Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I would say it depends on region.

In more rural areas, gun laws have an unnoticeable effect on crime in some areas, and in others there was a crime decrease correlation based on the amount of guns that were owned in the towns.

Legalizing AK's and uzi's in say L.A. on the other hand would be a big mistake. So it depends.

Personally the only real reason most people who are for the owning of assault rifles is for collection and hobby shooting. I live in Arkansas (say what you will with the redneck jokes, lol) and I own about 50 or so rifles. Some of them are fully automatic. If there was a robber in the house though, the first weapon I would grab though is my revolver. Easy and quick to aim, light, low-recoil.

At 2/18/09 06:28 PM, Deradius wrote: A. The government became a tyrrany (something they were familiar with) and needed to be overthrown, or

So- I've heard this one a lot. "We need (whatever type of) guns to defend ourselves from a tyrannous government."
Statement of fact. If you're going to overthrow/defend yourself from a tyrannous government, you're breaking the law. So break another law and illegally get the weapon, since the other statement is "even if they're illegal criminals will still get them". Just saying.

At 2/20/09 12:06 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Statement of fact. If you're going to overthrow/defend yourself from a tyrannous government, you're breaking the law. So break another law and illegally get the weapon, since the other statement is "even if they're illegal criminals will still get them". Just saying.

Wrong. In this country it'd be the government that's breaking the law, and the people are in the right.

Wrong. In this country it'd be the government that's breaking the law, and the people are in the right.

If the government breaks the law and you oppose it, you're breaking the law.

That probably depends on how you're opposing it

At 2/20/09 07:16 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote: That probably depends on how you're opposing it

If the Army is raining down missiles on you and sending tanks to destroy your town, I don't think you can run up to the general and yell, 'I never broke the law!' and have them all scratch their chins and leave.

I'm Baaack! (And on an AR thread no less.)

At 2/18/09 08:56 AM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 2/17/09 10:19 PM, Zeistro wrote: I'm thoroughly against assault rifles bans for a number of reasons. Namely, the bans themselves are idiotic, ill-conceived and written by a bunch of sissies that wouldn't know the difference between a barrel-shroud an upper receiver.

So because Congressmen, Senators, and the President aren't all gun experts, anything mentioning guns should not ever arise in Congress?

The problem is these politicians pontificate and manipulate public opinion for their own agenda. They do not advertise that their "common sense" is actually based in ignorance of firearms and the real driving factors behind crime. Furthermore, it is easier for them to blame an inanimate object than to say:
1) Police are ineffectual because of a 'no snitching' culture in the inner cities.
2) One of the reasons poverty-stricken school districts struggle is parental non-involvement.

I could go on but my time is limited.

Even you have to admit that banning assault weapons led to a decline in crime using Assault Weapons. The Department of Justice's 2004 study revealed that. The ban may be able to be mocked and it may be able for gun experts to get around, but the majority of people using guns in their crimes aren't even close to being gun experts, and would have no clue about how to get around a ban.

You are wrong on two fronts my friend. How is it possible that a ban on a weapon type that is used in less than 1% of ALL gun crime is responsible for the rate of decline in crime from 1994-2004? The answer: it is not and the study's results are spurious. See during that time the economy was chugging along at an incredible pace. Now how good the economy is going has a FAR greater impact on crime than banning assault rifles in particular and gun control in general.

The second way you are wrong is the bit about the majority of people using their guns not being gun experts. Now they may not all have the same level of gun knowledge I do (a guy currently posted in Southwest Asia)...but they have criminal knowledge. I mean watch Gangland on the History channel. A gang member was laughing at gun control because it is so easy for it to be gotten around. Seriously, do you think an illegal industry that has experience in smuggling drugs and people...will NOT take up gun running? I mean that just does not pass the giggle test...and to be honest the person who thinks that gun control is effective crime control is either exceptionally naive or a fool.

At 2/17/09 05:37 AM, ReiperX wrote: Defense - An assault rifle isn't great for home defense. Range is generally too long, and caliber is too large, so much large possibility of strays hitting unintended targets.

