Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[Pathy 0]

The escalation of armament is merely a myth.

Thats interesting, so explain the weapons build up during the cold war without mentioning escalation or any word with the same meaning.

[Placebo 29]

Let's all remember to be civil here please, else I'll buy an UZI from my local Walmart and go postal on your asses

[Ares1978 0]

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.

I'm sorry if I have insulted you. I really thought you could take the same kind of bull you have been flinging around.

I have been a shooter myself for around 15 years (longer if someone wants to count air rifles), have served in the military and I've actively been participating in local defence volunteer work for about 7 years, and although I have not heard anyone use the term ND during that time, it's no reason for people like you who think they know everything to start whining. I don't care who you claim to be.

And especially governmental researches should be questioned. The two links you posted are hardly researches and neither are they created by a neutral party.

Ares while you have 128 posts, Bals has been around here for awhile longer than you have, hes a respected forum member. I advise you not to start saying that his claims are BS, because you will only lose.

So what? He hasn't earned my respect yet, especially not with his attitude.

The escalation of armament is merely a myth.

Thats interesting, so explain the weapons build up during the cold war without mentioning escalation or any word with the same meaning.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about an escalation between criminals and civilians within a society and not a worldwide conflict between radically different ideologies.

[Pathy 0]

Bals can debate without resorting to personal insults and accusing the opposition of whining when he doesnt like what they are saying. That "attitude" earns my respect more than yours does.

Quote[/b] ]Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about an escalation between criminals and civilians within a society and not a worldwide conflict between radically different ideologies

The principle is exactly the same, which is a point you seem to have a hard time grasping.

[Badgerboy 0]

Just to add to this little argument, but when I did range training at Bisley with the Browning 9mm, both AD and ND were used in shorthand for memo's.

One guy did actually negligently discharge his weapon into the ground (Where's the safety?), and was promptly jumped on and beaten by two Corporals. Well they did warn us! He was booted off the range for a week, and confined to quarters. (And as there was no Officers mess at Bisley, he had to slum it in a tent! )

[Ares1978 0]

Bals can debate without resorting to personal insults and accusing the opposition of whining when he doesnt like what they are saying. That "attitude" earns my respect more than yours does.

Really? In my opinion he has done nothing except resorted to personal insults these last pages.

[Pathy 0]

In that case you need to stop reading posts as if the whole world is personally against you.

[Pathy 0]

Let's all remember to be civil here please, else I'll buy an UZI from my local Walmart and go postal on your asses  

Placebo going postal....now theres a though

BTW, how is it you always sneak these little warnings in that i dont see until like 30 minutes of discussion later

[Ares1978 0]

In that case you need to stop reading posts as if the whole world is personally against you.

I said "he", not "the whole world".

[Pathy 0]

And the point of saying that is?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry if I have insulted you. I really thought you could take the same kind of bull you have been flinging around.

Bull ? The only one insulting anyone was you !

I´m finished with you Ares. I don´t debate with a guy who thinks he need to get insulting when running out of arguments. That´s the lowest form of debating I can think of. But it already backfired at you. Enjoy it.

Quote[/b] ]Really? In my opinion he has done nothing except resorted to personal insults these last pages.

So an opinion not yours means insulting. Ok I got that and I will keep that in mind for the future.

Quote[/b] ]it's no reason for people like you who think they know everything to start whining

Insulting again ? You´re ridiculouse...

Where did I write that I know everything? Of course if you say that knowing more than you means knowing everything...

Quote[/b] ]And especially governmental researches should be questioned.

Aha great... So what researches DO YOU trust ?

Ares researches ?

Quote[/b] ]So what? He hasn't earned my respect yet, especially not with his attitude.

Just in case you should think that I would give a f*** about what you think or not or need to earn your respect, I can assure you that I don´t need to.

I couln´t care less...

And from this point on your posts will be happily ignored by me. Have a nice day.

I have better things to do than to debate with someone who get´s insulting and then tries to blame it the one who he insulted.

End of story.

[Ares1978 0]

Whatever. At least I can admit to it and apologise for (unintentionally) insulting you. You seem to have a serious problem with people questioning your authority and frankly, your only response has been false accusations. Again, if you find this insulting, I apologise.

"So what researches DO YOU trust ?" I thought I told you already. A research conducted by a neutral party with no related political agenda.

Ignore my posts if you feel like it. I won't ignore yours.

[DanAK47 1]

Accidental - Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Negligence - Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

You are being far too anal over a couple of acronyms. The way I see it, one could fit inside of the other.

I only read through part of one of the links you posted earlier, Bal. I got to page 2 and the BS became too thick. I looked at the references and there's a VPC one in there.. Ha!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Let's all remember to be civil here please, else I'll buy an UZI from my local Walmart and go postal on your asses  

halelulja!

