PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Jebus said:
Youvwe got semi-auto and full auto mixed up, methinks.
Assault Weapons Ban Lifted.
- Thread starter Bradylama
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Youvwe got semi-auto and full auto mixed up, methinks.
PsychoSniper said:
No I don't. I don't make mistakes.
Educate youself: http://www.gunsworld.com/worldguns_home_us.html
WarMonger said:
That makes about as much sense as owning a bong, but not the pot that goes with it. But drugs and guns are both hardcoded into the American culture, so is it really that different? Sadly, I think not.
welsh
Junkmaster
Phil the Nuke-Cola Dude said:
Yes. First Amendment freedom of speech.
Knowing how to make a weapon fully automatic does not equal having a fully automatic weapon.
From my understanding, fully automatic weapons- a weapon which fires continuously at a high rate of fire with one press of the trigger, are still illegal and have been for a damn long time. This goes back to the days of Prohibition when gangsters could legally obtain Tommy guns.
KillaKilla
Still Mildly Glowing
Yes, Assault weapons are machine guns, if by assault weapons you mean automatic weapons. Anything that uses power from one round to strip, load and cock the gun for the next is a 'machine gun'. (the origonal Gatling guns were not machine guns)
it's generally accepted that by 'machine guns' you mean things like the MG38/42, M6O, RPK and (the mother of all) Browning M2HB.
Assault weapons usually means assault rifles (from the germans' sturmgewer-44) and sub-machine guns and machine guns.
sub-machine guns usually means 'Assault rifles" that use a short round, like a pistol, or have low enough recoil to be fired in full auto effectively without a bipod or mountings.
it's generally accepted that by 'machine guns' you mean things like the MG38/42, M6O, RPK and (the mother of all) Browning M2HB.
Assault weapons usually means assault rifles (from the germans' sturmgewer-44) and sub-machine guns and machine guns.
sub-machine guns usually means 'Assault rifles" that use a short round, like a pistol, or have low enough recoil to be fired in full auto effectively without a bipod or mountings.
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
the ban was cosmetic, banning things like flash reducers, certain tactical grips, magazine capacity, and that sort of thing. wich was pointless all the same because even after the ban you could still obtain certain flash reducers, high capacity magazines, and slightly smaller tactical grips that were all legal.
im a member of the NRA, so my own stance is defiantly pro-gun, and im glad this cosmetic ban is up, assault weapons aren't the problem its criminals that are the problem. we have a constitutional right to bear arms, so instead of attacking a constitutional right why aren't we attacking the criminals?
im a member of the NRA, so my own stance is defiantly pro-gun, and im glad this cosmetic ban is up, assault weapons aren't the problem its criminals that are the problem. we have a constitutional right to bear arms, so instead of attacking a constitutional right why aren't we attacking the criminals?
KillaKilla
Still Mildly Glowing
Most of the stuff is Bull (like the tactical grips, folding stocks, etc). But some of it is legitimate (magazine capacity, grenade launchers, silencers/flash suppressors). All of those but the magazine capacity are already illegal. So yes, most of it is bull. Especially that of things like muzzle brakes, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, etc. Regardless, we shoud have certain things banned ( IE mac-10s, almost any Klaishkinov, Uzis, etc etc. because they have no use eccept that of killing people) Also, why do people care so much if you ban these kinds of guns? The only legal use of them is target practice, but many other guns offer better accuracy with less recoil and at a better price. Also, a shotgun is a better defense weapon than most of these guns, (I figure you'd be pretty close anyway, and you can use rock salt shells for added satisfaction).
Wow, the and you for a with big the if you
[Offensive text deleted]
I love linking to that....
bob_the_rambler said:
Wow, the and you for a with big the if you
[Offensive text deleted]
I love linking to that....
