As far as I know "cop killer" bullets are illegal. LaPiere is wrong in that some deer hunters prefer "armour piercing bullets" If that's what he actually said. Most don't, but again I think a little more digging would be warranted in to what he said or the definition of what some consider armour piercing. For instance the rounds I use are a 185 grain full metal jacketed round. This is because it offers more knockdown power and kills the animal instantly in most cases with proper shot placement. You can go with a lower grain, lower shock non metal jacketed round and it's tougher sometimes to bring the deer down and you have to track it and thus the deer suffers longer and you stand the chance of just wounding it and never finding it which is a horrible feeling. Fortunately I never have. So is what they are calling a "cop killer" a full metal jacket round? Let's not forget their definition of an assault rifle was in most cases anything but.
La-Pierre was carefully manipulating the facts about Kerry's voting record. Kerry's support for banning armor-piercing bullets,
No manipulation required: John Kerry voted in favor of Ted Kennedy's ammendnent 1609 to S1805, which would have defined "armor-piercing" as capable of pentreating bod armor
Most don't, but again I think a little more digging would be warranted in to what he said or the definition of what some consider armour piercing
From the bill
(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar. ... ``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''. Â Â
And LEO body armor is normally rated as proof against the standard police weapon (ie 9mm pistol), any centre-fire file round would be rated as "armoe piercing"
And Kennedy specifically mentioned as particularly powerful, .30-30 Winchester ammunition, which is less powerful than all commonly available deer ammunition.
Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
 While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.
The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.
"The study, by the academy's National Research Council, found that accurate research on what works to reduce gun violence had been made impossible by a lack of information on gun ownership and by scholars' lack of access to information like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' data on guns traced to crimes.
The National Rifle Association and its supporters in Congress have long opposed collecting information on gun ownership and sharing the bureau's gun-tracing data, describing such steps as an invasion of privacy.
Afraid of getting it turned over to the United Nations, I suppose
And:
"My sense is that people on both sides of the debate won't like the report," said Jens Ludwig, an associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University. "The main thrust of it is, we don't know anything about anything, and more research is needed."
So since the data was flawed I guess they should throw all the current gun laws out the window.
253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work. And they found nothing.
Yea it's all because of poor data and the NRA. What utter b.s. Well since they are all except one proponents of gun control, maybe the 254th article, 100thbook or 44th government publications will be the one they need to give them the info they're looking for to throw the other documents out the window. If they look long enough they'll find one that backed their predrawn conclusion. I guess it will take more years of study and hundreds of thousands even more to determine what anyone with common sense and data and people's experience shows. Gun control laws are nothing but a feel good measure. As evidenced here by all those wild west shoot outs.
"If the proponents of concealed carry want it to prevail in Minnesota, they have two choices: Get a favorable ruling from the state Supreme Court or pass the controversial Personal Protection Act legislation cleanly and get the governor to sign such a law."
Your side has access to the courts as easily as our side.
If you have concerns about highway funding, school funding, welfare funding (and you know of instances where said funding has violated the Minnesota single-subject clause)...have at it. If you want to sneak CC in on the back of legislation, amend the state constitution to allow it.
I'll be anxious to see how it works out for you.
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Apr 14, 2005 at 09:38am.]
"Although I continue to support the organization's overall mission — protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms — I have grown increasingly agitated by the method: painting people who don't share their view as "political terrorists," as LaPierre once called the leader of Americans for Gun Safety."
House committee OKs modified permit bill as Senate wavers BY TONI COLEMAN Pioneer Press
The great Minnesota gun debate, which roiled the Legislature two years ago, may be returning to the Capitol for the final four weeks of this year's session. Or it might not.
Lawmakers Wednesday gave differing accounts of the prospects of passing a new gun law after the April 12 ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court's decision to declare the controversial 2003 gun-permit law unconstitutional.
A House panel Wednesday morning passed a slightly tweaked law — giving private businesses the option of posting signs banning guns or verbally informing customers — and its author promised a floor vote next week. Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, said he would give the bill a quick Senate vote, giving backers hope that the bill would be on Gov. Tim Pawlenty's desk for his signature in a matter of weeks.
But late Wednesday afternoon, Johnson, after meeting with his Senate DFL colleagues, backed off his earlier statement and said the bill would instead go to committee, where amendments were expected to be tacked on.
In response, House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, said he might no longer schedule a floor vote on the bill next week, and backers might take their chances with the Supreme Court. Bill sponsors said they will refuse to accept any changes to the bill.
