Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[Ares1978 0]

Quote[/b] ]ps. It's AD, not ND.

So much for your knowledge on firearms...

Abbreviations don't have anything to do with firearms knowledge. Something even you should know.

[ralphwiggum 6]

seems like you are now resorting to avoiding/dodging manouver instead of debating, and with that i see no point of having a discussion. But I'll remember the great comments by you, especially ones that related to democracy, and not knowing abbreviation ND, which you would have known if you were genuinely interested in safety, and the logic of 'one's son is same as the father'.

Exactly what you have been doing for most of this discussion and it's pretty boring.

here are some quotes of yours

Quote[/b] ]It's not democracy when the majority isn't even heard.

The example was pretty much the situation in the US today.

Quote[/b] ]Why can't you admit that the weapon itself is not lethal, it's the person using it that makes the decision?

and again with your reply to my post, you said,

Quote[/b] ]Exactly what you have been doing for most of this discussion and it's pretty boring.

provide examples?

Quote[/b] ]About ND and other abbreviations, if I ask you to HV, what would you say?

the difference between my use of ND and your use of HV was that I had context all set up while you didn't.

Quote[/b] ]ps. It's AD, not ND.

look at Rook's post.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]one of puppy's paw caught the trigger and the round went off.

And of course, this never happens when someone is trying to take your gun.

If you don't own a gun, fine. But if you have never fired one, you really don't know what you are talking about.

That's like me talking about airplane safety.

although airline safety is discussed and pilots are asked to give in put, it's bureaucrats, not pilots who dictate airline safety guidlines.

How can a puppy set off a revolver? Unless it was already cocked, their trigger pulls are in the 10lb range, which is from light for those that have experienced it. Either way, definately an ND due to stupidity.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/09/shooting.dog.ap/index.html

maybe the idiot cocked it?

[Gordy 0]

seems like you are now resorting to avoiding/dodging manouver instead of debating, and with that i see no point of having a discussion. But I'll remember the great comments by you, especially ones that related to democracy, and not knowing abbreviation ND, which you would have known if you were genuinely interested in safety, and the logic of 'one's son is same as the father'.

Exactly what you have been doing for most of this discussion and it's pretty boring.

here are some quotes of yours

Quote[/b] ]It's not democracy when the majority isn't even heard.

The example was pretty much the situation in the US today.

Quote[/b] ]Why can't you admit that the weapon itself is not lethal, it's the person using it that makes the decision?

and again with your reply to my post, you said,

Quote[/b] ]Exactly what you have been doing for most of this discussion and it's pretty boring.

provide examples?

Quote[/b] ]About ND and other abbreviations, if I ask you to HV, what would you say?

the difference between my use of ND and your use of HV was that I had context all set up while you didn't.

Quote[/b] ]ps. It's AD, not ND.

look at Rook's post.

Shouldn't you close the thread or direct it to its proper topic?

You argue about who said what and why instead talk about the pro or anti assault weapons ban.

It is clear who thinks what about it right now. Not even funny anymore nor interesting.

[turms 0]

Sprongebob posted this pic in the military stupidity thread.

Hilarious

[m21man 0]

@Denoir - Check these out, they're from the same site that you quoted

Assault Victims

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_vic

Burglaries

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap

Total Crimes

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap

Quote[/b] ]Twice as many rapes per capita in the US.

And meanwhile gun-controlling Australia had more than twice the rape rate of the US...

[Ares1978 0]

RalphWiggum,

You probably hid a point somewhere in that post, but I couldn't find it. In my opinion you have been flamebaiting through this whole thread.

[denoir 0]

@Denoir - Check these out, they're from the same site that you quoted

Assault Victims

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_vic

Burglaries

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap

Total Crimes

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap

Quote[/b] ]Twice as many rapes per capita in the US.

And meanwhile gun-controlling Australia had more than twice the rape rate of the US...

And now read again what I posted:

Quote[/b] ]

What you are refering to is the ambiguous term "crime rate", which is useless for comparing countries since every country calculates it differently. For instance in the EU every reported crime is entered in the statistics while in the US it is entered when somebody is convicted. Also if there are multiple crimes, in the EU they are listed as separate instances while in the US they are entered as one. So the numbers are simply not comparable. (source, in Swedish).

