just a suggestion since this thread isn't going anywhere but in circles with people arguing the same points over and over

The BATF requires that semiautomatic weapons meet a certain level of difficulty in converting to full auto. Those that can be converted too easily are classified as fully automatic weapons.

It doesn't really matter anyway, because the AWB is based solely on cosmetic features and magazine capacity. The only difference between pre- and post-ban rifles is that a post-ban rifle with a detachable magazine can only have one of the following features: a pistol grip, a folding stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel, or a grenade launcher.

In other words, you can still buy a Colt AR-15--now under the name "Match Target"--and the only difference will be that it might only have a pistol grip instead of a pistol grip and folding stock. And the only difference between that AR-15 and a "hunting rifle" like a Browning BAR is the pistol grip and M16-like appearance.

The M16A2 dropped full-auto mode due to a tendency in Vietnam for soldiers to empty entire clips into bushes whenever they rustled.

For taking pot-shots at each other at range, full-auto isn't going to do much good. In close urban environments(shopping mall, cafe, house) it'd be a lot more useful.

Most military assault rifles these days do come with full-auto, if you need covering fire and you don't have a SAW handy, that was one advantage the M16A1 had.

GHORG is pretty much right there. However, three-round burst fire on the M16A2 can be quite useful as cover fire too. And keep in mind that covering fire isn't intended to be killing fire; it's intended to keep the enemy's head down so you can move.

I never said anything to the contrary. Am I missing something?



Are you basing this on any form of science? A knife slash to any number of arteries will mean death within minutes to even seconds. Same with a gunshot wound.

Again I ask: How come 'guns make murder easy' when someone is commiting a crime of passion, but as soon as they're trying to defend themself, they're all wildly unpredictable and dangerous? Do you honestly think that in the former situation a person is any more level-headed?



Fine. Load up on Guiness, stand 10 feet away from me, and try to shoot me. Hell, I'll even give you the gun. Good luck, pal.

Guiness for strength, not for accuracy.



If he couldn't kill a woman with a chainsaw, chances are he would be as equally ineffective with a rifle. So sure, I'll take the ******* down for you. I'll have him talk to my friend Colt, and let him do most of the talking. Three or four concise arguments, and the lunatic should be settling down some.

Big government-enforced restrictions are not going to make much of a difference. Most people that own a gun keep it for protective or sporting purposes, and they tend to be level-headed people that don't go out and kill people with it.

people that are nervous, immature, and impulsive should not be allowed within a mile of a gun, any gun owner with moral conviction would tell you that. It's not the weapon's fault if the user turns out to be a total dumbass and goes on a killing spree with it. The gun does not pull its own trigger, why should it be blamed?


Assault rifles do have their purposes.
Granted, you shouldn't need an assault rifle for hunting (it's kind of chicken-s*** to hunt deer with an mp5 or ak-47) but an assault rifle would be fun at the target range.

Gun ownership has always been a part of this country, and idealistic liberals truly have no respect for the constitution or for people's individual rights if they continue to press this gun control issue. The second ammendment is not a typo, people. it was put there for a reason.

Exactly

Huh?......

Not to be rude, but I do believe that's the only post of Pagewizard's that I've ever completely agreed with.

From what I can tell, the basic argument for guns is "if something ever happened, I could take care of it". Frankly, this scares the crap out of me. The idea that any ordinary guy can be judge jury and executioner...the real world's not that cut and dried.

Guns are designed to kill people.

Cars are designed to get people from A to B. Cars can kill people, however, they are not designed to kill people. Knives are designed for a multitude of purposes; knives can be used for anything from gutting a fish to stripping kindling to cutting a steak. Knives are not designed to kill people.

When you buy a gun, you are buying an item which is designed for the purpose of ending the lives of others. Call it self defense, call it whatever you want, but in reality, you are buying something which can only be used as a weapon.

Blujay, you talk about fear all of the time. I don't share the same feeling as many other Americans do of the threat of Terrorism, but in this day and age where it is such a high concern, why do you suggest that people should be able to buy weapons which are designed for the purpose of killing people as efficiently as possible?

I assume you wouldn't let hand them a 747, a tool which humanity hasn't created as a weapon... why would you allow such accessibility to something which is designed for the purpose of killing?

Should Heroin be sold over the counter to those who are 'sane enough'?

