Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[Ares1978 0]

How about fixing the laws that they'd work and actually prevent such tragedies.

Yes, how about fixing the laws so that they actually work? We already know the ban didn't.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah and the relevant purpose to own weapons has all but ceased since 18th century. What I was implying had they seen the purpose of today's gun ownership they never would have approved or had they realized how effective modern weapons are in killing people. One man with a musket can hardly cause a massacre.

People defending against 'possible rise of tyranny' is quite pathetic fantasy excuse.

Humans are affected by their personal tragedies and with easy access to guns that misery is easy to spread on innocents.

The purpose exists as long as society exists, and the need to be able to defend oneself against tyranny hasn't gone anywhere since then. The "excuse", as you call it, is now more valid than ever before. (You know what happened in our country in 1918.) They would be proud to see that the right is still exercised as it was supposed to. And if one man with a knife can cause a massacre, then why not a man with a musket.

[Blake 0]

Just quick comments on your arsenal:

Quote[/b] ]Glock 19 - used for small game and sometimes deer.

Well I wouldn't call Glock primarily a hunting weapon. It's design for Austrian army initially and adopted by police forces around the world. You could easily use some .22 bolt action instead for hunting small game.

Quote[/b] ]if ur a bad shot ur can hit a running deer due to the semi-auto

I'd say that shooting deer with an assault rifle is rather 'unsportsmanlike'. Some old bold action rifle should do the job just fine.

[Ares1978 0]

Shotgun - Deer hunting.  Works great.  Pump-action, yet by the time I recover from the recoil its already "pumped".  More lethal then a semi? Nope.  Just as much.  Would I use this on a Fox? Hell no.  Id have fur and bones to pick up.

Use #2 shot and you'll get that fox without messing it up too bad. ;)

[Skewballzz 0]

Quote[/b] ]if ur a bad shot ur can hit a running deer due to the semi-auto

I'd say that shooting deer with an assault rifle is rather 'unsportsmanlike'. Some old bold action rifle should do the job just fine.

i agree that 10 shots to take down a deer is "unsportsmanlike" but is it the governments right to state that?

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]if ur a bad shot ur can hit a running deer due to the semi-auto

I'd say that shooting deer with an assault rifle is rather 'unsportsmanlike'. Some old bold action rifle should do the job just fine.

i agree that 10 shots to take down a deer is "unsportsmanlike" but is it the governments right to state that?

I would hardly call hunting a sport.

[Ares1978 0]

I'd say that shooting deer with an assault rifle is rather 'unsportsmanlike'. Some old bold action rifle should do the job just fine.

Unsportsmanlike? It's supposed to cause the deer as little suffering as possible, not be a "sport". If an assault weapon makes it quicker for the deer, then it's better than any bolt action rifle.

Again. "Assault weapon" is not the same as "assault rifle".

[Blake 0]

i agree that 10 shots to take down a deer is "unsportsmanlike" but is it the governments right to state that?

Why shouldn't it have the right? Because those then quickly fired shots can take down effectively also other things than deer. If somebody can't take down a deer with standard bolt-action rifle they shouldn't hunt at all.

[Ares1978 0]

i agree that 10 shots to take down a deer is "unsportsmanlike" but is it the governments right to state that?

Yes. The government says you should only be able to wound it, not kill it.If you can't kill it with 10 rounds, it must suffer for days until it dies. That's the law. That's the humane thing to do.

[Gordy 0]

i agree that 10 shots to take down a deer is "unsportsmanlike" but is it the governments right to state that?

Why shouldn't it have the right? Because those then quickly fired shots can take down effectively also other things than deer. If somebody can't take down a deer with standard bolt-action rifle they shouldn't hunt at all.

How do you think they learn? One won't learn this unless one tries. I don't think there are hunters who took up a rifle and there you go-They are hunters who can take out the deer with one shot.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]The "excuse", as you call it, is now more valid than ever before. (You know what happened in our country in 1918.)

Finland had just gained independence and there was a revolt against legal government by people having easy access to guns. Both sides had guns, but mostly bought during the conflict. And the result was 30,000 dead and legal government won. How does that contribute anything positive for people having guns?   Wouldn't the result be better and more peaceful if the legal government only had guns?

And explain to me please how it is more valid than ever to own guns?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now you are insulting me. That is normal for Germans.

Where did I insult you ?

I will go over the "That is normal for Germans."

It speaks for itself...

Quote[/b] ]No amandments were made for Polish constitution. Is it clear now?

No it´s not. Explain.

Quote[/b] ]I never said anything about crime statistics going up after the ban.

You postred an articel where exactly this was stated and told me to shut up because I wouldn´t know shit. That´s what you said. Now as you know obviously more than the rest of us post a source to enlighten us. If you miss such source how can you defend the claim ?

Not very logical, is it ?

Quote[/b] ]I completely disagree with people who say: "ban this or that". That is the simplest way to clear consciense for people like you.

Oh , so you are an outlaw who doesn´t need bans ?

