gun control humor
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181394
Printed Date: 14 November 2025 at 5:26pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: gun control humor
Posted By: merc
Subject: gun control humor
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:42pm
|
this is not for or against gun control this is just making fun of one chick who put up legislation without understanding it.
edit: make fun of me for being to nub to post the link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo&feature=related ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Replies:
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:45pm
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:54pm
|
I see nothing wrong with that. Big deal she doesn't know what a barrel shroud is. She still knew that the "more important" part is larger capacity clips. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:58pm
|
your trying to put a law in effect that is going to effect HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people and its not a big deal she doesnt understand what its saying... ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:05pm
You are clearly confused. MAYBE a hundred million. That's a big maybe. I highly doubt -- although I haven't gone digging -- that 200,000+ Americans own affected weapons. Also, legislation, even when submitted by one person, is affected by a large number of people. That's why they have interns -- to explain what all that crap is. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
merc wrote:Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:07pm
|
population of the USA > 300mil, (not counting future generations)
if an AWB is passed it will effect anyone in the USA who is eligible to legal own a firearm. (not who already has one) ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:08pm
|
Way to cover up your mess up.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:09pm
|
^what mess? ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:12pm
This proves it. YOU'RE. WRONG. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:20pm
I see alot wrong with that.
I see this as further proof of gun legislation from people who view guns as the root of all evil and are generally ignorant to who the laws will affect and even more important what they're regulating.
A barrel shroud doesn't make a weapon deadly, and neither does a high capacity clip. The person firing it makes it a deadly weapon.
Legislation should be going after the person, not the gun. /story ------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:28pm
|
You can't go after the person until they commit the crime. Regulation of the weapon they will use and limiting their ability to shoot as many bullets as quickly is a good way to stop some deaths. It may not be the best way, and they will obviously be able to get the banned items, but they will not be as readily available. Especially to people like kids who want to shoot up a school, or guys who just decide they are crazy and want to ill things(where are they going to get illegal weapons?) ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:47pm
No, the bullets make it a deadly weapon. Without that, it's a club. The government simply isn't allowed to regulate what people think, and also isn't particularly good at it anyway. It is, however, allowed to regulate what they buy. The fact that there aren't MUCH stiffer regulations on pistols is the thing that nags me the most. Assault weapons are not a key concern, unless you're Mexican. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 10:00pm
sometimes its a spear, depending on whether or not you mount the bayonet. frankly, i prefer a spear over a club |
Posted By: JohnnyCanuck
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 10:01pm
Technically yes, but not everyone in the USA wants to own a firearm. ------------- Imagine there’s a picture of your favourite thing here. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 10:25pm
I had forgotten all about those. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:10pm
|
I have to admit that I absolutely love it when people are correctly called out for trying to cover up ignorance. I thoroughly enjoyed that clip, and I don't particularly care for Tucker Carlson. Good on him for not letting her get away.
On numbers - while the current population of the US is in excess of 300 million, the number of eligible gun owners is significantly lower than that. Minors are generally ineligible, and under GCA68 (as amended), the following categories of people are also ineligible (list courtesy of Wiki):
Additionally, under various state laws there are many other ways in which you can lose your right to own a gun.
The no minors rule obviously excludes millions. On the list above, the big ones (I would think) are 1, 2, 4, and 10. Keep in mind that there are millions of convicted felons, and that marijuana is a controlled substance.
My off the cuff guess is that if you add it all up, and apply the rules strictly, there are fewer than 100 million technically eligible gun owners in the US.
/nerd
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:27pm
|
Actually, all this talk of the AWB raises an old question of mine. I figure this place, with the heavy concentration of gun geeks, is a decent place for an answer.
A regular knock on the AWB is that it basically prohibits guns with certain cosmetic features. Like banning red cars.
That makes a great slogan and is a fairly persuasive argument, but is it really true? All of the listed features in the AWB are (obviously) popular on various military weapons. My experience with military weapons is that they generally are not big on cosmetic features. Instead, they tend to favor function. So if all/most modern assault rifles feature pistol grips, that tells me that there is some non-cosmetic benefit to a pistol grip.
And as I go down the list (it has been a while), most of the features now seem pretty functional. One might wonder whether these features are the best basis for regulation, but I must admit that the AWB no longer seems quite as bizarrely silly as I thought a decade ago.
What am I missing here? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:37pm
The parts about the AWB that always mystified me were the telescoping stocks and the bayonet lugs. Lets be honest, how many killing sprees have involved a bayonet? I'm sure they've happened, but I doubt they happen often enough to denote regulation.
-------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:40pm
Also, from Wiki-
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:51pm
Forget lugs and stocks - assault weapons in general aren't involved in enough crimes to merit special legislation. Hi-cap magazines, maybe, but not the assault weapons.
But my theory on your question (and mine too) is that the feature list was not drafted by somebody worried about the criminal use of a particular feature, but as a general attempt to capture "military-style" weapons.
I suspect that the driving force behind the AWB was cosmetics, but the end result appears to be a list that is not entirely irrational.
Bayonet lugs obviously make the gun potentially more dangerous - very functional. Folding stocks make a powerful weapon concealable. Fixed-stock weapons are hard to hide, and stock-less large weapons are harder to aim/control. In both cases I think you are right that we would have to look hard for crimes where those features specifically led to additional deaths, but at least in theory they both make the weapon more effective for man-killin'.