Hence when you look at "crime rates" internationally, like this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap

you get absurdities like Denmark having a crime rate that is five times the one in Russia and ten times the one in Mexico or twenty times the one in Colombia

Unless of course you wish to claim that the little kingdom of Denmark is 20 more times crime-ridden than Colombia.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]And now read again what I posted:

Yes, and that makes pretty much all data on that site null-and-void. At the very least, you can't use the rape stat.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]And now read again what I posted:

Yes, and that makes pretty much all data on that site null-and-void. At the very least, you can't use the rape stat.

It makes the data null-and-void for certain areas in an absolute sense. From the methodology used, you can however conclude that for the same amount of actual crime, the US figures will be lower (by just nothing when there is a conviction) relative the EU ones (where every reported crime is entered into the statistics).

So when the US stats reports a higher rate of rapes, you can be very certain that they are actually higher.

It also depends on the crime itself. Murders are much more often solved than burglaries for instance. Hence the reported/convicted numbers should be pretty similar. Hence you can probably make a pretty good comparison between US crime stats and EU crime stats. In the case of burglaries on the other hand, few end up in a conviction so the EU stats (listing all reported) will be far higher than the US stats (listing all convictions).

[DanAK47 1]

And of course this is directly related to guns, and not the disposition of the general population.

Gosh, all those times I saw murderers on TV I thought it was because they were twisted people. Now I know, all along it was their gun beaming messages into their brain!

Next time I go shooting I will bring a tinfoil hat.

[RooK 0]

No, AD and ND both exist. AD is when the firearm malfunctions, ND is when the person malfunctions.

No, AD describes any given situation where the user "malfunctions". There's nothing A when the firearm malfunctions and D:s. Apparently ND is nothing more than the PC version of AD.

There is nothing accidental (AD) about placing your finger on the trigger and shooting something you didn't mean to, or failing to unload a firearm and you point it at someone and shoot them. Those are negligent discharges (ND), i.e. you're to blame for stupidity and lack of following proper procedures on your part.

ADs happen when a sear breaks, a saftey fails to function, or a gun doubles or triples by itself. Those are accidents and there is no way you could ever prepare for them and conditions you had no control over.

90%+ of so called "accidents" are NDs, created by the user not following gun saftey or doing activites they shouldn't.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Something even you should know.

Well I´m a level 6 weapon instructor (combined military assault weapon instructor) and that´s why I DO know what I´m talking about. Obviously you tend to underestimate your opponents in verbal discussions.

[Ares1978 0]

Quote[/b] ]Something even you should know.

Well I´m a level 6 weapon instructor (combined military assault weapon instructor) and that´s why I DO know what I´m talking about. Obviously you tend to underestimate your opponents in verbal discussions.

Sure you are. I myself have not witnessed or caused a single AD (or ND) in my entire life, if that gives you some idea of the level of discipline that are upheld in these circles.

If there's anything I'm guilty of, it's overestimating my "opponents". It's obvious to me that you consider abbreviations that are language dependant to be somehow important as a measurment of firearms knowledge, so how could I possibly have underestimated you by laughing at your claim?

There is nothing accidental (AD) about placing your finger on the trigger and shooting something you didn't mean to, or failing to unload a firearm and you point it at someone and shoot them.  Those are negligent discharges (ND), i.e. you're to blame for stupidity and lack of following proper procedures on your part.

ADs happen when a sear breaks, a saftey fails to function, or a gun doubles or triples by itself.  Those are accidents and there is no way you could ever prepare for them and conditions you had no control over.

90%+ of so called "accidents" are NDs, created by the user not following gun saftey or doing activites they shouldn't.

That's precisely what it is. An accidental discharge. There's nothing negligent about it. You can follow every rule and still have an AD. Or what you would call an ND. The things you call AD's are malfunctions and should be called malfunctions. If you want to call anything negligent, it would be a case where the manufacturer and/or the owner neglected to make sure the weapon works as it should.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's obvious to me that you consider abbreviations that are language dependant to be somehow important as a measurment of firearms knowledge

Yes as there are two expressions, AD and ND. Both are common, both do exist, but you fail to see the difference.

Oh and I´ve witnessed both at the range and during the use of firearms. Stupidity has no limits and weapons do malfunction under certain circumstances. You laugh ? Well, maybe you should ask some guys who deal with guns on a regular base. I guess they will tell you, that there´s nothing to laugh about AD´s and ND´s....