You're right, Tracer. But what if you were in a gas station, in the back getting a Coke from the fridge, and you saw a guy walk in with a gun, knife, etc, point it at the cashier, and demand some money? What then? If you could stop the guy, would you do it? Or would you rather take a chance that he will shoot an innocent person? Even if he didn't do it right then, chances are he'll go rob another store, and next time he might do it. Read some of those stories on the link I posted. Sometimes they are lifetime criminals. Last week, in our town's local paper, I read about a guy who robbed a gas station over by the interstate here, and then disappeared towards the highway. The sheriff K9 unit lost the scent and he got away. Who knows? If he gets away with it this time, maybe he'll do it again. And every time he does, there's a chance of an innocent person getting hurt. And the fact is, the police just won't get there in time, unless they just happen to be there already.

Eversor, read my other posts. I've already explained why. Sometimes, it's necessary. It's a fact of life. It's sad, but it's the truth. Denying it is doing yourself, your fellow citizens, and your fellow human beings a disservice.

Look, I don't claim to be a hero or a hero-wannabe. I'm not even saying that I would have the courage to shoot even an obvious criminal who was threatening an innocent person's life. I have no desire to take anyone's life, good or bad. But I just can't stand the thought of standing there, watching it unfold, being powerless to stop the evil from going any further. Being afraid of guns, being afraid to do something in a situation like that...it's perfectly understandable, but it's taking the easy way out. Sometimes doing the right thing is hard.

You shouldn't base actions on what people might possibly perhaps do. The guy walking down the street, he might be a murderer, let's kill him.



You're damn right I have no respect for the constitution. The right to bear arms was never intended for self-defense. The point of it was to be a replacement for an American army. The whole "oh it's in the constitution" argument.. well, it isn't even an argument. Just because something was applicable 300 years ago, it doesn't make it so today. Change the constitution to match what is applicable today.

But anyway, arming a nation so they can protect themselves against criminals is no sort of government policy. Why not give everyone fire engines and hoses and hydrants so they can put out their own fires? Why not train everyone up in triple heart bypass surgery so they can perform their own operations?
People are not self-sufficient, people rely on other people to survive. In this case, the people you must rely on are the police. You are not the police. The police are the police. Improving and expanding the police services, perhaps centralising the power more, that is government policy and that will protect citizens.
Having a gun in every household is only going to cause an incredible number of murders and accidental deaths, and it does. There isn't some big concrete divide between "sensible, responsible gun owners" and "crazy stupid criminals". Any "sensible responsible gun owner" can turn into a "crazy stupid criminal" as soon as circumstances change. When he feels the urge to kill, he has a gun so he can kill. If he didn't have that gun, he wouldn't be able to kill.
Yes, a more concrete solution would be to make sure that people don't feel the urge to kill, have no need to commit crime, but that is a very long-term aspect touching on things like poverty and welfare. But for the short-term, removing his gun will mean that he cannot kill easily. Yes, we've gone through the whole "knife" thing, but there is no way he can kill as easily with a knife as he can with a gun. Without that gun, he will have to sort out those problems peacefully.
Yes, the government has a lot of work to do to solve America's problems, and a large part of it is cultural, but that doesn't change easily or quickly. Gun control is an easy, short-term solution that will get the ball rolling.


All of those that oppose gun control, what exactly is your solution to America's problem?
I don't take "kill all stupid people!!1" as a solution, mind you.

Mort...if I said what I wanted to I'd have to ban myself for being rude. A guy walking down the street minding his own business does not begin to compare with a criminal threatening someone's life in front of your very eyes. Just quit with those arguments, they don't do anything but make yourself look bad.

In a situation such as I described, the thing to do would not be to shoot right away, unless he had already fired his weapon. The thing to do would be to draw, point it at him, and tell him in a very loud voice to freeze and drop his weapon. At least, that seems logical to me, and it's what I've seen done in real training scenarios. I haven't actually been trained for such a situation myself.

Why should it be the government's responsibility to do everything and mandate everything? Do you reallly believe that some bloated bureaucratic infastructure know how to make your decisions better than you do? When your life or someone elses is on the line, would you rather be able to defend yourself or help them than to have to rely on the government ?




I'm for very small government qwith few governmental controls. I believe that the average man on the street is capable of running his own life and making his own decisions without being told how to by the government, and that includes issues relating to gun ownership. The government should be seen and not heard. Sure, tyhe cops are there for a reason, but they can't be evderywhere at once.

We should control the government, not be at the mercy of it when it tries to strip our rights away. If this is not the case, then it would be better to scrap the whole system like we are allowed in the constitution and start over from scratch.

Okay, then legalize my drugs please.

Eversor, that's an entirely separate topic.

