gun in your pocket in Massachusetts is like a ticket to prison, one year minimum. Better not spit on the sidewalk or jaywalk. I once had three of Boston's finest standing around me asking to see may carry permit. If I had not been able to produce it, that would have been "restrictive".

[Winnipesaukee]

Sorry Bear, backwards.

-You can EASILY find someone to sell you an illegal gun. If you go the legal route, you must (in addition to the procedures I mentioned above to get a permit (LTC or FID)), undergo an NCIS check and fill out a 4473 form.

-Illegal guns are almost always cheaper. Much cheaper. Because they tend to be stolen.

-Most sellers of illegal guns are NOT undercover police. There are so many willing sellers that, while undercovers exist, they are far outnumbered by an abundance of "legitimate" illegal sellers.

Is it easier to go through the red tape to get a legal prescription for Oxycontin, or get it through other illicit means?

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

To buy a gun illegally you must find a person that will sell to you. That is more "restrictive" than walking into the nearest gun shop.

Maybe for us law-abiding forum members that don't hang with the gang-bangers but your average felon (teen or adult) with cash in his pocket won't have any problem picking one up in many areas in Mass from others of his ilk.

[granitebox]

charges have been filed against 3 folks with the gun club

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...2-04-uzi_N.htm

[Lakesrider]

So I am still trying to figure out why the Father was not charged? He was responsible for his kid. He should be going to a different kind of gun show. A firing squad.

[Pineedles]

No, I don't think the father needs to go to a firing squad, he is heartbroken. What you see with these indictments is the anti-gun organizations of Massachusetts and National organizations like Brady's gearing up for their finest hour. Fueled by the impetus of the Obama administration's anti-gun sentiment, these organizations have their first test case. The prosecution will try to put guns on trial after all is said and done, that's why Dad is not being prosecuted, it would be anti-productive to their case to involve a grieving father. You voted for change people, now watch the amazing changes. Your 2nd amendment rights will change, despite what the courts have said.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

....You voted for change people, now watch the amazing changes...

Right on, and there is more (change) in store in other areas

[Tired of Waiting]

To preface this reply I must tell you that I am a member of the Westfield Sports Club. I am not trying to defend them or any one else. But to let you read the law being used by the DA as it is written.


PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE XX. PUBLIC SAFETY AND GOOD ORDER

CHAPTER 140. LICENSES

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

SALE OF FIREARMS

Chapter 140: Section 130. Sale or furnishing weapons or ammunition to aliens or minors; penalty; exceptions

Section 130. Whoever sells or furnishes a rifle, shotgun or ammunition to any alien eighteen years of age or older who does not hold a permit card issued to him under section one hundred and thirty-one H or, except as provided in this section or section one hundred and thirty-one E, whoever sells or furnishes any alien or any person under eighteen years of age a rifle, shotgun, machine gun or ammunition, or whoever sells or furnishes to any person under 21 years of age a firearm or large capacity rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor shall have his license to sell firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and or ammunition revoked and shall not be entitled to apply for such license for ten years from the date of such revocation and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than ten years or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this section or section one hundred and thirty-one E shall be construed to prohibit a parent or guardian from allowing his child or ward, who has not attained age fifteen, the supervised use of a rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor, according to the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine C, nor from furnishing such child or ward, who has attained age fifteen, with a rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon or ammunition; provided, however, that said child or ward, being fifteen years of age or older, has been issued a valid firearm identification card or alien permit to possess a rifle or shotgun which is in his possession. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an instructor from furnishing rifles or shotguns or ammunition therefor to pupils; provided, however, that said instructor has the consent of a parent or guardian of a pupil under the age of eighteen years.

ToW

[Pineedles]

TOW,

Thank you for your help. I have nothing against you for posting this. I have read and re-read your post of the law. I am not a lawyer nor a politician. Can someone that can read this garbage please interpret it and tell me and all of us in plain old common English what it means?

