[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39039288]Straw purchases != straight-up black market arms deals.
Columbine wouldn't have happened if guns were illegal in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Fertilizer, gasoline and propane. Guns are just a prefered method of killing since its simple, point and shoot.
[QUOTE=counterpo0;39046784]Fertilizer, gasoline and propane. Guns are just a prefered method of killing since its simple, point and shoot.[/QUOTE]
Homemade bombs aren't 100% effective, guns are.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39047055]Homemade bombs aren't 100% effective, guns are.[/QUOTE]
You'd have to be naive to believe that. Guns can jam, overheat, mechanisms can snap, a lot of things go wrong. There have also been a lot of cases of people surviving multiple gunshot wounds.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39047055]Homemade bombs aren't 100% effective, guns are.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan who kill more soldiers with homemade explosives than they do guns
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39038170]I'm just going to come right out with it and say that limiting the rights of citizens and patronizing an entire civilian populace is not an acceptable way to "limit your losses." Freedom to chose and freedom to be responsible for yourself and your own conscious are more important than some half-assed scheme to slightly reduce firearm homicides.
[/QUOTE]
So we are free by being allowed to mass murder people? That's like saying if you murder someone you can get off free. If you don't have a use for an automatic rifle (You don't need automatics for hunting) you shouldn't have one.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39071939]So we are free by being allowed to mass murder people? That's like saying if you murder someone you can get off free. If you don't have a use for an automatic rifle (You don't need automatics for hunting) you shouldn't have one.[/QUOTE]
Your freedom extends to the point where your actions destroy the freedom of others. Notice I said [i]your[/i] actions, saying that the actions of other people should not effect your rights
Also, automatic weapons have been heavily restricted in the US since the 30s, and the manufacture of them for civilian sale has been totally prohibited since 1986
Guns are not the problem. The media is not the problem. The problem are mentally unstable people, people who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun but still do...
-snip-
Neither guns neither media is the problem. For example, look at switzerland or baltics. We can get gun easily, our kids play postal and similar games. Now remind me, how many school shootings, or shootings in general happened here? The answer is 0.
If you want to ban guns, you might as well ban lighters, knives, axes, everything you can kill with. Because people always will find a way if they want to kill others. Hell, it's not even hard to make pistol at your home, with home-owned materials.
All those killers were psychopaths, and it wasn't influenced by neither media,videogames or guns.
If you blame any of the above reasons, you might as well blame woman.
[img]http://puu.sh/1IS3u[/img]
So yea, every of you anti-gun nuts is retarded, and you hate freedom.
And this is coming from right winger.
In a gun-less society, these murders would not have happened on that scale.
A gun is a easy to use weapon, both physically and morally. (compared to say, a knife, axe or even unarmed) With widespread availability (especially in the USA), this wont stop happening anytime soon.
In that respect, I'm glad I live in England, and I'm happy to know that the thousands of lunatics around me cannot easily acquire a weapon that in an instant has the power to end life.
[QUOTE=cyanidem;39079174]In a gun-less society, these murders would not have happened on that scale.
A gun is a easy to use weapon, both physically and morally. (compared to say, a knife, axe or even unarmed) With widespread availability (especially in the USA), this wont stop happening anytime soon.
In that respect, I'm glad I live in England, and I'm happy to know that the thousands of lunatics around me cannot easily acquire a weapon that in an instant has the power to end life.[/QUOTE]
As I said, how many countries that has guns gets shootouts? As I said, to both baltics and switzerland, shootouts is non-existant. While in Germany, where guns is banned, there's many shootouts.
Gun is barely a tool.
Not guns kill people. Human do.
I agree, the media feeds off terror.
In the grand scheme of things, citizens with guns is a non-issue.
Alright I still think automatics are should not be in the hands of people but instead of banning them we should make the licenses harder to get or maybe try to get people to take more responsibility of their guns.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39086261]Alright I still think automatics are should not be in the hands of people but instead of banning them we should make the licenses harder to get or maybe try to get people to take more responsibility of their guns.[/QUOTE]
Automatics have been banned in the U.S. for a long time.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39086516]Automatics have been banned in the U.S. for a long time.[/QUOTE]
Bump-firing modifications for AR-15s and AK-47s exist that allow fully-automatic fire.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39087032]Bump-firing modifications for AR-15s and AK-47s exist that allow fully-automatic fire.[/QUOTE]
With I believe almost all guns made now you can't do that unless there is some design flaw that allows it. It is also still illegal to do that modification in the U.S. nonetheless.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39087784]With I believe almost all guns made now you can't do that unless there is some design flaw that allows it. It is also still illegal to do that modification in the U.S. nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://militarygunsupply.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1082[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_trigger[/url]
No, you can make your rifle automatic with ease.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39087032]Bump-firing modifications for AR-15s and AK-47s exist that allow fully-automatic fire.[/QUOTE]
You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside bump firing a gun, and you don't need a modification to do so. Try and find an example of someone going on a spree bump firing and I'll reconsider.