But back to the topic.

You are saying that a rifle is safest at home in a weapon safe?

Out of pure logic I would assume that a sports-club has a better protection system. That the rifle cannot get lost or stolen out of your car, that your children might not be able to steal the key or find the code. Accidents will increase, that is for sure, the only question is whether they show a significant increase.

But of course the other question that remains is, whether criminals will now have an easier life finding automatic rifles. Every weapon that can be sold on the free market can also be stolen from the free market. And an AK in the wrong hands is a dangerous risk. A handgun will no longer protect you against it.

But if you now answer "but an M16" can protect me, well then you have what I call an escalation of armament!

[Ares1978 0]

The principle is exactly the same, which is a point you seem to have a hard time grasping.

The principle it really not the same. There is no step beyond the first firearm, the "escalation" ends right there. In other words, there can't be an escalation, if nothing escalates.

You are saying that a rifle is safest at home in a weapon safe?

Out of pure logic I would assume that a sports-club has a better protection system. That the rifle cannot get lost or stolen out of your car, that your children might not be able to steal the key or find the code. Accidents will increase, that is for sure, the only question is whether they show a significant increase.

Most sports clubs don't have a 100-300 meter range and certainly not the capability to store a few houndred or a few thousand firearms. As for the rifle getting lost or stolen out of a car or by your kids, that's up to the owner to prevent. He can keep the key on him at all times (seriously, who believes that a key is safer hidden, than in the owner's pocket?), constantly change the codes and most importantly, never to leave a gun in a car. This is just common sense. I don't have anything in my car that would be worth stealing.

Quote[/b] ]But of course the other question that remains is, whether criminals will now have an easier life finding automatic rifles. Every weapon that can be sold on the free market can also be stolen from the free market. And an AK in the wrong hands is a dangerous risk. A handgun will no longer protect you against it.

Last sentence: Why not?

Automatic rifles are not in any way ideal for criminals. They are difficult although not impossible to conceal and expensive to buy illegally.

Quote[/b] ]But if you now answer "but an M16" can protect me, well then you have what I call an escalation of armament!

Why would I need an M16 for that? It's not warfare, it's self defence, and typically there would be just a few meters, not 100-400 meters between the AK and lets say a pistol in .40 S&W with a 13-round magazine. A pistol is so much easier to protect yourself with. Of course, unless you suggest that the criminals will all start using level II-A body armor and helmets with face shields.  

You see, there really is no escalation outside warfare. There is "unarmed", "armed with other-than-firearms" and "armed with firearms". The last one is the most fair, since there is nowhere to go after that. No RPG's will be pointed at you, nobody will rob you with a T-90, it will still be nothing more than a firearm that is easy enough to conceal. And like I said, assault weapons don't exactly have that in their favour.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]As for the rifle getting lost or stolen out of a car or by your kids, that's up to the owner to prevent. He can keep the key on him at all times

Yes, sure, but you know that accidents happen. To buy a rifle in the US you dont have to take an intelligence test and I may assume some pretty paranoid people buy rifles and also some pretty irresponsible ones too.

Furthermore, the more automated weapons are being traded the more opportunities there are to steal them. May it be in the shop, may it be in a private house, out of a truck or whatever, or maybe even sold and declared stolen. Young criminals that have some money extra will switch from a Magnum to an AK. And any drive-by shooting will turn into a much more dangerous game when there is a 30 bullets in the air ready to kill innocent bystanders.

On the other hand I dont see the gain. What is the gain of keeping an automated rifle at home? Do you want to have it to show it around, to sleep next to you during the night? Explain to me the gain?

And why cant a shooting range store more than 3000 rifles? Absoluetly no problem. You could easily put them into a large room and let them be administered by a store keeper.

But fact is, most american weapon owners dont want to leave their rifle at the shooting range, I dont know why but they dont want to. Maybe they want to clean it during the evening, to show it to their neighbours or maybe they even feel safer.

Only children take their toys home, famers keep their tools in the store.

[RooK 0]

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

Reading page 3 already starts to discredit it. It says:

Quote[/b] ]Assault weapons are the guns of choice for criminals

That is an outright lie. Handguns are the #1 choice and have been for years. Assault Weapons, even before the AWB, were used in less than 3% of crimes, well below handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

Quote[/b] ]One in five police officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon.

Let's assume this is true. I know for a fact that only 300 or less LE officers are killed each year. That's 60 dead due to this catagory of weapons. But wouldn't the deaths from these weapons be higher than handguns because they can penetrate bulletproof vests? I bet your standard hunting rifle and shotgun also surpass handguns (and even AWs) in officer deaths. You only need a bullet traveling over 2000fps to punch through the Kevlar. Any rifle can do that. We need complete statistics to make anything of the numbers.

