quade 4
QuoteQuoteAdditionally, they make pretty lousy close quarters combat weapons for self defense at home.
Sir, you could not be more wrong. An AR-15 with .223 Hornady TAP ammunition is the preferred combination by most military and law enforcement CQB instructors and ballisitians. The .223 TAP ammunition will not kill the baby/person/team member on the other side of the wall, where as a 9 mm (full metal jacket or hollow point) or a shotgun (slug or buckshot) will because of overpenetration.
Extensive tests have been done on this stuff. Please stick to posting what ya actually know.
Quote
I'm not too current on gun trivia, but it seems to me that your comparison of .223 TAP Vs 9mm or shotgun is as inaccurate as the post you're condemming:
According to the first website I looked at, Hornady TAP ammo is normally sold only to police. It's now been discontinued in the caliber you mentioned, and limited quantities are *temporarily* available to civilians.
IIRC, there are loads available for various calibers that would be suitable for home and self defense. Glaser and Magsafe come to mind.
I'd be stunned if a significant percentage of firearms experts were to recomend the AR 15 over a handgun in the scenario quade was discussing.
Serving a search warrant is quite different than hearing someone jiggle your bedroom door at 3:00 AM.
-JoshIf you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
rjf98 0
Quote
Q: Why did police support the ban so strongly?
A: While there are no exact numbers of assault weapon incidents, police across America in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the "weapon of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs and paramilitary extremist groups.
Source qoute here. Sorry quade, but I used this site particularly because it was put there by supporters of this bill. If they aren't going to site a study where "Police across America reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the 'weapon of coice'..." then I don't belive that the police actually reported this. If they did quote a study, I would want to study the language. Semi Automatic weapon does not equate to assault weapon as shown by my previous post.
Quote
Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor. In addition, limiting civilian access to such weapons lessens the need for law enforcement to carry assault weapons themselves in order to match the firepower capability that criminals with assault weapons would have. Law enforcement officers do not want to have to carry M-16s as their standard service weapon. In 1997, after a North Hollywood, CA shootout in which police were outgunned by two men with assault weapons, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police stated
I'll accept that the whole quote can be attributed to Mr Pasco and that it is grammatical error that there are no quotes. Still, Assault Weapon as defined by the bill has little to nothing to do with the power of the weapon. How does a bayonett lug or a flash supressor effect the penetration of a round. Why not limit ammunition types? Why the cosmetic refrences.
Quote
Prior to the ban's passage, assault rifles were used to kill and injure dozens of innocent people in some particularly heinous crimes, including:
Sorry, but dozens of innocent victims in this country doesn't require ANY regulation, because statistically it isn't relavent. We kill dozens of skydivers every year and we aren't screaming for regulation from the federal government. That may sound cruel, but in a country of over 150 million dozens is statistically irrelevant.
So, uh, yeah, I can really see how "The majority of this bill did nothing but harm law abiding citizens."
How can you say that those examples are in any way a reflection of the VAST majority of gun owners in this country. Why don't you show me a percentage of fire-arms purchased to a percentage of fire-arms used in a crime. I'll even throw the gauntlet out that if you can show me that more than 50% of legally purchased Assault Weapons (even if defined by the far to broad standards of the 94 assault weapons banl) were used in crimes then I will change my mind and support it. You can't, the stats don't exist. The MAJORITY of gun owners have them legally and don't use them in crimes.
I would like John Rich to step in here again if he is still paying attenion. I'm sure he could point us in the right direction to start viewing stats of how many lives were saved in TX by legal gun owners and carriers after the concealed carry law was passed. If that number outweighs the deaths caused by legal gun owners seems to me we are causing more deaths than we are preventing by stopping law abiding citizens from owning guns.
QuoteQuoteI'm gonna start putting money in a kitty so that come September, I can buy a bunch of Glock 22 full-cap mags for my G27, plus a bunch of those 30-rounders!
please explain:
1) why would you need that kind of firepower?