[Ares1978 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's obvious to me that you consider abbreviations that are language dependant to be somehow important as a measurment of firearms knowledge

Yes as there are two expressions, AD and ND. Both are common, both do exist, but you fail to see the difference.

Oh and I´ve witnessed both at the range and during the use of firearms. Stupidity has no limits and weapons do malfunction under certain circumstances. You laugh ? Well, maybe you should ask some guys who deal with guns on a regular base. I guess they will tell you, that there´s nothing to laugh about AD´s and ND´s....

Goddamn, this is boring. Obviously you didn't understand what I was laughing at. And even though you won't accept it, I deal with guns on a regular basis even though my vocabulary doesn't come from Guns&Ammo.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's obvious to me that you consider abbreviations that are language dependant to be somehow important as a measurment of firearms knowledge

Yes as there are two expressions, AD and ND. Both are common, both do exist, but you fail to see the difference.

Oh and I´ve witnessed both at the range and during the use of firearms. Stupidity has no limits and weapons do malfunction under certain circumstances. You laugh ? Well, maybe you should ask some guys who deal with guns on a regular base. I guess they will tell you, that there´s nothing to laugh about AD´s and ND´s....

Goddamn, this is boring. Obviously you didn't understand what I was laughing at. And even though you won't accept it, I deal with guns on a regular basis even though my vocabulary doesn't come from Guns&Ammo.

Bals is German. Therefore his use of english terms stem from commonly used phrases. Furthermore, I've respected his opinion for years, so your criticsm of his vocabulary seems quite petty in my opinion.

[Ares1978 0]

Bals is German. Therefore his use of english terms stem from commonly used phrases. Furthermore, I've respected his opinion for years, so your criticsm of his vocabulary seems quite petty in my opinion.

I know where he's from, it's not like he's keeping it a secret. The criticism was justified. His use of english terms was not the issue, it's a matter of whether or not it is reasonable to expect someone to know what the term, or in this case more specifically the abbreviation, means, and up until the moment he started whining about it, I had some respect for his opinion.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Comparisons between different countries

Differences in definitions of violent crime make international comparisons problematic, and account for at least some of the apparent differences in recorded violent crime rates between countries.

Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the USA and Canada do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation, and threats within their definition of violent crime. However, New Zealand does include these crimes in its definition, and these offences comprise approximately half of all violent crime in this country. Also, New Zealand does not include sexual offences in violent crime, whereas Australia, USA, Canada, England and Wales do.

Besides definitional differences, recorded crime figures are likely to be affected by many other factors including:

Rates at which crimes are reported to, and recorded by, the police. For example, the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey of seventeen countries (not including New Zealand) indicated that from country to country the percentage of robbery offences reported to the police ranged from approximately 30 to 75 percent; assaults with force ranged from approximately 15 to 70 percent; threats ranged from approximately 20 to 55 percent; and reporting rates for sexual assaults ranged from approximately 28 to 65 percent. In the 1996 New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims, it was estimated that 23.6 percent of robberies, 32.8 percent of non-domestic assaults, and 18.5 percent of non-domestic threats were reported to the Police. It should also be noted, however, that comparisons drawn between different countries' crime surveys may be of limited use due to factors such as differences in survey design, coverage, response rates, methodology for data collection and offence definitions;

Differences in the point at which crime is recorded. Generally, crime appears to be recorded when preliminary investigations provide sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed. Some countries record crime, however, when the offence is reported to the police, while other countries may not record a crime until a suspect is identified and papers are forwarded to the prosecutor;

Differences in the rules when counting multiple offences by individuals. For example, in New Zealand, recorded crime data indicates one count for every offence recorded, regardless of how many were committed by the same individual. In some countries multiple crimes of the same type, occurring within the same incident may be recorded as one crime, depending on the type of crime;

Whether crime rates are counted in terms of the number of offences, or the number of victims. In New Zealand, all offences arising from a single incident or in relation to a single victim are normally counted. In contrast, in some other jurisdictions there are "hierarchy rules" so that only the most serious offence is counted;

Changes in data quality over time; and  

The population standards used to calculate crime rates per capita. Some countries employ adult populations in these calculations, while others use total population. When the total population is used, the resulting crime rate per capita is lower than when adult population figures are employed.  