Folks! This is one of the things wrong with America! We have given our right to exercise control over our government to a small but growing group of people. Can you spell LAWYERS? Remember the former candidate for VP and then President? John Edwards? That is lawyer! Wife has cancer and he's playing around. That's integrity with a capital I! Yeah, I want those kind of people writing laws.

[Misty Blue]

A horrible tragedy occurred at that show. There were people there who were responsible for range safety. They failed.

But the discussion here intrestes me.

Had the boy been at the county fair, checking out the new chainsaws with Dad, and had a kickback it would have made the papers for a day or two. People would read the obits. and shake their heads at this terrible .

There would be no, or little, finger pointing, I think.

There would be no national organizations trying to enact new laws mandating minimum age limits for chainsaw usage.

There would be no "chainsaw safety course" license to obtain.

For sure (sorry Skip) the lawyers would show up. But asside of that the same tragedy, other other cercumstances, would fade into obscurity after a short time.

Is the issue a tragic , control, or both?

Misty Blue.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

Had the boy been at the county fair, checking out the new chainsaws with Dad, and had a kickback it would have made the papers for a day or two. People would read the obits. and shake their heads at this terrible .

There would be no, or little, finger pointing, I think.

There would be no national organizations trying to enact new laws mandating minimum age limits for chainsaw usage.

There would be no "chainsaw safety course" license to obtain.

First I would like to state that I strongly support our right to individually bear arms.

Second, I agree that people who do NOT support that right will use incidents like this to try to restrict or remove that right. We in turn should fight that effort and focus the discussion in directions that make sense.

The intended function of a chainsaw is to cut wood and brush.

The intended function of a gun is to damage or kill people or animals. A policeman, soldier, or citizen that carries a gun with them or keeps one in their home expects the gun to function this way. It is a deadly weapon and a machine gun more so than most.

I believe that, as Don pointed out in a earlier post, if there are precautions taken to limit recoil and loading only one bullet when training people to use these guns, at a minimum these precautions should have been in place for a show where inexperienced people could use these weapons. Further, how could a father be expected to truly understand the risk posed by these type of weapons? Consent is supposed to be informed, i.e. knowledgeable. Was the father a weapons expert?

We require seat belts and safety equipment on amusement park rides which function as entertainment. How much more should we require for a use of a deadly weapon in a public show?

It seems to me that the show operators and the father showed lack of responsibility and callous disregard toward the potential danger of these weapons, especially in a child's weaker and inexperienced hands.

Guns should be respected and feared for the function that they serve. The operators of the show and the father did neither.

And a tragedy resulted.

[Pineedles]

Thank you Jeffk. About 10 years ago I have supported what I thought were responsible gun laws. Since that time I realized that many of these laws were just a slippery slope to confiscation. I just can't fathom though the guilt this father is probably feeling.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The intended function of a gun is to damage or kill people or animals. A policeman, soldier, or citizen that carries a gun with them or keeps one in their home expects the gun to function this way. It is a deadly weapon and a machine gun more so than most.

jeffk,

Most of what you wrote I agree with. However the above paragraph gives me a bit of trouble.

A police officer does not carry a gun to "damage or kill" people. They carry for self defense and when employed do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the person from doing what they are doing or about to do. The end result may be the death of the perp but that was not the intended result. LEOs are trained that if they have to employ deadly force once the threat is neutralized to render first aid to save the life of the person. The last thing a police officer wants to do is kill someone.

Second, you can not lump the solder into a group with police and citizens. Their job is to project power and yes to kill the enemy combatants.

Lastly, citizens (law abiding) own guns for many reasons. Sporting uses are but some of them. Some have them for self defense. I don't think they own them to "damage or kill" people but to protect themselves and others. Again the last thing any law abiding citizen wants to do is "damage or Kill" another person. If you were to ask anyone who had to use their gun in self defense, I'm sure they would respond that they were trying to protect themselves or another and not trying to " damage or kill."

ToW

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting

jeffk,

Most of what you wrote I agree with. However the above paragraph gives me a bit of trouble.
ToW

ToW,

I chose my words very carefully. I discussed a gun's function, not the intent of it's owner. When a gun's trigger is pulled an explosive reaction propels a chunk of metal in a specifically targeted direction. If that chunk of metal hits living tissue it will damage it and possibly kill the living organism it hits. This is what guns were designed and created to do and they perform their function well.

