The UK is too restrictive on gun control. Call me a redneck but I think there should be less restrictions on automatic weapons, the gun stores should do what the US do, which os something like sticking them on semi-auto, no idea how they do it, but they should.That way it's no more harmful than a handgun.
I am gonna get insulted preeety badly now aint I?

rofl

At 9/26/07 03:33 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: The UK is too restrictive on gun control. Call me a redneck but I think there should be less restrictions on automatic weapons, the gun stores should do what the US do, which os something like sticking them on semi-auto, no idea how they do it, but they should.That way it's no more harmful than a handgun.
I am gonna get insulted preeety badly now aint I?

Okay first of all, the gun stores do not "stick them on semi-auto"...assault rifles and other semi-auto firearms come that way from the manufacturer when intended for sale to civilians.

Secondly, handguns are more harmful than an AK-47. Yes an AK shoots a rifle round and it can carry more rounds than a handgun. However, the assault rifle is not suited to criminal activities. They cannot be concealed and the most common ammo they shoot is full-metal-jacket which is some of the least lethal out there. However, handguns are capable of shooting jacketed hollow-points which are the most lethal you can buy. Handguns are also exceptionally concealable making them much more valuable in the comission of crime.

That is why in the US less than 1% of total firearm crime involves a rifle of any type. The vast majority of crime involves a handgun...

At 9/23/07 11:23 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: No, Wolfy, you showed that you're happy to be completely wrong in order to try and make a point, making yourself look like a fool in the process.

No D2k, I showed your original point to be wrong. Then you qualified it. Instead of saying "Hey I misspoke" or "Hey I forgot to add the word rifle", you then claimed that I was wrong. As such, my point stands and I'm correct.
Douchebag.

Were any of those three gunned down with a semi-automatic and/or automatic machine gun? No.

There is no such thing as a "semi automatic machine gun", but whatever. That's AGAIN, not what you said. And as such is irrelevant.

Were any of those three gunned down with a pump-action shotgun? No.

Again, not what you said, and as such is irrelevant.

In other words, you're an idiot - neither of the weapons banned in 1988 were used, so therefore you were wrong in your usual obnoxiously ignorant manner.

I wasn't wrong jackass.
You: No one has been killed with a semi-automatic weapon.
Me: Yes they have. (Proof)

You're such a dishonest jackass.

To illustrate why you're wrong as such, with different terms.
You: No one has been killed with tools since the tool ban.
Me: Of course they have. (Three links of people being murdered with tire irons.)
You: Haha! But none of those were with hammers! I win.

You know, I even gave you the chance to qualify your statements, and gave you the benefit of the doubt. That you refused to take it, tells me everything I need to know. You're more concerned with being "right" than correct. You were wrong, then use evidence of your folly to prove you right. It's assinine.

Coincidentally, the first two were gang related, and the third a result of the shooter missing the target and Rhys getting caught in the crossfire (which is one in the eye for the theory playing computer games makes you a dead-eye for headshots, while we're here).

And, what does that have to do with anything. Gang murders are still murders.
And someone getting in between the shot and the target is still shot.

Keep. Changing. The. Issue. Never. Address. Original. Point.
Then. Claim. You're. Never. Wrong.

Dishonest douchebag.

Stick to confusing New England with the United Kingdom in future, Wolfy.

Yea whatever. You've been proved wrong by me and others on everypoint you've ever made.
Keep pretending youre intellectually equal as I continue to smote your Post Hoc fallacies and CONTINUE to prove you wrong.

At 9/27/07 05:12 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/23/07 11:23 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: No, Wolfy, you showed that you're happy to be completely wrong in order to try and make a point, making yourself look like a fool in the process.

No D2k, I showed your original point to be wrong. Then you qualified it. Instead of saying "Hey I misspoke" or "Hey I forgot to add the word rifle", you then claimed that I was wrong. As such, my point stands and I'm correct.
Douchebag.

Were any of those three gunned down with a semi-automatic and/or automatic machine gun? No.

There is no such thing as a "semi automatic machine gun", but whatever. That's AGAIN, not what you said. And as such is irrelevant.

So,you claim that the AK47, Uzi, MP5, SA80 etc. don't exist, therefore non-existant figments of the imagination are banned in the UK?

