Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/30/07 03:07 AM, JoS wrote: My biggest two problems with assault weapons is high capacity magazines and conversion to automatic from semi.

Again; why? These are non-issues in the real world and are a concern only in the media and the minds of people who do not know what they are talking about.

Show me the statistics that:
1) High capacity mags and conversion are widespread problems
2) In the rare case of an assault rifle use in crime; show me where these characteristics prove to make the firearm more lethal or dangerous.

In short: how would this reduce crime and make it less dangerous? An argument from the anti-AR side answering these questions would be appreciated if it is based on real world data rather than manipulation of emotions of the uninformed.

At 12/31/07 08:20 AM, bcdemon wrote: You don't need an assault rifle to hunt with. You may want an assault rifle to hunt with, but you certainly don't need one. Unless you're trying to take out a whole herd of deer, I don't see how an assault rifle would be needed.

With the "whole herd of deer" comment you betray your lack of knowledge about the subject. I hunt deer with a MAK-90 sporter...a chinese copy of the AK-47. It will accept high capacity mags and fires the 7.62x39 intermediate round. Now there are a few reasons why I hunt with this rifle over a more "traditional" rifle.

1) It is the firearm that I personally am most accurate with.
2) I do not hunt with more than a 5 round magazine (anything bigger is heavier, unnecessary and illegal).
3) I hunt in rural Missouri just outside of St Louis. There is urban encroachment in my rural haven so every year that I go back to my ancestral hunting grounds; I cannot be 100% sure that a new house hasn't been built nearby. Furthermore, I hunt in a party with about 2-3 other people. Therefore, I want a round that is powerful enough to drop a deer quickly but is not high power (like "traditional" hunting rifles). The 7.62x39 fits this requirement. Therefore in my mind anything bigger is overkill and an unnecessary risk to safety. In sum; my AK-47 is more practical and safe for use hunting than "traditional" deer rifles.

defense,

Do you need an assault rifle for defence? Or will a 9mm do the job just fine?

9mm suck; seriously .357 up is what you need. And yes I have used my AK to deter home invasion twice. The psychological impact of the AK allows me to use it without firing it whereas a handgun (although probably more lethal) does not have this intimidation factor on par with a AR.

recreation

It may be fun to shoot off an assault rifle. But you certainly don't need one for recreation. Like I don't need my dirtbike for recreation, but it's fun, that and it won't kill people.

sport

What sport would you definitely need an assault rifle for?

I think a ban on assault rifles is required. Besides, there are hundreds and thousands of other guns you can own.

Assault rifles are not a threat to the public's well being. That has been proved time and time again. Handguns followed by shotguns are what are used in crime. Rifles of all variaties account for less than 1% of total (violent and non-violent) firearms crime. So if they are not a problem; why ban them because of some people's bumper sticker logic that it reduces crime and makes the streets safer when they do not?

In short why should I not be allowed to buy a clone of an AK-47 or M-16 just because or your feelings (that do not reflect reality) towards them? To use your dirtbike analogy; why should I force you not to have a dirtbike because I perceive a threat that is not grounded in reality?

At 12/30/07 12:16 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/30/07 03:07 AM, JoS wrote:
My biggest two problems with assault weapons is high capacity magazines and conversion to automatic from semi.

Which is something I think this forum has often pushed to the side, opting to flame the radicals for their blanket view.

I actually try not to flame this view or push it aside. I do not think these problems are problematic and their regulation would have absolutely zero impact on crime. So it comes down to my question: why should I not be allowed to have a firearm that has a high capacity magazine when it has been shown its threat is only a perception and not found in reality?

At 12/30/07 01:54 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: I don't believe anyone is trying to circumvent the constitutional right to bear arms. Feel free to get a handgun or a shotgun for hunting, if you want. However, not every Tom, Dick, and Arnold needs to go carrying around weapons designed for warfare, like assault rifles, or hallow point ammo.