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
what a gun would be used for is irrelevant, our right is to have them plain and simple. yes there are wackos that on occasion abuse their right to bear arms and go on killing sprees, and i agree that we as citizens have no need for rocket/grenade launchers mines high explosives and so forth. i have the right to own a mac-11 if i want to, but that doesn't mean that just by having it ill be tempted to just kill people with it.
the facts are simple the legal law abiding gun owners hugely outnumber the criminal gun owning element, there just inst enough reason to warrant extreme banning of dangerous "looking" weapons.
the facts are simple the legal law abiding gun owners hugely outnumber the criminal gun owning element, there just inst enough reason to warrant extreme banning of dangerous "looking" weapons.
welsh
Junkmaster
For the NRA crown, I would recommend the Daloz, Making a Killing, book. It's an easy read and well documented.
The reason why certain guns were listed and others were not had more to do with the numbers of times they were used in violent crimes. Although most violent gun crimes are not done with assault weapons (here we mean semi-automatic types, often military weapons converted for civilian use), what the DOJ and other law enforcement bodies discovered was, during the late 1980s and 1990s, the number of crimes involving assault weapons were on the rise.
THe reason why certain weapons were targetted and others were now had to do with which weapons were being used in crime. Numbers indicated that the Tec-9 was becoming popular (even if most gun owners have been very critical as to it's accuracy), other weapons include the M-10/11, the AK-47.
Among those that supported the bill were police officers who were worried about storming into a house where the owners where held up with AK-47s.
What law enforcement identified was a rising trend. We often forget that this was also a period where narcotics related crimes were rising, and many of those becoming victim of violent crime were inner city minorities. Those communities believed that the assault weapons threatened to make crime more violent. It was, in a sense, more a preventative measure.
I agree that law abiding gunowners outnumber criminals. As for owning a Mac-10, many of the companies came out with similar weapons that were basically cosmetic changes.
But are these weapons more than just dangerous looking?
Well the TEC-9 was made in such a way that it wouldn't leave fingerprint residuals. A person with a 30 or 40 clip magazine can fire that in less than a minute.
Now whether those were "enough reason to warrant the extreme banning of dangerous "looking" weapons" is an interesting question.
Exactly what would warrant such a ban?
Remember this is not a complete ban on the right to own a gun. This is only a restriction on a certain number and types of guns that law enforcement felt were becoming dangerous.
In Australia they banned such weapons after one shooting. Other countries are very restricted in the right to bare arms. Before the ban there were a number of noteworthy mass shootings involving "assault weapons."
How many people would have to be killed for such a ban to be warranted? Would it matter who got shot?
The reason why certain guns were listed and others were not had more to do with the numbers of times they were used in violent crimes. Although most violent gun crimes are not done with assault weapons (here we mean semi-automatic types, often military weapons converted for civilian use), what the DOJ and other law enforcement bodies discovered was, during the late 1980s and 1990s, the number of crimes involving assault weapons were on the rise.
THe reason why certain weapons were targetted and others were now had to do with which weapons were being used in crime. Numbers indicated that the Tec-9 was becoming popular (even if most gun owners have been very critical as to it's accuracy), other weapons include the M-10/11, the AK-47.
Among those that supported the bill were police officers who were worried about storming into a house where the owners where held up with AK-47s.
What law enforcement identified was a rising trend. We often forget that this was also a period where narcotics related crimes were rising, and many of those becoming victim of violent crime were inner city minorities. Those communities believed that the assault weapons threatened to make crime more violent. It was, in a sense, more a preventative measure.
I agree that law abiding gunowners outnumber criminals. As for owning a Mac-10, many of the companies came out with similar weapons that were basically cosmetic changes.
But are these weapons more than just dangerous looking?
Well the TEC-9 was made in such a way that it wouldn't leave fingerprint residuals. A person with a 30 or 40 clip magazine can fire that in less than a minute.
Now whether those were "enough reason to warrant the extreme banning of dangerous "looking" weapons" is an interesting question.
Exactly what would warrant such a ban?
Remember this is not a complete ban on the right to own a gun. This is only a restriction on a certain number and types of guns that law enforcement felt were becoming dangerous.
In Australia they banned such weapons after one shooting. Other countries are very restricted in the right to bare arms. Before the ban there were a number of noteworthy mass shootings involving "assault weapons."