Yes, I should have clarified at first - however, countering with a massive blunder is not helping you.

Were any of those three gunned down with a pump-action shotgun? No.

Again, not what you said, and as such is irrelevant.

Banned after Hungerford: yes, it is relevant.

And, what does that have to do with anything. Gang murders are still murders.
And someone getting in between the shot and the target is still shot.

Back on page 11 you were trying to prove there weren't criminal-on-criminal murders, and you posted links that prove that there are - you changed the subject to agree with what I said. Rhys Jones is the only aspect that proves me wrong: he's an innocent bystander of gun crime in the UK - and he wasn't the intended target, unlike those of Cho Seung-hui etc.

At 9/30/07 12:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

There is no such thing as a "semi automatic machine gun", but whatever. That's AGAIN, not what you said. And as such is irrelevant.

So,you claim that the AK47, Uzi, MP5, SA80 etc. don't exist, therefore non-existant figments of the imagination are banned in the UK?

D2K,

This is problematic. Strictly speaking a machine gun or assault rifle cannot be semi-automatic since by definition they are fully-automatic.

What you buy in America that is an AK, Uzi or any other "assault rifle" or submachine gun (which an Uzi and MP5 are), do not technically fit into those categories since they are not fully automatic. So in this Wolfy is correct.

However, by popular usage these terms have come to be include these firearms by laymen and other people who are not technically proficient in firearms.

In the end however, if you two get into this pissing match BOTH of your arguments will digenerate.

At 9/30/07 12:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: So,you claim that the AK47, Uzi, MP5, SA80 etc. don't exist, therefore non-existant figments of the imagination are banned in the UK?

No, I said machine guns were, by definition, automatic. If you're going to misquote me, at least don't include my original quote. Jeez.
Saying "semi-automatic machine gun" is like saying "automatic stick shift". It is a direct contridiction of terms.

Yes, I should have clarified at first - however, countering with a massive blunder is not helping you.

I didn't blunder. You said no one had been killed with a semi-automatic weapon. I proved that indeed they had. If you had said "Oops. I meant that no one had been killed with a semi-automatic rifle" I wouldn't have called you a liar, and pointed out that you refused to fix your error.

Banned after Hungerford: yes, it is relevant.

Yet, not what you said, therefore it is irrelevant.

Back on page 11 you were trying to prove there weren't criminal-on-criminal murders, and you posted links that prove that there are - you changed the subject to agree with what I said. Rhys Jones is the only aspect that proves me wrong: he's an innocent bystander of gun crime in the UK - and he wasn't the intended target, unlike those of Cho Seung-hui etc.

I never claimed there weren't criminal on criminal murders. You're so full of shit.

You say there are no murders. I point out murders.
You say they are then "gang murders". I point out that it doesn't matter as gang murders are still murders. You then say that they are only in one city. I say I don't care if they're all in the same family, because it's still murders.
You then claim I said gang murders didn't happen.

Blatant dishonesty.

At 9/26/07 11:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

Okay first of all, the gun stores do not "stick them on semi-auto"...assault rifles and other semi-auto firearms come that way from the manufacturer when intended for sale to civilians.

Secondly, handguns are more harmful than an AK-47. Yes an AK shoots a rifle round and it can carry more rounds than a handgun. However, the assault rifle is not suited to criminal activities. They cannot be concealed and the most common ammo they shoot is full-metal-jacket which is some of the least lethal out there. However, handguns are capable of shooting jacketed hollow-points which are the most lethal you can buy. Handguns are also exceptionally concealable making them much more valuable in the comission of crime.

That is why in the US less than 1% of total firearm crime involves a rifle of any type. The vast majority of crime involves a handgun...

OK then, you sound like you might know something about that, so that scares me. You am ybe forgetting this, the great cat/dog war of '96, involving all automatic weapons bought on the black market.

Regardless of the percentage of crimes committed with assault rifles, I see no practical use for them in the American home. Outdoors or not. That is why you shouldn't be able to buy them.

At 10/8/07 05:38 PM, PhoenixTails wrote: Regardless of the percentage of crimes committed with assault rifles, I see no practical use for them in the American home. Outdoors or not. That is why you shouldn't be able to buy them.

