Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I've only been to the British Isles, France, Italy, Israel, Canada, which isn't really a different country :P as well as the Netherlands (only on a technicality, though).

The MP7's merits are well known. The stopping power is not the issue, after all. Compared to a 9mm Parabellum M9 pistol, the MP7 has more stopping power AND better penetration. Hell, the 4.6x30mm is designed to tumble.

Replacing the M4 with the MP7 would be a mistake. Yes, it would, but replacing the M9 with a 4.6mm or 5.7mm weapon would be good. Replacing the M4 and M16 family with an HK416 or switching the entire military's ARs to the SCAR family would be good...

You are probably right about the 5.56. I just worry about stopping power for close ranges, so I would err on the side of a larger round. Though, to be fair, we could issue the XM-26 LSS and keep the 5.56.

Preventing one death makes gun control entirely worth it, is my fundamental view.

Well, it's nice to have a liberal Fox to attempt to balance it out...of course, the BBC isn't pandering to idiots and doesn't blatantly lie like Fox does, as far as I can tell...and it has a smaller audience, IIRC.

No one can beat Rupert, no one.

And that's bad.

If Fatah is the group of the "baddies," then the United States is evil, as is the rest of the West, and only fundamentalist Islam is good.

But any media has to be taken with a grain of salt – the BBC, despite it's usual accuracy and candor (except in relation to Israel), is included.

At 6/17/07 01:20 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Palestinians have more rights in Israel than they do in Palestine.

That's for sure, especially considering that there is no "Palestine." Regardless, if there was, it would be much worse for the "Palestinians" than it is now.

At 6/17/07 12:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: BUT they fail to realize that the majority of crimes are committed by people who DO NOT legally obtain firearms, and many crimes are prevented by people who DO legally possess firearms.

Less guns doesn't mean more crime.

Even John Lott admits the possibility of that: "The more serious possibility is that some other factor may have caused both the reduction in crime rates and the passage of the law to occur at the same time." (this is from pg. 153 of his book).

Oh, those crazy kids, demonstrating without a cause.

I kid, I kid.

Telepathic fight?

Ah, yeah, a good ol' fashioned telepathic powers duel.

Oops, heh.

Yeah...

Pinochet = Chile...

Uh, oops?

At 6/16/07 08:16 PM, Politics wrote: Look out, he's from Argentina!

Who lawled @ Pinochet?

I swear, it wasn't me! [cowers]

At 6/16/07 05:51 PM, TheMason wrote: They increase the profile of the weapon and decrease concealability...

And if someone's just out on a killing spree? Or decides to pull "beltway sniper with a C-Mag?"

Besides, detachable magazines (no matter what size) can be exchanged fast enough to compensate for the lower capacity.

Not when we're looking at someone with a semi auto and, say, a 30 round magazine. Compare that to a semi-auto with a 10 round magazine...or, as it would have been under the ban, a bolt action with a 5 round magazine.

Furthermore, high-capacity magazines may actually be better for shooting victims...

You've just adopted my point.

As fast as he was firing he could not take aim nor could he fire accurately

Spray and pray seemed to have worked in the Stockton tragedy. He killed 5 kids, wounded 29 others and a teacher...That's bad. And imagine if there'd been another gunman and the cops showed up? North Hollywood, anyone?

It is highly probable that if he used a more traditional hunting rifle or shotgun more kids would have been killed or seriously injured.

*sputter* How so?

1) It is perfectly acceptable as a hunting weapon.

.223 rounds, what I would think is the most common size for an AR-fired round, aren't good for making clean kills on game much larger than a coyote. After all, the .222 remington, from which the .223 was based on, was designed for so-called "varmint hunting."

2) They are not a danger in the hands of a regular citizen.

Regular citizen, perhaps not. Easy to steal from a legal owner? Yeah, probably. That's one of the problems. It's not that I don't want good people to have guns, I just don't want good people to have guns that could get stolen, for one.