How many people would have to be killed for such a ban to be warranted? Would it matter who got shot?
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Not enough. Not ever.
It really shouldn't. But then Lawyers dying oh my God!
Plain and simple, gun laws just keep guns away from law-abiding people. A friend of mine and I were discussing a shooting spree a man went on in England, where they have very, very tough gun laws (you can only have certain kinds of guns like long rifles; guns that can't be easily concealed and are of little "tactical" utility) and he was able to kill a number of people because nobody in the neighborhood had a weapon, and the local police didn't even have guns! They had to call in special police with guns. This just proves that, no matter what kind of weapons are available or not available, people will use them to commit crime if they intend to commit crime.
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
isnt it the deadly "looking" guns that are the most feared. a 30-06 hunting rifle can do more damage than a mac-11 in the right hands, and an 30-06 hunting rifle dosnt exactaly "look" too dangerous.
in my mind the only thing that would warrent extremest banning and regulating of guns, would be a population of gun abusers and criminals instead of the mostly law abiding gun owners of america today. and Lord is right if criminals didnt have guns they would just use other means, crime is a mind set not an ivent that transpires when a criminal gets ahold of an dangerous "looking" gun.
in my mind the only thing that would warrent extremest banning and regulating of guns, would be a population of gun abusers and criminals instead of the mostly law abiding gun owners of america today. and Lord is right if criminals didnt have guns they would just use other means, crime is a mind set not an ivent that transpires when a criminal gets ahold of an dangerous "looking" gun.
KillaKilla
Still Mildly Glowing
Lord 342 said:
So we should arm people, especially those in dangerous neighborhoods? That way, if a gangsta comes out, they just shoot them? What about the cops that come in? What would stop the community from going on a shooting spree against cops doing their jobs?
Interesting that you should point out england, which, with very strict gun control, has less than a fifth the homicide rate than that of the US. They are not necesarily related, (the english a re progressive) Of course, this is from a rathar biased source, as the US-D0J would want it to look like there are higher crime rates in the US, so that people would see that they are doing an effective job of lowering crime.
The fact remains that there is no use other than killing people that these guns serve. When was the last time you would have killed a buck with a TEC-9, had this ban not been in effect? Or perhaps with FN's famoous FAL? Or perhaps an AK47? Not ever. As I said before, the defense argument doesn't make sense, with a shotgun being ideal (you already have it for hunting, its dual purpose and non-lethal if used properly.
Another point to be made is that it is not necesarily the bans or the guns that cause crime, it's idiots. As we all know, the south is the home of idiocy, and it's murder rate is representative of that. Not that southernors are necesarily idiots, just that they have a much higher rate of idiocy than that of more civilized, progressive states, like massechussets, Iowa, the Dakotas, and luisiana. Er scratch that, luisiana is the murder capital of the US, and has been for the entire length of the DOJ inquiry. And, oddly enough, all of the south also has the highest murder rates in the country. And the highest death penalty rates, beating the midwest (2nd) 7.62
times over. And this has the highest rate of registered republicans. So much for them being good on stopping crime.Also, to say that people will kil leachother whether or not they have a gun is just total BS. You can't kil lsomeone without the means to do so, and increaing hte means to do so of course also increases the chances of it occuring.
Another thing, to say the that 30 0 6 rifle is as powerful as an !K47 is also not true. Using that rifle, how many shots can you get off in a minute? How many with that AK? How much witht that AK and an expanded clip? That a gun has stopping power at long range and is effective against a single target does not making an effective killing machine in the situation that would yield lots of deaths quickly.
Touting the relatively high homicide rate in the US is useless because of other factors. First, the United States is a huge country, with many more people than many countries. Secondly, we have many very, very dense cities. As Robert Heinlein said: "Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself. " Do the math. Dense population =more violence. Thirdly, the USA is basically a country of all nationalities, there is less of a defining stereotype of Americans as there is of, say, Japanese. Because we, as a nation, encompass so many political, economic, racial, national, and religious groups, higher violence is inevitable.