I guess self-defense isn't very important then, is it?

the 2nd ammendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

this is simple, if you dont agree with our constitution, LEAVE

The news media feeds the U.S.A with all this gun control shit Showing ONLY one side of the story.

It's no wonder that pointless flamming over gun control is so comman, most people only see one side of the story not the other half.

never trust the news, period.

At 10/8/07 07:59 PM, The-Mage wrote: the 2nd ammendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

this is simple, if you dont agree with our constitution, LEAVE

I agree, I don't think gun control is going to do anything with crime. If people want crime to drop then why don't they be SMARTER about it.

rifles are probably the 'safest' guns. difficult to conceal, used in a negligible amount of murders and they cant slaughter a whole school like semi-automatics. what if other forms of people killers were phased out and rifles were introduced as the gun standard.

At 10/8/07 05:02 PM, flashplayer5 wrote:

At 9/26/07 11:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

Okay first of all, the gun stores do not "stick them on semi-auto"...assault rifles and other semi-auto firearms come that way from the manufacturer when intended for sale to civilians.

Secondly, handguns are more harmful than an AK-47. Yes an AK shoots a rifle round and it can carry more rounds than a handgun. However, the assault rifle is not suited to criminal activities. They cannot be concealed and the most common ammo they shoot is full-metal-jacket which is some of the least lethal out there. However, handguns are capable of shooting jacketed hollow-points which are the most lethal you can buy. Handguns are also exceptionally concealable making them much more valuable in the comission of crime.

That is why in the US less than 1% of total firearm crime involves a rifle of any type. The vast majority of crime involves a handgun...

OK then, you sound like you might know something about that, so that scares me.

Why should that scare you? I am in the military (six years active duty, going on my second year in the Air Natl Guard). I am also a political scientist so I deal with these kindof statistics.

I also grew-up in a rural area where I had friends who relied on their parents being able to hunt to provide meat for their dinner table. So firearms are something I grew-up with as well as learning about them through my previous profession and looking at the statistics here in academia.

And so if my knowledge of firearms scares you I would argue that your fear is the irrational fear that comes of ignorance, and worldview regarding guns that is crafted from what you see on TV, movies and in video games.

At 10/8/07 08:24 PM, robattle wrote:

I agree, I don't think gun control is going to do anything with crime. If people want crime to drop then why don't they be SMARTER about it.

like what? walk around with a gun? shoot people when you get pissed? a leading cause of gun murders is arguments/ relationship problems and this is always neglected. police brutality is much higher here also and that's probably related to the fact that they can never be sure of whether the suspect possesses a gun and have to take extra precautions which can result in the use of lethal force.

At 10/8/07 05:38 PM, PhoenixTails wrote: Regardless of the percentage of crimes committed with assault rifles, I see no practical use for them in the American home. Outdoors or not. That is why you shouldn't be able to buy them.

Not only self-defense but firearms such as the AK-47 and M-16 are good hunting firearms. The bullet is just large enough to bring down a deer, but not as powerful as traditional deer hunting caliburs suc as the .270 or .30-30. This means that they are safer in that if you miss the deer the chances of hitting something you did not want to is decreased. That is important in areas such as Franklin County, MO where urbanites from St Louis are moving into the country and building homes next to farmland where people still hunt.

I would suggest that your argument comes from "bumper sticker logic"...sounds good on the surface but on examination it shows that you do not have any knowledge on that which you speak of.

Furthermore, what is the use of a SUV or Sports Car? They are gas guzzlers and in the event of an accident a SUV will keep the occupants of the SUV safe...but what about the guy in the hybrid? Also a sports car goes fast which presents a danger to both driver and other drivers. So why no move to limit the availability of these consumer goods to the American home? Afterall cars are responsible for more deaths a year than guns...and a SUV or Sports Car has even less utility than an AK-47 or M-16.

i was trying to find a break-down on uk murders by cause and look what i came across.

2 million people in u.s prison systems at 686 per 100 000. 6x that amount in the UK and 2x that amount in thailand as a percentage.

now i've got SOAD in the back of my head... prison system...

At 10/9/07 01:07 AM, tony4moroney wrote: rifles are probably the 'safest' guns. difficult to conceal, used in a negligible amount of murders and they cant slaughter a whole school like semi-automatics. what if other forms of people killers were phased out and rifles were introduced as the gun standard.