Cougar: You mentioned cold-blooded and mental disease, in an attempt to characterize all murderers as different than the rest of us, when in fact only the mentally diseased and cold-blooded are actually different than us.
Except the gunshot wound can be practically anywhere on the torso and head in addition to critical areas elsewhere, and cutting arteries requires a certain quantity of skill.

They're all wildly unpredictable and dangerous in both situations, and equally likely to murder someone (innocent bystander, opponent, whoever). Plus, if they're trying to defend themselves legitimately, their opponent probably has a gun as well.

Suppose the local Sonic gets robbed by two guys with a pistol (happened in my hometown). They wave it around, take the money and are about to leave. Now John Q. Hero, armed with his inflated sense of self-esteem and his own accuracy, starts squeezing off rounds and diving behind tables and whathaveyou. Guess what? There's already a half dozen deadly pieces of metal flying through the air, and the criminals haven't even done anything yet. The situation is infinitely worse, not better.

There are very few circumstances in which guns can be used in self defense legitimately.
That's insufferably stupid. It wouldn't take more than a few bullets, and I've never shot before. Especially since there would be no guarantee that I would stay 10 feet away.
I'm sorry, I mistook you for a adult. Arguing with adolescents drunk on their own bravado has lost most of its appeal.
(wait, here's the emoticons)

Page:

blujay: The guy isn't going to kill anyone. If I shoot, 1. the guy dies 2. I die 3. the cashier or some other bystander dies. If I do nothing, 4. nobody dies. Which would you prefer? It's about valuing other people more than your pride.

why? Hell, I'd say I have even more of a write to harm my own body than you do to harm someone else. Why should the government butt out on some issues, but not others?

Right.

If I wanted to, I could dig up exactly what Page is talking about. Although, I've got homework. I will say, though, that this is one time where page IS right. We're given discriptive orders to 'correct' the government if it becomes tyranical in any form. Of course, there are extremist white supremicy groups that use these few lines as a basis to their 'malitia.' The problem with the constitution is that it gives terms and definitions in it that have changed with age. A lot is left up to however you chose to interpit.

JediKirby

I think you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence.



There is, however, nothing of the kind in the Constitution, and the DoI has absolutely no legal power within our government.

[Ninja Edit: typos]

New sig...

The interesting thing is that while the number of guns and gun owners in the US is steadily rising, the number of violent crimes and the number of violent crimes with guns has been on the decrease since 1993. Shouldn't that be the opposite if the theory of "more guns=more gun violence" was true?

Not really. It doesn't really mean anything. It could be a cause of lower povrety rates, tightened security, etc.

why thank you.

[edit] i think the quote you're looking for is in someone's sig around here-- twistedSoul's, if i remember correctly.

*sigh* Do you have any basis at all for this argument, or is this coming straight from your behind? Please, this is the second time you've said this. Prove to me that the founding fathers never intended the Second Amendment to be a concrete right guaranteed the American people to own their own firearms. And if you can find one quote, I'll find ten more to refute you.



Fantastic idea. Let's have the government put police on every street corner, in every store and home, watching everyone at all times to make sure we are always safe.

Can't blame you for trying, I suppose...



More children die each year in bike accidents than they do in firearm accidents. Just an interesting note.

Of course, now I feel obligated to back that up with the source... Bah, when I'm less tired. I'm pretty sure it was the FBI.



I actually agree with you on that point. But let's stay on topic.



Prove it. Go out and murder someone, come back and tell me how you feel.



Does not. Stabbing anywhere around the neck area is almost certain to be fatal. With a long enough blade, a stab to the gut would be very hard to survive. If you can get through the rib cage, you can cause a lot of damage there as well. Besides that, the psychological impact of being stabbed is far worse than being shot, especially in the stomach or heart.

Guns are not magical. People survive some gunshot wounds, just like they survive some stab wounds.



Usually at the sound of gunfire, the criminal will flee. At such close range, it's also pretty hard to miss.

You're again falling prey to inconsistency. Before, you implied that gunshot wounds are almost certainly fatal and are awesome killing tools. But now in this situation you can't rely on anyone to use a pistol well anyway. Seems as if it balances out.



Hey man, you laid the ground rules. You said you'd stand 10 feet away, not me. And how are you so confident you'd be such a good shot while incredibly intoxicated, especially given your inexperience with pistols even when sober?



It's sad that you confuse saving a woman's life with bravado.



How do you guarantee that nobody dies? Either now, or in the near future? Since when is appeasement an intelligent strategy for dealing with violence?