1) A handgun does not have the range to hunt with.
2) I don't like shotgun hunting because the pellets tear up the meat akin to what the uninformed like to think an AK-47 would do to a deer.
3) An AR fires an intermediate round that is less powerful than hunting ammo.
4) Hollow point ammo is illegal to use in military firearms, military rounds are actually the least lethal ammo on the market. On the other hand hollow point ammo and similarly lethal rounds are what is used to hunt with.

You demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking and would legislate based upon bumper sticker logic that does not reflect real world phenomenon. Why should we water down the second amendment because of the feelings of the ignorant?

I support the ban of assault rifles. Let's face it: civilians don't need to go carrying around freakin' proton cannons.

Dude you've seriously got to lay off the video games...

assault rifles are cool. plus its not like there agenst the law.(if its an auto you can only have one in Idaho)
and just because there in crimes dosent make the maker guilty.

AK 47s are legal in america, they're counted as hunting rifles apparently.

From ages ago, someone posted it in here.

At 1/1/08 12:41 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/30/07 12:16 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/30/07 03:07 AM, JoS wrote:
My biggest two problems with assault weapons is high capacity magazines and conversion to automatic from semi.

Which is something I think this forum has often pushed to the side, opting to flame the radicals for their blanket view.

I actually try not to flame this view or push it aside. I do not think these problems are problematic and their regulation would have absolutely zero impact on crime. So it comes down to my question: why should I not be allowed to have a firearm that has a high capacity magazine when it has been shown its threat is only a perception and not found in reality?

Bingo. I just wish some foreign armchair hunters could accept the pro-gun views and not the anti-gun hysteria.

Why protect yourself by arming yourself when you can protect yourself and others by making a law?

If we all threw down guns nobody would have them, and nobody would even have to think twice about firearms because they'll be all gone.

Unless we enlist the government to forcibly and unconstitutionally strip its citizens of firearms, one step at a time by forming gradual precedence.

I can't even see where dagging this topic can improve the substance of the anti-gun movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Holly wood_shootout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norco_shoot out

At 1/1/08 08:18 PM, JoS wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Holly wood_shootout

1,300 rounds fired by the perpetrators, and the only people to die were the perpetrators themselves, one of which comitted suicide on the spot. 17 others were injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norco_shoot out

Although this article isn't near as specific about the the weapons used or total rounds fired, I did chuckle to myself at this...

Upon hearing the shootout in the street, the robbers inside the bank ran outside and into their waiting getaway van. Once all five men were inside, they attempted to flee the scene, while continuing to shoot at Bolasky. But as the van sped away, a pellet from Bolasky's shotgun struck the driver in the back of the head, killing him and sending the van crashing into a tree. The four remaining robbers then exited the vehicle and fired over 200 rounds at Bolasky, putting 47 holes in his cruiser. Bolasky was hit five times in the arm and chest

Isn' the general idea of "spray and pray" firing tactics to fire as many rounds as you can, killing or wounding a large group of people? 200 rounds fired and they only managed to hit the officer 5 times, and the officer LIVED. Where did they learn to shoot, Duck Hunt?

The only people killed were two of the perps by police gunfire, and one cop by an errant bullet to the head.

Pretty lethal stuff, them assault rifles, ain't they?

At 1/1/08 09:30 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/1/08 08:18 PM, JoS wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Holly wood_shootout

1,300 rounds fired by the perpetrators, and the only people to die were the perpetrators themselves, one of which comitted suicide on the spot. 17 others were injured.

Considering that these are weapons made and used effectily in military service one is forced to look at the training and intent of the user. In the hollywood case clearly they weren't out to go on a massacre but basically trying to just carve out an escape path. I'm not saying that in this they were rational but it only stands to reason that unless you're shooting like a movie henchmen that volume of fire is going to kill who you're aiming at

At 1/1/08 09:39 PM, stafffighter wrote: I'm not saying that in this they were rational but it only stands to reason that unless you're shooting like a movie henchmen that volume of fire is going to kill who you're aiming at

Here's the thing; they were firing like movie henchmen, shooting large quantities of ammunition and not hitting a damn thing despite the fact that they were using supposedly highly lethal firearms. That runs counter to the whole thought process brought up by gun control proponents that the ability to fire more rounds faster somehow equals a "deadlier" firearm.

