Assualt Weapons Ban

[1X83Z]

Is this how people really think?

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Actually, I did mean an M16A3. Flattop with a weaver rail and removable carry handle and full auto. (Instead of the A2's burst.)

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The new GTO has 350hp. Sure, people can drive whatever car they want, but what need is there for a car with that power? Thousands of people are killed each year in accidents related to speeding, but NOBODY has ever been killed by a legally owned fully automatic firearm (I looked up the McDonald's incident, it was a semi-automatic Uzi).
.

That's not entirely correct. I can think of at least one instance where a citizen (an employee of HK) killed an attacker with a fully-automatic Mini-14. That weapon was legally owned, and was being transported to the HK facility as a competitor test weapon. The user of the Mini-14 was charged with murder, and, while eventually found not guilty, the event was made into a circus due to the FA weapon. This story, BTW, came from one of the major gun magazines, I think it may have been the COMBAT special by Guns & Ammo.

 

[Ghost C]

That's not entirely correct. I can think of at least one instance where a citizen (an employee of HK) killed an attacker with a fully-automatic Mini-14. That weapon was legally owned, and was being transported to the HK facility as a competitor test weapon. The user of the Mini-14 was charged with murder, and, while eventually found not guilty, the event was made into a circus due to the FA weapon. This story, BTW, came from one of the major gun magazines, I think it may have been the COMBAT special by Guns & Ammo.

One, I meant homicide, not self defense. The fact that no legally owned fully automatic weapon has never been used in any violent crime still stands.

Two, Mini-14's are not fully automatic weapons. They can be converted, but it isn't legal.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The one this guy had was full auto. That was the subject of the whole article, the media circus and huge hassle that reults from using a legally owned Class III weapon.

And, technically, it can be called a crime, as he was tried for murder. It does need to be mentioned, as well, that the guy he shot was armed with a knife.

But, you are right, in true homicides, legal CIII weapons are unheard of. Of course, rifles in general account for less than a percent of the overall homicide rate.

 

[Jpec07]

Alright, I don't really have a problem with owning guns, it's just the fact that assault rifles are so much more lethal than handguns. I would suggest putting even stricter standards in place for the assault rifles, because they are even more dangerous than 'normal' guns.

 

[Ghost C]

Alright, I don't really have a problem with owning guns, it's just the fact that assault rifles are so much more lethal than handguns. I would suggest putting even stricter standards in place for the assault rifles, because they are even more dangerous than 'normal' guns.

Even though rifles are used in less than 3% of violent crimes?

The problem isn't guns, it's the justice system. If every state adopted the Truth-In-Sentencing statute where criminals do a mandatory 85% of their sentence, and if any felony convicts did mandatory prison time, we'd see a sharp drop in crime rate.

If every state adopted a favorable concealed carry law as well, murder and robbery would both be all but eliminated. When Florida adopted favorable CCW laws their murder and robbery rates both went down more than 30%, even while the rest of the nation's murder rate was rising.

 

[CDailey]

It's been hinted at here, but never been explicitly stated, so I've got to say it.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

So true.

I have to quote Chris Tucker on this one.

"Guns don't kill people. Stupid mother****ers with guns kill people!"

 

[Sage]

I don't have time to read through 7 pages of notes on this subject, but here's my quick interjection:

I personally loathe guns, and will never, ever own one, but damn me if I ever say people shouldn't have the right to own them. Once you start outlawing such weapons, then where the heck do you draw the line? Hey, why don't we outlaw steak knives while we're at it, since you can hurt someone else with it? Why stop there – I bet you could strangle somebody to death with a USB cable!

There are laws against killing people. Let me repeat that again – It is illegal to kill another human being. Why, in the name of all that is good, does it matter one bit how you killed that person? Does it matter if you used an AK-47 or a table leg? (I'll have to add that to my notes… vote to ban table legs…)

 

[Talentless]

Grammar of the 2nd amendment. Judge for yourself.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

 

[frestkd]

Not every citizen in Iraq carried guns unless they were loyal to Saddam when he was in power.

Saddam Hussain's idea of gun control was to make sure every citizen carried an assault rifle...don't know if you've seen any pics of Iraq, but they all carry AK47's its their "right" and they still do today.

Chevy your sig does not violate any terms of the AUP, in fact I used to laugh about it myself years ago, along with "I love the smell of napalm in the morning", its just in todays climate you can be taken for a trigger happy redneck. (I'm sure youre not ) Ledhed's sig is fine, because lets face it NOONE has any sympathy for terrorists.

I thought Assault riflles meant things like the M16, AR15, and are "offensive" weapons, not "defensive", and I can't think of any legitimate reason for owning one. King Jame II... you eat what you kill 👍 That is the only reason for killing an animal...but good luck picking out those little lead balls from the dove

Well you guys who own guns seem to have a more responsible attitude than most, but you have to admit there are alot in the US that don't share that with you.