Thats exactly the point. The argument keeps getting presented that if we have more guns, there will be more gun violence. But thats not the case. Its actually the opposite. We have more guns, but LESS gun violence. Which means other factors such as the ones you suggested are what cause it.

I think the basic argument is that the Second Amendment reads:


About half of that amendment is dedicated to explaining that we need the right to bear arms, not for self-defense, gun-collecting, hunting, or because it's fun to shoot, but because a 'well regulated militia' is needed to defend the country.

Do we need a well regulated militia, at this point? Do we have one?

Regardless, using guns for self defense is one thing. Using a pistol, whatever.

That doesn't justify a need for an assault weapon.

I still don't understand how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand...

But let's work with this anyway.



"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

This guy apparently thinks so.

"A free people ought...to be armed..." (George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790)

George Washington agreed.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

I've always been a fan of Henry.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams)

What's that you say, Mr. Adams? Congress mustn't take away our guns? Interesting.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776, 1 T. Jeferson Papers,334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed.,1950))

Hot damn, you can't get much more clear than that.

I'm sure that's all poppycock, of course. Surely we know better than those crazy wig-wearing founding fathers did. They were probably just delerious and shell-shocked from having just fought a war to defend our right to bear arms.

Yeah, pretty much.

Maybe a knife doesn't equal a pistol, maybe it does. What I will tell you, is that I can INSURE you will die if someone attacks you with a sword. There's generally no skill to use a bladed weapon (Unless the other person has skills with a blade, then the entire situation changes anyway), and a sword is going to kill you a whole lot faster. If people banned guns, swords would probably come back just as strong.

And I SWEAR you people need to READ ABOUT ASSULT RIFLES. If I see one more post

"A pistol is one thing, an assult rifle is another"

I'm going to go crazy. ASSULT RIFLES ARE NOT WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE. Seriously, stop watching movies and start reading books. You might have an entirelly different view on ALL guns, not just assult rifles. In-fact, I'd probably rather use a pistol to kill someone than an assult rifle for MANY reasons. One major thing being the consealing of the weapon, the other being amunition.

JediKirby

I once read of a Marine who blocked a Japanese sword with his left arm, reached out with the right and tore out the Jap's windpipe with his bare hand.

Of course, Marines are no mere men. The average citizen would be screwed.

I'm a fencer Kirby, and my Dad owns a Mini-14 (Shoots same round as M-16 semi-auto) and that's almost an AR.
I can tell you right now that you are 100% right. I'd MUCH rather kill someone with an pistol than an AR.

About the sword thing you're right too. Well, unless you had a pistol when the guy attacks, though. Otherwise you're screwed.

Now you're being more hypothetical than I am. In such a situation, the only way to know the outcome is to wait and see. But, is it right to take a chance, and wait and see whether the criminal shoots the innocent person or not? I don't want to see the good guy or the bad guy hurt. But if someone gets hurt, I'd rather it be the bad guy. And when he's waving around a weapon and making threats...is it worth the risk of waiting to see whether he does it? I don't know. Sitting here in safety and comfort, I lean toward taking preemptive action to protect the innocent from the person threatening the innocent life. That doesn't necessarily mean shooting the bad guy right away, but it may mean being prepared to if the situation can't be defused quickly. Maybe it's about valuing the innocent more than the evil when you don't have time to stop and talk about it.

Does it count if you shoot mascots? As in the people dressed as animals/charicatures? Because technically, they're not people, they're animals. At least out in the woods they are.

Hey, 10 foot bears do exist. And yes, they do wear zoot suits.

right, and there's no reason to cap the bad guy in the head, either. If you have a gun and you choose to intervene on behalf of the innocent, you don't have to make it a kill shot. there's lots of ways to take down a bad guy without killing him. (like the shoulder-- no vital organs there, but if you shoot him in both shoulders, he won't be able to use his arms for awhile, meaning that he can't shoot. mission accomplished, and the perp is still alive to stand trial, too. )

Go to google and run a search for "assault rifle". The first thing that comes up is an AK-47. Don't tell me that an AK-47 isn't the most recognizable assault rifle in history.

If were intending to kill a political figure from close range, I'd agree pistol is the right choice. However, if you wanted to wreak as much havoc as you could in a city or town, an assault rifle would hurt.

You are saying yourself that an Assault Rifle is worthless... why do you want one?



You'd risk the chance of shooting someone in the head to disable them? A good lawyer could easily make you the bad guy.

I think whats more important than banning guns is that we should instead be interested in banning bullets.