I can understand the training aspect of it, that's why I made the joke about Duck Hunt. But what I don't get is the intent... how do you rationalize 200 rounds to scare one police officer?

At 1/1/08 09:54 PM, Proteas wrote:

Here's the thing; they were firing like movie henchmen, shooting large quantities of ammunition and not hitting a damn thing despite the fact that they were using supposedly highly lethal firearms. That runs counter to the whole thought process brought up by gun control proponents that the ability to fire more rounds faster somehow equals a "deadlier" firearm.

This is my point. They were clearly not trying to kill everything in their path. Grom the footage I've seen they had fairly good control of their weapons and the fact that theydid try to escape while doing this supports the theory that they were trying to shoot their way out of the situation.

I can understand the training aspect of it, that's why I made the joke about Duck Hunt. But what I don't get is the intent... how do you rationalize 200 rounds to scare one police officer?

You can be well trained in the use of a pistol or machine gun or you can be a spaz with either weapon.
I'll try to exaplin it non biasedly. Anybody can hammer a nail but it dosen't make them a carpenter. But take someone who knows how to use a tool and giving them a superior tool will get more work done

I'm just surprised nobody has used DC as a focal point for the argument against private ownership of firearms.

I mean, you can't transport a gun in DC from one room in your own house to the next without becoming a criminal.

Isn't that what true gun control is all about?

Guy A: I want to defend myself. A gun is the best tool to do so.
Guy B: Guns kill. I don't like guns and you shouldn't either.
Guy C: Let's make a law.

At 1/1/08 10:08 PM, Grammer wrote: I honestly don't know what kind of retard you'd have to be to think civilians should be packing assault rifles, sorry.

Don't you have some manga to opine on?

At 1/1/08 10:08 PM, Grammer wrote: I honestly don't know what kind of retard you'd have to be to think civilians should be packing assault rifles, sorry.

Way to back that up with any kind of evidence. Assault rifle is a scary word to you so people shouldn't be allowed to have them. Roger.

At 1/1/08 10:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Isn't that what true gun control is all about?

No, gun control isn't about eliminating guns. That is just one end of the spectrum. I think guns laws should be modeled around common sense and sensibility. Background checks should be conducted on people, you should have some type of licensing system and there are some weapons that most people have absolutely no need for.

Where you draw the line is where the debate is, but lumping gun control people all into one category isn't very realistic.

At 1/1/08 10:08 PM, Grammer wrote: I honestly don't know what kind of retard you'd have to be to think civilians should be packing assault rifles, sorry.

Do you honestly hold this opinion, or do you just enjot picking fights with cellardoor.

At 1/1/08 10:08 PM, Grammer wrote: I honestly don't know what kind of retard you'd have to be to think civilians should be packing assault rifles, sorry.

Considering that the common held liberal view is the militias (made of civilians) are to hold arms, I'd love to hear why they shouldn't.

At 1/2/08 02:24 AM, JoS wrote: That is just one end of the spectrum. I think guns laws should be modeled around common sense and sensibility. Background checks should be conducted on people, you should have some type of licensing system and there are some weapons that most people have absolutely no need for.

Where you draw the line is where the debate is, but lumping gun control people all into one category isn't very realistic.

Sure it is. The call for "common sense" gun control always means the same thing. More guns banned. The idea behind the 2nd is that people would be able to defend themselves against not only government, but each other. Yet the common theme is "Someone killed someone else in a no killing zone! We need to outlaw guns! And also knives! And just in case...spoons as well!"

I dont think we need to outlaw guns knives and spoons. Are you seriously arguing that AR are need to defend yourself against criminals and others? I think an AK is a little difficult to always carry around with you. I mean people already don't carry shotguns in their backpacks in case someone shoots at them, or steps on their front lawn. Handguns I can see the argument, but AR for self defense, as others have pointed out, they are pray and spray, which means you are more likely to hit by standards.

Lets take a moment to address this on a constitutional level. Its called an Amendment because it was added after the Constitution was created. The 2nd Amendment was not ratified until two years after the Constitution was ratified. Obviously it wasn't that important if they were willing to wait to add it. And its not like Amendments have never been revoked before as times change. We are not living in the same world that it was in 1789.

