Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]good luck trying to destroy an abrams tank with M16

Why an M16? Snipe the crew at long range with a hunting rifle.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]And i mean, who needs an assault rifle, machine gun or 50 cal rifle to hunt deer or deter intruders?

First of all, actual machine guns have been restricted since the 1930s. Second, "assault rifles" are durable, have good ammo capacities, and are usually designed to be usable in CQB, making them excellent weapons for home defense. They're also freakishly expensive, which makes it very difficult for a teen or average criminal to purchase one.

you gotta be kidding me. one of the fears of even a simple handgun owner is that the FMJ bullet will over penetrate and hurt innocent neighbor. with a M4, that is more likely. so instead of killing just the intruder, the husband of neighbor's wife you are having affairs with could be killed too.

Quote[/b] ]Our violent crime rate is significantly lower than that of the UK.

but stil lhigher than that of Japan.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you risk getting shot when robbing a house or a bank, then you'll make sure to shoot first.

No, you'll probably avoid the house in the first place. The US's rate of highly dangerous "hot burglaries" (Where there are occupants in the home during the burglary) is much lower than the UK's because American burglars know that entering an occupied home is a good way to get killed.

it certainly did not deter home invasion robberies. when robbers come in a squad, even an experienced shooter will have hard time.

Quote[/b] ]

Wonderful philosophy you've got there. You're betting your life on the hope that the criminal doesn't decide to kill you. You're throwing away any chance of defending yourself and placing your life in the hands of a felon.

The reasoning of the banks to NOT have armed guards who fire back all the time is quite realistic. If the orbbers could get away without hurting anyone, they will do it. if you even accidently kill someone, that's manslaughter, meaning more time in prison. but if they can just grab the money and run away, they will prefer to do so.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Instead of that, invest in a good police force that catches the criminals after the act.

And how does this help murder or rape victims? Murder victims are dead, rape victims are left with permanent mental scars. Citizens with guns can prevent themselves from being brutally criminalized. A citizen without a gun either has to be a talented hand-to-hand fighter or has to curl up and pray. Whether or not the police solve the crime, murder victims will still be dead and rape victims will still have been raped.

the comment was about bank robbers who can literally cause more havoc in confrontational situation than in nonconfrontational one.

even with a gun, a citizen has to know how to operate it correctly. so holding a gun doesn't necessarily make someone safe, it's the training that went along with it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]good luck trying to destroy an abrams tank with M16

Why an M16? Snipe the crew at long range with a hunting rifle.

why M16? I want to kill time trying to see if that is feasible

good luck trying to do that. what makes you think the crews will stick their heads out in a war zone?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]The reasoning of the banks to NOT have armed guards who fire back all the time is quite realistic.

But that's not related to regular civilians having the right to carry firearms.

Quote[/b] ]the comment was about bank robbers who can literally cause more havoc in confrontational situation than in nonconfrontational one

His comment seemed to encompass for more than just bank robbers.

Quote[/b] ]a citizen has to know how to operate it correctly.

Which is why you have to go through testing and training to get your license...

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]If there were restrictions on guns it wouldnt matter if the parents payed attention or not.

Are you joking ? If the parents aren't paying attention, then their kid will just find another kind of weapon to use.

Quote[/b] ]And i mean, who needs an assault rifle, machine gun or 50 cal rifle to hunt deer or deter intruders?

First of all, actual machine guns have been restricted since the 1930s. Second, "assault rifles" are durable, have good ammo capacities, and are usually designed to be usable in CQB, making them excellent weapons for home defense. They're also freakishly expensive, which makes it very difficult for a teen or average criminal to purchase one.

Third, what's the problem with .50 rifles? I've never heard of a crime committed with one. Their many-thousand-dollar price tags and their enormous sizes make them unusable to criminals. There's no reason to ban them. What's the problem if a law-abiding American wants to spend $5000 so that he can vaporize varmints at 1200 meters?

Quote[/b] ]The fact that America has the highest gun deaths in the world proves that lack of regulation leads to higher fatalities.

First, "gun deaths" is a misleading term. For instance, a burglar shot by a home owner is counted as a "gun death". Our violent crime rate is significantly lower than that of the UK. Also, there are an estimated one to two million incidents each year where the brandishing of a gun prevented a US citizen from being the victim of a crime.