2)your logon name is 'peaceful' jeffrey ??? Peace through firepower???
mp
Forgive me, I'm not seeing why I should have to explainor justify my use of my rights. Do you feel equally inclined to inquire about my use of my right of free speech, or religion? "Jeff, why do you feel you need to stand on the corner and talk about your political views to any who will listen? What NEED do you have to tell people how you feel?" "Geez, Jeff, what NEED do you have to go to CHURCH when you could just pray to your god in your bedroom?"
I'm "peaceful" in that I live my life not harming other people. That does not mean I would not harm someone who came to do unprovoked and unjustified harm to me. Peaceful does not mean I have to be willing to surrender as a victim to the first person who tries to deprive me of my life or safety. Peace and preparedness are not mutually exclusive.
Do you honestly feel that a law-abiding person who has a gun that carries 10 rounds maximum is so much less dangerous than a law-abiding person who has the same gun, same caliber, with 15 rounds?
You can thank the anti-gun mindless zealots like Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, et al for driving up a frenzy of desire for what once was perfectly legal to own. They addressed a non-problem using a meaninglessly restrictive law, which is soon to expire. Soon we'll be able to buy items that were legal before 1994, and I plan to get my share because I'm PISSED OFF at having been denied in the first place, and in part I want those items, and in part I want to SPITE the stupid motherfuckers who made them illegal ten years ago.
Libdem antigunners are just so incredibly DENSE. They are so ignorant and short-sighted that they can't see beyond their noses at the unintended consequences of their misguided anti-gun crusade. It's really quite laughable.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteJust some quotes from an article.
***
Extending the assault weapons ban was the most important issue for gun control groups because the 1994 ban is set to expire Sept. 13. Supporters of the ban cite federal statistics showing crimes involving assault weapons have declined by two-thirds in the past decade.
This is why I call supporters of the ban FILTHY SCUMBAG SHITWAD LIARS.
The ban is supposedly responsible for this reduction in crimes involving assault weapons (which were not involved in more than POINT FIVE PERCENT of crimes involving guns in the first place)?!
What, criminals could not commit the same crimes with the still-available AR-15s etc. because the new ones didn't have collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs or flash-suppressors?! Are we supposed to believe that?
What about the fact that people could still legally buy the PRE-ban weapons WITH those features -- albeit at a much-inflated price?
How can a ban that did not actually get any guns back out of circulation (prior manufactured guns as well as prior owned guns were grandfathered) or make sales of existing supply illegal, possibly have reduced crime by means of those weapons?
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteMy own reputation as what? School shootings, as a recent epidemic, are done by... wait for it.... GUNS!!! We have a new sniper here in NorCal. They are using a GUN!!!. We are no longer the hunter/gatherers that all need weapons. I'd like to see someone actually use the 2nd amendment for what it really is... "the right to bear arms to rise up against corrupt governments"... oh wait, gun ownwers SUPPORT this current governments.
Shootings are not done "by guns." They are done "by people."
"Epidemic" of school shootings? Really? Last I read, someone had studied the numbers and found that kids are more likely to die by LIGHTNING than in a school shooting. The numbers of school killings are actually quite small. NONE are good or acceptable, but don't go calling it an epidemic just for the hysteria value of the word.
QuoteI don't think manufacturers are liable for the mis-deeds of owners, but we also don't need assault weapons and pistols on every street corner.
If you don't think manufacturers are liable for the mis-deeds of owners, why should those manufacturers be summoned into court to spend millions of dollars over and over again -- until it bankrupts them -- to defend against the same old unsuccessful claims that have been dismissed time and time again? THAT is what the lawsuit shield was about preventing.
Something you should know about the ban:
It did absolutely NOTHING to prevent 'assault weapons and pistols on every street corner," since it did not call for the confiscation of such weapons already owned, nor did it call for a stop to sales of such weapons already manufactured, nor did it do anything but make sure that new guns could not have various cosmetic features that have nothing to do with shooting/firepower. So if there were going to be these guns on "every street corner," as you say, this law had nothing to do with stopping it from happening.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteWell I find your interpretation pretty amusing. It seems to me that we reduced to presence a particular weapon or group of weapons and crime with that weapon declines. That implies that the law worked. But even more interesting are DOJ statistics that indicate gun crime in general has dropped significantly over the last ten years. Because of the ban or not? I don't know.
