Does assault weapon stand for full-auto rifles?
Then I find this right. I mean you may have a pistol or rifle for defence means or hunting, but why on earth would a civilian need a full auto assault weapon?
Bans like this are as effective as saying you can't put spoilers, spinners, and neon lights on your car; if wanting to lower vehicle-related deaths.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;38883173]Does assault weapon stand for full-auto rifles?
Then I find this right. I mean you may have a pistol or rifle for defence means or hunting, but why on earth would a civilian need a full auto assault weapon?[/QUOTE]
No, this is talking about semi auto firearms.
Its virtually impossible to get a legal fully automatic weapon.
If someone who is for this ban could explain to me the difference between an assault rifle and a rifle without being absolutely fucking wrong I would suck your dick.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;38883173]Does assault weapon stand for full-auto rifles?
Then I find this right. I mean you may have a pistol or rifle for defence means or hunting, but why on earth would a civilian need a full auto assault weapon?[/QUOTE]
Assault weapon is a term made up by politicians to describe weapons which have pistol grips, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, and high capacity assault clips. It has nothing to do with how the weapon operates, only what it looks like.
By their definition everything from a 10/22 to an AR-15 could be an assault weapon.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;38883173]Does assault weapon stand for full-auto rifles?
Then I find this right. I mean you may have a pistol or rifle for defence means or hunting, but why on earth would a civilian need a full auto assault weapon?[/QUOTE]
Those are already banned.
[QUOTE=lapsus_;38883173]Does assault weapon stand for full-auto rifles?
Then I find this right. I mean you may have a pistol or rifle for defence means or hunting, but why on earth would a civilian need a full auto assault weapon?[/QUOTE]
this is how they define 'assault weapon'
[quote]Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.[/quote]
as you may notice, they most likely have never seen a firearm in person, and most certainly have never fired one
[editline]18th December 2012[/editline]
the funny thing about this is, although I know other regulations already make it illegal for civilians to own, if this were the one and only law limiting firearm ownership, an M249 would be totally legal
Sobotnik, you are aware that you can shoot people and NOT kill them. Right? If I was in a position where I was forced to shoot someone in the act of self defense, there is now way in hell I would shoot to kill. Unless it's kill or be killed.
[IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/9/9e/C96STOCK.jpg/400px-C96STOCK.jpg[/IMG]
[I][B]Deadly[/B] assault weapon.[/I]
Bans like these are just retarded, in my opinion. If you know anything about firearms, it doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on - these are just plain worthless and time-consuming pieces of legislation.
[QUOTE=Delta616;38883402]Sobotnik, you are aware that you can shoot people and NOT kill them. Right? If I was in a position where I was forced to shoot someone in the act of self defense, there is now way in hell I would shoot to kill. Unless it's kill or be killed.[/QUOTE]
No offense, but as someone's whose talked with people in similar situations (military); there is no such thing as "Not shooting to kill." (When aiming at someone.)
When you point a gun at anything, you have full intent to destroy or kill it. [U]The end.[/U] The most you could use in this argument is a warning shot, which could be a death sentence to yourself or others if the assailant is armed. When you shoot another human being, you have a high chance of killing them. Trying to play to the action movie or video game and aim for anything other than the center of mass, and your probability of hitting them goes down exponentially. Contrary to popular belief, shooting someone in the arm or leg [I]may not stop them from carrying out whatever they are doing.[/I] Nor even in the chest for that matter. Just my little two cents.
If i wanted to go on a school shooting, i would [U]NOT[/U] use an "assault weapon", i would go buy a pump shotgun, and a pistol. The fuck do these people think that all "assault weapons" are full auto 7.62 Full Metal Jacket.
[QUOTE=counterpo0;38883533]If i wanted to go on a school shooting, i would [U]NOT[/U] use an "assault weapon", i would go buy a pump shotgun, and a pistol. The fuck do these people think that all "assault weapons" are full auto 7.62 Full Metal Jacket.[/QUOTE]
It is a popular belief that people think assault weapons are automatic rifles.
If I were crazy I would use a sawed shotgun but it would probably not have the same fatal power as one with a long pipe that concentrates the beads.