Quote[/b] ]If you risk getting shot when robbing a house or a bank, then you'll make sure to shoot first.

No, you'll probably avoid the house in the first place. The US's rate of highly dangerous "hot burglaries" (Where there are occupants in the home during the burglary) is much lower than the UK's because American burglars know that entering an occupied home is a good way to get killed.

Quote[/b] ]Sure it will hurt like hell at first but the criminals are bound to catch the drift - that there is no threat them and that they don't have to murder people to get their money.

Wonderful philosophy you've got there. You're betting your life on the hope that the criminal doesn't decide to kill you. You're throwing away any chance of defending yourself and placing your life in the hands of a felon.

Quote[/b] ]Instead of that, invest in a good police force that catches the criminals after the act.

And how does this help murder or rape victims? Murder victims are dead, rape victims are left with permanent mental scars. Citizens with guns can prevent themselves from being brutally criminalized. A citizen without a gun either has to be a talented hand-to-hand fighter or has to curl up and pray. Whether or not the police solve the crime, murder victims will still be dead and rape victims will still have been raped.

1) But still not a gun. With a gun one man can take down several people from range. If someone is forced to restort to say a knife it shifts the odds a whole lot in the victims favour.

2) Ahh yeh, assault rifles, perfect for when a small army breaks into your house. A pistol or shotgun would be sufficient.

3) Whats wrong with a 50 cal rifle? Well, ya know, not alot really if you think that using a gun that can pierce armour and blow off limbs is a perfectly acceptable weapon for home defence and hunting.....tell me, whats the point of this? What can it do in actual usefullness that a .303 cant? Or is it about rednecks getting a kick out of firing the largest cal weapon they can get thier hands on?

Besides its not the law abiding US citizen you need to worry about.

Where are you getting these UK/US statistics from? They sound like total BS to me.

UK has a MUCH lower gun crime. And citizens brandishing guns also usually leads to those citizens getting hurt or hurting innocent bystanders. If i was with a group of mates and we got mugged at gunpoint, i'd rather give my wallet than have a mate pull out his pistol and start a gun battle.

How does a gun help rape or murder victims? If your attacked you have nothing like enough time to pull out a gun, the best you can do is land a blow on them as they jump you....what use is a gun then? None, your still left with hand to hand fighting or curling up and praying.....

Don't say you could see the attack coming in advance....that would worry me even more, a nation full of paranoid trigger happy people convinced someone was about to attack them would be even worse.....

And as for your own wonderfull philosophy, your simply raising the stakes of the bet by that. Criminals dont generally kill unless its a necessity.....most arent psyhcos......if you have an unarmed public then they have no reason to kill. Unless its thier purpose, in which case arming the public isnt going to deter them anyway. Just probably will cause more casualties as more lead flies everywhere. Most people cant hit a barn door at 10 paces with a pistol.

You say if you dont have a gun on you, you are throwing away any chance of defending yourself. I say, you dont have a gun on you you are saving your own life by not trying to be a hero and ending up causing a shootout.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Where are you getting these UK/US statistics from? They sound like total BS to me.

UK has a MUCH lower gun crime.

I'm not talking about gun crime, I'm talking about violent crime in general (Assaults, rapes, etc). And those statistics have been widely reported by news agencies (CBS comes to my mind).

Quote[/b] ]Or is it about rednecks getting a kick out of firing the largest cal weapon they can get thier hands on?

Yep! .50 rifles aren't used in crimes, so why should we prevent rednecks from having fun?

Quote[/b] ]If someone is forced to restort to say a knife it shifts the odds a whole lot in the victims favour.

Only if the victim has experience in hand-to-hand combat.

Quote[/b] ]How does a gun help rape or murder victims? If your attacked you have nothing like enough time to pull out a gun, the best you can do is land a blow on them as they jump you....what use is a gun then?

A person can spot a suspicious person and prepare to draw a gun. Short of being jumped and being completely surprised, you usually have a warning.

Quote[/b] ]2) Ahh yeh, assault rifles, perfect for when a small army breaks into your house. A pistol or shotgun would be sufficient.

An "assault rifle" carries a lot of cosmetic stopping power. If a burglar sees a home owner with what appears to be a military issue rifle, that burglar is going to get his ass out of danger as fast as possible.

Quote[/b] ]one of the fears of even a simple handgun owner is that the FMJ bullet will over penetrate and hurt innocent neighbor.