Tony,

Rifles can be semi-automatics. Here is Mason's Firearms 101: Classification

There are two major typess of guns:
1) Handguns
2) Longarms

Under longarms you have two sub-types:
1) Shotguns
2) Rifles

Now, you talk about semi-automatics as if they are something different from rifles. This is wrong. Semi-automatic talks about the action of a firearm. You have about six different types of action:
1) Single action which refers to the trigger (mostly on handguns), you have cock the hammer before you pull the trigger.
2) Double action which refers to the trigger (again mostly on handguns), you don't have to cock the hammer before you pull the trigger.
3) Bolt action (mostly on rifles) is where you have to operate a bolt to move a bullet from the magazine to the chamber in between shots.
4) Pump action (mostly on shotguns) where you have to operate a pump to move a shell from the magazine to the chamber in between shots.
5) Semi-automatic (ANY firearm) is when the gun automatically loads a new round whenever you shoot. However, you have to pull the trigger to fire the new round.
6) Fully-automatic (ANY firearm) this is "spray and pray" where you hold the trigger down and the gun fires until it is out of ammo.

So Tony, even when you talk about rifles you are including AK-47, M-16 and even UZI clones in the statistic (most crime statistics are broken down by Handgun, Shotgun and Rifle...nothing further). An AK is not suitable to crime because it is just as unconcealable and unweildy as a traditional deer rifle.

I also like your use of polemics: "people killers"...if you don't like the facts then use language to make your point sound more legitimate!

At 10/9/07 01:01 PM, TheMason wrote: 3) Bolt action (mostly on rifles) is where you have to operate a bolt to move a bullet from the magazine to the chamber in between shots.

is what i was referring to. theyre much safer. i don't see a reason not to promote these guns though i suppose they require more skill to use and more training but handguns are concealable, are used in most crimes and semi-automatic weapons are much more dangerous and are oft used in massacres

I also like your use of polemics: "people killers"...if you don't like the facts then use language to make your point sound more legitimate!

what do you mean? i made a comment that rifles are less dangerous than other guns. i refer to them as rifles (i suppose incorrectly), but im sure you knew what i meant. and what's wrong with me using some connotative language to illustrate my points ;]

At 10/9/07 01:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 10/9/07 01:01 PM, TheMason wrote: 3) Bolt action (mostly on rifles) is where you have to operate a bolt to move a bullet from the magazine to the chamber in between shots.

is what i was referring to. theyre much safer. i don't see a reason not to promote these guns though i suppose they require more skill to use and more training but handguns are concealable, are used in most crimes and semi-automatic weapons are much more dangerous and are oft used in massacres

Actually the type of round that most assault rifle clones (semi-automatics) is MUCH safer than the bolt action rifle you describe.

1) AK-47, M-16 and UZIs use rounds that are less powerful than the high power rounds bolt action rifles usually use.
2) A round designed for hunting often uses hollow points or other rounds that are designed to be much more deadly than a military round. That is why when a person uses an assault rifle clone in a spree you hear about many injuries and less deaths.
3) There is virtually NO difference between a traditional bolt action deer rifle and a sniper rifle.

The issue is complicated and to speak effectively on it I think you need to learn more about the technology involved with firearms.

You also bring up the issue of training. Firearms do not require extensive training to become proficient in. I could take you out to the range and have you firing after about 10 minutes. By the end of the afternoon you would be comfortable with a wide variety of firearms. I think that in your mind you have them built up to be these inheriently dangerous and evil things.

They are not. The only thing that is dangerous is the mind behind the trigger.

I also like your use of polemics: "people killers"...if you don't like the facts then use language to make your point sound more legitimate!

what do you mean? i made a comment that rifles are less dangerous than other guns. i refer to them as rifles (i suppose incorrectly), but im sure you knew what i meant. and what's wrong with me using some connotative language to illustrate my points ;]

I was just pointing out that rather rely on facts and statistics, which actually makes an argument counter to one you would make (assault rifles are probably the least dangerous guns out there)...you make an appeal to emotion. An indication that your argument is weak.