EDIT - oh, and I love saying "clips." Makes all the gun geeks really mad. Good lulz.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:57pm
| i don't think the bayonet lug makes it more dangerous...any idiot could just duct tape the bayonet onto the end of the rifle |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:00am
I think we're probably on the same page with this'un.
My problem is that this AWB really expands on the original ban, and my general discomfort with the situation is that more and more the government targets the law abiding because it's far easier than dealing with the real issues here.
The various school shootings and public massacres aren't traced to a particular weapon, in my opinion. I'd bet (can't guarantee because I don't have time to look it all up) that the only one single element that ties all the modern day travesties such as these together is a mentally disturbed person.
So why not put all the money, time, and effort into dealing with the people behind the crime. If you ban all but single shot .410's, there'll be twelve nutcases next week that kill five people with them.
I don't think there's a single statistic to back up the AWB saving enough lives to regulate an American freedom. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:01am
Yet to my knowledge, no army in history has issued duct tape in place of bayonet lugs. I am thinking bayonet lugs are better than duct tape.
(Actually, anybody who tried to make a spear as a boy knows just how hard it is to firmly attach a knife to a stick. If you never tried to make a spear as a boy, you need to surrender your man card.) ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:08am
|
Am I the only one that caught the fact that she said "Prolice officers"?
But as for the bayonet aspect, bayonets used to be affixed directly inside of the barrel. So should all guns be banned because they have a hole that can mount bayonets? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:09am
I continue to be amazed that the AWB got as much traction as it did. I blame misleading advertising - I am convinced that millions of Americans think that the AWB prohibited automatic weapons.
The bill proposed by this woman was two years ago, and I don't think it went anywhere. Frankly, IMO it is unconstitutionally vague. But there are new versions floating around that are better drafted and get to the same point. And they all share this obsession with guns that look like they are military.
Actually, yes - handguns. That is the grand irony here. If the AWB people were serious about crime, they would target handguns. Gun crimes of all sorts are overwhelmingly committed with handguns. Easy to use, easy to hide, easy to whip out.
But handguns are of course also most cherished by many gun owners, and that would be one hell of a fight, constitutional issues aside. But at least it would be a logical target. Going after "assault weapons" is just kind of silly.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:12am
|
^^ Add on top of that, that putting a ban on something won't keep criminals from getting access to it, as they will do what they have always done, which is get them illegally. -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:13am
i wasn't arguing that it was better, i was just saying that even if someone didn't have a bayonet lug and wanted to use a bayonet, it wouldn't be impossible to add one on. of course its better than duct tape, but i don't think the bayonet lug makes it any more dangerous |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:14am
Well, that isn't exactly true. The other gun thread on this page discusses how crime guns often were initially legally purchased.
And the usage of assault weapons in crimes did in fact go down significantly during the AWB. Making something illegal does make it harder to get. Just because a criminal is willing to ignore a prohibition doesn't mean that there is a ready supply of contraband for his use.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:20am
Doesn't change a single thing I stated. If they want a weapon, they will find a way to get it, banned or not. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:29am
But that is patently false.
My challenge to you: go find a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile. I guarantee freedom from all criminal prosecuttion. 1-2-3-Go! Shouldn't take you more than a day or two, if you want it enough.
This argument (that comes up a lot) is based in this idea that criminals have a magical ability to just find whatever they need or want. This, obviously, is false. Criminals are limited by reality as well. Not to mention that "criminals" are not a uniform class.
Criminals in Europe don't commit gunless crimes because they prefer to work with sticks and knives, but because guns are harder to get in Europe, criminal or not. Not every criminal is part of a well-funded gang that plans elaborate heists with expensive equipment. Instead, most criminals are poor. That means they often don't have money for guns, and illegal things generally cost more than legal things. So if they can't afford to buy a gun from the local black market dealer, they have to steal a gun. That is hard to do if law-abiding citizens don't own guns.
Pray tell - why are so few crimes in the US committed with automatic weapons?
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:45am
|
Again, does not change a thing I just stated. Banning assault weapons will not magically make all assault weapons disappear from criminals hands, which is precisely my point.
The reason why they are not used as much are numerous in number-- pistols are cheaper, easier to conceal, easier to buy ammo for, easier to ditch, easier to run with, easier to wield, I can go on if you insist. -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 1:01am
they're bulky, hard to commit a large number of crimes with...it would be difficult to mug someone with an ak as opposed to a knife or a pistol. plus, to buy an assault rifle from anywhere is more expensive than the alternative weapon of choice. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 1:07am
Linus, is it really that hard to admit that you are wrong?
I did not say that a ban would make all assault weapons disappear from criminal hands. What I DID say is exactly what DID happen - that fewer assault weapons were used in crimes during the ban. A lot less.
And unless it is your position that criminals in the 90s suddently discovered how sucky assault weapons are - to the tune of 2/3 reduction - then you are just making up lame excuses.
And back to those automatic weapons. I guess criminals don't use those anymore because they don't like to waste ammo? Trying to be green, save the planet? And European criminals just like the feeling of a man's blood on their hands?