Ok than let´s unban chemical weapons for civillians, biological as well and while we´re at it we should release all prisoners imprisoned for pedophilia , right ?

You´re talking nonsense.

Quote[/b] ]US is a country of over 200 years of a gun. There is no possible way of changing that with one simple BAN.

Oh so China should be historically been blown up by it´s citizens on a daily rate only because they invented black powder ?

I don´t say handguns should get banned. Or hunting rifles. But spreading military weapons with magazine capacities beyond overkill and a caliber that will go through your bloodlusty thief and the neighbours house plus the Kindergarten nearby is a must have.. I see

Sure it´s fun to pump deer with multiple bullets....

A good hunter needs no automatic rifle to face deer.

Neither does a houseowner need to have an automatic rifle to defend his home...just in case...a pistol will do a much better job.

Quote[/b] ]The ban was brought up by Politics who want to please the voters.

So what ? If a majority of people is for a ban, it´s not ok ?

That´s called democracy man...one thing you try to promote worldwide right now...

[Ares1978 0]

Why shouldn't it have the right? Because those then quickly fired shots can take down effectively also other things than deer. If somebody can't take down a deer with standard bolt-action rifle they shouldn't hunt at all.

Why should it have the right? Why would somebody who needs 30 rounds to take down a deer be more dangerous than somebody who only needs one, if he would suddenly snap and go on a shooting spree?

[Ares1978 0]

Finland had just gained independence and there was a revolt against legal government by people having easy access to guns. Both sides had guns, but mostly bought during the conflict. And the result was 30,000 dead and legal government won. How does that contribute anything positive for people having guns?    Wouldn't the result be better and more peaceful if the legal government only had guns?

And explain to me please how it is more valid than ever to own guns?

The people supporting the legal government against tyranny won, because they had access to guns and the skills to use them. The communists were backed by the Soviets and you should be aware of what would have happened if the commies had won. The legal government alone could not have made it without the people's support.

[Ares1978 0]

So what ? If a majority of people is for a ban, it´s not ok ?

That´s called democracy man...one thing you try to promote worldwide right now...

The loudest minority is hardly the same as the majority. That's not democracy.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]somebody who needs 30 rounds to take down a deer be more dangerous than somebody who only needs one, if he would suddenly snap and go on a shooting spree?

It's really simply question about the lethality of a weapon. Assault rifles are especially design for modern military, to kill people as effectively as possible. If those two identical guys would go on a killing spree, one with bolt-action other with assault rifle, which one would cause more deaths?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]The communists were backed by the Soviets and you should be aware of what would have happened if the  commies had won. The legal government alone could not have made it without the people's support.

You're missing the point, it was a CIVIL WAR. People vs. People with equal access to guns.People on the losing side had access to civilian guns. Gun ownership didn't decide the war which was won by guns and machineguns obtained from others foreing powers. What I was asking, how did the gun ownership contribute alone since both sides had access to equal amounts of guns?

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now you are insulting me. That is normal for Germans.

Where did I insult you ?

I will go over the "That is normal for Germans."

It speaks for itself...

Quote[/b] ]No amandments were made for Polish constitution. Is it clear now?

No it´s not. Explain.

Quote[/b] ]I never said anything about crime statistics going up after the ban.

You postred an articel where exactly this was stated and told me to shut up because I wouldn´t know shit. That´s what you said. Now as you know obviously more than the rest of us post a source to enlighten us. If you miss such source how can you defend the claim  ?

Not very logical, is it ?

Quote[/b] ]I completely disagree with people who say: "ban this or that". That is the simplest way to clear consciense for people like you.

Oh , so you are an outlaw who doesn´t need bans ?

Ok than let´s unban chemical weapons for civillians, biological as well and while we´re at it we should release all prisoners imprisoned for pedophilia , right ?

You´re talking nonsense.

Quote[/b] ]US is a country of over 200 years of a gun. There is no possible way of changing that with one simple BAN.

Oh so China should be historically been blown up by it´s citizens on a daily rate only because they invented black powder ?

I don´t say handguns should get banned. Or hunting rifles. But spreading military weapons with magazine capacities beyond overkill and a caliber that will go through your bloodlusty thief and the neighbours house plus the Kindergarten nearby is a must have.. I see

Sure it´s fun to pump deer with multiple bullets....

A good hunter needs no automatic rifle to face deer.

Neither does a houseowner need to have an automatic rifle to defend his home...just in case...a pistol will do a much better job.

Quote[/b] ]The ban was brought up by Politics who want to please the voters.

So what ? If a majority of people is for a ban, it´s not ok ?

That´s called democracy man...one thing you try to promote worldwide right now...

There is no ground for to talk as I see.

1. yes you did refering to my brain functionality.

2. I am from and live in Poland. Can't be clearer about that.

3. I didn't say "you know shit and shut up" just a specialist with approx 20 years of experience in the field will know more than you.

4. No-one needs bans as human nature creates natural resistance to all kinds of "above steering" (not very English). One has to be a slave in nature in order to not question such laws.