Even the military hardly uses full auto to kill people, because you can't hit shit with it. They only use it for suppressing fire
[editline]4th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39088210][url]http://militarygunsupply.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1082[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_trigger[/url]
No, you can make your rifle automatic with ease.[/QUOTE]
That's bump firing, not an "automatic conversion".
If you have the skill require to modify a modern gun (i.e post about the 60s when BAFT made it illegal to have a gun easily convertible to full auto, even then, most pre60s gun couldn't easily) to full auto then you've got the skill to build one from scratch
[editline]4th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39086261]Alright I still think automatics are should not be in the hands of people but instead of banning them we should make the licenses harder to get or maybe try to get people to take more responsibility of their guns.[/QUOTE]
Been like that since the 1930s.
I'll sum it up:
In the 30s, they decided to ban machine guns, suppressors and a few other things. The idea was however struck down by the Supreme Court. So instead, they decided to tax them so heavily that no one could afford it. They introduced the $200 NFA item tax. In the 30s, $200 was equivalent to about $10k now, very few could afford it. At the same time as paying your tax they did a background check and took your finger prints.
Fast forward to 1986, despite the only time a legally owned NFA weapon being used in a crime was by a police officer, they decided to "ban" NFA weapons. They said that after May in 1986, no new NFA machine guns could be made for civilians. With supply and demand, a full auto M16 would cost you about $1500 in 1986, now the same gun, made before 1986 costs upwards of $20k.
They are exceptionally hard to get (taking more than 6 months per gun), cost a fortune and legally owned ones are never used in crimes.
In my country, I support licensing (with safety training and making owners responsible for taking reasonable precautions to stop their firearms from being misused, but no registration), I however don't think licensing will work in the US due to the enormous amount of untracable and unregistered firearms.
Shit I meant assault rifles shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.
And still so called "Gangster guns" (Automatics for those of you who don't know) should definitely not be in civilians hands.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39097733]Shit I meant assault rifles shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.
And still so called "Gangster guns" (Automatics for those of you who don't know) should definitely not be in civilians hands.[/QUOTE]
Assault rifles are machine guns and have required registration and essentially licensing since the 1930s.
Why ban "gangster guns" when they're not used in crimes? You're just using emotionally laden words to make your point seem more valid.
I think you need a lesson here:
Automatic - Once you pull the trigger it keeps firing until you let go of the trigger, the weapon jams, or you run out of ammo
Semi-automatic - One pull of the trigger, one bullet fired
Select fire - a weapon capable of being selected between automatic and semi-automatic.
In pretty much every country of the world, the US included, select fire weapons and automatic weapons are machine guns. Assault rifles are select fire, and thus are machine guns. Banned from manufacture since 1986, and have need registration since the 30s
There are many firearms in circulation in the US that look like select fire weapons, many of the AR15s, but they are only semi-auto. Just because it looks like a machine gun does not make it so. It's like dressing an old fashioned Volkswagen Beetle up as a Porsche, then saying because it looks like a Porsche, it is one
[QUOTE=download;39098286]Assault rifles are machine guns and have required registration and essentially licensing since the 1930s.
Why ban "gangster guns" when they're not used in crimes? You're just using emotionally laden words to make your point seem more valid.
I think you need a lesson here:
Automatic - Once you pull the trigger it keeps firing until you let go of the trigger, the weapon jams, or you run out of ammo
Semi-automatic - One pull of the trigger, one bullet fired
Select fire - a weapon capable of being selected between automatic and semi-automatic.
In pretty much every country of the world, the US included, select fire weapons and automatic weapons are machine guns. Assault rifles are select fire, and thus are machine guns. Banned from manufacture since 1986, and have need registration since the 30s
There are many firearms in circulation in the US that look like select fire weapons, many of the AR15s, but they are only semi-auto. Just because it looks like a machine gun does not make it so. It's like dressing an old fashioned Volkswagen Beetle up as a Porsche, then saying because it looks like a Porsche, it is one[/QUOTE]
Are you a fucking idiot?
Automatics have been banned since 1934 and "Gangster Guns" what they were called back then. I was just fucking saying I'm glad that they are banned.
Also Assault rifles are extensively used by the military. They shouldn't be in the hands of private owners as much as hand grenades, mortars, and M1 Abrams tanks. The least you could do is require tougher tests to get a license and also require a full background check to make sure that the person or anyone in their immediate family doesn't have mental problems.
I know what the fuck the terms mean.
Also Assault rifles were unbanned in 2004.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39111308]Are you a fucking idiot?
Automatics have been banned since 1934 and "Gangster Guns" what they were called back then. I was just fucking saying I'm glad that they are banned.
Also Assault rifles are extensively used by the military. They shouldn't be in the hands of private owners as much as hand grenades, mortars, and M1 Abrams tanks. The least you could do is require tougher tests to get a license and also require a full background check to make sure that the person or anyone in their immediate family doesn't have mental problems.
I know what the fuck the terms mean.