1) There are reasons that rifles in general are not the best choice for home defense, mostly that they are too awkward in tight places (one of the major reasons why, statistically speaking they are not used in crime.)
2) That said the optimum way of defending one's home is to lock one's self in a bedroom and not go hunting for the intruder. Thus awkwardness does not become a factor because you're not moving but setting up to fire into the door.
3) As for hitting unintended targets; this is not much of a safety concern if you follow the proper way of home defense. You fire into the door of your bedroom and you know what is behind it.
4) There are many, many, many pistol caliburs that fire bullets far larger than assault rifles. The M-16 fires a .223 bullet. This is only slightly larger than the .22 bullet that is common for shooting squirrells and other small game. The AK-47 fires a 7.62mm round that is smaller in diameter than a 9mm pistol round. .357 Magnum .40 S&W, .44 Magnum and .45 ACP are all pistol rounds that fire a larger bullet than the vast majority of assualt rifle rounds. And don't get me started on the destructiveness of shotguns...

Finally I have used an AK-47 for home defense. The psychological impact of hearing an AR bolt chamber a round is usually enough to scare off an intruder. I have use mine twice in home defense...but luckily I have never had to fire it in defense.

Training - A M-16 is not a pistol, while it isn't the most complicated piece of machinery in the world bad things can happen if you don't use it properly, or know what the hell you are doing with it.

If bad things are going to happen because you're not using a M-16 properly bad things are going to happen if you're using a pistol, shotgun or gandpa' huntin' rifle. Before going out to the range you need to know how to operate your firearm (and a M-16 is no more complicated than a pistol and probably less complicated than a pump shotgun), and you need to know safety rules. The type of gun does not really make any difference.

Hunting - A bolt action or a semi auto rifle should be fine. No need for the extra magazine capacity an assault rifle gives, not to mention the varying fire modes. Again this goes back to strays and unintended targets.

Now the term Assault rifle means different things in different contexts. When I am called to active duty an assault rifle means a firearm that has three modes of fire and fires an intermediate sized round. However, in the political world an assault rifle means something that is semi-auto (with or without rapid fire), has a bayonet lug, uses high-cap magazines, has a pistol grip and may have a folding stock. In the real world experts on firearms (not ignorant politicians) call these clones.

Now a clone is a perfectly reasonable firearm to take deer hunting. I have taken my AK-47 deer hunting everytime since I got it when I was 18. See I do not use a 30rd mag, but the 5rd mag that Missouri state law says is permissible. Furthermore, given the terrain, no shot is going to be from further than 100yards away. Therefore I do not require the large, high-powered rounds that more traditional hunting rifles needs. The intermediate round fired by my AK is more than capable in bringing down a deer. Furthermore, it is more safe because if I miss the Assault Rifle round is not going to travel as far and therefore there is less of a chance of me hitting those unintended targets you've been fretting about.

At 2/20/09 09:50 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 2/20/09 07:16 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote: That probably depends on how you're opposing it

If the Army is raining down missiles on you and sending tanks to destroy your town, I don't think you can run up to the general and yell, 'I never broke the law!' and have them all scratch their chins and leave.

If you've gotten to that point I'm pretty sure you've (the people rebeling) dismissed the current government as a false one, and probably aren't concerned about breaking the law anymore.

At 2/17/09 09:54 AM, Achilles2 wrote: I support an Assault Weapons ban.

The Supreme Court decided in United States v. Miller case of 1939 that there's a limit to what type of guns the 2nd Amendment intended to be necessary for a militia.

The Supreme Court has still not said that most Assault Weapons breach the limit.

But in Heller v. Washington DC the court did accept the argument that the second amendment was written, as a matter of historical fact, to protect citizen's rights to military firearms. The side arguing FOR DC's gun control made this argument when they argued that handguns had little or no military value.

I still support a ban, though. An unpublished 2004 study by the US Department of Justice discovered that crimes involving Assault Weapons declined by 17%-72% since 1994 when the ban was enacted. These numbers include "large-capacity magazines"

Uh-huh. You do realize this number is:
1) Most likely spurious because there are other Socio-Economic factors at play that have a MUCH higher correlation value with decreased crime than gun control. Thus there are more likely causes of any decrease in crime than any gun control measure.
2) That is a decline of 17-72% of less than 1%...you do realize that don't you? Assault rifles are used in less than 1% of ALL gun crime...statistically speaking it can be said these firearms are used in 0% of crime.
3) Assault rifles are not effective in crime. They are not concealable, they are heavy and not good in tight spaces. Furthermore, military ammo is full-metal jacket which means they are penetrating rounds...probably the least lethal and dangerous kind of ammo out there. Two case studies for you:

1997 West Hollywood Shoot-out
Straight out of the movies. Two bank robbers armed to the teeth will illegally converted assault rifles (mind you they got these guns under the ban...in bloody California!!!!) and encased in body armor robbed a Bank of America. Over the course of several hours they spewed over 3,000 rounds of ammunition at police and by-standers. The result: while the wounded were counted in the double digits there were only two deaths: the two robbers. One took his own life (with a pistol) while the other bled to death.