By the way - I am a criminal. My rap sheet is so long that I can't load it on a single screen. Yet I cannot begin to think how I would illegally obtain a gun through the special criminals-only store. The only way I can think to get a gun would be to steal my neighbor's gun. And if guns were illegal then he wouldn't have one, since he is not a criminal. That would leave me up the creek without a gun.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 1:31am
Parker if you look back at the 94 ban it outlawed a mini 14 with a folding stock(basically a semi auto version of the rifle seen on the A-team). However the regular Ruger Mini 14 was not banned. It was considered a hunting rifle. Both guns are the same. The take the same mags, fired the same 5.56 round and fire at the same rate etc. One just looked different then the other and was banned for it. The 94 ban was a farce, and was rightfully left to sunset back in 04. |
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 1:40am
| Oh yeah, just an FYI....assault weapons are already illegal for citizens in the US to own(of course there are exceptions, class 3 license etc). What we are talking about here are semi auto rifles and standard cap mags..not hi cap mags. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 4:01am
|
Thanks Carbine. I was going to mention something like that as well.
A standard magazine is ~30 rounds. It isn't high cap. YOu can get lower capacity ones like the original M16 20's and even "ranch rifle" 5 rounders for some guns. Peter, or you could steal one from a cop. Or you could steal one from the army. Or you could build one. Or you could use a knife..... KBK |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 4:25am
|
Peter, I think the biggest problem with your argument that banning handguns would drastically reduce the amount of guns available to criminals is that you have to take into consideration the number of illegal handguns in circulation on the street.
I think Linus' point is that criminals aren't going to give up their guns just because of a legality change. Statistically in reality there is really no way to put a number on how many guns would disappear in a theoretical ban situation. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:10am
Also, start axing anything with a front sight post. The first step up from the 'in barrel' mounting was a socket bayonet that used the front sight as a locking point. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:47am
Well duh, you're a lawyer. I imagine your rap sheet doubles as your resume. :P ------------- 
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:59am
WIN post of the day  |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 11:08am
Everything takes time, of course, and existing inventory is always a concern. But guns are consumable goods, and crime guns doubly so. Any of the LEO here will tell you that we take tons (literally) of guns off the street every year. A favorite piece of evidence in any violent crime trial is the weapon - and that weapon does not go back on the streets. There are buyback programs and so forth as well, of course, but simply through police seizure there is drastic turnover of firearms in the illegal market.
If we had a hypothetical ban on handguns it would take a while for the inventory to thin out (simply because there are so many), but it would happen. When the inflow slows but the outflow continues, the inventory will shrink.
Again, I come back to the actual evidence. Use of assault weapons in crimes was down during the ban. Use of automatic weapons in crime is down since the NFA. Use of guns in crime generally is lower in countries where the legal market is smaller.
Linus' point is that he is incapable of admitting that he is wrong.
And you are right - criminals would not surrender their guns. But they don't have to. A feature of criminals is that they commit crimes, and when they do with a gun we take the gun away. Boom - one gun removed from circulation.
But there is absolutely a way to put a number on how many guns would disappear. It wouldn't be a perfect prediction, of course, but there is lots of data. For starters, we know how many guns are seized by cops today. That number would likely stay static for a little while after a ban. Then, as the inventory started shrinking, so would the number of guns seized.
We can look at data from the AWB, we can look at data from the NFA and the 1986 law, we can look at data from other countries.
As with all these things, there are many variables, and the predictions will be imperfect, but it is almost a tautology that if you reduce the inflow of something while maintaining the outflow, the total available number of that thing will shrink.
The reality is that there is no special gun manufacturer for the black market. Unlike illegal drugs, which are made specifically for the illegal market, guns are made for legal sales. The black market depends on the legal market for its inventory. Any limitation on the legal market will lead to changes in the black market.
This idea that bans don't work because criminals will ignore them makes no sense. It makes no sense because it is contrary to market dynamics, and it makes no sense because it is contrary to observed fact. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 11:51am
|
As long as ammunition is available you can make a gun with a car antenna, a nail, and a rubber band, and carry 50 rounds of ammunition for it in a box about the size of a zippo. Illegal full auto weapons are still used in crimes. The shooter in the Pittsburgh police shooting may have had a real AK-47 with rock and roll(my guess is he modified it himself since it jammed) and our local city of around 100,000 has had several show up in crimes. The police actually showcased their confiscated crime weapons a year or so ago and had and AK-74 and a few bullpuped AK's along with MACs and the like. A lot could be done to curb gun violence here and in Mexico with simply making enforcement easier and better equipping our police. Every squadcar should have level IIIA in the trunk and a carbine to replace the shotgun. We should be checking cars going into Mexico and going after cartel cash in US banks. If we can find and freeze terrorist assets we should be able to hurt the cartels. We should also expand NICS and make it avaiable to the public. Either states can mandate checks for private sales and/or gunshows or people can do it voluntarily in states where it isn't mandated. Maybe a tax credit for gun safes and trigger locks? Again, 30 round magazines are standard, RPK drums are not. A pistol grip is simply better ergonomically, the only reason more rifles didn't have them earlier was added weight and use of wood for stocks. Even many hunting guns now have pistols grips, they're catching on and give a familier layout to returning vets. You can go into any Dick's sporting goods and see a decent sized selection of turkey guns with pistol grips, and as someone who watches the market, I doubt any new models that come out won't have a pistol grip option unless there is legislation. Even with assault weapons being avaiable, most crime are still commited with old, cheap, crappy pistols. MA is an AWB state, so instead of a folding stock, you can just get a quick-detachable one that clips to the gun. AWBs are just an easy way for politicians to make it look like they're doing something about gun crime. They make people who live in middle class suburbs feel safe from machineguns they see in gangster movies, while people still get shot all the time in the ghettos. Banning "barrel shrouds" could potentially ban anything with a forend or a handgaurds. Actual "barrel shrouds" I can think of involve those on heavy machinguns and the ones on bolt action rifles that stop the mirage effect. I think there are two types of gun crime we're actually worried about here; gang bangers and spree shooters. Politicians don't actually care about the gang bangers, usuaully they just shoot each other, sometimes each other's families and bystanders. This is epidemic and fueled cheifly by drugs, and there is no political will to do anything about that. It is also tolerated in the communities where it takes place, either because of fear or apathy. Spree shooters are more complicated. Statistically it does not happen often, but it grabs headlines and scares the hell out of the public. It can, and does, happen anywhere while gang violence does not. This is why you see an outcry for federal action for what are typically rare crimes. The answer here is to do more about mental health since in other countries with little gun ownership, these things still happen. The guy in Japan who killed 10+ people with a truck and a knife comes to mind. Public places need to become harder targets, from terrorism as well as the dangerously insane. American schools are much harder targets than they were 10 years ago between technology and training both at the school and student level and with law enforcement. Germany apparently hasn't caught up yet. There is a lot we can do before we consider an "assault weapon" ban or semi auto ban(think about how badly that would discriminate against the handicapped!) the problem may be as much of a cultural one as anything. The culture of silence when it comes to gangs, violence, mental illness, or threats needs to come to an end. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 12:39pm
Maybe you can, but I sure can't. I am also confident that your average criminal cannot either. And any such weapon would be a whole lot less dangerous than a Glock .40. Rubber band guns are not what we are concerned about here. Properly manufactured guns ARE the issue, and they are all manufactured in large expensive factories, financed by legitimate banks, and putting out legitimate guns for legitimate use.