At 10/9/07 04:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/9/07 01:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Actually the type of round that most assault rifle clones (semi-automatics) is MUCH safer than the bolt action rifle you describe.

yeah but i'm talking about how fast those bullets come out. semi-automatics provide Mr. V-Tech with the opportunity to spray bullets at everybody whereas a hunting rifle would only allow him to kill one person, and then provide ample opportunity for somebody to run at him beat his pathetic sack of shit ass up and then stitch his balls to his head or many more people to run away whilst handguns are concealable and are used in most crimes. you see, if we're talking about guns in the interests of protecting oneself and serving the state/ fighting against a potential tyrannical leader a rifle could serve that interest whilst potentially reducing the crime and homicide rate.

The issue is complicated and to speak effectively on it I think you need to learn more about the technology involved with firearms.

probably

You also bring up the issue of training. Firearms do not require extensive training to become proficient in. I could take you out to the range and have you firing after about 10 minutes. By the end of the afternoon you would be comfortable with a wide variety of firearms. I think that in your mind you have them built up to be these inheriently dangerous and evil things.

yeah ive fired my dad's hunting rifle. i became completely deaf for a day because the ear muffs werent on properly. ive also fired a handgun and im aware of how lethal this thing can be in the wrong hands.

They are not. The only thing that is dangerous is the mind behind the trigger.

yeah but everybody has the potential for murder though what is necessitated for them to become that is different, a gun could, for a person in a volatile state, cause an otherwise harmless situation to become one in where they kill their loved ones over something like say, an argument. this hypothetical scenario is also backed up by fbi murder stats whereby arguments and relationships are cited as leading causes for murder.

I was just pointing out that rather rely on facts and statistics, which actually makes an argument counter to one you would make (assault rifles are probably the least dangerous guns out there)...you make an appeal to emotion. An indication that your argument is weak.

i was being sarcastic hence the wink -> ;] but anyway i just as well couldve made my point without the alternative wording but politicians sell themselves with these semantics, right?

At 10/9/07 07:43 PM, tony4moroney wrote: yeah but i'm talking about how fast those bullets come out. semi-automatics provide Mr. V-Tech with the opportunity to spray bullets at everybody whereas a hunting rifle would only allow him to kill one person, and then provide ample opportunity for somebody to run at him beat his pathetic sack of shit ass up and then stitch his balls to his head or many more people to run away whilst handguns are concealable and are used in most crimes. you see, if we're talking about guns in the interests of protecting oneself and serving the state/ fighting against a potential tyrannical leader a rifle could serve that interest whilst potentially reducing the crime and homicide rate.

Actually, it wasn't so much the action that allowed Cho to do what he did but the fact that they were handguns. They were concealable whereas an AK-47 is just as unconcealable as your dad's hunting rifle. And concealability was what made Cho deadly because he could sneak them into the building.

Now as for "how fast they come out"...

He could've done the same thing with a double action revolver. Furthermore, he could've reloaded a revolver just a few seconds slower than a semi-automatic.

As for fighting tyranny. Semi-automatics are central to that. Bolt action rifles are limited in their efficacy in modern warfare...they make great sniper rifles but are not suitable to self-defense or close quater urban combat. In an invasion or revolution.ary setting there would be times that you would suffer if all you had was your dad's hunting rifle. Again...you display a lack of knowledge of what you speak.

The issue is complicated and to speak effectively on it I think you need to learn more about the technology involved with firearms.

probably

No probably about it. You are talking about limiting a Constitutional right...don't you think you should have your facts straight? I mean my God, look at how much flak Bush gets about other civil liberties...

Yet people are fine with eroding the second amendment for an illusion of safety...

yeah ive fired my dad's hunting rifle. i became completely deaf for a day because the ear muffs werent on properly. ive also fired a handgun and im aware of how lethal this thing can be in the wrong hands.

Good...it's a start.

i was being sarcastic hence the wink -> ;] but anyway i just as well couldve made my point without the alternative wording but politicians sell themselves with these semantics, right?

That's why I'm a Political Scientist...politicians are my monkeys...

At 10/2/07 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/30/07 12:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: So,you claim that the AK47, Uzi, MP5, SA80 etc. don't exist, therefore non-existant figments of the imagination are banned in the UK?

No, I said machine guns were, by definition, automatic. If you're going to misquote me, at least don't include my original quote. Jeez.

Machine guns are semi-automatic, so therefore they exist, no?

The only reason fully automatic machine guns weren't specified is more to do with the police being able to tote their weaponry more than anything else.

