muzzlestuffer

Safe in the sense they can use a rifle of any kind was my intent some areas are too close to homes to use rifles other than that if a guy only has a semi auto and can't afford another gun why not be able to use it ?

mrbb

NOT to get off topic, and I wasn't trying to be rude towards you with the word SAFE
its just I have heard it before used in crazy way's

as for what if a person only can afford one rifle
, if that;'s the case, a bolt, is a cheaper gun no?
an AR isn't a GOOD home defense gun
if shotguns are allowed in places a rifle isn;'t
wouldn;t owning one of them over a semi rifle be a better investments
lots of things don't make sense in todays world
trying to justify what a person has a way to HAVE to be able to use it, never really works out
why make car;s vehicles that go faster than legally allowed to drive and so on?
if you follow

I honestly don;'t think many hunters today(based on costs the sport have gone up)
can ONLY afford one rifle, is a strong agreement
used rifles can be had pretty cheap, if you look (ran a gun store, so> have some experience here)

and I know very few hunters that are , have been in the sport any amount of time that ONLY have one rifle, LOL
seems hunters start to collect em after the yrs go by, or I know I have LOL
NOT trying to get off topic, or start a debate,m or bash
just saying, the argument about ONLY affording one rifle, doesn't really work IMO
I have NO issue's with folks hunting with semi auto's either

its a rifle like all others to me, it fires a bullet, , its the persons behind it I worry more about than the type of rifle thats in the woods hunting!

muzzlestuffer

No offense taken ! As far as the word "safe" and "spray" and "gun violence" they are all words the left use to brainwash people nowadays and when I said safe it was meant in the true sense of the word that's the only reason I could see regulating semi auto rifles around highly populated hunting areas because we all know there are a bunch of knuckle heads out there! Imo lol

mrbb

HAHA< and OK< glad I didn;t offend you, wasn't trying

But even shotguns, I don't see them as much safer than most rifles, as today, decent slug guns fire slugs well past 200 yrd
and them big slugs will bounce and GO, more than high power bullets at times too

its really comes down to the person behind a weapon, to be safe, if there wheel in there head doesns;'t spin right, poor decisions happen, IF they even think at all first

NO TYPE of gun will solve this problem
there all safe, IMO< if working properly
its the idiot behind one that makes em UN safe 99.9% of the time

NO clue even how to fix that part, but letting semi's be legal, I again say, why not, silly rule to NOT allow if you asks me!

Oldtimr

Actually, back when several municipalities were trying to push the PA Game Commission into expanding the special regulations areas otherwise known as shotgun areas the Game Commission hired an outside research company to research if rifled slugs were safer than rifle and handgun bullets. They did this because some Senators and Representatives were threatening to take the issue out of the hands of the PGC and put it into the hands of the general assembly which would have been a disaster. The General Assembly was so sure of the results of the study that they paid for the thing. Well surprise of all surprises, the study showed that rifled slugs were actually more of a threat in a populated area because they have more of a tendency to ricochet than bullets. This made sense because in my law enforcement firearms training we were taught how to ricochet rifled slugs under vehicles to his an assailant on the other side that is shooting at officers. I got good at bouncing a slug off the ground into the chest of a silhouette target. The steeper the angle the slug is shot at the ground the higher it will bounce. To make a long story short, thus ended the attempt to expand the shotgun areas in PA.

Ridge Runner

the main safety is the guy behind the trigger, some can safely hunt in a subdivision with an AR, some shouldn't use a slingshot, but they hafta pass laws for stupid folks
RR

Bocajnala

Some people are losing their minds over this. I've heard everything from that there won't be any deer left to how the woods will be a war zone. I myself intend to take an antlerless this year with my AR. With one shot. Like most people taking advantage of the new law will be doing.
-Jake

Oldtimr

Hasn't passed yet, the comments to the board and from the general assembly will be pouring in between now and the next commission meeting where they will vote to accept or reject the proposal. I would say it has about a 50-50 chance.

mrbb

OK food for thought
and this I know can be done
if you remove the gas tube from an AR
that renders the gun MANUAL action
it is NO longer a semi
so anyone that wanted to use a AR< could legally in PA right now, it would just have to be modified so it cannot WORK in semi auto
splitting hairs and sure a warden will bust your chops,(and you'd be asking for grief I think, ) BUT if you go to court , you would win!
and HOW do I know this
a few of my friends did this back in the late 90's ands then went hunting on Game lands> and were cited for hunting with a semi auto rifle!
they fought it, went to court, and won in court!(him and two other, they sort of did it to prove a point, I didn't feel worth proving, but>??)

it was NO longer a semi auto rifle, when it wouldn;t work as such! due to being modified to NOT work as semi
he proved it in court, costs him time and money to fight it, but he won?

so food for thought on them dead set on using a AR
NO gas tube, makes it JUST as manually operated ONLY< , as a pump, lever, or bolt gun is ??

Oldtimr

That would not be legal in PA, it would have to be permanently modified to be a bolt action. No you would not beat it in court, it has been tried. After all these years, don't you think people would be doing what you are recommending if it were legal?