"This is straight re-enactment of the law. If you open it up to one amendment, you open it up to 59 or 100," said the bill's chief sponsor Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington. "If they're going to file another lawsuit, that's their business."
Johnson said the climate at the Capitol on the gun bill has changed since the Legislature passed the Personal Protection Act in 2003. Fears about the impact of the bill did not come true, but there remain "concerns about places of worship,'' he said.
The state Court of Appeals threw out the law because it was attached to an unrelated bill. A group of church leaders continues to challenge the gun-permit law, arguing it inhibits "free exercise of religion" by regulating how churches inform parishioners of gun bans on their premises.
A Hennepin County District Court injunction against enforcement of the law based on religious freedom remains in force, and lawyers representing the church institutions say they will challenge the re-enactment.
"It's still a live lawsuit. If the Legislature re-enacts this law, it will become a lot more livelier," said attorney David Lillehaug.
More than 25,000 permits were issued under the new law, which made it easier for law-abiding citizens with training to get permits to carry guns in public places. Before the 2003 law, county sheriffs had discretion to issue permits based on an applicant's ability to show they needed it for personal or professional protection.
"You can argue all day long whether you like guns or not. That is not the issue. The issue is fair and nondiscriminatory issuance of permits," John Caile, spokesman for Conceal Carry Reform Now. "The law has worked."
Wednesday's House committee hearing reignited debates about religion, local government control and gun violence that lawmakers heard many times in 2003.
Opponents cited studies about firearm-related injury and death and domestic violence. But proponents said the past two years have shown that a more permissive gun-permit law does not mean a big increase in violence.
Granted, the more caustic gun control advocates and those lawmakers who carry their water are out of touch with mainstream America when it comes to gun rights — and their methods are equally distasteful.
Good choice. My father in law always took his kids, nieces, nephews, grandkids, anyone he could out to the cornfield and teach them what a handgun was when they were quite young. My daughter was 4 when he taught her how to shoot a .22 pistol. Showed her what it did to a melon. He was always proud of the fact that although there was many rifles, handguns, shotguns around the house, that no one that he knew was ever hurt by one.
Good for you guys. I actually taught my kids about Guns without ever showing them one.
explain to me how you think this is possible??
it is just not this simple....a kid at 14 or 15 yrs old could find a gun....if you teach them...then curosity could get the best of them...just telling a boy to treat every gun as if its loaded is not enough...
I've grown up around guns my entire life..shot in national rifle competitions at Camp Perry Ohio...trap, skeet, sporting clays, air rifle, air pistol, bb , etc....you name it I've done it....i've seen kids around guns my entire life and have seen reactions with kids that
That's right, Kitch. That's like teaching someone how to drive without ever showing them a car. Like teaching someone how to swim without ever showing them water.
You're the gullible one, jethro.
I really should consider this matter carefully because you should know. I mean you and your kind have been preying on the gullible for years.
People who don't buy into scaremongering.
Deflect, deflect, deflect.
Oh, that's not scaremongering. Nevermind.
As far as I know "cop killer" bullets are illegal. LaPiere is wrong in that some deer hunters prefer "armour piercing bullets" If that's what he actually said. Most don't, but again I think a little more digging would be warranted in to what he said or the definition of what some consider armour piercing. For instance the rounds I use are a 185 grain full metal jacketed round. This is because it offers more knockdown power and kills the animal instantly in most cases with proper shot placement. You can go with a lower grain, lower shock non metal jacketed round and it's tougher sometimes to bring the deer down and you have to track it and thus the deer suffers longer and you stand the chance of just wounding it and never finding it which is a horrible feeling. Fortunately I never have. So is what they are calling a "cop killer" a full metal jacket round? Let's not forget their definition of an assault rifle was in most cases anything but.
Let's not forget their definition of an assault rifle was in most cases anything but.
A tactic used when preying on the gullible!
"Most don't, but again I think a little more digging would be warranted in to what he said or the definition of what some consider armour piercing."
Just Yahoo Cop-Killer bullets and you'll get a series of wordy ballistics dissertations with the conclusion that they "don't exist."
I read the one on The Big Dog Gun Site.
Just Yahoo Cop-Killer bullets and you'll get a series of wordy ballistics dissertations with the conclusion that they "don't exist."
Then if they don't exist what's the problem?
The operative word is IF.
What's the problem with buying something that isn't banned?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 14, 2004 at 10:31am.]