Can't you make an educated guess??
Prior to the ban, estimates of civilian gun ownership put the number of privately-owned guns at about a QUARTER OF A BILLION OF THEM, owned by about EIGHTY MILLION Americans.
Given that the "assault weapons ban"
- did not result in confiscation of a single already-owned gun
- did not result in prohibition on selling guns that had minor cosmetic modifications in order to still be legal
- did not result in prohibition on selling guns that had those accessories if they were manufactured pre-ban
HOW could you come to believe that the ban could be responsible for any drop in gun crime whatsoever? I mean, the ban left PLENTY of guns still legal to make and sell, and PLENTY of guns (even the ones the ban prohibited further manufacture and sale of) still in private hands. If criminals wanted guns for use in crime, there were plenty of them to be had for these past 10 years.
So really, how could the ban that removed ZERO guns be responsible for a decrease in gun use in crime?
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuoteQuoteassault weapon ban
Please tell us what you think that means? What is the definition of an assault weapon as described in the bill?
Well I would gather from the posts here that the main points have to do with clip size. My personal definition is closer to rifles that are primarily designed for killing people instead of game.
Another anti-gunner who makes his choices in ignorance of fact or reason.
Pray tell, how would one make a rifle that was efficient at killing deer or moose, which run hundres of pounds, that would not also be just fine for killing people? Is there a way to make guns that will kill animals but not people? Do the bullets have to sit through classes on target identification or something?
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Zenister 0
QuoteQuoteQuotewhy do people need these weapons?
why do you jump out of an airplane?
Why is the sky blue? I know my reasons... so why do people need guns in general? Nobody has even come close to an answer?
because the 'other guy' has them and as much as it sucks the only defense against incoming fire is more accurate outgoing..
honestly i hate firearms generally (but i recognize them as a necessary evil)
i dislike any weapon that gives a relatively untrained individual the same lethal potential as a professional warrior. Ever actually stabbed/been stabbed by anyone? Ever had someone look at you with the intent to end your life? Ever been in a real "someone isnt walking away from this fight" ? most people havent, and firearms make violence less personal, more distant and so far easier to stomach for everyone... you never have to see their eyes before you kill them, and all it takes is such a simple action.....
but guess what? you cant put the genie back in the bottle.....no matter how hard you wish you could....to keep yourself and those you love safe you train to a standard higher than your enemy and that means learning to shoot shoot safely and more accurately than your average street thug who might have fired his weapon in anger far more times than you ever will, but spends little to no time at the range actually learning how to use it.
if you take the ability to train with your only real means of protection from law abiding citizens.....well, the results should be obvious to the perceptive individual. Its not as if the criminals are going to turn in their guns or stop using them simply because you pass a law against it...
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
QuoteAgain, you've completely missed the point.
It's not that the gangs can't reload, but reloading does slow them down a bit.
Oh, slows them down HOW MUCH, quade? So much that in the
QuoteThe gangs on the streets were litterally mowing down people (police in particular) with these devices. These weapons weren't choosen to be banned simply because they were "scary looking" as JohnRich keeps regurgitating from the NRA, but because they were extremely popular with gangs. Now, all law enforcement has to do is find them with the banned devices and they go to jail with yet another charge against them.
OMG quade. WHEN was this happening? DO you realize you're talking about a type of weapon that even the BATF and FBI say was used in less than POINT FIVE PERCENT of crimes involving guns? Yet you character ize the situation as "the gangs on the streets were litterally mowing down people (police in particular) with these devices." REALLY? I don't remember reading in the news about some epidemic of gangsters mowing down a line of cops on the streets. When was this going on? Got any links to some news stories where gangsters were using semi-automatic rifles (NOT FULL auto, since the ban doesn't address them) in an epidemic of cop-mowings-down?