Secondly the text of the 2nd Amendment is A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course that is open to interpretation, but the way I see it is that the emphasis is on the militia, not the general population. It does not say individuals, it says the people which I think means society or societies institution's. In court when you say the People vs Mr X, it refers to society as a whole, not individuals. The emphasis is in on Militia, State and Arms.

At 1/2/08 01:55 PM, JoS wrote: I dont think we need to outlaw guns knives and spoons. Are you seriously arguing that AR are need to defend yourself against criminals and others?

Well, if you look at the AK-47 and see an easy-to-maintain, high power rifle with an availability worldwide (law-abiding or otherwise) then you probably understand the reasoning behind recommending and allowing Iraqi families to possess one in their homes.

I think an AK is a little difficult to always carry around with you. I mean people already don't carry shotguns in their backpacks in case someone shoots at them, or steps on their front lawn.

A high-caliber handgun is a much better alternative to hefting a scattergun. Can you guess why? Try to think of guns as an available option, like fire insurance or a big mac or a high-end sportscar; each has a characteristic catering to someone who has the fortuitous availability to choose one. Felons don't, the mentally ill don't. Now, CAN they find ways to slip through? Sure, the same way minors find ways to steal their parents' car keys or inherit a fake ID from an older friend.

Do you want a society that outlaws alcohol and cars because some bad apples find ways around common moral and legal standards? What makes you believe these additional prohibitions will be any more effective than the previously ignored laws? You mentioned prosecution, and how that makes it easier to lock up the criminals who obtain "assault rifles" and other various prohibited paraphernalia. Please go into detail and explain to me how this factor is plausible, I'm having trouble.

Handguns I can see the argument, but AR for self defense, as others have pointed out, they are pray and spray, which means you are more likely to hit by standards.

Maybe. Or maybe you can't fucking quantify mass-murdering maniacs.

Clocktower to trunk of car, the human animal is capable of apparantly unimaginable violence and planning.

Lets take a moment to address this on a constitutional level.

What? The Bill of Rights all of a sudden isn't the foundation for our Constitution? Hit the books.

Secondly the text of the 2nd Amendment is A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Exactly. The right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms. Once you learn how to handle a firearm (among a few other minor qualifications), you are part of the militia, like it or not. If there was emphasis on well regulated, it would've been at the end, probably sounding something like this:

Keeping and bearing arms, being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

That's essentially, and effectively, what you are interpreting our 2nd Amendment as.

an asalt waepon hase the exclusive pourpose of killing other people. and there is enough killing they should be illegal.

At 1/2/08 05:27 PM, Grammer wrote: lol@me for forgetting pic

Yeah, anyways, please provide me with a reasonable argument as to why you need this kind of gun.

MP44 btw

To riddle Bambi with bullets.

Usually an opinion is meant to persuade, and the lighter the facts your opinion is based on, the less likely it is to persuade anyone.

At 1/2/08 06:01 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/2/08 05:37 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Usually an opinion is meant to persuade, and the lighter the facts your opinion is based on, the less likely it is to persuade anyone.

Not really, dude

Yeah, really. You need to read the whole sentence, because it's not a blanket statement.

There's different kinds of opinions. I can't give them a label, but it's like this:

I don't think we need assault rifles

This doesn't have to be backed up with facts, but if you really want them, then ask why the person believes that.

No, it's your responsibility to state your case as in-depth as you are able. If you can state your position with a one-liner, more power to ya. Your opinion, when expressed that way, doesn't mean jack shit. Sorry if that's a surprise to you.

I did the former, I did not claim more people die from assault rifles are more dangerous than hand guns, I said I don't feel they're needed. And they're not.

Why are you trying to relate this?

If there's any responsible gun owner or person who knows a lot about guns, I would love for them to convince me why hand guns are inferior in defending yourself as opposed to assault rifles.

HAHAHA...

...

And I don't care about your bike.