I don't know about your habits, but I don't know of gun owners who load home defense guns with FMJ. They prefer stuff that fragments or just use a shotgun.

Quote[/b] ]I say, you dont have a gun on you you are saving your own life by not trying to be a hero and ending up causing a shootout.

You aren't saving your life, you're transfering the choice of whether you live or die to the criminal.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Quote[/b] ]Where are you getting these UK/US statistics from? They sound like total BS to me.

UK has a MUCH lower gun crime.

I'm not talking about gun crime, I'm talking about violent crime in general (Assaults, rapes, etc). And those statistics have been widely reported by news agencies (CBS comes to my mind).

Crime rate figures are a load of crap when you want to compare situations, they only account for crimes that actually get reported the real figures are always higher. Maybe people in the UK are just more inclined to report crimes than people in the US?

[Pathy 0]

So your saying an unarmed guy attacked with a knife is worse off than an unarmed guy attacked with a gun?

Hmm, think about that one. I don't think i even need to mention a group of people attacked with either, which was my original point.

You went ahead and said it:

Quote[/b] ]A person can spot a suspicious person and prepare to draw a gun. Short of being jumped and being completely surprised, you usually have a warning

So now we have a load of totally paranoid people prepared to drop anyone who they think is acting the least bit suspicious. Great. If your walking home the same way as someone and they grow paranoid and think your following them.....too bad, you've just got shot. I've walked alone through streets at night and i always take notice of whos around me. If someone appears to be following me its always been merely because they were heading home in the general direction i have and have turned off down some other street after awhile. If i took your philosophy though, i'd be in jail for manslaughter.

By the time your sure someone is going to jump you, ie they walk up extremely fast behind you or something, drawing a gun would make things worse, for a start you wouldnt be likely to have time to draw it before they closed on you, if they had a gun of thier own and they saw you going for yours you'd be equally in the shit. And what if they were just in a hurry to get past you?

Quote[/b] ]You aren't saving your life, you're transfering the choice of whether you live or die to the criminal

And 99.9% of criminals will not kill you as they arent going to go down for any longer than they can get away with if they get caught. So your improving your chances, if the criminal thinks he doesnt need to shoot you. The moment you draw a gun on him....his necessity changes to self preservation and then its a shootout, endangering your life and the lives of thsoe around you. Which helps nobody when the situation could have ended up with no shootout and nobody killed.

[Drill Sergeant 0]

For the record the guns used in columbine were purchased by "friends" that were of age to purchase.

The parrents had no idea the "Freinds" had the guns.

Why? because as stated before the parrents wern't there.

The ban has put a pinch on collecters and hasn't done SQAUT

to keep guns out of the wrong hands. So what this ban has

done is simply make it harder for collecters to obtain these

fire arms legaly and made it oh so easier for criminals to sell

ones snuck across the border.

In the book "Silent Killers" The author states at some point

that criminals prefer gun laws. Why?

Well if your going to steal something to commit a crime

why steal something which, #1 Adds more time, #2 is going

to be a "extra" thing to get. So IF some one stole a fire arm

they would just have more time to do, which is why MOST

guns remain in gun safes in private citizens homes.

I also like how people from other countrys have taken the time

to "condescend" to us "Rednecks" and "Cowboys", which aside

of the odd CS NOOB you won't find posting here.

I would like you to remeber the US has a higher statistic because of our Shear numbers. Not because we have more

guns.

[DanAK47 1]

This thread is getting hard to read.

Anyway,

If the criminal has a gun on you first it would be stupid to try and draw on him, and vice versa. You give criminals way too much credit. Even if they have overwhelming odds there is still a chance that one of their pals will get shot and die. Why take the risk when there are dozens of homes without gun owners, security systems, or dogs?

As for substance A and B, the per death ratio is the same with each substance. My example is similar to guns and alcohol.

Alcohol is designed to get you drunk. People act stupid when they are drunk. You buy alcohol to get wasted. Alcohol causes more deaths than guns do.

Guns are designed to kill, from the musket to the Uzi. People buy them for various reasons. I would say the reason most people buy civilian versions of assault rifles is because they are fun to shoot. Guns cause less deaths than alcohol.

"Guns are bad". "They kill people". So do sports cars. But when used responsibly they are both a lot of fun.

You say guns cause murder.