[QUOTE=counterpo0;38883533]If i wanted to go on a school shooting, i would [U]NOT[/U] use an "assault weapon", i would go buy a pump shotgun, and a pistol. The fuck do these people think that all "assault weapons" are full auto 7.62 Full Metal Jacket.[/QUOTE]
If I were crazy enough to shoot up a school, I would probably bring a Lee Enfield. Since it's bolt action, it would force the shooter to aim each and every one of their shots, resulting in a greater amount of casualties. Since the rifle uses a 10 round detachable mag, reloading is pretty fast as well. You could also use a 10 round stripper clip, although the mag option would be easier.
It would be just as deadly, if not deadlier, and an assault weapon.
The last automatic weapons available for civilian purchase was in 1986. All weapons/receivers were not available to the public unless -
1) They met all Federal Firearms requirements (Age, clean record, etc.)
2) They live in a Class 3 State
3) They bought their firearm from a licensed Class 3 dealer
4) They pay the $500 tax stamp, plus the cost of the firearm (Which usually numbers around $15,000-25,000
5) They must then have that gun registered to a national database, and fill out paperwork
So, in turn, Full-Autos are for rich people with plenty of time on their hands.
Ban everything that has the ability to harm anyone in any way.
Nerf the world.
where's the actual transcript/video/speech whatever where obama said he would actively seek an assault weapons ban?
[QUOTE=Doom14;38883409][IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/9/9e/C96STOCK.jpg/400px-C96STOCK.jpg[/IMG]
[I][B]Deadly[/B] assault weapon.[/I]
[IMG]http://www.beretta.com/dati/ContentManager/images/catalogo_prodotti_imgs/riduzioni/795_big_1_340P_340P.jpg[/IMG]
Populace friendly firearm.
Bans like these are just retarded, in my opinion. If you know anything about firearms, it doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on - these are just plain worthless and time-consuming pieces of legislation.
No offense, but as someone's whose talked with people in similar situations (military); there is no such thing as "Not shooting to kill." (When aiming at someone.)
When you point a gun at anything, you have full intent to destroy or kill it. [U]The end.[/U] The most you could use in this argument is a warning shot, which could be a death sentence to yourself or others if the assailant is armed. When you shoot another human being, you have a high chance of killing them. Trying to play to the action movie or video game and aim for anything other than the center of mass, and your probability of hitting them goes down exponentially. Contrary to popular belief, shooting someone in the arm or leg [I]may not stop them from carrying out whatever they are doing.[/I] Nor even in the chest for that matter. Just my little two cents.[/QUOTE]
Something most people do in self defense situations is to keep firing until they are out of ammo, or until it is obvious that the assailant is neutralized.
[QUOTE=Dav0r;38879450]Ban all guns.[/QUOTE]
idiot
I don't know about you guys.. but I like myself A Good Gun
shooting the targets is just a feel that you have to once have feelt better 4.59 full metal jacket ammunation in that auto smg it is the best
btw its a clip not a magazing...............................
[QUOTE=backfoggen;38883646]I don't know about you guys.. but I like myself A Good Gun
shooting the targets is just a feel that you have to once have feelt better 4.59 full metal jacket ammunation in that auto smg it is the best
btw its a clip not a magazing...............................[/QUOTE]
Clips are used to physically hold the rounds (like a stripper clip or an enbloc clip). A magazine is something that holds a supply of rounds (the thing you put into an M-16, the thing you put the bullets into on a Mosin-Nagant, etc...)
That said, the phrases are used interchangeably, and it frankly annoys me.
It seems to me ever since the election everybody on Facepunch has been hating everything Obama has been doing.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38883598]If I were crazy enough to shoot up a school, I would probably bring a Lee Enfield. Since it's bolt action, it would force the shooter to aim each and every one of their shots, resulting in a greater amount of casualties. Since the rifle uses a 10 round detachable mag, reloading is pretty fast as well. You could also use a 10 round stripper clip, although the mag option would be easier.
It would be just as deadly, if not deadlier, and an assault weapon.[/QUOTE]
And after the second or third bolt pull, everyone would be gone.