Are you still stuck thinking that the guns the "ban" addressed were full-auto, spraying a continuous line of bullets? Because if you aren't, if you are actually thinking of SEMI AUTOS, then I don't see how you think they could just "mow down" people given that each shot must be fired with a separate trigger pull.
QuoteThat -has- made the weapons less popular with those folks in general which is why year after year their use has steadily declined.
BULLSHIT. The ban did not result in the confiscation or surrender of such weapons if they were already owned, or even already manufactured (they could still be sold). Extremely similar guns continue to be made and sold; they simply don't have flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, or collapsible stocks. If the guns used to be used for mowing down cops, and now they are available just as they were, but without those cosmetic features, how exactly did the ban result in fewer guns to go around for criminal purposes?
"Year after year their use has steadily declined"? Their use was ALWAYS scant in crime. Others have posted relevant data and links to show that (GOVERNMENT data -- the same gov't. that banned the guns after finding out they were not common in crime.)
QuoteFor people with an open mind, more information HERE.
OHMYFUCKINGGODYOUMUSTBEJOKING! A link to the BRADY bullshit-artists?! No fucking WONDER your perceptions are so far out of whack and nonsensical when it comes to what the ban did or did not do!
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Okay, time to expose some lies from the Handgun Cont... er, I mean "Brady Campaign" website to which quade so thoughtfully provided a link.
According to BATF statistics, those weapons were never used in more than one percent of crimes involving firearms. That makes them the "weapons of choice"?!
Also, the "post-ban" weapons, which fire the exact same ammunition as the pre-ban ones, at the same rate of fire, have always continued to be available. This so-called "flood" was never staunched in the first place, so how could it open back up? Plus, "AK47" specifically refers to a full-automatic military rifle. Not affected by the ban.
How is it "unscrupulous" to ABIDE by the law? The law said that they could not include the various specified features. The manufacturers removed the offending features and continued to make guns that didn't have them. THAT is "skirting the restrictions"? Maybe the anti-gun legislators should have crafted a law that actually did what they wanted it to do.
If the speed limit on a highway is 65, and I abide by it and do 64, am I "skirting" the law, and does that make me "unscrupulous"? I mean, if they wanted me to do only 55 or less, they should have made the limit 55!
Once the manufacturers brought their products in line with the law, that made them "law-abiding," not "unscrupulous." If the anti-gun legislators didn't want guns that fire exactly the same but don't have flash suppressors or folding stocks to still be available, that's the law they should have written. But it is reprehensible to call the gun manufacturers "unscrupulous" when after all they ARE in total obedience to the law that was crafted. It's not their fault it was incompetently crafted.
Utter bullshit. I don't know of a single gun that is "designed to be spray-fired from the hip," as spray-firing from the hip is the best way to waste ammunition and not hit any of your desired targets (short of "spray-firing from the hip while blindfolded.") Whoever wrote that section is a fucking moron and a despicable liar. Why do these rifles include ironsights or mounting brackets for telescopic sights if they are designed for being fired from the hip??
(Note how the Bradys advocate being afraid!)
Silencers, like fully-automatic weapons, have been tightly controlled (near the point of being banned) by the federal government since the year 1934. NO currently available "assault weapons" have SILENCERS, nor did they in 1994, unless they were sold to police or military, and even then they were not some sort of standard equipment. AR-15s available to the public did NOT -- repeat NOT -- have silencers! The Brady Campaign lies through its teeth again. (Either that or they're just totally ignorant -- take your pick.)
Another bald-faced lie. The flash suppressor does NOT "allow the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night." The implication here is that the burst of flame from the muzzle cannot be seen by observers even at night, if a flash suppressor is used. This is a total lie. The utility of a flash suppressor is to shield the USER of the rifle from an intense blast of light upon firing the rifle, by dispersing it through ports in the muzzle. It DOES NOT eliminate the flames that come out of the rifle when it is fired, and an observer could EASILY still see the shooter's blast when the rifle is fired at night.