Compare this to marijuana, for instance, where home-grown weed is basically the same as "professional" weed. Cutting off the supply of pot to the black market has proven to be very difficult. Cutting of the supply of guns has proven to be quite manageable.
Yes, but at what rate? As mentioned earlier, compare Bonnie and Clyde. Or "Machine Gun" Kelly. Or any other gangster during the 20s and 30s. Once the NFA came in, there was a steep and steady drop in the use of FA weapons in crime.
That 1997 DOJ study of crime guns unfortunately lumps together "military-style semi-automatic" guns with automatics, but even that larger category accounted for less than 2% of incidents. Only 5% of inmates reported ever having such a gun.
Granted that handguns have many advantages over assault rifles for criminals, but why would any criminal intentionally use a hunting rifle instead of an automatic weapon? I can think of no reason why these numbers are so low other than that automatic weapons are simply hard to come by.
I think all of those are fine ideas.
And I would expect that to stay true forever, short of a handgun ban. Handguns are (seem to me anyway) the best crime gun for general use. I can see many reasons for choosing a handgun over an automatic AK - I have a very hard time thinking of a reason for choosing a basic .22LR over an automatic AK.
I certainly agree that the motivation behind the AWB is all goofy. Irrational fear combined with lack of understanding.
Not sure about the specifics of current bills, but I believe the original AWB did not prohibit barrel shrouds in general, but counted as a factor barrel shrouds specifically for pistols, if the barrel shroud could be used as a foregrip - I think they were getting at two-handed pistol use, for some reason.
I can buy those categories. But I disagree that politicians don't care about gang shootings. I hear far more political outrage at gang shootings than any other kind of shooting. There are large numbers of bystander killings, and they generally endanger entire neighborhoods.
Here also I disagree about the disinterest. Every city where I have lived this has very much been an active constant topic of political discourse. The problem has perhaps not so much been a lack of political will as a lack of policy consensus. There are a variety of conflicting approaches that have fervent supporters.
Me, I am in the "legalize all drugs" camp. But different issue.
Generally agree. People do tend to overreact to big incidents like this.
Yes and no - clearly there is a mental health/cultural issue that needs to be addressed, but guns make these incidents easier and more violent. That guy in Japan managed to kill 10 without a gun. No go find me another. I doubt you will be able to find as many mass (not serial) killings without guns, worldwide, in the past several decades, as we have had gun sprees just in the last year.
It is possible to kill a bunch of people with a sword or a knife, but it is pretty hard. In fact, I find it rather ironic to hear the "spree killers will just use knives" argument from the gun lobby. That argument rests on the implied premise that knives are just as good at killing as guns. If that is true, then why insist on a gun for self-defense? Why not use a knife instead?
In reality, we all know that guns are the great equalizer. That is the whole point of guns for self-defense. A gun (at least in theory) allows a single person to defend himself against a gang of hoodlums. Yet somehow we are to believe that the Columbine killers would have just as effective with a steak knife.
You might get lucky, but realistically if you plan on a killing spree you need a gun - preferably more than one.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 3:45pm
The problem with the handgun statistics is that to track the number of handguns on the street by how many are confiscated, you'd have to know at least a general number of handguns in circulation to compare to. I don't see how there would be an accurate number to use, because of the sheer number of pistols that have been manufactured and distributed illegally in the past thirty or forty years.
Now-I'll throw in my opinion for gun sales.
I think it was John McCain that came up with what most people considered to be a really ridiculous plan to ban the sale of saturday night specials. For the non gun nerds, that's your run of the mill cheap ass pistol, like your 200 dollar .38 specials, and whatnot. Most of your street thugs carry guns like this, because they're easy to get via straw purchases from pawnshops and so forth.