Yes, I should have clarified at first - however, countering with a massive blunder is not helping you.

I didn't blunder. You said no one had been killed with a semi-automatic weapon. I proved that indeed they had. If you had said "Oops. I meant that no one had been killed with a semi-automatic rifle" I wouldn't have called you a liar, and pointed out that you refused to fix your error.

You made the point of citing semi-automatic pistols, which were patently not what I was stating - in other words, if you're going to bitch at misquoting, make sure you don't do it.

Back on page 11 you were trying to prove there weren't criminal-on-criminal murders, and you posted links that prove that there are - you changed the subject to agree with what I said. Rhys Jones is the only aspect that proves me wrong: he's an innocent bystander of gun crime in the UK - and he wasn't the intended target, unlike those of Cho Seung-hui etc.

I never claimed there weren't criminal on criminal murders. You're so full of shit.

"After looking through over 200 hundred articles, not a single criminal on crimnal shooting came up." - WolvenBear.

If you're so intent on saying I'm full of shit, I will state that you are a fucking liar.

You say there are no murders. I point out murders.
You say they are then "gang murders". I point out that it doesn't matter as gang murders are still murders. You then say that they are only in one city. I say I don't care if they're all in the same family, because it's still murders.
You then claim I said gang murders didn't happen.

1.) I state that there aren't as many murders as the US, which is a blatant truth. In fact, there are nearly 16,000 less gun murders than in the US.
2a.) I point out that, when the murders are within the criminal fraternity, there isn't the problem that they have in the US - people don't walk into their school or college in the UK and open fire on whoever is standing in the way.
2b.) The cases of Rhys Jones and Magda Pniewska were the result of gang members not being able to shoot straight, not calculated killings of innocent bystanders. IS the difference sinking in?
3.) I never said one city - I cited areas within two cities at the outset (those cities being London and Manchester).
4.) Signed and dated above - you really are falling apart here.

Blatant dishonesty.

Wolfy, in this response I have proved you to be a blatant liar four times, as well as pointing out your incompetence. You do not have the right to comment on any poster and any argument when that is your level.

At 10/10/07 07:58 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 10/2/07 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/30/07 12:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: So,you claim that the AK47, Uzi, MP5, SA80 etc. don't exist, therefore non-existant figments of the imagination are banned in the UK?

No, I said machine guns were, by definition, automatic. If you're going to misquote me, at least don't include my original quote. Jeez.

Machine guns are semi-automatic, so therefore they exist, no?

Again I have to take Wolfy's side on this point D2K. A machine by definition is fully automatic. AK-47s and M-16s are not considered "machine guns" by the military but assault rifles and even by this term, having the capacity to fire on full-auto is a requirement of the technical definition. It is for this reason that I refer to AK-47s, M-16s and UZIs that are legal for civilian purchase as 'clones'. This is not only my defintion but that of the gun community (which is comprised not only of rednecks, but academics like me, manufacturers, police/military also like me, and athletes).

An UZI and MP-5 are submachine guns...but again by the technical definition only when they are capable of full-auto.

Therefore, guns that are capable of semi-auto ONLY are NOT machine guns.

What we have here is a conflict of technical accuracy vs. layman connotation. To the person who does not have a technical understanding of firearms: assault rifles, machine pistols (UZI, MP-5) and true machine guns (such as the Squad Automatic Weapon) are lumped into this broad category of 'machine gun'. However, to people who know and understand guns the firearms you mention are NOT machine guns.

Furthermore, in America full-auto assault rifles, submachine guns and machine guns are tightly controlled. A civilian may still purchase them but:
1) They have to go through an expensive licensing process that takes a long time and involves an extensive background check.
2) The weapons themselves are cost prohibitive in that a full-auto version of an AK, M-16, UZI or MP-5 adds at least $2,000 to the price of the gun.

In the end it is not worth it because full-auto is highly inaccurate and expensive in terms of the amount of ammo that it consumes.

As for rampages such as VT and Columbine, these are statistically rare and insignificant occurences and the only reason they seem to be on the rise is that they are highly sensationalizied and when they do happen the media focuses so much attention on them that they seem more common than they really are.

the problem we have now, is tht those guns are out there and what do you do about it? I mean, we can't not sell them to citizens because then we're left unarmed surrounded by a bunch of armed mad men willing to kill us.

