The Ruger 10/22 and the Keltec SU 22

 

This is the Ruger 10/22 rifle.  Five million of these have been made since 1964 in a variety of modifications.  They are all basically the same gun.  It is made in .22 LR caliber.  Is this one of the guns you anti-gun people want to ban?  It is semi-automatic.  The one I used to own had a heavy barrel and a scope.

 

This gun  is the Keltec SU 22.  Bad assed looking, right?  An "assault weapon?"  No.  It is a semi-automatic .22 LR rifle just like the Ruger 10/22.  I prefer a 10 or 15 round magazine with this rifle rather than the one shown.  This one just gets in the way.  The rifle itself is really no different than the 10/22.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_10/22

 http://www.guns.com/reviews/kel-tec-su-22/

 

Comments

[Amir]

United States is a country were freedom and individual choice count. No one should be allowed to infringe upon the second amendment. Having said that, I am of the opinion that, with the advancement of medical science, those people that used to shoot up or get shot at, survive and this leads to a huge financial burden to the rest of us. The latter should by no means be a reason not to care for the victim, on the contrary. But the group that causes this should have a collective insurance policy to pay for their hobby, especially in this hard fiscal climate and with the new policy to expand the healthcare to cover all.

[Fred]

Just listened to Quentin Tarantino in a radio interview explaining that all the violence in his movies is just art! Of course he explained that the problem with violence in society is in no way related to art or to media, it is just a problem of gun control and mental health. He later went on to explain how all those westerns from the 50's through the 70's were reflections of society, with an especially condescending tone (his) in reference to the Eisenhower era. That would be the one were movie killings weren't gratuitous depictions of art, there were positive moral values in movies and yes - society had less gun control and fewer mass killings.

Yep, it sure isn't art like Mr. Tarantino's that influences human behavior. Right.

[John Minnerath]

The group responsible? It's the nut jobs and criminals not the good honest citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
The insurance companies have held this country in thrall with their outrageous demands to make more profit.
I certainly don't want a bunch of actuaries deciding who will bear the liability for wrongful deaths and injuries from firearms.
It would be the law abiding and guiltless citizenry who bear the brunt as always.

[Abu Sinan]

I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was my first rifle. I used to carry it when I'd tag along with my father and older brother when they went deer hunting. It took out more than a few squirrels during those seasons. I put 20,000 rounds through it if I put one. Fond memories.

[Laura Wilson]

Well, John....if the Newtown shooter's mother---who, in fact, was the "law abiding and guitless" owner of the gun(s) used---had been required to have insurance, wouldn't that make sense right now?

[turcopolier]

Laura Wilson

If such liability insurance were required NRA would offer the best and cheapest. pl

[Will Reks]

I was reading the other day about gun violence in Chicago. Most of the gangsters are getting their handguns by using straw purchasers who buy at the gun stores out in the suburbs. These purchased guns have their serial numbers filed off or are often claimed to be stolen when tied to a crime.

We should be able to do something about that.

I don't see any comments from anti-gun people. Do you think even questioning an unfettered right to any kind of gun you want with any kind of accessory you want is anti-gun.

Liability insurance? I don't know that its a good idea and I definitely don't see the NRA supporting that.

[Laura Wilson]

And that would be a good thing....although they might have to raise the rates as the payouts became higher. At least it would introduce some actuarial rigor to this whole debate!

[turcopolier]

Laure Wilson

You don't know that payouts would get higher. such incidents are actually quite rare. This would be a lucrative business for NRA and other shooting groups. pl

[turcopolier]

Will Reks

"Do you think even questioning an unfettered right to any kind of gun you want with any kind of accessory you want is anti-gun." A true "red herring" I don't know anyone in the gun community who objects to current federal restrictions on ownership of fully automatic weapons, silencers, crew served weapons, land mines, etc. That includes the NRA.

As to serial numbers, the lawmen here can comment on the difficulty in erasing serial numbers on guns. If these weapons are being bought from FFL holders for re-sale to criminals, then law enforcement is failing in its duty to trace the weapons to the dealers.