 

[frestkd]

No, there are differences, England gave Canadians their freedom. We had to fight for our freedom from England. The founding fathers of the United States didn't trust a strong central government so they put an amendment into the U.S. Constitution that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. So the people of the United States could overthrow the central government if it got to powerful. Being Canadian you wouldn't understand, because you like to be coddled and have your central government take care of you, tell you what you can and can not do. Tell you that you're not responsible enough to take care of yourself, because they know better. Just like when Hitler blamed the Jews for the problems of Germany, and The Kahmer Rouge blamed the problems on the educated people of Cambodia. How many Jews died because of Hitlers Tyranny? About 6 million give or take a few. 2 million Cambodians that looked ,or were educated died from the hands of the Kahmer Rouge. That's why I think Gun Control is pure evil. It's a tool for the power hungry to get more power.

Oh Ghost C, such a stubborn person you are! I guess there's no way I can say you do NOT "need" to hunt, especially when you live in the US. But from this conclusion stems a much more pertinent one: that of not NEEDING a gun.

Will SOMEBODY please give me a hand in showing how stupid this argument of outlawing heart disease by restricting what people eat actually is? How can you compare people who are friends and relatives of a person who dies of a heart attack to those friends and relatives of a child who was shot in a classroom by a fellow student bringing his parents' gun to school, or a man who accidentally shoots his friend while hunting, or a burglar who breaks into a gun owner's house and in a standoff where the homeowner thinks he's Clint Eastwood, he is shot and killed, along with his family? Sure, come back with your "I am a responsible gun owner" argument that you have been relying on the entire time. Well guess what Ghost? Thousands of gun owners are IRRESPONSIBLE. Take, for example, the guy who said he owns so many guns he doesn't even know where they all are?

When Henry Ford designed his Model T, it wasn't to kill people. It was to help move the people of America across their vast territory. But the first gun, I can assure you, was designed to take life. Please don't forget this, since there's no real threat of anyone taking your gun collection away from you. A gun is not a car no matter how you try to compare the two.

 

[frestkd]

I don't really care about limiting the speed of cars, honestly. My point was, why ban something that has never hurt or killed anyone, but continue to allow something that kills thousands of people anually?

Stupid gun control advocates make my brain hurt.

I live in Arizona where we still have rights. They're not stupid they're ignorant they just don't know any better. Most people in the United States are ignorant about their civil liberties. I'm not one of them.

 

[frestkd]

Is this how people really think?

Yeah a lot of people think that they have the right protect themselves by any means necessary. Like me!

 

[frestkd]

Alright, I don't really have a problem with owning guns, it's just the fact that assault rifles are so much more lethal than handguns. I would suggest putting even stricter standards in place for the assault rifles, because they are even more dangerous than 'normal' guns.

umm how about a 223 Remington Bolt Action rifle? It uses the same round as a Ruger Mini14, AR-15, and M16 which is fully automatic. The Mini14 and AR-15 are semi-automatic and look like assault rifles. As in my veiwpoint of an assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle. Which have been banned since the 1930 unless the person has a class 3

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Actually, the Mini-14 was not banned! They're even available in California!

This fact is one of the most ridiculed facts about the AWB. A weapon like the Mini-14 is just as deadly and effective as the AR series, yet the ARs are banned! This is the often cited proof that the AWB is totally cosmetic nonsense.

 

[Duke]

Is this how people really think?

No. I'm lying.

 

[Famine]

Right - now this has all calmed down, I'm going to make Anderton's points again...

Constitutional right does not equate to need. You do not need a gun to hunt, because you do not need to hunt. There is no physiological reason why you must hunt to exist. I don't hunt - I exist. Ergo you do not need to hunt.

However, it's a hobby - and a perfectly valid one at that. In that respect you DO need a gun. I need a hockey stick to play hockey, a badminton racquet to play badminton and a Driving Force Pro to play GT4 - so you need a gun to hunt. That IS your right - but do not pretend it's a biological necessity.


Similarly, you do not NEED a gun for home protection. I feel perfectly safe in my home, thanks to a large collection of fully-sealed double-glazed units and more deadbolts than Legg. Owning a gun would not make me feel more or less safe - nor would it actually make me any more or less safe... If my gun was stored away in a locked safe, how would I get to it to defend myself against an armed intruder in my garden? However, in the USA it is again your Constitutional right.


The semantics of this boil down to, if you wish to have, in your possession, a weapon for whatever legal purpose, should you have one which will put a bullet in the intended target, or one which would put a bullet through an intended target, out the other side, through a brick wall and into another "object"?

Comparisons with vehicle power are moot - cars may cause many deaths each year, but, to paraphrase, "Cars don't kill people - people kill people". Cars are designed as a tool of rapid, mass transport. Guns are designed as a tool of rapid, remote death - THAT is the distinction. A person who kills with their car is, usually, causing an accident outside the design parameters of the vehicle. A person who kills with a gun is, usually, utilising that gun to its full original remit. Furthermore, we are all forced to take a competancy test in order to use one in public, yet the impression I get is that, as a Constitutional right, there is no competancy test in order to wander around the streets with a gun. Is it truly harder to get a driving licence in the USA than a gun?