5. China was never a democracy. It changes everything as people there, have completely different culture and mentality.

6. I doubt that you are capable (living in Bavaria) judge what a housewife needs.

7. Politics please the mob with strange laws that change nothing. So the mob knows that there is a law and a gunmen know they still can buy a .50 beawulf but just a bit more expencive. Is this a good example of democracy?

[Ares1978 0]

It's really simply question about the lethality of a weapon. Assault rifles are especially design for modern military, to kill people as effectively as possible. If those two identical guys would go on a killing spree, one with bolt-action other with assault rifle, which one would cause more deaths?

I wonder what Charles Whitman would answer..

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder what Charles Whitman would answer..

'I wish I had an M-14'

With assault rifle you don't even have to be expert marksman to cause mayhem in a mall. Whitman was a trained marine.

[Gordy 0]

It's really simply question about the lethality of a weapon. Assault rifles are especially design for modern military, to kill people as effectively as possible. If those two identical guys would go on a killing spree, one with bolt-action other with assault rifle, which one would cause more deaths?

I wonder what Charles Whitman would answer..

sth about effective assault rifles:

Quote[/b] ]

I carried an M4 in Iraq during my deployment there with the 502d. I did engage on several occasions, but only once did I witness the effects immediately and up close. 2 guys in my squad engaged a guy at under 50m. He was hit multiple times, fell on the ground, and continued to fire on us with his AK. I was moving from the middle of the squad forward, re-positioning the trail team as this went on, and when I moved up with the lead team, I got pretty close to the 'bad guy'. I shot him once in the head and once in the chest, and my RTO also shot him several more times simultaneously. He finally croaked off, but had prepped himself for what he knew was coming....when he died the spoon flipped on the grenade he was holding and BLAM. He was wearing no body armor, and even with the effects of his grenade on his corpse, it was evident we had shot him more than 20 times. And he was still alive enough to continue shooting, pull out a grenade and try to take us with him. Would he have died eventually of his bullet wounds? Without a doubt. EVENTUALLY. But as you guys are probably aware, eventually isn't good enough. We like our 'bad guys' to turn into 'dead guys' when we shoot them.

[SpongeBob 0]

It's really simply question about the lethality of a weapon. Assault rifles are especially design for modern military, to kill people as effectively as possible. If those two identical guys would go on a killing spree, one with bolt-action other with assault rifle, which one would cause more deaths?

I wonder what Charles Whitman would answer..

That guy shot an unborn baby in the head. He must of used wallhacking and aimbot cheats.

[Balschoiw 0]

To all those who think that no gun regulations make your country safer:

[Gordy 0]

To all those who think that no gun regulations make your country safer:

]http://www.ciahome.net/images/cookbook/COALITIONGCS0002.jpg[/img]

None of those countries is US alike.

What U have to understand is US is a multinational country beyond any measure. You keep comparing it to very uniform countries.

In US you have loads of national, racial, religious communities that will not live with each other in peace.

It is not that simple.

[Ares1978 0]

You're missing the point, it was a CIVIL WAR. People vs. People with equal access to guns.People on the losing side had access to civilian guns. Gun ownership didn't decide the war which was won by guns and machineguns obtained from others foreing powers. What I was asking, how did the gun ownership contribute alone since both sides had access to equal amounts of guns?

No, you are obviously missing the point here. It was gun ownership that allowed the anti-communist civilians to learn how to use firearms in the first place. The workers backed by the Soviets had generally had almost no previous contact with firearms and they performed poorly because of it, despite the fact that they had planes, armored trains and armored cars and the government didn't.

And who said anything about it "contributing alone"?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is no ground for to talk as I see.

1. yes you did refering to my brain functionality.

2. I am from and live in Poland. Can't be clearer about that.

3. I didn't say "you know shit and shut up" just a specialist with approx 20 years of experience in the field will know more than you.

4. No-one needs bans as human nature creates natural resistance to all kinds of "above steering" (not very English). One has to be a slave in nature in order to not question such laws.

5. China was never a democracy. It changes everything as people there, have completely different culture and mentality.

6. I doubt that you are capable (living in Bavaria) judge what a housewife needs.

7. Politics please the mob with strange laws that change nothing. So the mob knows that there is a law and a gunmen know they still can buy a .50 beawulf but just a bit more expencive. Is this a good example of democracy?

To 1: I did not know that come from Poland as you quoted US sources... anyway where was the insult ?

2. Now I know...maybe your profile could need a little update...

3. You did.

4. Irrelevant, see my examples on the previous page.

5. Irrelevant, it was just an example contradicting your logical plot.

6. I am, as I do cook a lot and do a lot of housework to support my girlfriend. What is the point of this anyway

7. Democracy is democracy. Majority decisions done by a political process is representing the citizens attitude towards an issue. Your example is... again irrelevant.

I´m still waiting for some serious answers. And the comment about germans was not asked for and displaced, or did I say that you can find most of the german cars that were stolen here in Poland right now ? Something like that is mob´s attitude and talking. I do not participate in such mud throwing contest.

You want to make me look like this ?