Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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.

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.

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.

Wow. Tons of misinformation here. Not to worry, I'll correct you:

>Range is generally too long

I suspect you meant too short. But, MANY automatic versions of these guns are used EVERY DAY in Iraq to clear houses.

> caliber is too large

Huh? AR-15 shoots .223 caliber bullets. A MUCH smaller caliber than pistols shoot (a 9mm pistol shoots a .356 caliber bullet ).

> much large possibility of strays hitting unintended targets

I assume you mean from over penetration. It completely depends on the type of ammo. Rifle bullets can be made to NOT over penetrate.

> bad things can happen if you don't use it properly

Its no more difficult to operate than a pistol. Besides, because an AR is so versatile, odds are you use it for may forms of rifle shooting, whereas you may need several different pistols to fulfill all your pistol needs (e.g. revolver for hunting, small auto for CCW, large auto for sport, single shot for silhouettes.

> A bolt action or a semi auto rifle should be fine

Uhhh, AR's ARE semi auto rifles. Are you thinking they are machine guns? If so, the AWB bans ZERO machine guns.

> No need for the extra magazine capacity

Just because you CAN have a 30 round mag doesn't mean you HAVE to have a 30 round mag. If hunting you insert a 5 round mag and off you go. Same capacity as a bolt action has.

> not to mention the varying fire modes

It has the exact same fire modes as a bolt action: fire and safe.

> Again this goes back to strays and unintended targets

Why does an AR result in more "strays" than a bolt action?

At 2/17/09 07:02 AM, Tomsan wrote: Thats the argument that is made by most people right? the only reason not to bann such insanity is with the argument that the people need to be able to protect themselves against a tiran or dictator. Only then an assualt rifle can come in handy.

I just want to ask, is it allowed to carry your weapons everywhere you go? If its allowed to own an assault rifle is then also allowed to carry it down town new york? is it allowed to carry small arms in public area's?

In answer to your question: YES. 48 states allow carrying concealed in public areas.

And, how about this: With concealed carry at an ALL TIME HIGH, crime is currently at a 40 year low (see the most current FBI statistics)

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.

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".

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.

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

Actually Miller never showed up to court, so he was not able to defend his position that sawed off shotguns were military weapons. You got the results completely backward. The court ruled sawed off shotguns were prohibited because they WERE NOT military weapons.

You need to check yoiur facts about Mass being the safest. I believe it was North Dakota ??? that only had 2 murders last year - both via knife - and they have NO bans on semi-autos.

In a DOJ study, only 2% of prisoners said they even carried military style semi's. ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/abstract/f uo.htm )

At 2/17/09 12:43 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/17/09 10:06 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Can I get a list of all the assulat weapons that need to be banned?

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

Folks, PLEASE do a little research before spewing this foolishness. NO, repeat NO automatic guns are banned in the proposed AWB. NONE. Furthermore, there has been exactly ONE murder committed with a legally owned machine gun SINCE 1933. ONE.

The ban is for semi-automatic rifles that LOOK like military guns (but don't FUNCTION like them).

Armor piercing bullets are already banned.

Sniper type weapons are typically accurized versions of existing guns (bolt action rifles or semi-auto guns). Banning sniper rifles is about as stupid as banning semi-automatic rifles. Semi-auto rifles have been around for 100 years.

At 2/17/09 02:25 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: I'm worried about the use of assault/sniper type weapons in uses similar to:
Charles Whitman's U of Texas killings (M1 Carbine, Remmington 700)
Columbine Massacre (TEC-DC9, Hi-Point Carbine)
Jonesboro massacre (M1 Carbine)
Richland High (Remmington Viper)
Stockton (type 56)
Olean High (30 aught 6)
Westroads Mall shooting (In Nebraska, Ak-47)
Beltway Sniper Attacks (Bushmaster rifle)
GMAC (Universal M1 Carbine)
LA Jewish Community Center (several assault rifles)
San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (Uzi)
Standard Gravure shooting (Type 56)
Tacoma Mall (Norinco MAK-90)
Wakefield (AK-47)
As well as many others
Plus "modified-type" (sawnoff) shotguns involved in a number more.

Well you have managed to include Nearly every class of longarm, sporting, hunting, antique, and otherwise, including bolt action, and weapons dating back to before WW II, including things that do not fit the label of Assault Rifle by any definition. Arms comparable or identical to what the contemporary military own are what the founding fathers had in mind.