Quote[/b] ]Violent crime is on the rise.

I think Pathy already proved that it has been declining for well over a decade earlier in this thread. (BTW, that wasn't a result of the AWB, since those weapons were used in so little crime to begin with. It was due to the Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1994. The AWB was part of it, but the rest of the law did not expire and is still on our books. For the most part, it is a good piece of legislation.)

How an you even trust one word the rest of this document states? They've already misled you three times and you haven't even gone beyond 3 pages into the document.

If you want, when I have more time, I'll go through and further discredit it for you.

[RooK 0]

Yes, sure, but you know that accidents happen. To buy a rifle in the US you dont have to take an intelligence test and I may assume some pretty paranoid people buy rifles and also some pretty irresponsible ones too.

It's their right as free human beings, is it not? You don't need a driver license for a car or to take any test if you plan to drive it on your own property. If they fail to read the instruction manual or follow common sense and hurt someone, then they will prosecuted.

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, the more automated weapons are being traded the more opportunities there are to steal them. May it be in the shop, may it be in a private house, out of a truck or whatever, or maybe even sold and declared stolen. Young criminals that have some money extra will switch from a Magnum to an AK. And any drive-by shooting will turn into a much more dangerous game when there is a 30 bullets in the air ready to kill innocent bystanders.

It's already been shown that AW use in crime is rare. The scenario you display is purely assumption and fathoms of the mind. Yes they might be stolen, but isn't it your property, and if stolen the criminal should be held liable?

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand I dont see the gain. What is the gain of keeping an automated rifle at home? Do you want to have it to show it around, to sleep next to you during the night? Explain to me the gain?

The fact that it is a rifle and can be used for hunting, self-defense, plinking, or target shooting? It's no different than say a bolt-action rifle when it comes to uses, though it does excel in certain areas.

Quote[/b] ]And why cant a shooting range store more than 3000 rifles? Absoluetly no problem. You could easily put them into a large room and let them be administered by a store keeper.

Uh... We don't have any shooting ranges around here. I shoot in my backyard and sometimes hunt here. Going to a shooting range does me no good and offers no benefits.

Quote[/b] ]But fact is, most american weapon owners dont want to leave their rifle at the shooting range, I dont know why but they dont want to. Maybe they want to clean it during the evening, to show it to their neighbours or maybe they even feel safer.

Only children take their toys home, famers keep their tools in the store.

Because sometimes they have to be used on quick notice. I've had to kill possums while they were attacking my waterfowl late at night on two occasions. Lot of good a remotely located firearm would have done me then. It also prevents their use in self-defense, which is granted to us in the US, despite whether you find it appropriate or not.

Do you keep your pots and pans outside the kitchen, where you must travel miles before you can retrieve one and cook, and then you take it back after use? Or do you keep them where most useful and convenient: in the kitchen? Same thing with firearms, you keep them where they will be used, this includes in the house (self-defense) and around it. Not everyone lives in an urban area. Even if they did, it's their property and they have every right to make their own decisions over what they want to do with their firearms.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]We need complete statistics to make anything of the numbers.

Yes, I was trying to find some relevant numbers on exactly these issues. Right now I don´t even know how many LE officers died last year on a direct firearms confrontation, nor can I find out if they were equipped with Kevlar and even here it´s important what kind of body armor they had.

While a light Kevlar can already have problems with some pistol ammo another one can protect you. For high velocity ammo there are also vests, most of them plated. But they are working on light and efficient body armor made of composite materials that can and will be used. Even if you are facing a SMG a regular Kevlar vest often isn´t sufficient for protection.

But as I said already, data mining on this issue is not that easy as most of the data come from producers of body armour and they tend to verbally overstretch the abilities of their products.

Quote[/b] ]That is an outright lie. Handguns are the #1 choice and have been for years. Assault Weapons, even before the AWB, were used in less than 3% of crimes, well below handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

It´s easy logic...the more available the lower the price the more they will spread even among guys who still carry a handgun right now.

Quote[/b] ]How an you even trust one word the rest of this document states?

Well let´s call it selective reading. I don´t buy everything I get offered in an internet release of any kind, but for sure it does contain relevant info on the subject like industry undergoing the limits and such. Those things are just true. So why damn a complete document for some points that are not true. You can mine some info from the documaent, and that´s not too bad, is it ?

I guess we all know that there is no ultimate truth in pro or contra ban doc´s. That´s just natural. But that doesn´t safe us from reading such and everyone has to make his decision what he takes for credible and what not. I do think that the first doc has some relevant points. And that´s the things I take for me. Of course some are hard to countercheck but at least I can try to do it as the sources are listed.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Rook,

you are telling me that automated rifles are being used for hunting? Why dont you use an RPG instead? Freaks!