Why would someone who plans to MURDER someone, an offense punishable by death, life in prison, etc, stop and say "I won't do it, because it's illegal to buy X weapon, I could pay a fine if I get caught."

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]a citizen has to know how to operate it correctly.

Which is why you have to go through testing and training to get your license...

and implementing such system would only be hissed at. people whine about the tests and requirements calling it bias against poor who needs to defend themselves since it costs too much to own a firearm.

even CA, with its toughest regulations, to purchase a firearm, you only need to pass a 30 question test, and you can get upto 7 misses. should you actually buy a gun, you need to demonstrate that you can safely unload the gun. that's it.

if anyone is serious about getting training they would need to go through a course which will make ownership a lot harder due to rising cost. and do you think gun lovers would welcome that?

Quote[/b] ]Yep! .50 rifles aren't used in crimes, so why should we prevent rednecks from having fun?

the problem is that gun is not a fun thing, but what you do with it. problem with associating fun with a gun is that it is vuewed more as a toy, and that is absolutely not acceptable. gun is made to gravely injure whatever it is firing at.

Quote[/b] ]A person can spot a suspicious person and prepare to draw a gun. Short of being jumped and being completely surprised, you usually have a warning.

the problem is that the gun holder has to be prepared. and there are instances when someone is ambushed. in that case, not only is vicitim helpless, but the robber will most likely take the gun away from the victim and use it against him or keep it.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know about your habits, but I don't know of gun owners who load home defense guns with FMJ. They prefer stuff that fragments or just use a shotgun.

even with JHP, this could be a problem. and shotgun exactly isn't concealable. even in CA, buying a shotgun is not that hard, compared to a pistol. If for home defense why not use a shot gun? nothing scares the heck away like a nice 12 guaze barrel looking down on the intruder.

[ralphwiggum 6]

For the record the guns used in columbine were purchased by "friends" that were of age to purchase.

The parrents had no idea the "Freinds" had the guns.

Why? because as stated before the parrents wern't there.

actually, the guns were from one of parent's collection. they got sued over that a few months ago.

Quote[/b] ]The ban has put a pinch on collecters and hasn't done SQAUT

to keep guns out of the wrong hands. So what this ban has

done is simply make it harder for collecters to obtain these

fire arms legaly and made it oh so easier for criminals to sell

ones snuck across the border.

look at crime statistics. it fell as time went on.

Quote[/b] ]In the book "Silent Killers" The author states at some point

that criminals prefer gun laws. Why?

Well if your going to steal something to commit a crime

why steal something which, #1 Adds more time, #2 is going

to be a "extra" thing to get. So IF some one stole a fire arm

they would just have more time to do, which is why MOST

guns remain in gun safes in private citizens homes.

hard ot say. there are owners who are negligent enough to leave it outside.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The ban has put a pinch on collecters and hasn't done SQAUT

to keep guns out of the wrong hands. So what this ban has

done is simply make it harder for collecters to obtain these

fire arms legaly and made it oh so easier for criminals to sell

ones snuck across the border.

Please explain how you think banning assault rifles make it easier to sell illegal ones? Sure they might be able to sell more of theirs because the people who want them wont be able to get them legally, but if people are immoral ennough to purchase illegally smuggled weapons surely they're not fit to own such a weapon legally or otherwise.

Besides, I think it'd make it easier for the authorites to identify the weapons as smuggled, because they smuggler can't argue that they've been obtained legally and are to be sold legally, the customs guys would just say "Tough shit, they're illegal anyway, you're booked." and seize their entire cache, along with any 'legal' stuff like handguns and shotguns that they would be smuggling.

[ralphwiggum 6]

As for substance A and B, the per death ratio is the same with each substance. My example is similar to guns and alcohol.

Alcohol is designed to get you drunk. People act stupid when they are drunk. You buy alcohol to get wasted. Alcohol causes more deaths than guns do.

alcohol gets you intoxicated, which in turn impairs your judgement. even intoxication itself has varying degrees, and not all drinkers are drunkards. but we do have a good number of regulations for drinks. it's the ABUSE of drink that will contribute to accidents. but guns themselves are built for sole purpose of destroying.

Quote[/b] ]Guns are designed to kill, from the musket to the Uzi. People buy them for various reasons. I would say the reason most people buy civilian versions of assault rifles is because they are fun to shoot. Guns cause less deaths than alcohol.