No manipulation required: John Kerry voted in favor of Ted Kennedy's ammendnent 1609 to S1805, which would have defined "armor-piercing" as capable of pentreating bod armor
From the bill
And LEO body armor is normally rated as proof against the standard police weapon (ie 9mm pistol), any centre-fire file round would be rated as "armoe piercing"
And Kennedy specifically mentioned as particularly powerful, .30-30 Winchester ammunition, which is less powerful than all commonly available deer ammunition.
So in other words the ammo I use in my 35 Remington that I inherited from my Great Grandfather would be considered armor piercing.
Â
That's correct. Nearly any centerfire rifle round will penetrate body armor and bullet construction doesn't matter.
Last month, the National Academy of Sciencesissued a 328-page report on gun control laws.
Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
 While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.
The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
[Edited by on Jan 14, 2005 at 01:27pm.]
Have you read the report, Rob?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 14, 2005 at 01:45pm.]
I paged through some of it and read the summary, have you?
No.
Poor Data Hampers Gun Policies, Study Says
"The study, by the academy's National Research Council, found that accurate research on what works to reduce gun violence had been made impossible by a lack of information on gun ownership and by scholars' lack of access to information like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' data on guns traced to crimes.
The National Rifle Association and its supporters in Congress have long opposed collecting information on gun ownership and sharing the bureau's gun-tracing data, describing such steps as an invasion of privacy.
Afraid of getting it turned over to the United Nations, I suppose
And:
"My sense is that people on both sides of the debate won't like the report," said Jens Ludwig, an associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University. "The main thrust of it is, we don't know anything about anything, and more research is needed."
Afraid of getting it turned over to the United Nations, I suppose
That's funny, Rick.
[Edited by on Jan 15, 2005 at 01:47am.]
So since the data was flawed I guess they should throw all the current gun laws out the window.
253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work. And they found nothing.
Yea it's all because of poor data and the NRA. What utter b.s. Well since they are all except one proponents of gun control, maybe the 254th article, 100thbook or 44th government publications will be the one they need to give them the info they're looking for to throw the other documents out the window. If they look long enough they'll find one that backed their predrawn conclusion. I guess it will take more years of study and hundreds of thousands even more to determine what anyone with common sense and data and people's experience shows. Gun control laws are nothing but a feel good measure. As evidenced here by all those wild west shoot outs.
What Brady Bill????
It's over there with the Volstead Act
Ballistic fingerprinting looks like a dud:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200502040751.asp
What's the problem with doing it by the book?
"If the proponents of concealed carry want it to prevail in Minnesota, they have two choices: Get a favorable ruling from the state Supreme Court or pass the controversial Personal Protection Act legislation cleanly and get the governor to sign such a law."
No problem. Then go back and pass EVERY other law that has been attached.
Pass them all cleanly.
What's the problem with doing it by the book?
Nothing.
Just don't be a hypocrites about it.
We should now reverse all other legislation that was tagged onto bills. Such as transportation funding. School funding. Welfare funding....
Your side has access to the courts as easily as our side.
If you have concerns about highway funding, school funding, welfare funding (and you know of instances where said funding has violated the Minnesota single-subject clause)...have at it. If you want to sneak CC in on the back of legislation, amend the state constitution to allow it.
I'll be anxious to see how it works out for you.
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Apr 14, 2005 at 09:38am.]
I know, Rick.
You don't care about what's right and wrong.
You don't care about hypocrisy.
[Edited by on Apr 14, 2005 at 09:45am.]
Quit whining forgodsake, it's embarrasing.
I'm not whining.
I'm just being honest.
It's your side that is the whiners.
I know, Rick.
You don't care about what's right and wrong.
You don't care about hypocrisy.
Sneak in???? Hardly, it's been on the front burner for 3 years.
I see, when a law is passed that the libs don't like, it's "snuk" in.
...not everyone who owns a gun is an NRA fan.
"Although I continue to support the organization's overall mission — protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms — I have grown increasingly agitated by the method: painting people who don't share their view as "political terrorists," as LaPierre once called the leader of Americans for Gun Safety."
Gun law gets second, perhaps short, life
House committee OKs modified permit bill as Senate wavers
BY TONI COLEMAN
Pioneer Press
The great Minnesota gun debate, which roiled the Legislature two years ago, may be returning to the Capitol for the final four weeks of this year's session. Or it might not.
Lawmakers Wednesday gave differing accounts of the prospects of passing a new gun law after the April 12 ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court's decision to declare the controversial 2003 gun-permit law unconstitutional.