But if we keep selling tools of death, how can we ever expect the carnage to stop?

My solution, stop making them. The only guns that should be made should belong to the military. All other guns should cease to be created. The guns that are out there, are out there... but they won't last forever and if there are no new guns to take the old ones place, eventually there won't be any out there.

But you run into the problem of 1) Is that really the case and 2) how can you just destory that many jobs and business like that? I mean, people know how to make guns so would stoping the mass production of them really make them dissapear or would the world form it's own underground bootleg version of the gun. And if you make guns illegal to produce, gun companies are going to go out of business over night costing thousands of people their jobs.

It's definitly a terrible situation to be in and I dont really know how to answer the problem. But I do agree... there is no need for anyone to own any gun other then a hunting riffle.

At 10/9/07 12:56 PM, tony4moroney wrote: i was trying to find a break-down on uk murders by cause and look what i came across.

2 million people in u.s prison systems at 686 per 100 000. 6x that amount in the UK and 2x that amount in thailand as a percentage.

now i've got SOAD in the back of my head... prison system...

That has a lot more to do with the judicial system than it does with the amount of actual crime.

For example, in the US you can get thrown in jail for smoking pot in practice, not just in theory.

At 10/10/07 03:45 PM, Elfer wrote: That has a lot more to do with the judicial system than it does with the amount of actual crime.

For example, in the US you can get thrown in jail for smoking pot in practice, not just in theory.

well yeah, that was the first thing that came to my mind

At 10/9/07 09:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/9/07 07:43 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Actually, it wasn't so much the action that allowed Cho to do what he did but the fact that they were handguns. They were concealable whereas an AK-47 is just as unconcealable as your dad's hunting rifle. And concealability was what made Cho deadly because he could sneak them into the building.

but what happened after he sneaked them into the building? hunting rifles are not concealable and do not have that firing capacity. we have the benefit of protecting oneself in his/her home against criminals and probably a reduction in murders and crimes.

Now as for "how fast they come out"...

He could've done the same thing with a double action revolver. Furthermore, he could've reloaded a revolver just a few seconds slower than a semi-automatic.

bullshit.
a revolver requires you to reload the bullets one by one whereas the semi-automatic is a CLIP.
secondly the revolver is more of a two-handed gun, it's heavier and has larger recoil (from what i understand he held and fired two handguns at once)

As for fighting tyranny. Semi-automatics are central to that. Bolt action rifles are limited in their efficacy in modern warfare...they make great sniper rifles but are not suitable to self-defense or close quater urban combat. In an invasion or revolution.ary setting there would be times that you would suffer if all you had was your dad's hunting rifle. Again...you display a lack of knowledge of what you speak.

you're kidding me right? do you even understand the plausibility in being capable of preventing the u.s military overruning this country? that amendment was written in a time where the military wasn't as powerful and domineering as it is today. you might as well legalize missiles, grenades, anti-tank guns because that would be central to trying to prevent tanks and armored humvees ravaging towns and the countryside.

No probably about it. You are talking about limiting a Constitutional right...don't you think you should have your facts straight? I mean my God, look at how much flak Bush gets about other civil liberties...

the constitutional right speaks about a need for people to carry those guns to prevent a foreign invasion - firstly the u.s is effectively impregnable and the most likely scenario by far is that they would launch missiles into the u.s rather than get a standing army to try and invade which would be like pigs to the slaughterhouse. and also to prevent tyranny but with or without semi-automatics it isn't really possible for citizens to overthrow the u.s military (and this scenario is implausible as well)

Yet people are fine with eroding the second amendment for an illusion of safety...

illusion of safety... hmm 400 000 gun crimes and 14 000 murders per year at rates higher than that of fellow western nations.

Give them an inch, they take a mile. Do NOT let the government take away a single one of our constitutional rights! This will just lead to more changes to the constitution in the future! It starts with gun control, but once the government figures out people are willing to let the constitution, the thing that gives us all of our undeniable rights, we will be all that much closer to total martial law.