Shotguns may be ideal for defense against common criminals, but if the criminals are going to get the precious upper hand, it would be nice if it were at least legal for law-abiding citizens to have access to equal firepower. Criminals will do whatever it takes to get the upper hand. Law-abiding people will abide by laws.
The case in England was to illustrate that, regardless of weapons laws, crazies will commit crimes. Although mandatory arming of the general citizenry (with a safety course and certification, of course) would probably be a good idea. Every single criminal would have to ask himself if he was willing to risk his life for any crime.
Guns are by far not the only means to kill people, nor are they even the easiest (A common argument of anti-gun people is that it makes it too easy to kill someone, too impersonal). A 5 (or so) year old child once poisoned her father by putting something like 72 rat poison tablets in his coffee, she was initially aquitted due to age, but was later charged when she attempted to rub out her mother in a similar fashion. At least with a gun you have to look at the person to do him in; you can use poison and have the person expire with you three states and two days away. If someone wants to murder someone, he'll do it. He'll do it with his bare hands if he has to, but he'll do it. Did crime somehow magically stem from gunpowder? If all guns magically disappeared tomorrow, crime would carry on as healthy as ever.
The 30.06 and the AK are two completely different weapons. Each will be most deadly in the hands of someone skilled with it. Ability to get off rounds does not directly equate to tactical utility. The Thompson Submachinegun could fire 800 rounds a minute of heavy, .45 cal. pistol cartridges. How many of them do you see being used today? (I'm not trying to start a discussion of the pros/cons of the Tommy gun, it's just an example to prove that tactical utility cannot be summed up to a specs sheet figure for a weapon.)
Shotguns may be ideal for defense against common criminals, but if the criminals are going to get the precious upper hand, it would be nice if it were at least legal for law-abiding citizens to have access to equal firepower. Criminals will do whatever it takes to get the upper hand. Law-abiding people will abide by laws.
The case in England was to illustrate that, regardless of weapons laws, crazies will commit crimes. Although mandatory arming of the general citizenry (with a safety course and certification, of course) would probably be a good idea. Every single criminal would have to ask himself if he was willing to risk his life for any crime.
Guns are by far not the only means to kill people, nor are they even the easiest (A common argument of anti-gun people is that it makes it too easy to kill someone, too impersonal). A 5 (or so) year old child once poisoned her father by putting something like 72 rat poison tablets in his coffee, she was initially aquitted due to age, but was later charged when she attempted to rub out her mother in a similar fashion. At least with a gun you have to look at the person to do him in; you can use poison and have the person expire with you three states and two days away. If someone wants to murder someone, he'll do it. He'll do it with his bare hands if he has to, but he'll do it. Did crime somehow magically stem from gunpowder? If all guns magically disappeared tomorrow, crime would carry on as healthy as ever.
The 30.06 and the AK are two completely different weapons. Each will be most deadly in the hands of someone skilled with it. Ability to get off rounds does not directly equate to tactical utility. The Thompson Submachinegun could fire 800 rounds a minute of heavy, .45 cal. pistol cartridges. How many of them do you see being used today? (I'm not trying to start a discussion of the pros/cons of the Tommy gun, it's just an example to prove that tactical utility cannot be summed up to a specs sheet figure for a weapon.)
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You know, maybe if you had been paying attention to the news, you'd notice that since the firearms ban in England, gun related crime has gone up 45%. (though admittedly, a large number of those were commited with fake weapons)
This is besides the point, as citizens need to be able to arm themselves well enough to organize an effective militia. Shotguns don't cut it at medium ranges.
Are you done fellating yourself? Good.
Now, where are your sources for these facts? I don't doubt that Louisiana has a high murder rate, because we had gang related problems in Baton Rouge, and New Orleans is notorious for its night crime. How many of this is the cause of firearms, however? And do people in Louisiana feel any less safe than those in other states? I don't feel any safer in Oklahoma, and I'm sure I wouldn't feel any safer in New York.