"Guns are bad". "They kill people". So do sports cars. But when used responsibly they are both a lot of fun.

unfortunately this is type of reaction that i kind of hate to see. 'fun' has to do with what people do with it, not the gun itself. same with the car, but primary purpose of the car is not killing.

Quote[/b] ]You say guns cause murder.

Why would someone who plans to MURDER someone, an offense punishable by death, life in prison, etc, stop and say "I won't do it, because it's illegal to buy X weapon, I could pay a fine if I get caught."

did i say that? i said purpose of the gun is to destroy whatever its firing at.

by having restriction, it takes away chance to commit murder a lot easier.

[DanAK47 1]

And the abuse of the gun isn't what contributes to accidents?

I would be more worried about something that actually does alter how your brain works than something that appears to be dangerous.

How can you argue that a gun is too complicated for a person to use when it has less controls than a car?

Enjoying shooting does not make you think of it as a toy. That is an insulting assumption.

The primary purpose of something is dependent on the type of person using it. If my "assault weapon" is supposed to make me want to kill people, it is defective.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]This statement is simply incorrect. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty (the 'risk of death' you speak of) is not an effective way to deter crime

I was not referring to the death penalty. I was referring to being shot by a security guard.

And if you read my post, you will see I was referring to the "premise of death" as such, not to the death penalty only. Be it as it may: the prospect of potential death does not prevent criminals from perpetrating crimes, it only makes them arm themselves better and act more aggressively. The behaviour of the criminals adapts to the severity of the laws. Imposing harsher punishment is ineffective and merely deals with the syptoms of the disease, instead of its causes. Not criminalising whole ethnic parts of the population would be a far better method. But that's an entirely different topic altogether. Suffice to say that the US legislature prefers short-term, ex-post measures that have been clearly shown to be ineffective (war on drugs is one such example).

Again, I'm straying off the topic... as I said before, this topic is very closely related to other issues that are discussed elsewhere...

[DanAK47 1]

The sources you posted refer explicitly to the death penalty. Saying that criminals do not fear death is silly. Like I said before, criminals will most likely steal from the easiest place, or perpetrate the crime in the easiest manner.

[ralphwiggum 6]

And the abuse of the gun isn't what contributes to accidents?

so what else can a gun do? paper weight? scratch my rear? let me say this again. purpose of a gun is to destroy something you shoot at. purpose of an alcohol is to get a buzz, not getting incapacitated.(although theseday people are heeding that).

Quote[/b] ]I would be more worried about something that actually does alter how your brain works than something that appears to be dangerous.

so can lead from guns and ammos. they can alter body greatly.

Quote[/b] ]How can you argue that a gun is too complicated for a person to use when it has less controls than a car?

just becuase there are less parts do not mean that it is less complicated. can you describe how different guns work? how trigger is pulled/pushed, and that moves something, and that releases the other thing and etc.? if it's not complicated, you can make one?

using an A-bomb is not complicated. I just need the black suitcase and do a simple procedure, and I just annihilated a nation. then I guess nuclear missile should be available to everyone?

Quote[/b] ]Enjoying shooting does not make you think of it as a toy. That is an insulting assumption.

how often goto a shooting range? I go quite often and I do see people giggling and having 'fun'. They have no idea about impact of what a gun can do, or is lost somewhere, and several times there were very stupid moments when one more of a mishap could have started a tragedy. There is a reason why firearm safeties exist and it's because there are idiots who can't comprehend that guns are not toys. if you look at firearm safety booklet for kids, it says 'guns are not toys'. why would they put that in there if people were misjudging from very early in their life? especailly when someone talks about 'this is the freedom!' and waves his gun un front of kids, giving more meaning then what it really is?

Quote[/b] ]The primary purpose of something is dependent on the type of person using it. If my "assault weapon" is supposed to make me want to kill people, it is defective.

then your mind is defective and you should not own a firearm. that's where regulations come in. from 3rd person perspective, it is hard to judge if you are capable of handling a firearm or not. so there is the test and regulations to make sure that you are able to handle it correctly.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I just need the black suitcase and do a simple procedure, and I just annihilated a nation.

I always knew it. Evil Raplh goes for the world

PS:

Preorder Ralph Wiggum World Domination jackets right now !

Make yourself friend with the new leader.