My plan? Govern A:)where firearms can be sold. Stop all private sales of firearms and force FFL dealers to be at the very least a "mediator" to all firearm sales, so the government can approve and keep track of any and all transactions. And no gun licenses to pawn shops-a weapon, in my opinion, is not something in this society that should be used for currency.
B:) Get rid of the saturday night specials. A 200 dollar pocket pistol is made for one thing-killing with little investment. As cruel as this may seem, I'd be willing to bet most gun violence occurs in lower to middle class neighborhoods-so wouldn't cutting the access to cheap pistols really cut alot of the access that people in those neighborhoods might have to get weapons, and then have those weapons stolen?
C:) Or if that's too crazy, go for a major gun tax for firearms under a certain price. Make it incredibly difficult for just anybody to get a weapon.
I realize that's going to enrage my fellow gun owners, but hey, we gotta make concessions some where. This hobby has definately caused a big price on society, and we should be mature enough to accept that. -------------
|
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 3:50pm
LOL I googled barrel shroud to find out what it is and this was the first thing.
------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 3:52pm
| While someone CAN make a homemade gun were guns made illegal, they can't make a reliable one, and that lowers the risk of it working properly and killing several people. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 5:25pm
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 5:50pm
|
Just to clarify, the barrel shroud they're speaking of is a full barrel suppressor that allows someone to shoot a submachine gun with your hand on the barrel. It's pretty specific, and wouldn't affect things like shotgun shrouds, and whatnot. The bill describes in detail, it's not vague. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 5:58pm
| TOO MANY WORDS!!!!11!!1!! |
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 6:01pm
|
u get me the money and i can have in my possession a missile with a nuke warhead on it... lets say... 2 weeks...
the newest ban i have seen (now with left in power) had the list of features (not sure if it still allowed two or not) then it had a list of guns, THEN it said any gun obtained by any law enforcement or military organization. it went on to say that sporting guns were still legal however "just because they were used in a sport did not make them a sporting gun" and that the DA would have to determine if they were "for sporting use" it also banned the illicit manufacture of firearms, or ammunition (which would kill home built firearms and reloading.) new topic home built firearms... you guys think of home built firearms as zip guns or crude weapons... %20 - http://www.atomiclabrat.com/images/Mac%2010/mac11_9mm_blueprint_and_instructions.pdf mac 11/9 blueprints. now this requires some machining but there are prints for an SMG using parts you can find in a british hardware shop... fittings are different over there but im sure something similer can be made here... now you say large companies are the ones to worry about, but once they become illegal, il bet money that the machinist making 35-40k a year would buy 5K worth of tools and start producing quality firearms and selling them for 2000-3000$ each. ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 6:19pm
|
Anyone with a mill, the appropriate metals, and the know-how can manufacture a firearm. They built them in the basements of Moscow and Berlin in the 1940's while under constant enemy attack. What makes you think it would be impossible to do so in the comfort of your own garage without anyone lobbing 105mm shells at you every 2 seconds? A tilting bolt semi (SVT-30/40, SKS, etc) would be extremely easy to manufacture with a home lathe from Northern Tool given the right blueprints, especially if you chose a firearm that didn't require super-tight tolerances. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 6:36pm
You want gun-type or implosion? Also, what fissile or fusible element for the core? Also, do you want sub-launched, mobile land-launched, or fixed silo capability for the delivery-system? Ohh, and of course, solid or liquid fueled delivery system? It may take me more than 3 days, but I'm pretty sure I could do it given enough time. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 6:52pm
fixed ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 7:10pm
|
Can someone please define what a "assault weapon" is?
Peter Parker: If all guns were made illegal to possess, would you feel safer? I sure as hell woudn't. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 7:21pm
|
So, merc and tallen - you think that with a bucket of money, you could accomplish in two weeks what the governments of Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea, and Al-Qaeda and every other terrorist organization on the planet has failed to do in decades?
And the Predator picture? Awesome.
And Impulse: we are generally (I think) using the AWB definition of "assault weapon." As for the other question: huh?
And yes, with some time, energy, and practice, many people could eventually make a gun. It would take a very long time and it would be a crappy gun. Compare that to a gun factory that stamps out I don't know how many thousands of guns each month, all of excellent quality.
If the only guns in criminals' hands were home-made, it would be a significant improvement over the current situation.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 7:32pm
|
If ALL firearms were made "illegal" over night, would you feel safer? -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 7:50pm
You didn't say "develop a nuclear weapons program" you just said "find a nuclear tipped missile." The two are very very different things Peter. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 7:55pm
| True, someone already did the hard part when you just find one. Think about a cake. Would you rather make a cake, or find a cake that's just as good, and already made? |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 7:57pm
Except for the fact that it misidentifies the Plasma Caster. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:18pm
|
Apparently, criminals will use whatever weapons they can get their hands on, so attacking gun owners is completely irrelevant. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_fe_st/odd_ax_attack;_ylt=Ajfs_COyyR8H9UiniWbwEWUHcggF - Proof ------------- ? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:39pm
Depends on the size of the bucket. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:42pm
Peter, Peter, Peter. You're wrong. Stop it. Lets go piece by piece, and you can show me exactly WHERE it is that I was wrong in what I stated, shall we?
So, true or false?
