Quote:
Originally Posted by jaylow?
because rifles and hand guns are not the same. if they were yourbasic pal would cover you to buy hand guns now.
|
You assume there are rational reasons, based on fact, for those distinctions in our PAL gun control laws. I can't find it and I've done a lot of research. Instead, what I've found, for instance, is that Liberal Cabinet Ministers sat around a table with a gun catalogue one day and banned all the black, scary ones. I am not OK with laws being made that way and I am certainly not OK with folks saying, 10 yrs. later, that because such dummass decisions were made way back when, that's a good reason to uphold them now. Not only is your logic circular - which is reason enough to reject it - but the scheme of our gun control laws appears to have been created by uninformed clowns.
Quote:
|
how you train with and operate them are not the same . charges are not as heavy in most common hand guns , shorter barrel would make for different ballistics.
|
Correct. The ballistics of the short guns are indeed different.
I take it than that you also support different training for magnum rifles? As well as rifles with longer barrels. Lever actions. Short actions as opposed to long actions? Compound bows as opposed to long bows? .....Do you see my point here?
Quote:
|
..it would make sense to have some additional training for people planning on shooting game rather than paper at 25yards. not a big deal bud.
|
Your reasoning is irrational. I think it is irrational simply because someone said "pistol". Irrational thinking in law-making is indeed a big deal; particularly when we are talking about criminal laws enforced by the powers of the State and the police. It's quite a big deal, actually.