[ericz 0]

Pathy

Quote[/b] ]So? We do not allow people to drive at 120mph fuelled on drink. Its banned. Its illegal....you get caught you loose your license.....all this behavior is *not* allowed, if you think it is, your living in a fairy world.

It may be dangerous behaviour but thats why its illegal. It doesnt make allowing assault rifles any less bad.

Astounding observation.  They are all the things you say they are but they still  happen frequently, consistently and cause more deaths than firearms do regardless of whether they are "illegal" or "banned".   One has only to tune into the news stations to see high pursuit chases and the like. Just as we do not "allow" armed bank robberies, murders and violent assaults these are aso "banned" and "illegal".    Law enforcement is not omnipotent or capable of being everywhere at the same time.  

Ralph Wiggum

Quote[/b] ]just because two things look similar at the end does not mean they are same to begin with. for example margarine and butter are different. one is a synthtic POS and the other is natural fat. driving under influence is a problem, but they are generated by different origin.

Quite the contrary.  The pretext for the assault weapons ban is PUBLIC SAFETY; that it will save lives.  The reason we have laws against drunk driving is to save lives.  The difference between the two lies in that the former is not borne out statistically and the latter is.  

The percentage of murders committed with "assault rifles" in the U.S. pre and post ban were very small and changed very little.  Most murders were committed with the use of HANDGUNS.  Handguns, handgun magazines and cartridges are convenient, concealable and very portable.

One has only to look at the restrictions of assault weapons ban to realize it is a farce.  It bans weapons simply on the basis of cosmetic features as has been alluded to in previous posts.  My feeling is that this piece of legislation was a way to pacify the uninformed and those opposed to private ownership of firearms in general.  I can only imagine that it gave peace of mind to many that are afraid of firearms.

Another culprit in the disinformation campaign waged against legal firearms were the journalists from many of the media outlets who reported on crimes committed with firearms.  The use of the words "assault", "automatic" in place of semi-automatic and phrases such as "large caliber" used to describe something is mundane as an AR-15 in the .223 caliber would always get a chuckle out of me.  All these made for headlines and sensational coverage but also implied that these weapons were more lethal, more dangerous than any other firearm available.  If so the statistics would bear this out, but they do not.

Many have given the example of the North Hollywood robbery as a clear example of why assault weapons should be banned. But the truth is this event was and  remains an isolated incident.  These criminals modified their carbines illegally and turned them into automatics.  They fired thousands of rounds at very short ranges and killed no one.  How effective really were they?

A much more deadly incident occurred this year in Los Angeles were a geriatric driver ploughed his vehicle into a "farmers market" killing +- 8 people.

[shinRaiden 0]

I have a sister who took one look at the extra pedal in the car (clutch) and said "what's that for, I can drive without it, and what do you need all those extra shifts for, its too much hassle." Dad promptly banned her from ever driving that car until she gets a clue. I have a brother younger than her just got his license, and wants to learn how to drive a stick. So he came to someone who knows how and asked to be taught, and is learning quite quickly - because he wants to and is mature enough to understand the additional complexity.

Similarly, there was a case a few years ago here in seattle where a bunch of people went to a professional shop / range, very above board place, unlike the shop Malvo & Muhammad got their stuff at. (used to drive by there all the time going to school. Across the street from the Amtrak station in Tacoma, WA.) Anyway, somebody had a .44 mag or some other large handgun and all the guys were ogling it. Well, a girl in the group (all mid 20's) wanted to try and somebody handed it over with a round in the chamber and one in the mag. I don't think she had ever picked up a pistol before. The double-tap on reflex came as the pistol recoiled out of control over her shoulder killing the guy behind her.

How many rules were broken in that case? We had a woodpecker trying to drill out our gutters, and one day my mom decided to grab the bb gun and go out after it. Even mom's have to have a refresher or reminder once in a while. You never just grab a gun and run, you always check it out before you use it, and make well sure you know what you are doing before you touch it. I quickly discovered she didn't know how the safety worked on the bb gun, didn't have a good idea how it loaded, and was carrying it pumped up pointed at her foot. I traded her for the pellet gun, walked her through all the safety's and loading steps empty, handed her one pellet, and told her not to load it until she had a clear shot. Then I took off for the opposite side of the yard.