2007 VT Massacre
A guy armed with a .22 pistol and a 9mm pistol smuggled them into a campus dorm, then a campus classroom building. In the classroom building he stalked from room to room taking aimed shots firing non-military grade ammo. The result: 33 dead, dozens wounded...with 99 rounds.

My state of Massachusetts has such a ban intact, and look at our gun crimes rate, especially those involving Assault Weapons, compared to other states. We are the lowest among gun crimes in the country, and that's something to be proud of. The fact that 95% of the Senate voted for the bill in 1994, including Republicans, shows that it's not an issue of Liberals vs. Conservatives but what is safe vs. what isn't.

Keep in mind that party ID is not the best indicator of Liberal or Conservative, SEC and geography have far more to say than party ID.

That said, again the gun control=reduced crime relation is probably spurious. How does the following factors for your state compare with the rest of the country?
1) Affluence
2) Education system
3) Ethno-linguistic Factionalization
4) Population density

These are far more likely to contribute to reduced crime rates than gun control in general, and assault rifle bans in particular.

President Obama's agenda includes a permanent version of the Assault Weapons ban.

I doubt it. In 1994 the ban was one of the major factors that gave the Republicans a majority. Furthermore, many of the Democratic gains in the South and rural states are in districts where this policy is highly unpopular. Now the economy is a bigger concern than gun control (even to me). However, his stimulus package is a continuation of Bush's last year in office and if things do not turn around by 2010 (much less 2012) the Dems are going to face tough re-election bids. Gun control measures will just make it that more difficult.

Columbine Shooting

15 dead with one of the shooters primary weapon being the Tec-9 with a 52 round magazine, hitting on at least three characteristics of the Assault weapons ban.

But yes handguns in school shootings and such tend to be more lethal, but this could also be as a result of the environment. Bank of America was outside, lots of space and cover. Inside a school, a hallway is like shooting fish in a barrel, no cover and you are bound to hit someone.

I heard subways, cities, restaurants, churches, grocery stores and peace rallies also feature many people compacted together.

Didn't the Columbine killers utilize explosives as well?

At 2/22/09 09:05 PM, JoS wrote:
But yes handguns in school shootings and such tend to be more lethal, but this could also be as a result of the environment. Bank of America was outside, lots of space and cover. Inside a school, a hallway is like shooting fish in a barrel, no cover and you are bound to hit someone.

If our constitution itself is paranoid about other people taking our lives away you should know that not even in a thousand pages could I describe how society makes youth feel this way tenfold.

At 2/17/09 03:39 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: .The issue gets complicated, because clearly, no one thinks that a U.S. citizen should be able to build weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons (technically "arms"), so a has to be drawn somewhere.

Considering the fact that most weapons classify as WMD's or chemical based weapons are illegal for civilian use, this renders your opening statement a moot point.

But does that arguement work logically?

No, because (1) the term "assault rifle" is a misnomer because those who argue against it have no logical or rationale idea as to what to define it as beyond looks of the weapon, (2) weapons that are defined as "assault weapons" under such bills constitute less than a percent of overall gun crime, and (3) the last Assault Weapons Ban that went through only banned the manufacture of those weapons during the time of the ban, there was a built-in clause that allowed people who legally owned the proscribed weapons before the ban to keep and resell them after the ban, so in reality the ban did little to actually remedy any "assault weapon" based crime it sought to prevent.

At 2/17/09 12:43 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Anything guns that are fully automatic or capable of burst-fire, anything rounds specifically armor piercing or explosive, and any large-capacity magazines, as well as anything that fires explosives. I think that about covers it, but I could be overlooking some things.

Uh huh. So tell me, since when have civilians been able to buy such things?

I suppose certain sniper-type weapons could fit in the same ban.

A "sniper" rifle is another misnomer, because a sniper rifle is nothing more than a normal rifle with a precision scope attached to it. Aim it a deer and fire, it's a hunting rifle. Aim at a person, and it becomes a sniper rifle.

At 2/17/09 02:25 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: As well as many others

You do realize that a fair number of those crimes occured during the Assault Weapons Ban using weapons that were well within the legal guidelines for the ban, right?

At 2/18/09 09:08 AM, Achilles2 wrote: They actually accounted for 8% of violent crimes. Large-capacity magazines were used in 14%-26% of all gun crimes. Gun crimes dropped anywhere from 17%-72% in places where the Department of Justice studied.