At 10/10/07 11:39 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 10/9/07 09:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/9/07 07:43 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Actually, it wasn't so much the action that allowed Cho to do what he did but the fact that they were handguns. They were concealable whereas an AK-47 is just as unconcealable as your dad's hunting rifle. And concealability was what made Cho deadly because he could sneak them into the building.

but what happened after he sneaked them into the building? hunting rifles are not concealable and do not have that firing capacity. we have the benefit of protecting oneself in his/her home against criminals and probably a reduction in murders and crimes.

My point is that ANY rifle, an AK-47 or .270 deer rifle would have probably resulted in him getting caught. So on one level I'm agreeing with you, but only until you start limiting it to hunting rifles.

Now as for "how fast they come out"...

He could've done the same thing with a double action revolver. Furthermore, he could've reloaded a revolver just a few seconds slower than a semi-automatic.

bullshit.

Think about it dude, one of the gun experts on this forum is saying it. Perhaps it's not bullshit...

a revolver requires you to reload the bullets one by one whereas the semi-automatic is a CLIP.

Not true. A revolver can be reloaded with something called a "speed loader". This device holds as many rounds as the cylinder has slots and loads the entire cylinder at one time. In the hands of someone with only a little practice, a revolver CAN be re-loaded about as fast as a clip fed handgun. (So sorry...this point is not bullshit.)

secondly the revolver is more of a two-handed gun, it's heavier and has larger recoil (from what i understand he held and fired two handguns at once)

Not true at all. Yes revolvers do have more recoil than semi-autos because the action of a semi-auto acts as a shock absorber. HOWEVER, this also a function of the calibur of the handgun. A .22, .38 or .357 (once you become comfortable with it) can be fired with one hand just like a 9mm. However I would not want to fire either a .44 revolver or .45 auto one handed.

As for fighting tyranny. Semi-automatics are central to that. Bolt action rifles are limited in their efficacy in modern warfare...they make great sniper rifles but are not suitable to self-defense or close quater urban combat. In an invasion or revolution.ary setting there would be times that you would suffer if all you had was your dad's hunting rifle. Again...you display a lack of knowledge of what you speak.

you're kidding me right? do you even understand the plausibility in being capable of preventing the u.s military overruning this country? that amendment was written in a time where the military wasn't as powerful and domineering as it is today. you might as well legalize missiles, grenades, anti-tank guns because that would be central to trying to prevent tanks and armored humvees ravaging towns and the countryside.

Two words: Iraq & Vietnam.

No probably about it. You are talking about limiting a Constitutional right...don't you think you should have your facts straight? I mean my God, look at how much flak Bush gets about other civil liberties...

the constitutional right speaks about a need for people to carry those guns to prevent a foreign invasion - firstly the u.s is effectively impregnable and the most likely scenario by far is that they would launch missiles into the u.s rather than get a standing army to try and invade which would be like pigs to the slaughterhouse. and also to prevent tyranny but with or without semi-automatics it isn't really possible for citizens to overthrow the u.s military (and this scenario is implausible as well)

Actually it does not explicity address whether or not the threat to the "security of a free state" is foreign or domestic. But judging from historical context which overwhelmingly shows that the authors of that amendment were just as fearful of domestic threats as they were foreign invasion. So you're wrong at that point.

Can you be so sure that we cannot be invaded? Yes we do have two large moats on either side of us (the Atlantic and the Pacific)...but to the North and South we have two large land borders...

Yet people are fine with eroding the second amendment for an illusion of safety...

illusion of safety... hmm 400 000 gun crimes and 14 000 murders per year at rates higher than that of fellow western nations.

We have 40,000 deaths a year due to car accidents, 16,000 of those are due to drunk driving alone. Probably a couple thousand more if you add other forms of criminal negligence. Furthermore, cars pollute the environment which adds to poor health in urban environments. A soccer mom does NOT need an Escalade nor does a MD need a Porsche. The only people who need gas guzzlers are farmers and those involved in the trades, and the only people who need fast cars are the police. And don't get me started on motorcycles... Banning guns will not make you safer...banning SUVs and sports cars will.

Gun crimes can include anything from straw-man purchases to stolen guns. In fact what that stat shows me is that the preponderance of gun crim is NOT violent.

Furthermore, in a country of 300M the number of murders by gun in the US is statistically ZERO.

I'm not sure that our rates are statistically more significant than other Western countries. Maybe around Christmas I'll have the time to crunch the numbers...