At 2/17/09 08:00 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/17/09 07:43 PM, LordJaric wrote: It doesn't really matter if you ban guns of any type criminals will still get them through the black market and smuggling

Yes, but if someone doesn't have a M-16 as a "collectors item" in their house, if they snap they won't have a gun to go on a spree. Could they still plan one? Yes. Potentially. But impulse crimes would go down massively. People wouldn't "Go postal" as it were. Or they would. But with kitchen knives and croquet mallets. And, you know, their 36 special. But not with an automatic/assault weapon.

Lordjaric is correct. Also, You have just described what is currently happening in the U.K., minus the revolver, along with an increase in violent crime.

At 2/17/09 11:12 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/17/09 10:19 PM, Zeistro wrote: A bunch of bullshit about guns that has nothing to do with the discussion.

I'm not trying to argue assault weapons specifically. Just dangerous types of weapons that serve no practical purpose for a civilian to own.

Excuse me, but you already have. See first quote and rebuttal.

I give up for the day, I will look at following pages of the discussion later.

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

At 2/18/09 06:11 AM, Zeistro wrote: Assault rifles to begin with are only used in 0.02% of violent crimes!

And even if it still was only .02% of all violent crimes, that's still .02% too many and something needs to be done about it.

But the number was far larger than .02% in 1993, before the ban was drafted up, in part because "assault rifles" wasn't the only thing being banned, but large-capacity magazines were, too. 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.

According to another Department of Justice study, murders committed using guns dropped by 11% after the ban was implemented.

This is unbelievably misleading... well, ok, believably misleading.

Some facts: yes, long guns of ANY kind (i.e. "assault rifles", shotgun, bolt action guns, single shot rifles, etc) were used in less than 2% of all gun murders before, during, and after the AWB. So, when you cite stat like a drop in 17-72% that's easily explained as a small reduction of a small number. And, the numbers are so small, that you can't really base any conclusions on them. For example, if there were 6 murders committed with an "assault rifle" before the ban, and 3 during the ban, you could claim the ban resulting in a 50% decrease. Not real impressive when stated like that, is it? And, with such small numbers, you can't say the 3 murder reduction was a result of the ban. It could be that the guy who actually uses "assault weapon" style guns was currently incarcerated.

Use the smell test. Rifles that were banned were banned because they possessed more than one of the following qualities: had a flash suppressor, had a barrel shroud, had a removable magazine, had a bayonet lug, had a folding stock, or a pistol grip) Gun manufacturers simply produced the exact same guns without, say, the bayonet lug and flash suppressor. Are you telling me crime went down because criminals refused to use a gun w/o a bayonet lug?

Smell test 2 is that ownership of "assault weapon" style rifles is through the roof. Ownership of these guns is at an ALL TIME HIGH. Yet crime is at a 40 year low. Use of rifles of ANY kind is STILL 2%.

Regarding the standard capacity magazine ban - again, you draw the complete wrong conclusion. The average number of bullets fired by a criminal is 3.5. So, when the number of criminals using the "forbidden" standard capacity magazine drops, you decide its because the ban. A more intelligent conclusion would be that a 10 round magazine is just as good to a criminal as a 17 round magazine (since they, on average, only need 3.5 rounds). Remember, the standard capacity mags weren't confiscated, they were still out there. So, a criminal could still get them if he needed them. This simply tells me he didn't need them. As a competitive shooter I can assure you that someone with the desire to practice can do a magazine change in under 1.5 seconds - meaning reduced capacity doesn't even mildly restrict what a shooter can do. Furthermore, even revolvers can be changed quite quickly. The record for firing 12 shots from a revolver (which includes one reload) was under 3 seconds.

At 2/19/09 05:34 PM, EKublai wrote: I support this but I also support a ban on sawed off shotguns since they encourage people to shoot where they "think" someone who broke in might be and not actually aim their shot. need it be said a gun should at least be aimed before it is shot. they're needs to be a minimum blast radius for shotguns for home defense.

Do any of you people posting even KNOW the gun laws you are whining about? Sawed off shotguns, like machine guns, are restricted. You have to jump through hoops to get either. NEITHER even shows up on the list of guns used to commit murders, they are so rare.