A Ford Mustang in the hands of a regular citizen iis more of a danger to police and regular citizens than any firearm in the hands of a regular citizen.

It's also more cost prohibitive than a firearm, for one.

3) Yes it is important that they are not used in crimes.

They are, though. And they kill...How can you deny that?

In fact, it is the firearm I go deer hunting with.

7.62 Soviet? Probably more powerful than a .223, as far as I can tell...

If you want a 7.62 soviet, you can have one. It's the fact that it's fired from a semi-automatic weapon that I have a problem with.

The argument is that AR rounds are actually not designed or intended for killing...while hunting rounds are more powerful and by design & intent are made SOLELY for killing.

And a hunting round is fired from...?

*ding, ding, ding*

A hunting or battle rifle, not an AR. Come on, don't be naiive. It's pretty easy to get your hands on a semi auto rifle. Easier than a pistol, most likely. Take that and add in thousands of dollars and terror cells. The IRA bought .50 cals, so why couldn't al qaeda buy SKSs?

It was originally going to be a massive football player...Geez.

At 6/16/07 07:48 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

and I want to use the ruler.....

Wait, what? Corporal punishment?

32 kids dead because of a nut who got guns is a massacre.

One college age girl with a bruise from a baseball bat swung at him by a crazy English major from South Korea who was subdued and beaten to a pulp by her in front of everyone isn't a tragedy.

At 6/16/07 05:32 PM, Proteas wrote: And has been shown, it really didn't do anything with regards to truly restricting one's ability to acquire such weapons, which is what I took the word "ban" to mean.

Grandfathering is an issue, but it's one of those things that makes a ban politically possible.
Yet the ban did reduce AR crimes...and traces, too.

Ah yes, because any gun that even remotely looks scary should be regulated until it's no longer funny anymore.

No, as I pointed out, any weapon that makes it very easy to shoot many rounds quickly in tight quarters is dangerous.

Besides (going on from what I said in my last post), the AWB covered weapons that weren't previously covered. Restricting magazine size among other things is inherently good for (a.) law enforcement and (b.) citizens...
I mean, seriously, a semi automatic weapon is not something that would be considered a hunting weapon. A semi-automatic rifle in the hands of a criminal or even a regular citizen is a danger to citizens and law enforcement. This is the kind of reasonable, targeted ban that keeps guns off the streets. And why does the percentage of crimes that these are used in matter? It's not important that ARs are only used in a few dozen crimes, it's that by banning them, we save lives.

And when we look at assault weapons, they're not very sporting. What's the fun in shooting a deer when you can unload a whole clip of ammo on it in a matter of seconds? Where's the sport in shooting the moose when the moose can't see the flash?

I commonly hear the argument that ARs fire big rounds so they should be banned. That's one of the fallacies from the anti-gun crowd that I'm proud to be a member of. The CAR-15, for example, fires a .223 remington. That's not so huge compared to at .30-06 or a .50 caliber. Yet this fallacious argument leads us to a rational point – the CAR-15 is infinitely more useful than a .30-06 or .50 cal hunting rifle when applied for a shooting rampage or murders in close proximity...after all, the CAR-15 can fire more rapidly than a bolt action weapon, can have a much, much larger clip, is shorter and more mobile, etc.

Proteas, the numbers provided show that the AWB worked.

And, on principle, it's a perfectly logical ban.

I dunno about that.

After all, OSX is just Unix with an awesomely cool eye-candy full GUI.

At 6/14/07 11:31 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 6/13/07 08:32 PM, stafffighter wrote: No, the wackiest part of this is that a bunch of people with guns are a powerful lobby.

Not just a bunch of people with guns. A bunch of people with guns + Moses.

Speaking of guns + moses...

Look at this (lawl).

I can't agree, either.

I've been on Macs for years, and I've never had problems that couldn't be fixed (except for a defective hard drive).

They're infinitely more user friendly, but that's a personal P.O.V. However, the OS is more secure, and that's purely factual.