A House panel Wednesday morning passed a slightly tweaked law — giving private businesses the option of posting signs banning guns or verbally informing customers — and its author promised a floor vote next week. Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, said he would give the bill a quick Senate vote, giving backers hope that the bill would be on Gov. Tim Pawlenty's desk for his signature in a matter of weeks.
But late Wednesday afternoon, Johnson, after meeting with his Senate DFL colleagues, backed off his earlier statement and said the bill would instead go to committee, where amendments were expected to be tacked on.
In response, House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, said he might no longer schedule a floor vote on the bill next week, and backers might take their chances with the Supreme Court. Bill sponsors said they will refuse to accept any changes to the bill.
"This is straight re-enactment of the law. If you open it up to one amendment, you open it up to 59 or 100," said the bill's chief sponsor Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington. "If they're going to file another lawsuit, that's their business."
Johnson said the climate at the Capitol on the gun bill has changed since the Legislature passed the Personal Protection Act in 2003. Fears about the impact of the bill did not come true, but there remain "concerns about places of worship,'' he said.
The state Court of Appeals threw out the law because it was attached to an unrelated bill. A group of church leaders continues to challenge the gun-permit law, arguing it inhibits "free exercise of religion" by regulating how churches inform parishioners of gun bans on their premises.
A Hennepin County District Court injunction against enforcement of the law based on religious freedom remains in force, and lawyers representing the church institutions say they will challenge the re-enactment.
"It's still a live lawsuit. If the Legislature re-enacts this law, it will become a lot more livelier," said attorney David Lillehaug.
More than 25,000 permits were issued under the new law, which made it easier for law-abiding citizens with training to get permits to carry guns in public places. Before the 2003 law, county sheriffs had discretion to issue permits based on an applicant's ability to show they needed it for personal or professional protection.
"You can argue all day long whether you like guns or not. That is not the issue. The issue is fair and nondiscriminatory issuance of permits," John Caile, spokesman for Conceal Carry Reform Now. "The law has worked."
Wednesday's House committee hearing reignited debates about religion, local government control and gun violence that lawmakers heard many times in 2003.
Opponents cited studies about firearm-related injury and death and domestic violence. But proponents said the past two years have shown that a more permissive gun-permit law does not mean a big increase in violence.
[Edited by on Apr 28, 2005 at 06:28am.]
From Rick's link:
Granted, the more caustic gun control advocates and those lawmakers who carry their water are out of touch with mainstream America when it comes to gun rights — and their methods are equally distasteful.
.....equally distasteful.
But not as powerful as the NRA.
[Edited by on Apr 28, 2005 at 06:44am.]
But not as powerful as the NRA.
Says you.
Geez ESD, are you sure you had something to do with that good looking kid?
She has her mother's looks=)
With his gun collection, I think he already is prepared....
[Edited by on May 3, 2005 at 04:14am.]
And she will be taking gun safty classes
Good choice. My father in law always took his kids, nieces, nephews, grandkids, anyone he could out to the cornfield and teach them what a handgun was when they were quite young. My daughter was 4 when he taught her how to shoot a .22 pistol. Showed her what it did to a melon. He was always proud of the fact that although there was many rifles, handguns, shotguns around the house, that no one that he knew was ever hurt by one.
Get kids used to guns. Then they won't be curious, untrained and prone to do stupid things with them.
Get kids used to guns. Then they won't be curious, untrained and prone to do stupid things with them.
I couldn't agree more.
Good for you guys. I actually taught my kids about Guns without ever showing them one.
explain to me how you think this is possible??
it is just not this simple....a kid at 14 or 15 yrs old could find a gun....if you teach them...then curosity could get the best of them...just telling a boy to treat every gun as if its loaded is not enough...
I've grown up around guns my entire life..shot in national rifle competitions at Camp Perry Ohio...trap, skeet, sporting clays, air rifle, air pistol, bb , etc....you name it I've done it....i've seen kids around guns my entire life and have seen reactions with kids that
think they KNOW what they are doing because their family told them what to do.....
major mistake!!!!
get a professional training course......there is many things that you might not be teaching your kids....
...you might be doing a kid a large favor by teaching them even if you think they will never need it.
Get kids used to guns...............................
I'm on ignore, right chubby?
That's right, Kitch. That's like teaching someone how to drive without ever showing them a car. Like teaching someone how to swim without ever showing them water.
Â