That said, no, you don't NEED a car either - it merely facilitates your getting to and from work/home/shops.


Do not take this as a "Guns cause death. Ban them all now!" post. As I stated earlier, I detest them and wouldn't own one, but would not wish to take away your right to bear arms and, if they were legal in this country, I wouldn't want to take away the right of my next-door neighbour to own one to "protect" herself an her young daughter.

 

[PhatFat]

I dont know about you guys but when the ban expired my life suddenly became endangered hundreds of criminals rushed to gun stores bought weapons and have been killing non stop. It would be on the news but they killed all the reporters.

 

[LoudMusic]

Death To All The Commie Bastards!

 

[ExigeEvan]

The was an article in the paper (Daily telegraph ) about the AWB. And their examples for an assault weapon was Uzi's and AK-47's. Would anyone in the USA think of getting an AK-47? As it pretty much symbolises terrorism in the middle-east.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Would anyone in the USA think of getting an AK-47? As it pretty much symbolises terrorism in the middle-east.

Tounge in cheek question I feel!

Its a damm fine gun though, made in 1947 (hence the name) and still going strong. Its cheap as anything, $20 from Russia surplus (probably $400 in a legit shop), uses standard 7.62mm NATO rounds, so plenty available. You can hit it with a hammer and its still good, bury it in sand and leave it for a week and it still fires!
Not very accurate as the whole thing bends and twists under firing, but less than 50 feet on full auto...formidable.

You say it symbolises terrorism, but to me its a symbol of Russian technology. Simple/Rugged/Long Lasting/Effective with no frills

 

[Event]

Now that the ban s expired, i went out and bought an M4 with M203 Grenade launcher, M248, M16, and a 24 Pack of grenades. I'm gonna go kill me some squirrels!

I also bought a 6 pack of Mac-10s for those pesky rats and c.o.c.kroaches around the house.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You say it symbolises terrorism, but to me its a symbol of Russian technology. Simple/Rugged/Long Lasting/Effective with no frills

Originally I would agree, but now it is used by so many different terrorist groups that it is difficult to see it used by anyone else.
I disagree with guns in teh house but I really want an air rifle . But with a very concientous (sp?) mum and a 7 yr old brother who is VERY clever it would be too risky.

 

[High-Test]

One more thing About our friend the Kalashnikov is that the russians didn't totally Invent it. The germans first used it in late 1944, and when the russians charged westward they saw what a great gun it was and sent it to their engineers to modify it. thus, The Kalashnikov AK-47 was born.

i went out and bought an M4 with M203 Grenade launcher

Say ello to my little friend!

 

[ExigeEvan]

I thought it was designed by a Russian General . Oh well, you seem to have done your research.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

One more thing About our friend the Kalashnikov is that the russians didn't totally Invent it. The germans first used it in late 1944, and when the russians charged westward they saw what a great gun it was and sent it to their engineers to modify it.

Me too, I thought it was totally Russian, it replaced the SKS 45 and was started in 1946 by Mikhail Kalashnikov a Russian Sergeant. Also I didn't think the Germans used 7.62mm, only 9mm in there semi and fully auto weapons.
But I'm willing to learn new things

 

[Ghost C]

One more thing About our friend the Kalashnikov is that the russians didn't totally Invent it. The germans first used it in late 1944, and when the russians charged westward they saw what a great gun it was and sent it to their engineers to modify it. thus, The Kalashnikov AK-47 was born.

Actually, the Russians were getting their asses handed to them by the German's assault rifles, and sent Mikhail Kalishnikov to design something to be better than it. As you can see, Mikhail succeeded. It's been 57 years since it was first produced and about 100 countries use them as their standard fighting rifle.

As for whoever said the Kalishnikov was inaccurate, wrong. I had an AK-47, and they're extremely accurate. Hell, they're digging AK's out of the mud in 'Nam, kicking the rusted bolt open, and firing them.

I miss my AK sometimes. But the next assault rifle I purchase will be a Cetme .308.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The German weapon, the MP-44/StG-44, did strongly resemble the AK-47. However, that's where the similarity ends. The weapons function completely differently.

I was really shocked at how uneducated people are about AWB. My own mother told me last night that she was scared because terrorists can now walk into the local gun store and buy fully automatic AKs and Uzis. She was shocked when I told her what the AWB actually affected.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

As for whoever said the Kalishnikov was inaccurate, wrong.

It was being compared to the M16, super slo-motion showed the whole gun deform as it was firing, making long range shooting inferior to the M16, but its close range killing power was far better. In woods the AK shot through the trees! where against the 5.56mm M16 trees offered cover.

Hell, they're digging AK's out of the mud in 'Nam, kicking the rusted bolt open, and firing them.

Its ruggedness is legendary 👍

I don't have any stats, but considering how many wars it has been in, the AK47 has probably killed more people than any other gun!

Edit: I'll qualify that with "modern gun" ie post WWII because the Russians took 20million casualties