Again, true or false? -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:50pm
LMFAO EPIC WIN! |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:54pm
Speaking of guns and humor:
I spit mt dew on the keyboard when I saw that. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:56pm
He attacked them. He didn't kill them, like the man who killed 3 cops with a gun recently. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 9:56pm
|
I lol'd -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:23pm
I'll bet you balls to beans that he's charged with 'assault with a deadly weapon' - the same charge he'd get if he missed a shot as a police officer. Cleave a skull with an axe or shoot someone in the brain, it doesn't matter much. Oh, and lighten up. ------------- ? |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:25pm
| the charge doesn't matter maybe, but the balls it takes to do it does. anyone can pop someone from across a room, but it balls to beat someones head in up close. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:30pm
I don't care what he gets charged with. I don't want to lighten up. I was merely stating that the man with the gun managed to kill 3 cops, while the man without the gun managed to kill ZERO. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:31pm
True, but largely irrelevant. Cut a throat up close or pop a guy from a quarter mile away- victim is just as dead, and you're in just as much trouble. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:36pm
This time. Remove guns from the equation, and I'm willing to bet that the zeal with which people commit crimes will give birth to much more skilled attacks with other weapons. How many law enforcement officers (corrections) are killed by violent criminals- who have no access to guns? These people are willing to kill, and not having a gun doesn't seem to stop them. I wonder how many of them ever said "Well, no gun, I guess that plan is out." They're willing to CREATE weapons when there aren't any available. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:46pm
|
Probably not the many corrections officers killed... A gun is a more effective killing machine. Why can't you just agree to that? That is what they are made for... The guy with the knife will be shot by the cop with a gun unless he is surprised from close. Either way, explain how one man with a weapon will be skilled enough to kill 3 men with guns. They usually aren't Jet Li. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 22 April 2009 at 10:58pm
------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:45am
|
I never said violent crime would go away. I didn't even imply it. FInd me some statistics of homeowners actually using their guns to stop a crime. Gun owners may hold onto their guns and claim it is for self defense, but seriously has it ever stopped anything? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:50am
Seriously? Again, google. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:55am
|
If I knew what to google for an answer to that question I would. Still, it probably isn't even significant. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 9:40am
just run a google search for news headlines. Significant in terms of what? It would seem to me that if even ONE person was saved, that's significant. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 9:44am
|
Not really. That one person got lucky. Much like many other people who something bad might have happened except for one random thing. Also, what is saved? Saved from their house being robbed? Saved from being killed? I doubt anything I could find would differentiate, seeing as how if the person was "saved" then you don't know what would have happened. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 10:16am
And those are just the ones sent to American Rifleman in mid February by it's readers. Each one is a newspaper clipping btw, so they aren't just stories made up by readers. That enough for you jmac? There are people being saved from being killed, robbed, possibly raped, etc right there. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 10:18am
|
jmac, I have to be perfectly honest and give you a lot of credit. I could argue with you all day. Though I disagree with you often, you don't turn into a prick, nor do you grow condescending. Thanks. Now, back to the measure at hand. If you 'don't know what would have happened' because the person is 'safe' I count that as a victory. Someone smashes in my front door in the middle of the night. Its pretty obvious he's not from publisher's clearing house. He's more than likely going to rob or attempt to kill the occupants (me) Either way, that's not something that I'd condone- especially if he wants to stick a knife in me. However, you're right, you don't know what his intentions are- especially if he thinks twice and bails when he comes face to face with a licensed, responsible gun owner and his 'ittle friend' (This would NOT be me, I've got a tendency towards cowardice and probably would have made for the nearest window) Why should you have to wait and see what the intentions are before you decide when brandishing a gun is necessary? Being reactive as opposed to pro-active in this situation is a great way to end up a statistic. I'm not saying "Shoot everyone who comes to the door" because that could result in a lot of census people going the way the geese go, but regret is a poor substitute for preparation. I don't really know how we even got on this subject anymore. I probably was responsible for the derailment. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 12:04pm
|
I wasn't saying you want the man in the house. I am also not saying that pulling a gun on him isn't a good way to make them leave. My point was that the criminal may have had no intention to ever even see the homeowner, let alone harm them. They may have thought no one was home. That is why I say that some of these stories(I didn't read Tallen's yet) may act like the responsible gun owner was able to pull out his gun and save his families life when in reality they were never in danger in the first place. I have had someone break into my house. We don't own a gun. The person who was breaking in(and the 2nd person outside) were off running down the street and gone before me or my cousin could even get up because my aunt was screaming. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:09pm
|
Good point, but to use your own logic, you don't know that they WEREN'T in danger. Again, preventative measures in the event that the guy IS intending harm, or even property theft is a lot better than saying "This is what I should have done" True, many people don't break into homes with the intention of doing more than stealing property and when immediately confronted will flee. But if there's even an odd chance that the guy is a deranged lunatic intent on making skinhats, I'd rather be prepared than sorry, and I don't see how that's a bad thing. Does the fact that someone's breaking in mean he's trying to kill us? No. Can I say for sure that he ISN'T trying to kill us? Also no. Odds are that when you drive down the road you're not going to get into a car accident. But just in case, you put a seat belt on. Forget for a minute that its the law- you do it in the event that SHOULD something happen, you're better prepared. Will the seat belt save you for certain? No. Nothing's certain, remember, we're not even sure that you'll get in the accident in the first place. But if you DO get into that wreck, would you rather say "I don't know what would have happened if I didn't have the seat belt on" or "I should have had the seat belt on." ? Part of using a gun as a preventative or reactive safety measure is responsibility. Being able to judge when its necessary is just as important as being able to use it when it is. I believe that the ends justifies the means. If my family is safe because of actions that I take, be it pulling a gun or running out yelling "BOOGIE BOOGIE BOOGIE!" I feel like that's a win. All things considered, there are too many factors. 1. Is the guy going to rob us or harm us or both? 2. Is he armed or not? 3. Could I best him in a physical altercation if he's unarmed? etc. I'd rather be over prepared than caught off guard. ------------- ? |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:12pm
|
So you just want to sit on your hands and hope for the best? Hoping they just steal your tv and leave, then call the police?