Let's not play any twisted fantasies here, for an untrained or slightly-trained shooter, the most dangerous weapon would still be some form of semi-automatic/automatic rifle/shotgun. From there, it would also have to have a detachable magazine. This assumes that the starting location would be a crowded area and that people would panic and flee.
A bolt-action or pump-shotgun would be terrible choices if you wanted to inflict maximum casualties in minimal time. A pistol would only serve as an inaccurate side arm. These weapons are only useful in cases of idle or trapped victims; in which the above weapons would work just the same.
Just sayin'; if you wanted to focus on making these shootings less deadly, focus on the things that actually could make them really deadly first. Which ironically have only been used a very miniscule number of times. The real focus should be on psychiatric health/help and making sure that unlicensed individuals and [I]fucking children (under 21)[/I] are not getting their hands on firearms. Parents who allow their children to illegally own firearms and then use them in a shooting should [B]be just as responsible as the child.[/B]
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;38882965]Why Obama? I thought you were cool[/QUOTE]
I almost hit agree, but I remembered that I didn't vote for him. :v:
You have to take this into consideration:
When was the last time you got angry/seriously depressed, and you thought "The best way to take out my frustrations would be to kill a bunch of children".
Probably never. No one in their right mind would want to do this, ever. And we'll never know what his problem really was, since both he and his mother are dead.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38883783]You have to take this into consideration:
When was the last time you got angry/seriously depressed, and you thought "The best way to take out my frustrations would be to kill a bunch of children".
Probably never. No one in their right mind would want to do this, ever. And we'll never know what his problem really was, since both he and his mother are dead.[/QUOTE]
It is a shame these people suicide after their sprees. Psychologist could probably learn some stuff by examine these persons and know why.
[QUOTE=SteelReal;38879537]It's the same argument thats used in every discussion about the Brit's weapon ban. If you ban assault weapons, then the criminals who are already going to break the law will still acquire the guns illegally. Would you rather have dangerous weapons in the hands of some good people and some bad, or only the bad.[/QUOTE]
Except that it works in the UK. Granted knife crime has gone up, but what would you rather a criminal has, a gun or a knife?
Since I'm poor right now I'll never be able to own a majority single gun I've had on my wishlist for years if they ban transfers, and I won't be able to own any of the automatic pistols I want until 2015 if they force all sales to go through FFLs.
I'm so fucking sad.
[QUOTE=ExTek;38879496]I agree. They should only be for military use. Their only purpose is mass killing, no?
[B]edited:[/B]
While I still don't think this is a very bad idea, I think we need to think of a new system for this. There needs to be some kind of mental checkup every now and then. Also:
[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7lx6sLamP1r4k4dho1_1280.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Apart from Liability Insurance and tag and title this is the shit you have to do to get a license to carry a pistol on you.
It should be noted that you don't have to do any of the above for a car if you only drive it on private property, you only have to take these steps if you want to drive on public roads.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38883783]You have to take this into consideration:
When was the last time you got angry/seriously depressed, and you thought "The best way to take out my frustrations would be to kill a bunch of children".
Probably never. No one in their right mind would want to do this, ever. And we'll never know what his problem really was, since both he and his mother are dead.[/QUOTE]
Actually, he was apparently doing this in a right mind. Reportedly, he smashed his hard drive before he went to shoot up the school, and when he shot the school, he did so in a very methodical way.
In other words...this son of a bitch had some sort of [i]reason[/i] to shoot up the school. The FBI is going to try to reconstruct the hard drive and search it for evidence.
Here's one of the sources I could find. I saw it earlier on Yahoo.
[url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/21019/adam-lanza-destroyed-hard-drive-before-sandy-hook-shooting-trashing-all-evidence[/url]
[QUOTE=kimr120;38883825]It is a shame these people suicide after their sprees. Psychologist could probably learn some stuff by examine these persons and know why.[/QUOTE]
And also go on to prevent these sorts of things and help thousands, if not millions.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38879725]As a personal example, I'd be put in jail in the UK for having this.
Why.[/QUOTE]
I just wish balisongs were legal here, but of course they count as a concealed blade
I had to make one out of legos instead [img]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;38883725]It seems to me ever since the election everybody on Facepunch has been hating everything Obama has been doing.[/QUOTE]
US politician, whats not to dislike?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.