Here is a primer that is REQUIRED READING before posting anything more about the AWB:

The Clinton AWB banned guns based on their APPEARANCE. PERIOD.

Guns with multiple of the following features resulted in its being banned:

1) pistol grip
2) bayonet lug
3) barrel shroud (plastic or wood covering over the barrel to keep you from burning your hand)
4) folding stock
5) grenade launcher
6) flash suppressor

Gun manufacturers with three of those items (say pistol grip, bayonet lug, and flash suppressor) simply eliminated two of them (bayonet lug and flash suppressor) and continued selling the same gun.

You folks have been snookered by gun banners. Read the following quote and see if you agree:

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

At 2/19/09 08:42 PM, MachShot wrote: 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.

Why do you think legalizing in LA would have ANY effect at all? Criminals obtain 80% of their guns through theft. If you intend to commit crimes with a gun would you legally purchase one? Or, would you steal it. Furthermore, 80% (IIRC) of all murderers are already felons, so they wouldn't be eligible to legally purchase guns anyway.

Regarding the "no one needs" and "why would anyone want" and "the only thing AR's are good for" quotes liberally strewn thoughout this board: Lets let the people who have actually shot guns say what they are good for, not a bunch of armchair gun-phobes. You mention you'd grab your "low recoil" revolver. Unless you are shooting .22's, your recoil will be MORE than that of an AR-15. I shoot .38/.357, 9mm, and .45 pistols and can tell you the recoil an an AR-15 is less. Not to mention much more effective for personal home defense.

But, back to the "only criminals buy these guns" foolishness... there is a HUGE buying spree by everyday people with regards to AR and AK rifles. So, either they are all intended to become criminals, or they know something you don't as to why they want/need these type of guns. Some are hunters, some are plinkers, some are target shooters, some want home defense, some are sport shooters, some are interested in protecting the state, and some want to be able to do ALL of that - and CAN because these are the most versatile rifles there are.

Just because YOU can't justify something doesn't mean nobody else can.

Question: Would you buy a gun if it couldn't kill someone?

Question: Do you think more or less individuals would buy banned guns if they weren't banned?

At 3/1/09 12:51 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Question: Would you buy a gun if it couldn't kill someone?

Question: Do you think more or less individuals would buy banned guns if they weren't banned?

answer to question 1: yes. mine haven't killed anyone and i hope it stays that way. Gun banners will have a tough time with this answer since it doesn't fit their bigoted view, but I didn't buy my guns to kill people (or even animals) I bought them for sport and plinking.

answer to question 2: not sure i understand the question, but if you are asking "do you think more or fewer individuals would buy guns that previously were banned, but are no more" I would think the
answer would be more.

Now a question for you: Would you buy a gun that could only do one thing (e.g. slow, highly accurate target practice) or would you buy a gun that was highly accurate, but also inexpensive to plink with, could be used in rapid fire competition, could defend your home with, was light weight, was rugged, and could be used to hunt with? That same gun, with the easy changing out of the upper could be inexpensively converted to a larger caliber to hunter larger game and shoot in longer range competitions.

A nice try. But haven't is not couldn't.

And I would never buy a gun.

At 3/1/09 02:36 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: A nice try. But haven't is not couldn't.

And I would never buy a gun.

and so Jack is safe from the uncontrollable urge to kill that comes with owning a gun.

That isn't being fair though. You answered yes. But be honest, do most people answer yes to that first question? If they knew that it was basically a paintball gun.

This is good, you need to spread your thoughts around. Because that is the only way we'll beat gun violence, or any type of violence for that manner: with thought.

Banning ANYTHING will just make the problem so much worse.

At 3/1/09 02:38 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
and so Jack is safe from the uncontrollable urge to kill that comes with owning a gun.

Someone's not reading. I said own, not use.

At 3/1/09 02:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: That isn't being fair though. You answered yes. But be honest, do most people answer yes to that first question? If they knew that it was basically a paintball gun.

This is good, you need to spread your thoughts around. Because that is the only way we'll beat gun violence, or any type of violence for that manner: with thought.

Banning ANYTHING will just make the problem so much worse.

I think we've found the disconnect between anti-gun people and everyone else. You TRUELY believe we all buy guns to KILL SOMEONE. Wrong!!!

There are several hundred MILLION guns in America. If people bought them because they wanted to kill someone, then one of two things is true:

a) we are going to have a crime wave like the world has never seen before

or

b) a bunch of people have just wasted a ton of money

See, that is why anti-gun people JUST DON'T GET IT. Give someone a gun and you assume they turn into a homicidal maniac. In reality, if someone gave YOU a gun would you immediately turn criminal? Criminals without guns are still criminals. Good people WITH guns are STILL good people. Look at the research done on concealed carry licensees. They are found to be in the top 90+ percentile of law abiding people. A higher percentile than even the police.

Now look at the number of defensive gun uses where a good guy with a gun is able to defend himself from a criminal WITHOUT having to fire a shot. There are an estimated 2.5M defensive gun uses per year. So, NO. People aren't buying guns to KILL PEOPLE.

There is NO such thing as gun violence. There is only violence. The majority of which is perpetrated by gangs (remove gang stats and see the murder rate plummet). Then realize they murder by choice. So, I have no sympathy for gang murders. You can check the murder stats and find that guns only account for 1/4 of all murders. So, remove guns and we'll still have murder. The UK banned guns and now are in the process of banning sharp objects because gun deaths were replaced by stabbing deaths. Murderers will murder. Don't confuse gun control with crime control. They ARE NOT the same.

Regarding bans, can you name ANY ban that has ever worked? We are currently in the midst of a war on drugs. Those drugs are immediately consumed and need replacing with new shipments. Guns, were they to be smuggled in, would last a good long time - once you bought your crime gun, you wouldn't need to buy another unless it was stolen or confiscated.

The banning of alcohol was similarly unsuccessful. In fact it ended up (like the drug war is) creating more problems than it solved (remember Al Capone?)

Finally, lets assume there was a ban in this country. How would it work? Someone announces on the TV, newspaper, and radio that you are expected to turn in your guns.

Me, being a law abiding citizen would obey. My neighbors would also. Would the criminals? No. So, you now have armed criminals and disarmed citizens. Do you honestly think THAT would be an improvement? Oh, remember, Mexico has pretty strict gun control laws. How is THAT working out?

You have a friend that owns one? What the fuck.

I never said buying a gun turns you into a maniac either.

You guys disappoint me. I'm on your side, as far as the OP goes.

I'm just trying to take things to the next level. Can we move past, "banning guns does not help?"

Because. That's fucking obvious.

And steve if you concentrate more on making everyone around you love you then you won't need to hold that sentiment. It shouldn't even enter your mind. What kind of depressing shit is that, "Oh shit someone might kill me."

If that is why you want a gun you might as well walk around repeating that statement to yourself like a crazy person. You know the real reason that you should want a gun? The real reason that you should want anything?

Because you want it.

For instance, I think that we should respect guns, especially in the entertainment industry. Don't you think it's sad how much we fantasize violence? And the sad part is, it's fantasized. It would be different if you go to a movie to see real violence, that would be a good movie, a rated R movie. A realistic.

In my opinion PG-13 violence is far more damaging to a child's psyche than the realistic alternatives. It's not the guns. You're entirely right. It's everything else.

At 3/1/09 02:39 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/1/09 02:38 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
and so Jack is safe from the uncontrollable urge to kill that comes with owning a gun.

Someone's not reading. I said own, not use.

and i addressed both use and ownership (possession).

At 3/1/09 10:47 AM, LiquidSperber wrote: So, when you cite stat like a drop in 17-72% that's easily explained as a small reduction of a small number.

This is why I was never a fan of learning about statistics.

At 3/1/09 05:04 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 3/1/09 10:47 AM, LiquidSperber wrote: So, when you cite stat like a drop in 17-72% that's easily explained as a small reduction of a small number.

This is why I was never a fan of learning about statistics.

But if you learned about statistics you could spot these sorts of deceptions :-)

At 3/1/09 05:28 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: Sorry, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

not to mention that the people you have to defend yourself from generally aren't out to get you, but they do happen to pose a danger to you, your family or your property.

At 2/28/09 10:57 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Well then you shouldn't be able to deny that the level of control on violence and how it effects resources is highly inefficient.

It is, but the way democrats tend to approach the issue of gun control isn't a solution to the situation either. Or do I need to remind you that the focus so far has been on "assault rifles" which constitute a statistically insignificant portion of gun crimes?

First- time line

You indicated that I was a pessimist, I am not. You refuted nothing.

If I knew how to do that I would really not tell you or post it on a board like this tbh.

Why not? Do you get some kind of sick joy in holding back answers that could better mankind or something?

At 3/1/09 02:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: That isn't being fair though. You answered yes.

What did you expect? It's obvious you're using loaded questions to try and get the responses you want, why don't you put a little more effort in your posts and actually GET TO THE FUCKING POINT. As it is, what your doing is intellectually lazy and quite frankly, borderline trolling.

At 3/1/09 03:08 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 3/1/09 02:39 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Someone's not reading. I said own, not use.

How do you go about using something when you don't actually have it?

"Hey Mick, can I shoot your gun?"
"Yeah sure"

Problem solved.

At 3/1/09 09:00 PM, Brick-top wrote: "Hey Mick, can I shoot your gun?"
"Yeah sure"
Problem solved.

Aside from the obvious legal troubles that sharing a gun brings up, only douchebags hit up their friends for shit.

Here's how the conversation would probably end, given the possessiveness of most gun owners:
"Hey Mick, can I shoot your gun?"
"Yeah sure, I suppose I can trust you enough to lend you a dangerous firearm."
"Dude, really?"
"Hell no, fag, it's my gun. Go get your own."
"I can't, I waste all my money on pornography and penis enlargement treatments for my pathetic excuse for a prepubescent dick."

My point is banning guns is even dumber than killing someone with one.

I mean really, if you're going to kill someone, do it with your bare hands. Most do. That's my fucking point.

Yes, I should've phrased it as "Love everyone around you." You win though. Being prepared is better. Wait a second, if I love everyone and everything though, wouldn't 'it not matter if someone was about to kill me? Wouldn't I "be prepared," for it. That's relative, and has to be put into the context of what you want out of any given moment. So I should think that being prepared as an argument for owning a gun is pushing it.

I know right you're going to say not as nearly much as you're pushing your bullshit

Why do you want shelter? For protection, you want the tools. So ultimately here you want to live. What is beyond that? Your genes surviving I suppose, to be happy. But is there a reason for wanting to be happy (and therefore a reason for living, for procreating, for shelter, etc), is there a reason for living, besides the fact that is GENETICALLY ingrained for you to want to do so.

Because it's fun, that's how we're built. To want to live. Those that don't kill themselves. So you do EVERYTHING because you want to, I could argue even that a need is really just in most cases sufficing a long-term want. "I need to eat because I do not want to be hungry later, I do not want to die."

I guess, a more positive attitude would be "I do not need to die." So you're right. Now then, I've said that banning guns is pointless. But like it or not, people still abuse them. Just like they abuse anything.

How do we fix that? I think. Education, but more so, this sounds crazy, but maybe you should not have PG-13 movies...

At 3/1/09 08:37 PM, Proteas wrote:
You indicated that I was a pessimist, I am not. You refuted nothing.

Yes. Sorry. But I also said that your argument about 200,000 of violence making said violence inseparable from humanity is like that dinosaurs didn't grow feathers.

Why not? Do you get some kind of sick joy in holding back answers that could better mankind or something?

Reality check, you just called a forum mankind.

maybe I don't have the answers because I'm not a fucking genius tbh :X

At 2/17/09 03:39 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Blah

If I had it my way, I'd make it MANDATORY for everyone to carry a pistol.

If someone like me for example wanted to kill anyone (even someone as godly as Tom Fulp), I could still make a bomb that could kill you, all you need is a simple detonator to activate at the right time.

Since bombs/poison gasses can be made by chemical reactions that can be made by household materials... it's not going to be possible to get rid of those.

I also think of the fact that if united states becomes corrupted enough (like Germany back then (and I'm saying it could happen, not like it's happening that bad now)). I'd like to be able to fight to defend myself rather than sit there like a lapdog while everything gets taken away from me.

Also, 1 more example, if someone pulls out a gun in the middle of a place, would it be better for everyone not to have a gun or everyone to pull out a gun at this man?

Oh yes another point/question (really I'm ONLY asking questions and speaking my thoughts on the subject, which is a contribution, to the thread...)

If you support gun rights for individuals: i.e. the right for a person to govern and protect themselves (these two may not be the same, if so, explain)

If these are the same. Then, why do you support the need for a militant government?

Isn't that redundant, to have that strong of a police force if you can defend yourself.