If a policeman, soldier, or citizen (carrying or in their home) fire their weapon they are doing it to carry out the gun's function. They may not want to, it may be in self defense but pulling the trigger commits the gun to perform it's function. When a person aims a gun at a person and pulls the trigger they know what will happen, the target will be injured or killed. I doubt very much that anyone who commits to firing their gun would be happy if the gun failed to fire and the person who was assaulting them was able to continue to do so. Further, I believe (although I am happy to be corrected) that most people firing a weapon in self defense are told to target the torso because it is the largest target incidentally increasing the chance a vital organ will be damaged.

The intent of the people using guns, protection of the public, self defense, projection of sovereign power, are all justified in my opinion and in law but they don't change the function of a gun.

I am simply talking common sense here.

The gun should be respected and feared as the deadly weapon that it has been designed to be. How would it restrict my right to own such a weapon as a machine gun if restrictions were created for public shows that physically limited the the gun's recoil and only allowed loading a few rounds at a time? Serious buyers wanting a more complete demonstration could make arrangements for a private trial of the weapon. Do we really want 8 year olds firing a fully loaded unrestricted machine gun at a public show? The child's intention was to simply have some fun but the machine gun's function could have led to much greater tragedy. We are lucky that many others weren't hurt or killed.

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by jeffk

ToW,

I chose my words very carefully. I discussed a gun's function, not the intent of it's owner. When a gun's trigger is pulled an explosive reaction propels a chunk of metal in a specifically targeted direction. If that chunk of metal hits living tissue it will damage it and possibly kill the living organism it hits. This is what guns were designed and created to do and they perform their function well.

If a policeman, soldier, or citizen (carrying or in their home) fire their weapon they are doing it to carry out the gun's function. They may not want to, it may be in self defense but pulling the trigger commits the gun to perform it's function. When a person aims a gun at a person and pulls the trigger they know what will happen, the target will be injured or killed. I doubt very much that anyone who commits to firing their gun would be happy if the gun failed to fire and the person who was assaulting them was able to continue to do so. Further, I believe (although I am happy to be corrected) that most people firing a weapon in self defense are told to target the torso because it is the largest target incidentally increasing the chance a vital organ will be damaged.

The intent of the people using guns, protection of the public, self defense, projection of sovereign power, are all justified in my opinion and in law but they don't change the function of a gun.

I am simply talking common sense here.

The gun should be respected and feared as the deadly weapon that it has been designed to be. How would it restrict my right to own such a weapon as a machine gun if restrictions were created for public shows that physically limited the the gun's recoil and only allowed loading a few rounds at a time? Serious buyers wanting a more complete demonstration could make arrangements for a private trial of the weapon. Do we really want 8 year olds firing a fully loaded unrestricted machine gun at a public show? The child's intention was to simply have some fun but the machine gun's function could have led to much greater tragedy. We are lucky that many others weren't hurt or killed.

I agree handing a 8 year old is not the smartest move.

Guns are not only made for killing. Guns are also used for target shooting...ever watch the olympic shooting competion? Oh I forgot the networks would never show guns in that light. Guns should and must be respected not feared. Do you fear cars, boats, planes, chain saws....? If you fear a gun DO NOT PICK IT UP.

Rememeber nothing is fool proof, fools can be quite ingenious.

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

TOW,

Thank you for your help. I have nothing against you for posting this. I have read and re-read your post of the law. I am not a lawyer nor a politician. Can someone that can read this garbage please interpret it and tell me and all of us in plain old common English what it means?

My understanding of the interpretation of the law that the DA is using is that a) the child was under fifteen years of age and did not have a firearms ID card, and b) the event was not "instruction"; therefore it was a violation of the law to "furnish" him a weapon and ammunition. The father, on the other hand, is permitted to furnish his child with a weapon under those those same conditions, provided it is for supervised use.