It is strongly recommended that these issues be reported along with any comparisons drawn between different countries' violent crime rates.

So in short. Statistical comparisons are pure bullshit and made for mentally disabled people like NRA members.

Secondly the logic, that a gun protects you stands against the argument that "criminals always carry weapons". And we know that 2 people being armed will shoot rather than droping their guns. Cant hear this bullshit anymore. What reasonable argument could there be to ever defend the right to carry around automatic rifles. It is the old story of unemployed redneck farmers that still fear the communist invasion and the scientology member willing to defend his country against the "evil muslims".

[Balschoiw 0]

Whining ? What have you been smoking. Is it whining to tell someone that he is absolutely wrong about fixed expressions ?

So...I assume you accuse Rook of whining also, right ?

And I did not get my knowledge on firearms from any magazines, as I don´t read weapon magazines. I got these expressions from my instructors like anyone else...except you.

It´s funny that you are the one who didn´t get them right but still claim to be the expert. Speaks for itself.

Anyway this is in my opinion a good and worth read approach to assault weapons in civillian hands. Worth a read:

The case for banning assault weapons

Some more governmental brainfood:

Background Paper: Can Small Arms and Light Weapons Be Controlled? , US departement of state

They´re all wrong, right ?

[Ares1978 0]

Whining ? What have you been smoking. Is it whining to tell someone that he is absolutely wrong about fixed expressions ?

So...I assume you accuse Rook of whining also, right ?

And I did not get my knowledge on firearms from any magazines, as I don´t read weapon magazines. I got these expressions from my instructors like anyone else...except you.

It´s funny that you are the one who didn´t get them right but still claim to be the expert. Speaks for itself.

There you go again. He's debating, you are merely whining. I very much doubt that you have had any instructors and I have no choice but to think that your "knowledge" of firearms is just the result from reading too many American firearms magazines. A real expert wouldn't claim to be an expert, he would prove it. But you are still just whining, aren't you. So, if you want to bark at me some more, go ahead, but keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the subject.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway this is in my opinion a good and worth read approach to assault weapons in civillian hands. Worth a read:

The case for banning assault weapons

That was pretty hilarious reading. I now know where you got your "knowledge".

Quote[/b] ]Some more governmental brainfood:

Background Paper: Can Small Arms and Light Weapons Be Controlled? , US departement of state

They´re all wrong, right ?

If by "all", you mean "both" , then yes. They are both wrong. Like you, they are seeking (or rather not) the easiest "solution" to a complex problem.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Can I just ask one essential question?

What is the use of having an automated rifle at home? Why cant it be stored at the local sport shooting range?

And if a gun is no longer good enough for protection, dont you see the escalation of armament?

[Ares1978 0]

Can I just ask one essential question?

What is the use of having an automated rifle at home? Why cant it be stored at the local sport shooting range?

And if a gun is no longer good enough for protection, dont you see the escalation of armament?

That would depend on the range. Most ranges here obviously don't have anywhere to store weapons and are situated so far from residential areas that they would be a ridiculously easy target for criminals.

Once again, a gun safe is the best choice for keeping weapons out of reach from criminals and children.

The escalation of armament is merely a myth.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I very much doubt that you have had any instructors and I have no choice but to think that your "knowledge" of firearms is just the result from reading too many American firearms magazines. A real expert wouldn't claim to be an expert, he would prove it. But you are still just whining, aren't you. So, if you want to bark at me some more, go ahead, but keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the subject.

If you had done a forum search you would have found out that I am a soldier for almost 15 years now. And yes, I do call myself an expert in certain weapons as I handled them for over a decade now and do educate recruits on them.

The only things that come from your side right now are insults. Unfounded ones.

You can find numerous pics of me in combat situations here, you also can find a lot of reports on missions I had here.

Do a search and shut up !  

And it´s funny that you even question governmental researches on the issue. In my eyes you are just an ignorant guy who has no idea of what he´s talking about and fails to realize that there are official studies on the subject that do contain relevant points.

Edit:

And about credibility . Where is your´s ??

[Pathy 0]

Ares while you have 128 posts, Bals has been around here for awhile longer than you have, hes a respected forum member, and there is no doubt that he is what he says he is. In a forum full of military and Ex military, you dont claim to be a soldier and carry it off for long unless theres truth to it. I advise you not to start saying that his claims are BS, because you will only lose.