In the hunters safety course I took years ago, the part pounded into our heads the most was to never point a gun at anything you didn't want to shoot and weren't prepared to clean up. If you've never handled that gun before, you absolutely have to work through it to make sure you know how the safety's and mechanisms work. When your focus is on going out to play instead of primarily on how to be safe, people get hurt.

When tupac got wasted, was it the 'banned' guns or was it the 'illegal' AK's smuggled in from China? The folks that are going to buy these are aficinado's who want it because it looks cool. They're not going to hunt anything other than Jack rabbits with them.

The only 'practical' regulation aside from non-licensed bans on civilian ownership of military weapons would be to have a pshrink verk you over... "Pveas tell me vhy joo want a gun, you right-wing nut-job..." I've been snookered before by somebody who was convinced that I was nuts and had me hauled into brain-picking when it turned out he was the one who was nuts all along, and everyone but the mad doctor knew that.

Unlike others, I don't have a problem with putting something like a VIN number on guns. However the impracticality of so many regulations such as gun-locks in your own home (hmm... random inspections? I don't think so.) and easy mechanical ability to part-out guns would make so much of the do-gooder's efforts meaningless.

[Pathy 0]

I would like you to remeber the US has a higher statistic because of our Shear numbers. Not because we have more

guns.

I would like to remind you that China has 1bn citizens and you still top the world ranking for gun deaths. I would also remind you that the combined EU population is greater than that of the US and if you were to add those gun statistics together the US would still be leading.

Quote[/b] ]Astounding observation. They are all the things you say they are but they still happen frequently, consistently and cause more deaths than firearms do regardless of whether they are "illegal" or "banned". One has only to tune into the news stations to see high pursuit chases and the like. Just as we do not "allow" armed bank robberies, murders and violent assaults these are aso "banned" and "illegal". Law enforcement is not omnipotent or capable of being everywhere at the same time.

I'm not sure if your being sarcastic here, so all i will say on this: Just because something causes more deaths than lack of gun regulation does not mean that there is no cause to regulate guns. If its dangerous and causes death it should be illegal....thats why the likes of speeding and drink-driving are illegal.....

My argument is not a total ban of guns, but tigher regulation for all gun classes (as Shinraiden said, there are alot of people with zero concept of gun safety, guns cannot teach responsibility, only training and experience can) and no assault rifles or high caliber weapons. In my opinion, there is nothing you can do with a .50 cal rifle that you cant do with a lower caliber rifle, unless your planning to take out an armoured car, in which case its an illegal act anyway.

In the same way, there is no need for assault rifles and SMG's. A gun that can shoot a high volume of FMJ rounds is just too powerfull to be in civilian hands IMO, no matter what regulation there is.

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]using an A-bomb is not complicated.

Quote[/b] ]if it's not complicated, you can make one?

You can drive, right? A car is more complicated to operate than most guns. If you don't know how to operate a gun, leave it the hell alone. (By the way, I read that the suitcase nuke was bogus and does not exist.)

shin, I do not know where you heard your .44 magnum story, but they do not have magazines and I highly doubt a first-timer with a woman's hands could double tap a revolver, which have heavy triggers. I suppose it would be the gun's fault either way right? Just like it's the car's fault if you rear end someone.

Quote[/b] ]then your mind is defective and you should not own a firearm.

Gee, thanks. Look out for me.

[shinRaiden 0]

Well, you do have the triads and the yakuza who have no qualms about blasting people, but they often fall into the wannabe crowd. No, the difference is in cultural attitude. The overwhelming 'groupthink' cultural perspective, combined with draconian communist PR and control in china specifically, I think is the the reason you see much less statistical and purportional incidents in Asia.

In japan, when people want to commit suicde, they don't go get a gun and blow their brains out in private, they jump infront of a train in the mid-morning commute. The reason why is that they feel that society doesn't care about them, so dramatically affecting society will get their attention if but for a moment, but without inflicting any real damage on other people.

Here in the US, where you have many people who don't give a rip about others, it's much more everyone for themselves. We also have suicide-by-police as well, and that's dispurportionally here as well.

----------------

Story was from April 21, 1997. It was a "powerful revolver" the guy had rented and loaded full. The woman shot two rounds and she failed to check the recoil after the 2nd round and the third round discharged directly behind her into the guy's neck. He was standing behind her observing and guiding her.

[DanAK47 1]

She's gifted.

Still sounds bogus to me.