Globalization is the wave of the future.

Just look at what foreign corporations did to south korea (for the better)!!!

Fatah will be dealt with amicably, but Hamas will be pummeled. That's the best case scenario, I would think.

I can't see how the Palestinians will ever have a state at this rate.

Oh, come on, that's like saying a 16 year old white boy from Connecticut can't rap.

Wait a sec...I sure as hell can't.

At 6/15/07 09:21 PM, Proteas wrote:

In short, the punks of today don't have the balls to follow through on their anti-government rantings. I thought as much.

I'm not anti-government...

I'm anti-administration. Big difference...

At 6/15/07 09:40 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) Our military structure is made so as to mitigate the chances of a military coup.

That's certainly true. However, when civillians are removed from the loop (how hard would that be, anyway?), you lose the civillian control aspect, and while the military isn't full of wackos, it would only take a few strategically placed wackos to mess up everything.

2) When you start looking into State militias and Air/National Guards...the military is just too large and diverse for any general to be successful.

Any single general, sure, but a group? A cabal? As unlikely as that is, it's possible. Yet I doubt that it would succeed, naturally, owing to the general morality and anti-traitorous inclinations of our military.

If you notice it happened in a rural, midwestern setting

Those aren't the population centers, though. If they were really dealing with that, there would be quick and easy solutions. Plus, consider the satellite surveillance that could be brought to bear, etc.

A few dozen individual groups spread out throughout the midwest couldn't do that much.

not an Eastern or Western Urban environment.

Urban environments would be easily subdued, that's for sure, as you suggest. It would get quickly destroyed a'la the Warsaw uprising.

At 6/12/07 11:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I can shoot an AK-47 very well within it's envelope of accuracy.

When are our soldiers dealing with ranges outside the accuracy envelope, except for designated marksmen...?

We should be going to larger rounds for some soldiers and start adopting things like the MP7 too.

Yeah, Freud did have issues.

Anyway:

How 'bout 'dem yankees?

Lolz @ baseball.

At 6/15/07 03:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're negating one very important factor in a U.S. Government versus it's own people guerilla war

Shay's rebellion didn't cause mass desertions, nor did the bonus army "put-down" nor the quelling of the race riots.

Though those aren't guerilla conflicts, they are events where american forces were used in a capacity where they were "fighting" their fellows...

Mason pointed this out earlier...

Possibly true, possibly. Still, we can't assume that the military would desert. For all we know, a repressive government could be a military coup against the civillian power – something that the founders feared.

I think it would stand to reason the American people would put up one HELL of a fight against a rogue U.S. Government.

I hope so, but I doubt it.

Unless, of course, I'm giving to much credit to my contemporaries, thinking that they would actually have the backbone to standup against a corrupt government they so often denounce...

We wouldn't have Red Dawn against american forces, that's for sure. Now, I'm all for freedom and justice and equality, but, come on, seriously, how many well trained and well equipped individuals will actually stand up? And will they be able to unite? To get assistance from the rest of the population?

It's just too many variables.

Represented by the cigar.

And since he put it in his mouth, he must have been autosexual.

And since he's autosexual, but wants to have sex with his mother, his mother, to him, is an extension of himself. Since his mother is a female, he must assume that she represents castration anxiety, too.

It was either that or swap the castration anxiety part with: Which brings us back to the point that he's autosexual.

Field Manuals providing information for insurgents are widely (and legally) available. Distributing these isn't going to allow overthrow...

Again, I'll bring up Shay's rebellion.

Back then, the rebels had muskets and rifles. So did the military. The only government advantage was numbers (quite possibly tactics).

Today, any rebel against an oppressive government will have, at best, a few fully-automatic rifles (maybe. More likely are bolt action hunting weapons and semi-auto rifles and carbines.). Compare that to a couple COIN aircraft, light armored vehicles and an infantry unit equipped with SMAWs, SAWs and ARs...Besides, we have to account for the population centers and population distribution being very different today.