At 1/2/08 07:02 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/2/08 06:01 PM, Grammer wrote:

If there's any responsible gun owner or person who knows a lot about guns, I would love for them to convince me why hand guns are inferior in defending yourself as opposed to assault rifles.

HAHAHA...

...

He has a point. Home defence is by nature very short range. Assualt rifles are ill suited to this purpose, which is why sub-machine guns were invented. Sub-machine guns in themselves are made lay down a volume of fire. Said volume would be wasted on a single target.
Anyone with the minimal proficiancy it takes to legally own a gun would be able to defend their home effectivly with a handgun

You see in order to slove this problem we have to get it by the roots.

How's that you say well for one racism (reason for a lot of gang crime, killing too) needs to go away.

And then we have to tell everyone that killing Is 100% wrong (unless it's self-defence).

And teaching gun ed (which is basic gun safety) to people will reduce gun accedents. (because now they will understand the power of a gun).

Ohhhhh yeah we have lots of work to do.

get the problem by the roots, crime is like a weed.

ok then just know that banning guns would only cut the top of the weed off (you don't really fix the problem).

At 1/2/08 05:27 PM, Grammer wrote: lol@me for forgetting pic

Yeah, anyways, please provide me with a reasonable argument as to why you need this kind of gun.

MP44 btw

First I'm going to assume this gun has both semi-automatic and automatic fire.
Turn it to single shot and you can take down an elk up to 200 yards. The sights are designed to be quick so that same single shot can be placed easier in a running animal at say 50 yards. The muzzle break on that is designed so when you do have automatic fire the gun won't kick you around, so if you're willing to sacrifice some meat in trade for dropping an animal that runs after the first shot you can switch to automatic and shoot true and place 5 shots to put it down. Very practicle in sparse hunting seasons and towards the end of the season. On the protection side gun owners know that at about 20 feet with a pistol it's hit or miss(police only have to hit 3 out of 9 shots at that range to pass their range tests), and if someones breaking into your house and you can protect yourself I'd rather have the person know I can shoot long range and not run then have someone run and not be taken in by police.
Now can you tell me why someone who passes all the checks to get a rifle or handgun and even a ccp shouldn't have one of these rifles?

At 1/2/08 07:11 PM, stafffighter wrote: He has a point. Home defence is by nature very short range. Assualt rifles are ill suited to this purpose, which is why sub-machine guns were invented. Sub-machine guns in themselves are made lay down a volume of fire. Said volume would be wasted on a single target.
Anyone with the minimal proficiancy it takes to legally own a gun would be able to defend their home effectivly with a handgun

You don't know what you're talking about.

In self-defense, you want a gun that delivers the maximum amount of energy to the target to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible. Even the most powerful handgun rounds deliver less muzzle energy than that of the typical assault rifle round.

Assault rifle rounds:

7.62x39mm(what an AK-47 shoots)

Energy at muzzle: 1445- 1762 (ft/lbs)

.223 Remington/5.56x45mm (what the AR-15, M16/M4 style rifles shoot)

Energy at muzzle: About 1200 ft/lbs

9mm (which is considered the typical handgun round)

Energy at muzzle About 350-400 ft/lbs

.357 Magnum (considered to be a superior defense handgun round)

Energy at muzzle: About 550-600 ft/lbs

----------

If someone is using an assault rifle for home-defense, they are much more likely to end the threat quickly with an assault rifle than with a handgun. It's not overkill, it's called being safe.

Someone doesn't just simply die when they are shot. The only way incapacitate someone to the point they can't harm you is if you damage their nervous system (brain or spine), or cause blood loss. A weapon with more energy on target has more stopping power, and especially an assault rifle round which will deliver that energy to the vital organs due to better penetration, and the tendency to fragment at close range. And that's if it's using run of the mill FMJ rounds. If an assault rifle is using hinting rounds, like softpoints, the round with be much more effective than an expanding hollowpoint from a handgun.

At 1/2/08 06:01 PM, Grammer wrote: If there's any responsible gun owner or person who knows a lot about guns, I would love for them to convince me why hand guns are inferior in defending yourself as opposed to assault rifles.

Have you even READ TheMason's posts?

Seriously...