I'm not going to shoot someone if I see them in my house holding my beautiful samsung lcd, I will how ever force them to set the tv down gently, force them to lay face down, call the police, and threaten if they move they will regret it ( if they actually got up and ran away with no threat of violence, I would not shoot).
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:16pm
|
I agree that you should be able to be prepared. I just don't like the fact that home defense is used as a huge point when people who just want their guns complain about regulation. If you want your guns, so be it. Just don't try to say that the rifle with a scope on it is for home defense. Also, I just logged back on like at the same time you replied to me...good timing. Oh, and I really do like guns as I say in like every gun thread. They are fun ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:19pm
This is what I'm saying about being able to responsibly use it. Hell, I'll bet that 90% of the time you wouldn't need anything more than a shout or a baseball bat to deter someone from screwing with you. That other 10%, (and I'm just guessing here) when it might be necessary to present a firearm, you could probably do it without pulling a trigger the vast overwhelming majority of the time. But, if you DO have to, Safe money is on being glad you had the means to defend yourself when you needed to. Look at it this way. Guy breaks into house at night to steal TV, with no intention to harm the occupants. Homeowner confronts the guy with a pistol. Guy leaves. Guy breaks into the house WITH ill intent towards the family. He is confronted by the homeowner with a pistol. He might have second thoughts about his plans and take off- crisis averted. He might get shot by the homeowner- threat eliminated. Perhaps he wins, there's always the chance of that happening I suppose, but I'd much rather take a shot (haha) at defending my family rather than end up in a garbage bag in the trunk of a car because I had my fingers crossed that he was only after the jewelry. ------------- ? |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:19pm
What if you live in a mansion, duh.  -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:24pm
Home defense I think IS a big reason that people should be concerned. I don't own a handgun, I haven't gotten around to getting my pistol permit. But I own several rifles. A couple of them are scoped. If I'm being invaded, I'm GOING to take a gun, scoped or not and do my best to defend myself. Its primary use for me is deer hunting or target shooting, but in a pinch, I think it'll serve to eliminate a thread should it become necessary. As far as regulation goes: I'm for much more education than I am legislation although some amount of regulation is obviously necessary, and to claim otherwise is grounds to have what I already own taken away from me because I'm a moron. guns are fun. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:53pm
And this part^ is pretty much the same as my feelings on the subject. I feel that there should be regulation, I don't like everyone being able to have guns because it is "their constitutional right". More education required to get a gun would be fine by me. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 2:58pm
dident u see that show where the drug dude asked the russian club dude how much a nuke sub would be? the russian dude took his phone out and called a friend of his and the friend replied "with or without missiles?" (btw nuke sub w/o missiles is 100M. they went and checked it out but drug dude got busted by DIA) its doable just need to find the right ppl. as for home built firearms i dont think you saw/understood what i said... a half wit machinist (if there is such a thing) can punch out dozens of mil-spec pistols or rifles a day in his home workshop. theres nothing special about manufacturing firearms and tolerances are fairly open. ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:07pm
|
First, on the home-made guns: I am not disputing that clever determined people will find a way to arm themselves. I AM disputing that home-made guns are a relevant part of this discussion. I say this on the basis of observed fact: In no place on the planet where guns are hard to come by does there exist a meaningful amount of home-made guns. The reality is that your average criminal would rather just grab a shank or bicycle chain than go the hassle of making a gun. The folks who have the motivation and capabilities for making guns have better things to do as well, that require less effort, pay better, and attract less legal attention - like pimpin', which isn't as easy as you think.
Similarly, where guns are plentiful (like here), home modifications are minimal. Hoodlums might saw off the barrel, or tape some magazines together, but that's about it. They have certainly not made the effort to convert their semi-automatic assault-type weapons to fully auto, even though this is far less of an operation than actually building a weapon from scratch. Every so often you hear about a full-auto conversion, but it is awfully rare. Heck, people don't even bother to put proper gangsta sights on their guns.
Fact is, your average crook isn't that sophisticated. That's why they are average crooks. Yes, the evil genius criminal master-minds will find a way to get a weapon - but frankly, when Dr. Evil lands again we will thaw out Mr. Powers. In the meantime, the crooks we actually deal with on a regular basis will have a gun only if it is easy and cheap to get one.
Second, on the nuke-getting: I don't care if you build or buy one. Either way is fine by me. And I am going to call shens on the "the Russian offered ABC a sub with missiles" - shens on the Russian, most likely, but shens somewhere along the line anyway.
Again, reality intrudes. Would Osama bin Laden not have nuked us by now if all he needed was a few hundred million or so? Would Iraq/Iran/NK be going though these elaborate, time-consuming, and expensive projects to build nukes if all they had to do was call Nicolas Cage? The proof is in the pudding: The rich bad guys who really want nukes don't have nukes. Therefore nukes are hard to buy and hard to make.
And again, it comes back to the concept of the "criminal" - you guys are using this term like it is a class of identical beings. Like I said, I am a criminal - yet I wouldn't even know where to buy cocaine, let alone an RPG. Most crooks buy the weapons that are readily available. There is a reason why 40% of crime guns come from friends and family.