---

Phantoms are things that do not exist. Automated rifles are being used in crimes and drive by shootings are fact and not fiction. You may question the frequency but definetly not the existance.

---

An automated rifle for self defense? Could you please draw a scenario in which an automated rifle would be a favourable tool for self defense?

---

Your example of pots and pants is sweet but slightly inadquate. I keep my pots in the kitchen cause that is where I use them and where they can do no wrong. I need pots for a daily living and I know that anyone stealing my pots wont kill anyone and I know that my children profit more from my pans than they can do harm.

Or do you come along with the argument "pots dont boil noodles, it is criminals that boil them"

[Ares1978 0]

Yes, sure, but you know that accidents happen. To buy a rifle in the US you dont have to take an intelligence test and I may assume some pretty paranoid people buy rifles and also some pretty irresponsible ones too.

Not a popular thing to compare firearms to, but you'd be surprised what idiots and lunatics can get a driver's license. Somebody will soon shout out that guns were made for killing, and completely ignore the fact that it is irrelevant, when considering the end result.

"..why don't we just take the safety lables off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, the more automated weapons are being traded the more opportunities there are to steal them. May it be in the shop, may it be in a private house, out of a truck or whatever, or maybe even sold and declared stolen. Young criminals that have some money extra will switch from a Magnum to an AK. And any drive-by shooting will turn into a much more dangerous game when there is a 30 bullets in the air ready to kill innocent bystanders.

It still won't make them more appealing to criminals. The negative sides still outweigh the positive sides by far.

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand I dont see the gain. What is the gain of keeping an automated rifle at home? Do you want to have it to show it around, to sleep next to you during the night? Explain to me the gain?

Why do people like fast cars or powerful computers? They are fun to own and fun to use. The mentality is the same. And then there are the less fun reasons mentioned earlier in this thread.

Quote[/b] ]And why cant a shooting range store more than 3000 rifles? Absoluetly no problem. You could easily put them into a large room and let them be administered by a store keeper.

The cost, the maintenance, the general inconvenience. And he can be trusted? Not to mention that it's still a damn juicy target. Much more tempting than 3000 homes.

Quote[/b] ]But fact is, most american weapon owners dont want to leave their rifle at the shooting range, I dont know why but they dont want to. Maybe they want to clean it during the evening, to show it to their neighbours or maybe they even feel safer.

Of course not. Not so sure how much I would like to leave my wallet at the store either. Everybody wants to have control over the stuff they own.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand I dont see the gain. What is the gain of keeping an automated rifle at home? Do you want to have it to show it around, to sleep next to you during the night? Explain to me the gain?

Why do people like fast cars or powerful computers? They are fun to own and fun to use. The mentality is the same. And then there are the less fun reasons mentioned earlier in this thread.

Oh great, thats really not reassurring you know, that some people consider a rifle as a toy.

[Ares1978 0]

Well let´s call it selective reading. I don´t buy everything I get offered in an internet release of any kind, but for sure it does contain relevant info on the subject like industry undergoing the limits and such. Those things are just true. So why damn a complete document for some points that are not true. You can mine some info from the documaent, and that´s not too bad, is it ?

So you just believe the things you want to believe?

[Ares1978 0]

Oh great, thats really not reassurring you know, that some people consider a rifle as a toy.

So you think a car is a toy? Now that's disconcerting.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Ares, I am all willing to have a decent discussion, but please stop comparing rifles to cars, this not only reminds me of NRA extremists (which I believe you are not) and secondly the comparison is inadequate.

You know that in a modern western country most people need cars. We need them to travel, to work and for keeping up our complicated lifes. In most western nations people possess cars and with them cause far less lethal accidents than if they would all possess guns.

Secondly a car CAN cause death but it is not build to do just that. Car accidents happen but the industry is doing the best to one day reduce the risk of lethal accidents to the minimum. And I may hope that in 10 years from now most BMWs and Mercedes will be damm safe and lethal accidents very unlikely. In most cases an accident will cause yourself being hurt too so people are being a bit more careful, wherease rifles let you hope you dont get hurt.

Guns however will be developed into the opposite direction, they are being made more and more lethal each day.

AND finally in most western countries people need to take a test before they can possess a car. Criminals can steal cars but they can rarely use them to threaten others.

Furthermore we are not talking about guns here but about automated rifles. Those shouldnt be used for hunting (unethical) and they are not very good weapons for self defense. They can be used for sports and I dont want to take that right away from you. But dont you understand that foreigners are somewhat surprised that everyone can buy an war-rifle in an ordinary shop?

Me personally I am only surprised to hear that people buy automated rifles for self protection. This realy is paranoia.