A poll for everyone!

In the fall of 2002 two people; a man and a boy terrorized the citizens of the Washington D.C. area. Their weapon of choice was a Bushmaster AR-15, the civilian (semi automatic) version of the military's M-16.

Do you think that John Lee Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo would have still committed their heinous crimes if they could not have gotten access to a military styled weapon?

Vote 'yes' if you think they would substituted another weapon.

Vote 'no' if you think they would not have committed the crime without access to a military styled weapon

Vote 'don't know' if you don't know or don't care

these 2 would have carved people up with dull knives if that were all they had.

...the death penalty needs to be abolished for all crimes and life sentences without parole should be implemented more vigorously. How can we possibly know what is going on with these sick minds. Besides, aren't there 20 other killings these guys need to go on trial for? As for military style weapons in the hands of civilians and no way to trace them, that's a no brainer. Registration, annual renewable licenses to own them and qualified reviews by professionals to determine if valid reasons exist for owning them. None come to mind at the moment. But I would be real uncomfortable knowing that one or more people in my neighborhood owned such weapons. Besides if you can own an M-16 style weapon, why not a grenade launcher, or a shoulder firing SCUD/SAM. The M-16 seems like overkill as a sport weapon, don't 'cha think? What will be next, tactical short range nuclear weapons?:nuke:

2 posts and already we've got someone talking about nukes. That was fast. I'm invoking McFeeb's Law and declaring you the loser of this debate.

...I have questions for you.

You said:
"As for military style weapons in the hands of civilians and no way to trace them, that's a no brainer. Registration, annual renewable licenses to own them and qualified reviews by professionals to determine if valid reasons exist for owning them. None come to mind at the moment."

Obviously you want to extend the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, what other things would you propose? Your comment about 'valid reasons for owning them' would be for just current military styled guns or all guns?

Registration, annual renewable licenses to own them and qualified reviews by professionals to determine if valid reasons exist for owning them. None come to mind at the moment.

Although that's what I advocate, of course, for *all* firearms.

I answered "yes" to a poll completely lacking in rigour -- yup, they would undoubtedly have got their hands on another weapon to commit the killings with -- and that weapon would have been a firearm. Talk about yer no-brainer, eh?

.

..."qualified reviews by professionals to determine if valid reasons exist for owning them."

What would that entail.

The time I am distracted and dead tired and say something dumb, somebody notices.

Registration, annual renewable licenses to own them and qualified reviews by professionals to determine if valid reasons exist for owning them. None come to mind at the moment.

Although that's what I advocate, of course, for *all* firearms.

Of course I don't; never have.

I actually do *like* the idea, but then I also like the idea of free ice cream on Saturdays. jhfenton's suspicions to the contrary, I don't actually *advocate* that ice cream be distributed free on Saturdays. (Although I note that toilet paper and ice cream were products that the Cuban government put a great deal of effort into making widely available after the revolution.)

So no, I don't advocate "qualified reviews by professionals to determine if valid reasons exist for owning" firearms. Far too much hassle being a major reason why not. General absence of a need for such a requirement in Canada being another. That's not to say that it might not have good effects; it just isn't reasonable at the moment.

What we do have, and I do advocate, is whatcha might call review by qualified professionals to determine whether valid reasons exist for someone *not* owning firearms, i.e. an effective licensing scheme for all firearms owners. And in order to make such provisions actually effective for the purpose they are meant to achieve -- protecting the public from dealings in firearms, whether by shooting them, using them to facilitate crimes, storing them dangerously or transferring them illegally, etc., that jeopardize public safety -- registration of all firearms.

That way, the obvious nogoodniks can be screened out and not get their hands on firearms legally in the first place.

That way, when a restraining order or firearms prohibition order is made against someone and the court says "you got any firearms you'd like to turn over, bub?" we're not just relying on the word of the demonstrated-ly dangerous individual in question to learn whether s/he does.

And that way, if someone's tempted to make a quick buck by selling a firearm s/he obtained legally to someone not entitled to acquire one legally, s/he might think more than twice. Ditto for leaving their firearms lying around the living room.

And that way, there's a damned sight fewer firearms likely to be circulating around where they oughtn't to be. There'll still be some, but life has risks.

Now, if we could just seal up that porous border ... or persuade our benighted and deluded and paranoid and self-centred neighbours to do something about their own problem in that respect ...


I am indeed sorry to have confused you so. Mea culpa, entirely.

.

...anyone, admit to making a mistake.

...The rifle was a Remington Model 700, a model commonly used by police sharpshooters and similar to the weapon used by U.S. Marine Corps snipers. When found in the Tacoma field, the gun was loaded with a bullet in the chamber and equipped with a telescopic sight and bipod, used to steady the weapon for more accurate shooting....

For full copyrighted article please see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001842255_sniper23m.html

So I voted "YES"

This wasn't two whacked-out kids squeezing-off as many rounds as possible in as short of a time as possible...

This was two cold-blooded murders that could have committed these crimes with any standard "Hunting Rifle" on the market...ie: Weapons that will NEVER be banned under ANY circumstances...Period!

Or high powered sniper rifle?

I don't know what you mean by that. Except for the 50bmg most sniper rifles are based on the 7.62nato( 308 )which has less range and power than most out of the box deer rifles. One of the best rounds ever fired at the Wimbledon 1000 meter match was a 9 inch 40 round group. The rifle that shot that group was chambered in 45.70 with open sights.

is an out of the box deer round.

Now what do you consider a high power sniper rifle?

Who cares what I think? It's the gun grabbers who will be and are whining about sniper rifles. A lot of hunters are going to find out too late that their trusty old winchester model 70 is a sniper rifle as far as the gun grabbers are concerned.

I'm afraid you are right....Break out that old model 70 and tell it every thing will be OK.

The 7.62NATO (aka the .308 Winchester) is one of the most popular deer-hunting cartridges in the world.

... a link to that!

But maybe the ammo...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it matter little what weapon they use.

The AR-15 was available, but any firearm was capable, (not necessarily as accurate), in committing the crimes.

They were on a killing rampage, the weapon makes little difference.

:(

edited:typo

As the news article points out, the Beltway Bushwackers' initial "weapon of choice" was a bolt action rifle, one that is legal in Australia, the UK, and Canada. One that is considered "benign" by the anti-gun-owner crowd, yet would have guaranteed a higher death toll if they had used it.

After they lost that one, they shoplifted the next thing they could find.

How the hell do you "shoplift" a firearm?

.

Clearly something was "amiss" at the Bullseye gun shop.

At every gun shop I've ever been in the handguns are in glass cases and the rifles are on racks behind the counter. Counters are not left unattended. At night, firearms are usually stored in rather impressive safes.

One person asks to examine a weapon when the store is busy. While he looks it over a confederate distracts the sales staff. Person with the firearm walks out the door.

I've never seen a gun store so poorly managed that a thief could pull it off. Usually when you are inspecting a gun there is someone with his or her eyes on the gun at all times. If you somehow managed to get out the door with a gun you'd probably get shot. If you got away alive the store would surely miss the item you stole. Bullseye has some explaining to do, and FWIW I would support the right of the "snipers'" victims to sue them if they were negligent in their control of their inventory.

...is that Bullseye did a back door sale of the gun. Not that I've seen any proof of it, mind you.

supposedly he confessed to shoplifting it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001631223_bullseye27m.html

"One of the sniper suspects, Lee Boyd Malvo, has told investigators he shoplifted the $1,600 carbine from the gun store, law-enforcement sources have said"

Did that have the gold plated bolt carrier with it?

Or is this another news story that didn't feel the need to confirm any facts?