Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

the pourpous, is self defence

At 6/23/04 02:02 PM, mabzie wrote:

At 6/23/04 01:59 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 6/23/04 01:56 PM, mabzie wrote:

At 6/23/04 01:52 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 6/23/04 01:38 PM, mabzie wrote:

With the rate of fire of an AK, there's a good chance of you shooting yourself in the foot.

mabye for you, but i dont think most people are gonna point the barrel at there foot and shoot it.

obviousely you never ever used a gun, so im not gonna explane the perpouses of it being relibable, cheep ammmo, accurate, ect..

those are kind of self explanitory, unless your a moron.

An AK is a MILITARY GRADE WEAPON. As in, civilians shouldn't have acess to that kind of gun. An AK is for runing into a room and gunning down 5 or 6 people, not for protecting your house. And you say you have kids and a family? What if your son or daughter found your magical AK and started playing with it, huh? What if they splattered their innards all over the living room floor. How would you feel then.

1) i teach my kids from a youg age, that guns arent toys, and teach them how to properly handle one, and basic gun safty.

2) a hunting rifle is a millitary grade weapon. (yes the army did use hunting rifeles at one time)

3) im not a murdurer, neither are the overwelming magority of gun owners (99.9995%)

The kids who shot up colombine highschool weren't gun owners, their parents were. And a little statistic, if your house is bing robbed and you try to use a gun on the robber, you are more likely to get hurt or killed than the robber is. (i will get a source for that in my next post)

dumbass... you know nothing about this subject. i hope you die, this country need no more liberals.

At 6/23/04 02:27 PM, mabzie wrote: dumbass... you know nothing about this subject. i hope you die, this country need no more liberals.

so much for reasoned thought. When these republicans know that theyve been PWNED they resort to shouting down their opponents, or in this case, flaming them.

At 6/23/04 02:34 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:27 PM, mabzie wrote: dumbass... you know nothing about this subject. i hope you die, this country need no more liberals.

so much for reasoned thought. When these republicans know that theyve been PWNED they resort to shouting down their opponents, or in this case, flaming them.

iv proven you wrong time and agien, but you never listen. GUNS DONT CAUSE CRIME!!!!!! PEOPLE CAUSE CRIME!!!!!!!

At 6/23/04 02:36 PM, mabzie wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:34 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:27 PM, mabzie wrote:

iv proven you wrong time and agien, but you never listen. GUNS DONT CAUSE CRIME!!!!!! PEOPLE CAUSE CRIME!!!!!!!

IF PEOPLE DIDN't HAVE GUNS, THEY WOULDN'T BE AS LIKELY TO COMIT CRIMES!

At 6/23/04 02:42 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:36 PM, mabzie wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:34 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:27 PM, mabzie wrote:

iv proven you wrong time and agien, but you never listen. GUNS DONT CAUSE CRIME!!!!!! PEOPLE CAUSE CRIME!!!!!!!

IF PEOPLE DIDN't HAVE GUNS, THEY WOULDN'T BE AS LIKELY TO COMIT CRIMES!

keep thinking that.

At 6/23/04 02:36 PM, mabzie wrote:
iv proven you wrong time and agien, but you never listen. GUNS DONT CAUSE CRIME!!!!!! PEOPLE CAUSE CRIME!!!!!!!

First off, you've never made any argument to support this claim in particular. second, every post you make is either a copy/paste job or a one-liner which no sense and had a word spelt horribly wrong, and I mean horribly.

My personal opinion at this point is that everyone should just stop arguing with this kid (yes, I don't buy that "I have kids, I'm an adult" crap, you spell too horribly and act too stupid to be anything but a 14 year old trying to get a rise out of people). He'll never listen, and you'll never beat him because at this point I think he just does this crap for a reaction, or he's just got the logic of a monkey that flings it's own shit at people.