Quade, I really have to ask you what you make of this supposed source of factual data on the ban, given that I have now illustrated numerous areas in which they told blatant lies. How can this be the information upon which you depend for your opinions about guns?! Are you, like them, a liar who has an agenda and doesn't care that the truth is sacrificed for its achievement? Or are you just ill-informed? It really has to be one or the other; I'm sorry, that's just how it boils down.
Quote"However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.
According to BATF statistics, those weapons were never used in more than one percent of crimes involving firearms. That makes them the "weapons of choice"?!
Also, the "post-ban" weapons, which fire the exact same ammunition as the pre-ban ones, at the same rate of fire, have always continued to be available. This so-called "flood" was never staunched in the first place, so how could it open back up? Plus, "AK47" specifically refers to a full-automatic military rifle. Not affected by the ban.
Quote"The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions."
How is it "unscrupulous" to ABIDE by the law? The law said that they could not include the various specified features. The manufacturers removed the offending features and continued to make guns that didn't have them. THAT is "skirting the restrictions"? Maybe the anti-gun legislators should have crafted a law that actually did what they wanted it to do.
If the speed limit on a highway is 65, and I abide by it and do 64, am I "skirting" the law, and does that make me "unscrupulous"? I mean, if they wanted me to do only 55 or less, they should have made the limit 55!
Once the manufacturers brought their products in line with the law, that made them "law-abiding," not "unscrupulous." If the anti-gun legislators didn't want guns that fire exactly the same but don't have flash suppressors or folding stocks to still be available, that's the law they should have written. But it is reprehensible to call the gun manufacturers "unscrupulous" when after all they ARE in total obedience to the law that was crafted. It's not their fault it was incompetently crafted.
Quote"Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession."
Utter bullshit. I don't know of a single gun that is "designed to be spray-fired from the hip," as spray-firing from the hip is the best way to waste ammunition and not hit any of your desired targets (short of "spray-firing from the hip while blindfolded.") Whoever wrote that section is a fucking moron and a despicable liar. Why do these rifles include ironsights or mounting brackets for telescopic sights if they are designed for being fired from the hip??
Quote"Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public."
(Note how the Bradys advocate being afraid!)
Silencers, like fully-automatic weapons, have been tightly controlled (near the point of being banned) by the federal government since the year 1934. NO currently available "assault weapons" have SILENCERS, nor did they in 1994, unless they were sold to police or military, and even then they were not some sort of standard equipment. AR-15s available to the public did NOT -- repeat NOT -- have silencers! The Brady Campaign lies through its teeth again. (Either that or they're just totally ignorant -- take your pick.)
Quote"A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm."
Another bald-faced lie. The flash suppressor does NOT "allow the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night." The implication here is that the burst of flame from the muzzle cannot be seen by observers even at night, if a flash suppressor is used. This is a total lie. The utility of a flash suppressor is to shield the USER of the rifle from an intense blast of light upon firing the rifle, by dispersing it through ports in the muzzle. It DOES NOT eliminate the flames that come out of the rifle when it is fired, and an observer could EASILY still see the shooter's blast when the rifle is fired at night.
Quade, I really have to ask you what you make of this supposed source of factual data on the ban, given that I have now illustrated numerous areas in which they told blatant lies. How can this be the information upon which you depend for your opinions about guns?! Are you, like them, a liar who has an agenda and doesn't care that the truth is sacrificed for its achievement? Or are you just ill-informed? It really has to be one or the other; I'm sorry, that's just how it boils down.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
jkm2500 0
Jeff,
I appreciate your views on gun-ownership, I agree with them. I think that you do a great job of portraying your thoughts. I think that there is a more constructive way of saying what you mean. I think that you are offending some people with your wording.
I am strictly pro-gun. I think that limiting the ability of the average citizen to have a tool to defend themselves with isn't very intelligent. The more that you limit the general populace, the more rampant the criminals will run. The gun bans in GB and Austrailia are good examples of this. Since we cannot take the guns away from the criminals, why would we take away the guns from the law abiding citizens? doesn't make sense. The best scenario that the anti-gunners should expect is what is happening right now. The more restrictions that are placed the more volatile the stiuation becomes.