You also cited the death penalty, which has nothing to do with this argument. You're simply masturbating your half-assed liberal superiority all over these forums. And people wonder why southerners don't care much for Yankees.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to kill a man. Its easier to kill somebody with a knife than people think, you just need to get in close. Disarming citizens also encourages crimes such as robbery, burglary, and rape. If one more statistic on the death rate in America means one less raped woman, then I'm fine with that.
This is true. You would, however, need only one shot with a 30.06 to get the job done, as opposed to several with the Avtomat. This is, again, besides the point, as people should have the right to own such a weapon in order to organize militias.
Well, people in slums that aren't involved in crime tend to be the victims of said crime, and see the police as their only source of safety. If there's a cop standing at the street corner, people aren't going to shoot him, because they'd be more likely to walk down the street without the fear of mugging.
What's to stop the community to go on a killing spree? Well, nothing I guess. But why would that happen? You're coming up with nothing but half-assed ideas and assertions to support your opinion.
Now, if you'd like to argue this objectively, instead of injecting your New England Starbucks Liberalism bullshit, then feel free.
This is besides the point, as citizens need to be able to arm themselves well enough to organize an effective militia. Shotguns don't cut it at medium ranges.
Are you done fellating yourself? Good.
Now, where are your sources for these facts? I don't doubt that Louisiana has a high murder rate, because we had gang related problems in Baton Rouge, and New Orleans is notorious for its night crime. How many of this is the cause of firearms, however? And do people in Louisiana feel any less safe than those in other states? I don't feel any safer in Oklahoma, and I'm sure I wouldn't feel any safer in New York.
You also cited the death penalty, which has nothing to do with this argument. You're simply masturbating your half-assed liberal superiority all over these forums. And people wonder why southerners don't care much for Yankees.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to kill a man. Its easier to kill somebody with a knife than people think, you just need to get in close. Disarming citizens also encourages crimes such as robbery, burglary, and rape. If one more statistic on the death rate in America means one less raped woman, then I'm fine with that.
This is true. You would, however, need only one shot with a 30.06 to get the job done, as opposed to several with the Avtomat. This is, again, besides the point, as people should have the right to own such a weapon in order to organize militias.
Well, people in slums that aren't involved in crime tend to be the victims of said crime, and see the police as their only source of safety. If there's a cop standing at the street corner, people aren't going to shoot him, because they'd be more likely to walk down the street without the fear of mugging.
What's to stop the community to go on a killing spree? Well, nothing I guess. But why would that happen? You're coming up with nothing but half-assed ideas and assertions to support your opinion.
Now, if you'd like to argue this objectively, instead of injecting your New England Starbucks Liberalism bullshit, then feel free.
KillaKilla
Still Mildly Glowing
Lord said:
1st, those homicide rates are per-capita, so the "The USA has more people" isn't an argument. The others can be considered legitimate, but they fall through when you see that equally dense cities (london and LA, for instance)
LA 11.1 murders per 100 thousand residents.
Can't find london's rate, but I would bet my zipper that it's at most 1/2 that.
"Also, law abiding people will abide by laws" isn't an argument, as most people are not law abiding. The argument that criminals will get the upper hand is bull, as a shotgun would have a much higher chance of hitting (if 0 choke) and will , of course, kill someone much faster (much largert wound area, more blood loss) and thus will incapacitate them faster.
That a 5 year old poisoned someone is not related to this, because shes five.
Damnit, this is taking forever. I'll be back once again to*shoot*down your points.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
So why not ban shotguns, since we've proven that they're more deadly? Oh wait that's right, they're not the Flavor of the Month for crime.
Also, hunters have found that assault rifles like the FN FAL make good hunting weapons as they provide a unique challenge. They also don't require as much maintenance as your high powered hunting rifle.
Roadrunner
First time out of the vault
Its illegal in Dominica to bare anything higher then a .38 caliber, as out police force is limited and only has so many assault weapons or 9mm and .45s...
Then again, we only have a population of 65,000. Go figure.
Then again, we only have a population of 65,000. Go figure.