You're misrepresenting statistics here. From your own link....
Finally, it is worth noting the ban has not completely eliminated the use of AWs,
and, despite large relative reductions, the share of gun crimes involving AWs is similar to
that before the ban. Based on year 2000 or more recent data, the most common AWs
continue to be used in up to 1.7% of gun crimes.
Guns that fall under the definition of "assault weapons" do not make up a large enough percentage of gun crime to be the target of such legislation, when it's a known fact that most gun crime is comitted using other means (shotguns and handguns).

This is much ado about NOTHING, and seeks to accomplish NOTHING.

You know what accomplishes nothing.

Killing people.

At 2/23/09 05:53 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You know what accomplishes nothing.

Killing people.

And coincidentally, that's what "Assault Weapons" do the least of in terms of gun crime.

I'm just going to skip right to my point;

If you're pro-gun control but your main focus is on "assault" weapons or things that are only available to the military (i.e.; rpg's, wmd's, incendiary rounds), then you're an idiot and don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. THE END.

If you've gotten to that point I'm pretty sure you've (the people rebeling) dismissed the current government as a false one, and probably aren't concerned about breaking the law anymore.

That's like disowning your parents when your father is beating you. It's all nice and well, but you're still his bitch.

At 2/23/09 06:03 PM, Proteas wrote:
And coincidentally, that's what "Assault Weapons" do the least of in terms of gun crime.

And what do guns do least in general? Not kill people?

You're going to say they're there to protect, to prevent.

I will say you are taking the milk out of the dairy store instead of just catching the cat.

At 2/24/09 09:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: And what do guns do least in general? Not kill people?

You're going to say they're there to protect, to prevent.

... or I could sit here and watch you squirm as you try to come up with a decent argument on why "less lethal hunting firearms" should be outlawed for the greater good.

I'm not talking about the greater good, I'm talking about evolution.

And I'm not talking some, I'm talking all.

Wishing in one hand while shitting in the other will only fill one.

When you smack your face in shocked disbelief, make sure to check which side stinks, and remember you aren't the only one shitting, just the only one who needs a mirror to recognize his folly.

You may not displace firearms without replacing them with more insidious forms of force.

Life is love.

At 2/17/09 03:39 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:
Now, I'm not saying I fully support an assault rifle ban, and I know a large portion of NG users are gun nuts. But does that arguement work logically?

Shut up you fucking commie and denounce your citizenship. If the government has them then we need them. The government has no right to control the people the people must have control over it so the people needs the bigger guns.

At 2/17/09 06:49 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Then again if there is something like a Illuminati New World Order takeover or large scale riots here you'll definitely want one.

Peple cant see the big picture when were giong to need to be plugging these illuminatti fucks and all the fuckers following them and cram their New World Order up their ass. Down with the NWO and may the streets fill with their blood. Only then can we live in prosperity.

At 2/20/09 12:06 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/18/09 06:28 PM, Deradius wrote:

Statement of fact. If you're going to overthrow/defend yourself from a tyrannous government, you're breaking the law.

As Rambo would say "Fuck Em"

At 2/24/09 11:59 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
Life is love.

You just found that insidious force.

At 2/25/09 09:29 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 2/24/09 11:59 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
Life is love.

You just found that insidious force.

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions :)

Which is why guns will be a reality until some self-proclaimed loving hierarch decrees guns evil, and takes extraordinary measures eliminating them.

Gloom like this is only relievable by squeezing off a few rounds, and I don't mean into a tissue.

I fully know where the road technology is going: weak, physically paralyzed humans that need machines to move.

If you don't want to be Wall-E you should throw away everything you own and go live in the woods, after bombing and destroying all the factories in the world and killing half the population. Because there aren't supposed to be this many humans to begin with.

At 2/25/09 09:50 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I fully know where the road technology is going: weak, physically paralyzed humans that need machines to move.

Don't you find relief in the remarkable resilience of the best of what life offers, especially in the grips of crisis?

If you don't want to be Wall-E you should throw away everything you own and go live in the woods, after bombing and destroying all the factories in the world and killing half the population.

I've always lived in the woods, they are my home. I own what does not leave, and live with those that do.

As long as you behave, I can live with you. If not, you may die, who knows.

Because there aren't supposed to be this many humans to begin with.

But there are! The stresses and pressures of overpopulation may be just the formative ingredient toward a new step forward for human life.

Or one step back. Life's like that, too, so the only change we must truly stress over is the change needed to come from within ourselves.