I would like to know how Lanza got access to his mother's weapons. They were stored in a gun safe. Did it have a combination lock? pl

[Herb]

The exists already exist. Society as a whole pays them through increased insurance, medical care, opportunity costs, liability insurance, homeowner's insurance and police costs, even the "anti-gun nuts". I think it is reasonable to apportion the costs of firearm use, to firearm owners, rather than have it subsidized by the entire country. Same as people with motor vehicles pay for their insurance (and same caveats apply to people who illegally drive without).

I speak as a gun owner. In fact had a Yugoslavian .223 similar to the Ruger above, and have no problem with a crackdown on gun show sales that skirt gun shop rules, with the sale and possession of large-capacity magazines for home use (they should be limited to firing ranges), and with the sale of large volumes of ammunition, except, again, that used at a firing range. Is there any reason a person should have 1,000, 2,000, 10,000 rounds of ammunition? Also with the strict enforcement of existing laws. We already have restrictions on firearms like automatics and some concealable weapons, is the world terrible as is?

I think gun owners already won this "battle" long ago and should admit responsibility to come up with sensible legislation that works not only for rural environments, but also urban and suburban environments as well. Seriously, the last thing I want is a country filled with every moron in the Walmart checkout line packing heat because it is their "right" to carry a firearm.

Guns don't kill people, stupid people, with guns, loaded with bullets do.

[turcopolier]

Herb

Insurance? Only the rich should own guns? pl

[Laura Wilson]

...or drive cars? It's a choice. We require car insurance, why not gun insurance? Really, why not? And I do think that the rates would go up...think of all the domestic violence and "just one or two" people gunned down as collateral when a domestic dispute comes into the work place. Insurance seems quite logical...

[eakens]

Exempting antiques and historic weapons, perhaps we should start by making it illegal to possess a gun without a serial number then?

[turcopolier]

Laura Wilson

I suppose you would. Wouldn't you rather have your own country? pl

[John Minnerath]

Just want to comment here that it already is.
Very seriously illegal.

[John Minnerath]

Just want to comment here that it already is.
Very seriously illegal.

[Amir]

Then lets get organized and abolish mandatory car insurance as well.

[John Minnerath]

Just a FYI, it already is.
Very seriously illegal.

[eakens]

Thanks for this.

[Lars]

The type of gun should not be the issue. It should be about who should use it and how safely they will do it.

[turcopolier]

lars

As I said, the federal firearms laws today are appropriate. At the same time IMO it is appropriate to require people selling guns out in the parking lot at gun shows to have a FFL and perform on-line background checks. A harder question is a private transfer of a firearm as for example within a family. pl

[Frabjous]

Would non-semi automatic weapons with limited-capacity (5? 10?) magazines result in fewer people killed in mass shootings? If Lanza had had to open and close the bolt each time he fired and switch magazines after every 5 shots, would fewer people (CHILDREN) would have been killed? It seems clear that the answer is yes.

Limiting access to semi-auto weapons and large-capacity magazines - with many semi-auto weapons now in circulation - will be difficult but it would be prudent to begin the legislative and law-enforcement process of limiting the number of these types of weapons. It will take time, perhaps lots of time, but is well worth it.

Would gun controls that strictly limited access to guns to registered licensed people who had been trained and qualified in their safe operation be constitutional?

For me, as a lifetime shooting enthusiast and gun owner, the answer is yes. And, gun owners should be required to safely store their weapons, and to prevent those weapons from being accessed by un-qualified persons. Controls on ammunition would be a very good idea as well since ammo is perishable and guns are just clubs without ammo.

All of these laws should be federal and violation of them a felony. That is the only way to avoid the “D.C./Chicago/xxx has the strictest gun laws and still has the highest death by gun rate…” ‘dilemma’.

Guns don’t kill people, people with rapid-fire large-capacity guns kill lots more people than they would otherwise be able to kill.

[Fred]

The 'law enforcement process'? You mean a house by house search for all existing magazines and weapons you will outlaw? How else do you plan on collecting them? We haven't even rounded up all of criminals with outstanding warrants and you are going to prevent any future shooting in a school by doing this?

[John Minnerath]

I find it frightening that so many here, gun owners and non gun owners alike, are so willing to hand over control of their lives to the State.