Also Assault rifles were unbanned in 2004.[/QUOTE]
Assault Rifles are defined as rifles with SELECT FIRE CAPABILITIES, meaning you can choose between automatic and semi-automatic. In this sense, yes, the military does use them, but they do NOT use what the media defines as an "assault rifle," which is a semi-automatic sporting gun that LOOKS like something the military MIGHT use.
Automatic weapons had their ownership abilities restricted in 1934, but were not outright banned until 1986. This includes true assault rifles.
The term" gangster guns" as defined seemingly arbitrarily by you is a dead and useless phrase, if anything it refers to small handguns now, also referred to as "Saturday night specials."
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 was not a prohibition of Assault Rifles, which were banned in 1986, it was a ban of guns purely based on their aesthetic value, banning guns that looked like what the media and politicians THINK an assault rifle looks like. The 2004 expiration date only affected semi-automatic sporting guns, not assault weapons, which remain banned as of 1986, and since the introduction of the registration scheme with the NFA in 1934, have actually only been used in the commission of a murder twice.
Also, insulting your opposition is no way to conduct an argument, personal insults like that are not welcome here, though I do agree with him that you are misinterpreting terms.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39111308]
Also Assault rifles are extensively used by the military. They shouldn't be in the hands of private owners as much as hand grenades, mortars, and M1 Abrams tanks.
Also Assault rifles were unbanned in 2004.[/QUOTE]
Then you can rest easily knowing that (for the 3rd time) assault rifles have been banned since 1984 in your country.
[img]http://img2.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/495/media/images/Colt_AR-15_Rifle_2.JPG[/img]
This is [B]not[/B] an assault rifle. This is a semi-auto modern sporting carbine, your normal multi-purpose rifle in a neat looking shell.
Not any different in function than this
[img]http://www.huntingriflesreviews.com/images/reviews/38-750-Woodmaster-Semiautomatic-Rifles-main.jpg[/img]
or this
[img]http://www.armeriaprieto.com/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/Browning_Bar_MK__4ba948e132596.jpg[/img]
Appearances are deceiving.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39111308]Are you a fucking idiot?
Automatics have been banned since 1934 and "Gangster Guns" what they were called back then. I was just fucking saying I'm glad that they are banned.
Also Assault rifles are extensively used by the military. They shouldn't be in the hands of private owners as much as hand grenades, mortars, and M1 Abrams tanks. The least you could do is require tougher tests to get a license and also require a full background check to make sure that the person or anyone in their immediate family doesn't have mental problems.
I know what the fuck the terms mean.
Also Assault rifles were unbanned in 2004.[/QUOTE]
What DaCommie1 said. You really need to be more polite
[QUOTE=download;39113119]What DaCommie1 said. You really need to be more polite[/QUOTE]
I was only Attacking you because you Attacked me. I felt you insulted me in the last god damn reply.
Anyways I'm leaving now. No point in arguing with people so entrenched about guns.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1KfbQ/a7250dc5393937bdda4e029f2a1c1b5e[/IMG]
Look at how scary that is! Wow!
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1Kfcz/81eb85e82299f40f3ee7d6e40e398b1b[/IMG]
That's better.
But is it?
The first image is not an assault weapon. It looks scarier than the second image, but the cartridge the second fires (.30-06) is much more lethal than the first one.
Why is the first one less lethal?
It's actually a .22LR rifle with a custom stock. The hole a .30-06 cartridge makes vs a .22LR hole is noncomparable. Getting shot by a .22 hurts like hell, but it'd take a mag dump (i.e. shooting the full mag capacity) to really kill someone with any immediacy.
Now of course, this isn't fair because the first gun is modified, but the point still stands that assault weapons bans are silly because they eliminate only a small percentage of guns. Regardless, most gun crime is committed with a handgun, so why are assault rifles getting all the flak?
For example:
[url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8[/url]
3/4 of all homicide is committed with a handgun. Hell, more people are killed with [B]fucking shotguns.[/B] Get your assault weapon ban nonsense out of here.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39115528]I was only Attacking you because you Attacked me. I felt you insulted me in the last god damn reply.
Anyways I'm leaving now. No point in arguing with people so entrenched about guns.[/QUOTE]
That's just a cop out. We've explained ourselves quite reasonably and you decide to just leave because you feel we're too entrenched. Have you ever considered that you might be the one entrenched?
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
You also didn't see me swearing at you
It's not really the fact the the media talks about it, it's the fact that they unintentionally give a criteria for being a spree-shooter. They list the shooter's weapon, the shooter's past, the shooter's mental disorder(s), the shooter's favorite media, and the method(s) that the shooter used in killing his/her victims.
I'm assuming that this relates to other disturbed individuals that fit in that criteria.
[QUOTE=download;39115705]That's just a cop out. We've explained ourselves quite reasonably and you decide to just leave because you feel we're too entrenched. Have you ever considered that you might be the one entrenched?
You also didn't see me swearing at you[/QUOTE]
We're getting off topic.
Guns should be harder to get at least so nutcases can't get them.
I agree that the media is the problem. People like the guys who caused Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech shouldn't be remembered. They should be forgotten from our cultural memory, erased from existence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.