The issue is that there is no good solution to the problem at hand. The problem isn't gun-rights, or getting rid of guns. The problem is crime. Crime will occur, with and with out guns regardless of gun laws. These gun laws will not affect the criminals. They have already made the conciencious decision to use deadly force, prior to ever commiting a crime (I think that is a crime in itself). They will get the guns through different means, and most of them are not legal means. Therefore, since we cannot disarm the criminals, we must ourselves remain armed. If we could disarm the criminals, then the average citizen (in theory) would no longer need a firearm. (I am sure that people out there would still have a desire to own firearms for sporting purposes.
Quade,
I think that your comment about someone using an AR-15 (read civilian M-16) is inaccurate. What I wouls like to illustrate to you is that most combat arms in the military use the M-4 carbine (a shortened version of the M-16). Why? I am sure that the powers that be have decided that this is the best weapon for the job. Question for you.....Isn't a home defense situation a Combat situation? I think that it is. I also think that someone who wants to own a weapon designed for combat should be able to use that weapon in a home defense(read combat) situation.
Something else that I would like to point out is that most of the combat arms guys that I work with out here have all kinds of neat gadgets on their weapons. For example: Laser sights, night vision devices, flash lights, etc. Why? Well it makes them more effective in combat.
I personally think that an M-4 properly equipped, would be a better home defense weapon than most shotguns, and hand guns on the market. Why? Because with the extra toys attached they have a definite advantage, and the practical ability to put steel on target.
The best scenario in a gunfight is a quick end. How is that accomplished? By nuetralizing the threat as quickly as possible, not by shooting 500 rounds down range.
There was a reference made to the gunfight that occured in CA (cops vs. 2 AK-47 wielding assailants). If the state of CA would not have placed restrictions on the police force prior to this event happening, they would still have been carrying higher power hand guns (not the issue 9mm). They also changed thought processes after this was over and gave the police force (you guessed it) the AR-15, and surplus military M-16s. In the event that the situation should arise again in the future. Imagine the difference if the police force would have showed up with M-16s already in the cars. Have you noticed how that was a one time event? It hasnt happened again, I wonder why not.......
To the anti-gunners out there: I want you to think about the root cause of the problems at hand. The root problem is crime and criminals, not law abiding citizens and gun ownership. I think that if we could remove either the criminal element from society, or remove the guns from the criminals then your arguments would hold more water.
I appreciate your views on gun-ownership, I agree with them. I think that you do a great job of portraying your thoughts. I think that there is a more constructive way of saying what you mean. I think that you are offending some people with your wording.
I am strictly pro-gun. I think that limiting the ability of the average citizen to have a tool to defend themselves with isn't very intelligent. The more that you limit the general populace, the more rampant the criminals will run. The gun bans in GB and Austrailia are good examples of this. Since we cannot take the guns away from the criminals, why would we take away the guns from the law abiding citizens? doesn't make sense. The best scenario that the anti-gunners should expect is what is happening right now. The more restrictions that are placed the more volatile the stiuation becomes.
The issue is that there is no good solution to the problem at hand. The problem isn't gun-rights, or getting rid of guns. The problem is crime. Crime will occur, with and with out guns regardless of gun laws. These gun laws will not affect the criminals. They have already made the conciencious decision to use deadly force, prior to ever commiting a crime (I think that is a crime in itself). They will get the guns through different means, and most of them are not legal means. Therefore, since we cannot disarm the criminals, we must ourselves remain armed. If we could disarm the criminals, then the average citizen (in theory) would no longer need a firearm. (I am sure that people out there would still have a desire to own firearms for sporting purposes.