Why do you need an assault weapon to protect yourself in your home. Chances are, that if a civilian is going to shoot someone in this country (anywhere near legally), then they would only be shooting a single person, e.g. a burglar in the night.
Assault weapons are instruments of war designed to inflict maximum damage at short to long range. Then there's the notion of all the neat little accessories you can attach to them. Take the M-16 for example (because that's the weapon I know most about). Why would need a weapon with a bayonette on it? Or even better, why would you need one with a grenade launcer if all you're going to do is protect your home? Those grenades don't arm until they've traveled 60 meters, y'know... I don't see how that's going to be very effective unless you see the burglar at the other end of the block in which you could just shoot him from that distance anyway, as the M-16 is accurate to at least 500 meters. Oh! and then there's the little problem of an assault weapon being too long to prove very effective in room to room combat (which is what you're probably going to be doing if defending you home from an intruder). Of course, law enforcement and the military already know this... That's why people who know what they're talking about choose to use handguns and submachine guns for urban warfare, or maybe even the M-4, but I seriously doubt you're going to ever going to be allowed to own an MP5 or M4.
So why not just be happy that you can stop an intruder with something effective like a .45 or a shotgun? Why do you need something with a 30 round magazine and the ability to hit targets at half a kilometer when you're just defending your home from a single, or maybe even two whole bad guys in close combat?
Or, maybe you're just bitching about it because there's nothing with any real significance in your life to actually complain about at the moment. You want to play with really cool weapons? Join the Army and learn how to kill people the right way... Lot's of 'em, too. I suggest something in combat arms. I'm in the Cavalry myself, and oh do we get to play with "guns". But you know what, nothing of what I've shot in the Army with exception to a 9mm handgun was designed for close combat. I think the closest target I've ever shot at with an M-16 was a pop up target at 25 meters, and I've fired that god damned weapon more times than I can count. The best part about it is that the first several times I shot at the 25 meter target, I missed... And guess why? Because when properly adjusted, the sights are set at 300 meters which means if you plan on shooting at anything closer, you have to compensate by shooting low.
So, why should we allow civilians to own assault weapons again?

So, why should we allow civilians to own assault weapons again?

I would conceed that an assult riffle is neet to be able to fire; just like a race car would be fun to drive. I do understand the interest. I don't however think they should be legal or at least very tough to get. I think the main reason I would be against them is that it is too tough for law enforcement to stop some one with an assult rifle. You have to draw the line some where. I don't think the right to bear arms meant we can each have a nuclear warhead. The line has to be drawn with some rational. Some times the right of one out weighs the many and some times the right of the many outweigh the right of the one.

Why would you need an assault rifle to defend your home? How many times has your house been broken into? How many times have you or your family been kidnapped? For fuck's sake, I'd be surprised if you had ever been mugged. An AK47 for defending your home is ineffective, dangerous, and unnecessary. Besides, if you ever fire it, it's likely you'll get arrested since they are, in fact, illegal.

So I assume either you aren't in the US, or have the weapon liscense to buy one.

If you do have the liscense any chance you can fill me in on the details on how hard it is to get, and the approxmiate cost? I am wanting to get the liscense after I get out of the military, and hear the fastest way to get it is to get my dealers liscense first for assault rifles and better.

But if you want accuracy I wouldn't go AK, while it is probally the most reliable assault rifle made in the 20th century, its accuracy leaves some to be improved on, even though it has an excellent muzzle compensator. And unless I'm wrong with the compensator and the kick on full auto wouldn't that cause the muzzle to rise instead of going down towards your foot?

At 6/23/04 04:28 PM, aeproductions wrote: My state, Texas, is really strange. They are trying to ban toy guns...BUT THEY WANT TO KEEP THE FUCKING REAL ONES!!

Ah, good old texas. Texas is always setting trends. You know, Texas had the first church shooting. You know, some guy takes an assault weapon into a church and starts shooting people out of the pews during the sermon. The media called him a "disgrunteled worshiper". Ah, those texans. Always leading the way.

What civilian needs a weapon that can kill people faster and in greater numbers??

Yep, good ol' Texas.
That's where you go if you want to learn how to assasinate Presidents, snipe college students from bell towers, and more recently, drag black people from the back of pickup trucks until body parts start falling off.
Day and again, these people prove that you can still kill people with bolt action rifles, and pickups truck apparently. But if you want to shoot people at Home Depot.'s and gas stations from the back of a van, then I'd go with an assault rifle like those pieces of shit on the East Coast did.
So again... Why should assault weapons be legal?

At 6/23/04 02:48 PM, mabzie wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:42 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:36 PM, mabzie wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:34 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 6/23/04 02:27 PM, mabzie wrote:

iv proven you wrong time and agien, but you never listen. GUNS DONT CAUSE CRIME!!!!!! PEOPLE CAUSE CRIME!!!!!!!

IF PEOPLE DIDN't HAVE GUNS, THEY WOULDN'T BE AS LIKELY TO COMIT CRIMES!

keep thinking that.

Your ignorance offends me.

I'm going to add my two pence here as per usual NG practice.

You claim that guns are not the cause of crime. That may (note that I say may) be true. But it may be that guns are the cause of violent crime. Here in the UK we have far less gun crime. there are far less murders (in proportion) than in the US.

Please don't give me any shit abou protecting you family. If your that worried about security put bars on your windows and doors. There are far more effective ways on protecting a home than useing a gun , Never mind a weapon that was designed for meadium to long range shooting.

Please don't let yourself be brainwashed into a permanent state of fear as so many Americans seem to have.

At 6/23/04 06:18 PM, LeapOfFaith wrote: You claim that guns are not the cause of crime. That may (note that I say may) be true. But it may be that guns are the cause of violent crime. Here in the UK we have far less gun crime. there are far less murders (in proportion) than in the US.

I really don't agree with you there Leap, but we can probally agree to disagree. I believe its a combination of the society, and the person that causes the crime, violent or non violent. Like has been said before, think its switzerland almost everyone has a gun, and violent crime is extremely low in that country (I'll find you some statistics if you want). But either way its not the lack of guns or the abundance of guns that cause the crime, in the end it is the people that are commiting the crimes, and it is my belief that we need to stop placing blame on other things such as guns, the media and such for crimes and start placing blame on those commiting those crimes. The society just makes it easier for someone to succomb (sp) to commiting crimes, but it is still in the end the person commiting the crime that is guilty of the crime and caused the crime.

Please don't give me any shit abou protecting you family. If your that worried about security put bars on your windows and doors. There are far more effective ways on protecting a home than useing a gun , Never mind a weapon that was designed for meadium to long range shooting.

I do agree that assault weapons would make extremely poor home defense weapons. A shotgun would be much more effective due to its harder to miss, more power, and shorter range. You're not going to be snipeing would be burgerlars from your window seal because then guess what, you're going to jail.

Please don't let yourself be brainwashed into a permanent state of fear as so many Americans seem to have.

At 6/23/04 06:34 PM, ReiperX wrote:

I really don't agree with you there Leap, but we can probally agree to disagree. I believe its a combination of the society, and the person that causes the crime, violent or non violent. Like has been said before, think its switzerland almost everyone has a gun, and violent crime is extremely low in that country (I'll find you some statistics if you want). But either way its not the lack of guns or the abundance of guns that cause the crime, in the end it is the people that are commiting the crimes, and it is my belief that we need to stop placing blame on other things such as guns, the media and such for crimes and start placing blame on those commiting those crimes. The society just makes it easier for someone to succomb (sp) to commiting crimes, but it is still in the end the person commiting the crime that is guilty of the crime and caused the crime.

This brings me on to another interesting point. Canada has similar gun laws to the USA and many people own guns, almost as many as in the USA. But when you look at the stats there is far less gun crime.

Why is this (it's the same around the world, I'm just useing Canada as an example) Maybe it's connected to the fear factor I mentioned earlier. Or maybe you just like shooting each other *shrugs*

At 6/23/04 06:34 PM, ReiperX wrote:

I really don't agree with you there Leap, but we can probally agree to disagree. I believe its a combination of the society, and the person that causes the crime, violent or non violent. Like has been said before, think its switzerland almost everyone has a gun, and violent crime is extremely low in that country (I'll find you some statistics if you want). But either way its not the lack of guns or the abundance of guns that cause the crime,

It's also worth mentioning that in Switzerland every adult is required by law to own and maintain a rifle (i think) they also have to do national service. I think this is due to the lack of any major standing army.

Nice place Switzerland (esepecially Gstaad)

Thats why I think that society would play more of a factor in someone becomming a criminal than just owning guns would. Which is why, especially here in the US, I am a major supporter of very strict gun control, but not bans. But in the end it is still the person pulling the trigger.

Well, it would seem that the point of the fact that everybody in switzerland has a gun and knows how to kill people is, that the number of guns in a socioety is directly proportional to the ammount of violent crime, except if everybody has a gun, in which case there would be NO violent crime, like in switzerland.

WHat they have is a military system in which people are trained for the weapons the government knows they have. What you're proposeing is liveing in constant fear.

At 6/23/04 07:01 PM, Quanze13 wrote: Well, it would seem that the point of the fact that everybody in switzerland has a gun and knows how to kill people is, that the number of guns in a socioety is directly proportional to the ammount of violent crime, except if everybody has a gun, in which case there would be NO violent crime, like in switzerland.

Could you please re-post that in a way that actually makes sense?

Hand guns serve no use. Assult rifles serve no use (except killing people) you couldent really use an assult rifle for hunting. the caliber would be to large.

Shot guns and rifles do have a use. many people use them for hunting.

At 6/23/04 07:07 PM, LeapOfFaith wrote:

Hand guns serve no use. Assult rifles serve no use (except killing people) you couldent really use an assult rifle for hunting. the caliber would be to large.

The round used in the M-16/SAW (forgot the actual nomenclature of the SAW) use 5.65 (at least I think thats the right number) and the round is fairly small, and I wouldn't want to use it for deer hunting personally. But its a small caliber weapon.

Shot guns and rifles do have a use. many people use them for hunting.

Oh come on, a SAW with a flock of ducks would be great =)

At 6/23/04 07:55 PM, aeproductions wrote: Guns only lead to trouble. But if we got rid of 'em humanity would just start killing each other with swords again. Take those away, we'll use rocks. Take that away, we'll just use our bare hands. Guns don't cause death, they just speed up the process.

Its the people that cause the trouble, not the weapons. They are just a tool for the people.

Its the people that cause the trouble, not the weapons. They are just a tool for the people.

A gun, knife, baseball bat, a car, frying pan, all excelent tools for hurting someone. Maybe we should ban everything and go hide in a little white padded room!

At 6/23/04 08:28 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/23/04 07:55 PM, aeproductions wrote: Guns only lead to trouble. But if we got rid of 'em humanity would just start killing each other with swords again. Take those away, we'll use rocks. Take that away, we'll just use our bare hands. Guns don't cause death, they just speed up the process.

Its the people that cause the trouble, not the weapons. They are just a tool for the people.

But guns make killing people ALOT more convienient and quick. Since we americans are lazy asses, if somebody took away guns, there would be less death.

At 6/23/04 06:50 PM, LeapOfFaith wrote: It's also worth mentioning that in Switzerland every adult is required by law to own and maintain a rifle

It's also worth mentioning that that is a total lie, perpetuated from such slime holes as freerepublic.com. Here's their asinine article.

Here's the truth;

MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.
TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000. There are about 3 million Swiss households

TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000. There are about 3 million Swiss households

That's...what, 13% or 14%? That's a LOT. Especially assault rifles - I don't consider that to be a small number, not in the least.

The site you provided was interesting reading, but full of flawed reasoning and logic. Examples:

The myth about "Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection." They cite that chances dramatically increase in the cases of homicide and suicide. Do they offer a possibility that it could be a lack of education as how to properly use a gun? Do they offer that perhaps that because the U.S. requires absolutely no firearm training to own most firearms that that might be a contributing factor? Do they compare firearm protection in the U.S. to other countries using sampling data other than simply whether or not most own guns (i.e., required practicing/teaching with firearms)?

Additionally, how are suicides even relevant? If someone's deadset on killing themselves - they will. The fact that they didn't have access to a gun at the time doesn't mean a thing. The only possible argument here is if someone has a fleeting moment of suicidal tendencies and happens to have an easy access via a firearm - otherwise, I see no correlation (they also, coincidentally, happen to provide none).