This copout that there is no point to banning/limiting guns because "criminals will just find another way to get guns" is just that - a copout. It flies directly in the face of observable fact around the world, and observed history right here in the USA. While a ban would not eliminate all crime guns, to say that it would be ineffective is patently false.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:12pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:34pm
|
Good lord, Linus.
Here I try to make a distinction, clarifying your overbroad statement about "criminals" who can somehow always get what they want.
You respond with:
Which I point out is obviously not the case - otherwise every violent criminal would be rocking an RPG all the time, or at least a badass handgun. The reason so many people get killed with .22s is that they are cheap and easy to come by. I am pretty confident that your average gangbanger would rather have a bigger scarier gun.
And I issue you my challenge to find a nuke, and you glibly declare that you can do what Kim Jong Il cannot.
And I point out that bans have been extraordinarily effective in removing a whole bunch of things from the street. Thus proving you wrong.
But instead of admitting that anything I said is correct, you throw up a strawman recharacterization:
That was NOT precisely your point. Nor has anybody ever in the history of ever argued that a ban would make all assault weapons magically disappear. This is a complete bs dodge.
And then you continue with some more non-responsive dodging:
I have never disputed that there are many advantages of handguns over assault rifles. Heck, I have said so myself on more than one occasion. What I did point out in an earlier post, but you ignored, was that crimes specifically using assault weapons went down during the AWB. Handgun crime didn't go up - crimes previously committed with assault rifles shifted over to "regular" longguns. And even if they had shifted to handguns - the point is still that assault weapons were used in drastically fewer crimes shortly after the AWB than they had before. There was a sharp break in the curve, coinciding nicely with the AWB.
And I also pointed back to the NFA, and the even sharper reduction in crimes committed with automatic weapons since then. By your reasoning, criminals prefer semiautomatic AKs over automatic AKs. I guess they want to save ammo, and aren't smart enough to operate a selector switch.
Bottom line - you are throwing up the old canard of "bans don't affect criminals, cuz criminals don't obey laws." That canard is a canard, and has always been a canard.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:47pm
Don't dodge my question for the third time and answer it;
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:53pm
Answered it at length. Twice.
A vague statement cannot be declared simply true or false. That is a false dichotomy. Both of your statements in that post are vague to the point of meaninglessness. Hence my longer answers.
If you would care to make some more meaningful, specific statements, I would be happy to opine on those.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 April 2009 at 8:59pm
|
No, you failed to answer my question directly, and instead took a round-about way, vaguely making an attempt at answering it, but failing to answer it in the way indicated... thrice. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 24 April 2009 at 3:13am
|
Intneresting debate. Time for my 2c.
Firearms used in self defence in the USA run into the millions. Per year the last stat I heard where a firearm was FIRED in self defence was a little over 2 million times. This doesn't count the number for times a firearm was produced and not used. That also happens quite often. Whlie two million isn't a large portion of the population of the States (under 1% IIRC) it sure was significant to those who used them. Rifles with scopes can be SD weapons. How about an AR-15 with an Acog on it? Low light use, ease of use, and yes, it can be a magnified scope. How about a zero magnification red dot like an Aimpoint or such? Red dot sights mean faster aquisition and faster engagements, generally with better results than iron sights. How is this a bad thing on a SD weapon? Firearms aren't made to kill. They are made to launch a ballistic projectile on a predictable, repeatable path. This projectile is very handy at killing, so they do get used to kill yes. However there are plenty of weapons, like the target rifle above that are designed to punch paper. On that note, so is the .45ACP 1911, the 12 guage Rem 870 and the 5.56mm Galil I own. They are competition guns. They aren't killing machines. They CAN be used, and I happen to be able to use them very well as killing machines, but does this make them inherantly more evil? They are just devices. They have no will of their own. They are not the One Ring. They don't dictate my actions. Peter Parker, I LIVE in a country where full auto weapons are outright banned, and you need to go through many many hoops to own semi auto weapons. I had my .22 taken off me because I did not show sufficient motivation the last time I renewed my license, and I'm a registered sport shooter. And here the criminals use full auto AK-47's, AK-74's and military/police issue R4 assaut rifles to rob cash in transit vans. These are weapons that have NEVER been legal in SA. Ever. Yet criminals DO get hold of them. YOU might not be able to, but dedicated criminals can. Have any of your crimes involved firearms, or attacking heavily armed guards? If they did, I'm willing to bet you would be better versed in getting illegal firearms. Passing laws DO only restrict the law abiding, and I'll admit they do give the cops something else to hang on you when they do eventually catch you, but they do NOT magcally prevent you gettting something. I'm a perfectly law abiding citizen, aside from some moving violations, but *I* can get illegal firearms if I want to. It isn't how you obey the laws, it is who you know. KBK |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 24 April 2009 at 7:43am
Kayback:  ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 24 April 2009 at 7:48am
|
I want to say it's probably a bit easier to buy a full auto AK47 in South Africa than the US.... Also, guns are killing machines. Any gun not specifically made for target shooting(like the one pictured earlier) was designed to kill... ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 24 April 2009 at 8:55am
|
I could get you an RPG, full auto M-16, an M-14, several flashbangs, and some body armor if you give me about an hour and a few thousand dollars.
Not even kidding. I dunno about the nuke though. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 24 April 2009 at 9:02am
PM me. I have an offer for you.  ------------- ? |