Quade,
I think that your comment about someone using an AR-15 (read civilian M-16) is inaccurate. What I wouls like to illustrate to you is that most combat arms in the military use the M-4 carbine (a shortened version of the M-16). Why? I am sure that the powers that be have decided that this is the best weapon for the job. Question for you.....Isn't a home defense situation a Combat situation? I think that it is. I also think that someone who wants to own a weapon designed for combat should be able to use that weapon in a home defense(read combat) situation.
Something else that I would like to point out is that most of the combat arms guys that I work with out here have all kinds of neat gadgets on their weapons. For example: Laser sights, night vision devices, flash lights, etc. Why? Well it makes them more effective in combat.
I personally think that an M-4 properly equipped, would be a better home defense weapon than most shotguns, and hand guns on the market. Why? Because with the extra toys attached they have a definite advantage, and the practical ability to put steel on target.
The best scenario in a gunfight is a quick end. How is that accomplished? By nuetralizing the threat as quickly as possible, not by shooting 500 rounds down range.
There was a reference made to the gunfight that occured in CA (cops vs. 2 AK-47 wielding assailants). If the state of CA would not have placed restrictions on the police force prior to this event happening, they would still have been carrying higher power hand guns (not the issue 9mm). They also changed thought processes after this was over and gave the police force (you guessed it) the AR-15, and surplus military M-16s. In the event that the situation should arise again in the future. Imagine the difference if the police force would have showed up with M-16s already in the cars. Have you noticed how that was a one time event? It hasnt happened again, I wonder why not.......
To the anti-gunners out there: I want you to think about the root cause of the problems at hand. The root problem is crime and criminals, not law abiding citizens and gun ownership. I think that if we could remove either the criminal element from society, or remove the guns from the criminals then your arguments would hold more water.
The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
QuoteQuote
Well I would gather from the posts here that the main points have to do with clip size. My personal definition is closer to rifles that are primarily designed for killing people instead of game.
Another anti-gunner who makes his choices in ignorance of fact or reason.
If you had read all of my posts here you would have seen that I am not opposed to gun owner ship. I have fired and enjoyed firing guns, just don't have a desire to own any myself.
Quote
Pray tell, how would one make a rifle that was efficient at killing deer or moose, which run hundres of pounds, that would not also be just fine for killing people? Is there a way to make guns that will kill animals but not people? Do the bullets have to sit through classes on target identification or something?
Re-read what I said. Yes a deer rifle can kill people but it wasn't designed for it because it doesn't hold large quantities of ammunition. It is not made to be particularly light weight or as small as possible. AK-47, M-16/AR-15, Uzzi all meant to kill people.
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
QuoteSo really, how could the ban that removed ZERO guns be responsible for a decrease in gun use in crime?
I said I don't know. The ban was not the only part of the law, so were background checks. All of this together may have sent a message to law enforcement to be tougher with existing laws. I find it hard to believe that there is not some connection between this legislation and the drop in gun crime that happened over the same period of time.
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
QuoteQuoteJust some quotes from an article.
***
Extending the assault weapons ban was the most important issue for gun control groups because the 1994 ban is set to expire Sept. 13. Supporters of the ban cite federal statistics showing crimes involving assault weapons have declined by two-thirds in the past decade.
This is why I call supporters of the ban FILTHY SCUMBAG SHITWAD LIARS.
No just playing with statitics like everyone else does on every issue. If the numbers went from three crimes to one crime that is a 2/3rds drop.
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
benny 0
QuoteQuote>The Libs are willing to have kids die as long as they can have this as
>a political issue in the upcoming campaign.
And the conservatives want to let the criminals who kill kids keep their guns.
See? Anyone can come up with a nonsensical sound bite!
No, Conservatives want to preserve the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Liberals want to bend and change the Constitution to suit their own agenda. Sorry you think these rights are non-sensical sound bites.
Oh, you mean like ammending it to ban gay marriage? You see the problem is your using ancient definitions of conservative and liberal. Conservatives have no qualms changing the constitution as long as it serves them.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Also from the same web site.
So, uh, yeah, I can really see how "The majority of this bill did nothing but harm law abiding citizens."
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites