<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 06:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 06:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The school massacres prove you wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In what shooting were <b>dozens</b> of children killed in seconds? I'm sorry, but this is not in any way possibly with a semi-auto weapon. Unless you can pull and release the trigger twelve times in one second, you're bsing.
More than a dozen students were killed in the Columbine shooting. That's MORE than enough DEATH to prove what can happen when semi-automatic weapons are put in the hands of killers. And it's unnessary. Why do you need such a powerful weapon to protect yourself?
Now these guys didn't actually kill those dozen in a couple of seconds, they did it at their leisure. But if they had chosen to line up a dozen kids in a line and shoot them they would have easily mowed them down in seconds time.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 06:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More than a dozen students were killed in the Columbine shooting. That's MORE than enough DEATH to prove what can happen when semi-automatic weapons are put in the hands of killers. And it's unnessary. Why do you need such a powerful weapon to protect yourself?
Now these guys didn't actually kill those dozen in a couple of seconds, they did it at their leisure. But if they had chosen to line up a dozen kids in a line and shoot them they would have easily mowed them down in seconds time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So there goes the dozens of people in seconds argument. I wont argue against the fact that more than a dozen died, but saying dozens (with an s, thats at least 24) got killed in mere seconds as you were saying earlier is just a little bit of an exagguration.
Why do you need such a powerful weapon to protect yourself? Maybe because the person attacking you isnt going to be a defenseless child? Again, I lay the blame on the family, who somehow didnt know that the kids were videotaping their shotgun target practice that occured on a daily basis (for long periods of time, iirc).
Just because a few incredibly irresponsible adults let their mentally unstable children use their guns to commit crimes, this shouldnt stop the vast majority of the country owning a gun responsibly if they so please.
Its totally overkill though. The police, a security system, and maybe a handgun is all people need to protect themselves unless they live somewhere like Fallujah. Is your city a warzone or something?
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 06:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More than a dozen students were killed in the Columbine shooting. That's MORE than enough DEATH to prove what can happen when semi-automatic weapons are put in the hands of killers. And it's unnessary. Why do you need such a powerful weapon to protect yourself?
Now these guys didn't actually kill those dozen in a couple of seconds, they did it at their leisure. But if they had chosen to line up a dozen kids in a line and shoot them they would have easily mowed them down in seconds time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...they had shotguns and rifles...and a handgun. they did not have an assault rifle.
btw, if those who own automatic weapons are outlaws, then only outlaws will own automatic weapons.
one more thing... the assault wapons ban doesn't really even ban assault weapons...i think most of those are actually state (?) laws. i could be wrong though.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 06:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 06:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its totally overkill though. The police, a security system, and maybe a handgun is all people need to protect themselves unless they live somewhere like Fallujah. Is your city a warzone or something? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The police are not a defense. They'll help you out after the crime is commited, but they cant do **** beforehand. As said before, they're more of a cleanup crew now. Then there are security systems. What does a security system do to defend you? Alert the authorities? They wont arrive immediately.And as I said before, pretty much all handguns are semi-automatic, and do pretty much the same amount of damage to an unarmored target. Smaller != less deadly.
EDIT: Yeah, the article says they shot 50 rounds from a handgun. You've been saying this entire time that handguns are somehow an exception.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 06:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And what about AK-47s and UZIs? Is this something you would need to protect yourself from a burglar? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> if a burglar had a handgun and i had an uzi, i think the burglar would think twice before robbing me.
yeah, that was a bad argument, but it's a funny mental picture, so i had to post it.
Wheeee pretty much hit the nail on the head (even if it was a joke <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->). If a burglar walks into your house and sees you holding an AK-47, you wouldn't need to shoot him to get him out of your house.
Ohh I see so you're not actually going to fire the UZI you're just going to wave it at the burglar menacingly. Ok I could understand a handgun guys but an UZI? It's totally overkill.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In what shooting were dozens of children killed in seconds? I'm sorry, but this is not in any way possibly with a semi-auto weapon. Unless you can pull and release the trigger twelve times in one second, you're bsing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just want to say that people that says that never experienced auto fire shooting... Automatic fire is nothing but waste of ammo that only works in movies.
If I had to kill someone, I would take a shotgun (buckshots or rifled slugs) or a hunting rifle (able to shoot accurately to a long distance a bullet that makes enough damage to kill a 2000 pounds moose). What hapened at Washington could happen again with a normal hunting rifle.
And there will allways be banned weapons on the black market for criminals and psycho people. Drugs are banned and they are still easy to find on the black market, right?
If guns kills people, why don't we send guns to jail and set serial killers free?
<!--QuoteBegin-Strabismo+Sep 17 2004, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Strabismo @ Sep 17 2004, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just want to say that people that says that never experienced auto fire shooting... Automatic fire is nothing but waste of ammo that only works in movies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> um..?
1. We're talking about semi-auto here.
2. I'm saying it <i>isnt</i> possible to do that. Either I'm missing your point or you're missing mine.
I'm not opposed to experimentation with laws. However, we must be willing to accept that sometimes a law does not work. If a law does not work, we should repeal it or let it expire. We can determine if a law is effective using statistics. Do the statistics show the law causing the desired effect? If so, renew the law. If not, replace or remove the law.
As for gun control, I believe it is OK for responsible, law-abiding citizens to own concealed handguns. Regardless of the legal status of guns, criminals will be armed and dangerous. The gun simply gives the responsible, law-abiding citizen a greater chance to survive the encounter. I'm also OK with requiring a license to legally own a handgun.
Remember, America is a very diverse country. Some areas have very low levels of crime, while others have very high levels of crime. It would be best to have two seperate laws, since each area is very different. However, if we're talking about a federal law, this isn't an option. You shouldn't assume that everyone experences the same levels of crime you do. This also applies to people who don't live in America.
A child that takes their parent's gun without their permission is technically breaking the law. They are stealing the gun. That child could just as well aquired the gun through other illegal means. As far as accidents go, parents who choose to own guns take that risk knowingly. It's ultimately the parent's choice and the parent's responsibility, not the government's. With all the safety devices that exist nowadays, there is simply no excuse.
This topic deals with semi-automatic "Assault Rifles." If I read the previous responses correctly, only those with very specific licenses can own these types of weapons legally. I'm not familiar with the license qualifications, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like they involve restricting the gun's use to hunting or sporting activities.
Semi-automatic rifles are not that effective in CQC, nor are they are easy to conceal. Therefore, it would make no sense to allow them for self-defense purposes. Also, the banned attachments, such as grenade launchers, bayonets, large clips, and flash suppressors would not apply to the limited legal uses of these weapons.
Apparently, based on posts of explanations of this law, it has no actual effect other than to appease anti-gun voters. The fact that some people felt it was successful at blocking guns seems to demonstrate a significant problem. Either these people didn't bother to read the law, or they did not understand the law. Honestly, that seems far more dangerous to me than a semi-automatic assault rifle.
I know for automatic weapons, including full auto assault rifles, you need to get a license that is, understandably, molestingly hard to get. (Like having no criminal record in your entire life ever, among other things, iirc.) I'm not sure if having a semi-auto assault rifle is any different in the laws eyes compared to any other semi auto weapon, however.
Well that's what I don't get. People say 'Criminals will have guns' and then counter with 'civilians should have guns too'. I understand that. But automatic weapons? How many 'small crimes' (What I'd consider burglary, car theft, assault, mugging) were commited in the US in the past 10 years with a SPAS? I'm not even going to check and I'm going to make a pretty good guess between 'zero' and 'none'. Why? Because since they're so illegal, not many two-bit criminals have access to black market contacts in Uzbekistan and aren't blowing up cars with rocket propelled weapons. If you make military-grade weapons able to be purchased with more lax laws, suddenly they show up on the streets. If gun control did nothing to stop criminals from getting any gun at all, I imagine you'd see more crimes involving hand grenades. Wait, I can't think of really any. I think there was one dude in L.A. who got his hands on active grenades, but that was years ago, and you're looking at one incident out of years of none.
Hand grenades - Illegal to own, I don't even think you can get a liscence for em. Assault Weapons - Illegal to own without more background checks then suspected terrorists go through. Military Explosives - Illegal to own.
Surprisingly I don't see many people using C-4 to blow up buildings, breaking into homes with USAS automatic shotguns and M-79 grenade launchers, and lobbing fragmentation grenades into people's windows. Surprisingly, these weapons are near-impossible to get. At most we have... fertilizer-filled Ryder trucks.
To say that gun control does nothing is rediculous. I imagine that if ordinary handguns took a Class III gun lisence to own, they too would become a significantly reduced presence on the streets and in the hands of ne'er-do-wells.
To those who say that 'bigger guns = more safety', I can find dozens of countries where AK-47's and RPGs are found in supermarkets that are rife with civil war, internal conflict, and violent bloody clashes.
Life is not like Die Hard. White dudes in suits don't attack office buildings with nuclear weapons and VX-filled missile, miniguns, and helicopters with rocket launchers on them.
On a completely unrelated yet related to the topic note, I don't see much point in bayonet mounts being banned, but flash surpressors/silencers should DEFINATELY be controlled.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 06:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But if they had chosen to line up a dozen kids in a line and shoot them they would have easily mowed them down in seconds time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But they didn't.
And don't you think if they tried to do that some people would run or revolt? Have you ever fired a semi-automatic weapon? They are not some magical device that lets you slaughter dozens of people in seconds. It would take some careful aiming. Aiming that I am sure the people on the other end wouldn't stand still and wait for.
On a completely unrelated yet related to the topic note, I don't see much point in bayonet mounts being banned, but flash surpressors/silencers should DEFINATELY be controlled. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Silencers are illegal. They have been for several decades.
Why should flash suppresors be controled? No one was ever killed by a flash suppresor.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 18 2004, 12:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 18 2004, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know for automatic weapons, including full auto assault rifles, you need to get a license that is, understandably, molestingly hard to get. (Like having no criminal record in your entire life ever, among other things, iirc.) I'm not sure if having a semi-auto assault rifle is any different in the laws eyes compared to any other semi auto weapon, however. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I will be testing that in a short while. I am quite curious to see exactly how difficult they are to get.
Based upon my background. There should be no reason to deny me a license. I have been entrusted by the government with far more dangerous things than machine guns.
If I am denied however, I would be quite interested to find out the reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 18 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 18 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why should flash suppresors be controled? No one was ever killed by a flash suppresor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Isnt the whole idea of a flash suppressor so you can shoot and not be given away by the muzzle flash? Sounds like the perfect stuff for the urban sniper. I think if you're going to fire a weapon, the having it loud and flashy is a good thing, because it lets people know what you're doing. If your doing the right thing, you have nothing to hide. If you aint, well then people are going to know what you're doing and where exactly you are doing it from.
That said, Wizard, no one has ever been killed by a Silencer. Unless they were beat to death with it. Likewise, hand grenades don't kill people. It's the bits of steel razorwire severing arteries and organs that kill them. Therefore we should unban hand grenades and ban razor wire as well. It should be illegal to propel bits of flechettes at high speeds with explosions into human flesh.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 18 2004, 01:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 18 2004, 01:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 18 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 18 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why should flash suppresors be controled? No one was ever killed by a flash suppresor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isnt the whole idea of a flash suppressor so you can shoot and not be given away by the muzzle flash? Sounds like the perfect stuff for the urban sniper. I think if you're going to fire a weapon, the having it loud and flashy is a good thing, because it lets people know what you're doing. If your doing the right thing, you have nothing to hide. If you aint, well then people are going to know what you're doing and where exactly you are doing it from. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny... A flash suppressor does nothing of the sort. What a flash suppressor does is hide the flash from the shooter... allowing for faster follow up shots. If you actually owned a firearm... You'd know that it is nice for 3-gun shoots where you go through a course and are required to shoot specific targets a certian number of times as fast as possible. They are incredibly fun... and get quite competative (with nice prizes if you go to a big enough one). Just doing my part to teach the ignorant masses... If everyone else did the same we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
On to the ban. This ban stems from one thing... Fear. People fear what they do not understand. You people for gun control are quite often not expirienced in gun's safe use and maintenance. Thats cool... you guys can go ahead and do your thang. But when you come by and say "hey pal... how about NOT using guns?" thats when it starts infringing on MY rights. My basic rights... Life (defense), Liberty (safety from a tyrannical government), and the pursuit of happiness (kicking back at the end of a long day at the range).
You think we are parinoid for arming ourselves against attack? last i checked, the average response time for police in my area is around 2-3 minutes. You've played Natural-selection haven't you? Exactly HOW MUCH can happen while fighting during those 2-3 minutes? things happen just as... or even FASTER in real life (people only need one good shot). Funny thing about police... they aren't obligated by law to protect you... they are their to enforce the law! It is the personal responcibility of the citizen to protect one's self untill the proper authorotah arrives. Everyone that doesn't own and operate a firearm should be THANKING these people for going through the trouble of learning how to use and buy firearms. This just means more people are protecting you... FREE OF CHARGE. How this could be turned into a negative thing is BEYOND me... it just has been this way ever since i could remember expressing interest in firearms.
I've seen concern over every single citizen being armed in this thread. Imagine... EVERY citizen armed to the TEETH (a horrible picture for some I'm sure). Local nutjob John Doe buys a M60 and starts shooting up town. Even in a town as small as 2000... hell 500 people, Could you imagine that nut going far? if they all fired one damn shot at the guy, the area he is in is swiss cheese. Wow... would YOU want to rob someone's house in a city like that? Its a criminal's nightmare.
I love it when people from other countries voice THEIR opinion on OUR countries laws... as though we are all wrong and they are all right. You do realise our countries are TOTALLY different. What may work in the small UK will not work in the extreamly large United States. You foreigners need to respect that our culture is just DIFFERENT then yours. Sorry... We didn't try to be this way... we just were this way when we came over on the boat.
There have been countless studies on criminals in prison, It is a KNOWN and PROVEN fact that criminals fear a armed civilian more then a armed cop. The civilian is much more willing to shoot the criminal since he is defending what is his. A cop has countless regulations and rules to follow to prevent an accidental killing. An armed citizen has no such things... other then "if its uninvited and on my property... it shouldn't be there."
On to the "Its an old law" arguement. Do you realise what OTHER rights are on that same piece of paper you (seemingly) dismiss as outdated? Perhaps we should limit free speach... it can be harmful if misused. Lets start with banning KKK rallies... Oh my, all those soccer moms don't want their children exposed to these horrible sights of biggotry. Next thing you know... you're trying to protest for a war you don't agree with and a heavily armed police officer beats you with a nightstick untill what used to be your mouth is quiet.
These types of topics end up going in circles... as new sheeple (i love that term) enter the mix and ask the same repetative questions to (hopefully) knowledgeable firearm owners. feel free to pick out the spelling errors in my post... rather then discuss the topic at hand. I've seen gun threads before... and i know its not worth coming back into this thread again.
BTW: I've always considered this board <b>very</b>anti-gun... its nice to see other firearm activists on it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+Sep 18 2004, 10:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Sep 18 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Funny... A flash suppressor does nothing of the sort. What a flash suppressor does is hide the flash from the shooter... allowing for faster follow up shots. If you actually owned a firearm... You'd know that it is nice for 3-gun shoots where you go through a course and are required to shoot specific targets a certian number of times as fast as possible. They are incredibly fun... and get quite competative (with nice prizes if you go to a big enough one). Just doing my part to teach the ignorant masses... If everyone else did the same we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
On to the ban. This ban stems from one thing... Fear. People fear what they do not understand. You people for gun control are quite often not expirienced in gun's safe use and maintenance. Thats cool... you guys can go ahead and do your thang. But when you come by and say "hey pal... how about NOT using guns?" thats when it starts infringing on MY rights. My basic rights... Life (defense), Liberty (safety from a tyrannical government), and the pursuit of happiness (kicking back at the end of a long day at the range).
You think we are parinoid for arming ourselves against attack? last i checked, the average response time for police in my area is around 2-3 minutes. You've played Natural-selection haven't you? Exactly HOW MUCH can happen while fighting during those 2-3 minutes? things happen just as... or even FASTER in real life (people only need one good shot). Funny thing about police... they aren't obligated by law to protect you... they are their to enforce the law! It is the personal responcibility of the citizen to protect one's self untill the proper authorotah arrives. Everyone that doesn't own and operate a firearm should be THANKING these people for going through the trouble of learning how to use and buy firearms. This just means more people are protecting you... FREE OF CHARGE. How this could be turned into a negative thing is BEYOND me... it just has been this way ever since i could remember expressing interest in firearms.
I've seen concern over every single citizen being armed in this thread. Imagine... EVERY citizen armed to the TEETH (a horrible picture for some I'm sure). Local nutjob John Doe buys a M60 and starts shooting up town. Even in a town as small as 2000... hell 500 people, Could you imagine that nut going far? if they all fired one damn shot at the guy, the area he is in is swiss cheese. Wow... would YOU want to rob someone's house in a city like that? Its a criminal's nightmare.
I love it when people from other countries voice THEIR opinion on OUR countries laws... as though we are all wrong and they are all right. You do realise our countries are TOTALLY different. What may work in the small UK will not work in the extreamly large United States. You foreigners need to respect that our culture is just DIFFERENT then yours. Sorry... We didn't try to be this way... we just were this way when we came over on the boat.
There have been countless studies on criminals in prison, It is a KNOWN and PROVEN fact that criminals fear a armed civilian more then a armed cop. The civilian is much more willing to shoot the criminal since he is defending what is his. A cop has countless regulations and rules to follow to prevent an accidental killing. An armed citizen has no such things... other then "if its uninvited and on my property... it shouldn't be there."
On to the "Its an old law" arguement. Do you realise what OTHER rights are on that same piece of paper you (seemingly) dismiss as outdated? Perhaps we should limit free speach... it can be harmful if misused. Lets start with banning KKK rallies... Oh my, all those soccer moms don't want their children exposed to these horrible sights of biggotry. Next thing you know... you're trying to protest for a war you don't agree with and a heavily armed police officer beats you with a nightstick untill what used to be your mouth is quiet.
These types of topics end up going in circles... as new sheeple (i love that term) enter the mix and ask the same repetative questions to (hopefully) knowledgeable firearm owners. feel free to pick out the spelling errors in my post... rather then discuss the topic at hand. I've seen gun threads before... and i know its not worth coming back into this thread again.
BTW: I've always considered this board <b>very</b>anti-gun... its nice to see other firearm activists on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa whoa whoa - I used to be a fierce anti gun advocate but I'm on your side now dammit. Friendly fire - that was framed as a question because it WAS a question. I know zip about guns, and gun legislation.
If you check my earlier post I stated that Australia had very strict weapons laws, and when they came in place firearm deaths went down, stabbings etc went up.
From a quick Google on automatic weapons licenses:
"Class 2 Weapons License
Issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) after a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background test (this is no instant test, taking minimum 90 days). This license allows the purchase and possession of automatic weapons and silencers. The license costs $200 per year plus $100 per weapon or silencer. There is a 50% chance that a person will be turned down for this license, and a person may not reapply for two years. Possession of a automatic weapon or silencer without Class 2 license is a felony. Possession of a stolen Class 2 weapon is a felony with mandatory jail time."
<a href='http://www.modus-operandi.co.uk/portal/article.asp?TOPIC_ID=124' target='_blank'>http://www.modus-operandi.co.uk/portal/art...sp?TOPIC_ID=124</a> Didn't know about the silencer part. I'm of the opinion that those definitely shouldn't be owned, they dont add to the "experience" of gun ownership, and can only be used for really really shady reasons.
The entire post wasn't directed at you Marine, although the informative part on the flash suppressor was... sorry if you took offense to the "ignorant masses" comment. There literally is a huge mass of idiots out there being swayed by media pimping out anything that represents bad things on firearm's behalf.
When was the last time you turned on the news to see boy scouts target shooting? Ever see a news program that studied in detail how a poor hunter brings in large amount of venison for his hungry family? when was the last time you saw a terrified old woman talking about how the mere presense of her firearm turned away a 300 pound attacker? (with no loss of life mind you)
That news doesn't "sell" very well to the public. I hate to say it...but it seems people want to hear bad news more then good news. School shootings and other terrible news get so much publicity because they drive up ratings.
BloodySloth... The term is not Silencer (as hollywood oh so loves to use), its suppressor. the gun will still make noise, and if it is using supersonic ammunition there will in fact still be a loud audible crack (much like a .22 rifle being fired) as the bullet breaks the sound barrier. You seem to not know much about firearms... what gives you the right to determine what adds and detracts from the "expirience" when you have yet to expirience them yourself?
While the reasons to lawfully use suppressors are limited... they DO exist. If you live near people... and plan on shooting alot they would be useful. (again... if they were not so damn expensive and hard to get people would use them in this fashion) I am also bewildered at how a criminal would lawfully go through all this paperwork and annual fees just to use the suppressor in a unlawful manner.
Yay for slang terms! Really, I don't care what the proper term is. I know how they work, and silencer is just what I'm used to calling them. It doesnt matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 18 2004, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 18 2004, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yay for slang terms! Really, I don't care what the proper term is. I know how they work, and silencer is just what I'm used to calling them. It doesnt matter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> why does this post lack content on the subject at hand?
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+Sep 18 2004, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Sep 18 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BloodySloth... The term is not Silencer (as hollywood oh so loves to use), its suppressor. the gun will still make noise, and if it is using supersonic ammunition there will in fact still be a loud audible crack (much like a .22 rifle being fired) as the bullet breaks the sound barrier. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I was answering that. Am I not allowed to retort or what?
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 18 2004, 05:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 18 2004, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+Sep 18 2004, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Sep 18 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BloodySloth... The term is not Silencer (as hollywood oh so loves to use), its suppressor. the gun will still make noise, and if it is using supersonic ammunition there will in fact still be a loud audible crack (much like a .22 rifle being fired) as the bullet breaks the sound barrier. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was answering that. Am I not allowed to retort or what? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> feel free... I was merely informing you that a suppressor doesn't make you invisable or turn you into a bush after you shoot someone. They aren't magic... and in fact i can't think of a incident in which they were used in a unlawful manner. you brought them into discussion here... perhaps you could point out a few examples of this blatent abouse for me. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually I didnt bring them into the discussion. They have been brought up a few times here iirc, I was just commenting on what I found in Google. I'm not saying I know of crimes that have been commited with silencers involved, but I do know how it would make crimes involving firearms a hell of a lot easier. Though I admit you do bring up a good point with the "living near other people" deal.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In what shooting were <b>dozens</b> of children killed in seconds? I'm sorry, but this is not in any way possibly with a semi-auto weapon. Unless you can pull and release the trigger twelve times in one second, you're bsing.
Now these guys didn't actually kill those dozen in a couple of seconds, they did it at their leisure. But if they had chosen to line up a dozen kids in a line and shoot them they would have easily mowed them down in seconds time.
Now these guys didn't actually kill those dozen in a couple of seconds, they did it at their leisure. But if they had chosen to line up a dozen kids in a line and shoot them they would have easily mowed them down in seconds time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there goes the dozens of people in seconds argument. I wont argue against the fact that more than a dozen died, but saying dozens (with an s, thats at least 24) got killed in mere seconds as you were saying earlier is just a little bit of an exagguration.
Why do you need such a powerful weapon to protect yourself? Maybe because the person attacking you isnt going to be a defenseless child? Again, I lay the blame on the family, who somehow didnt know that the kids were videotaping their shotgun target practice that occured on a daily basis (for long periods of time, iirc).
Just because a few incredibly irresponsible adults let their mentally unstable children use their guns to commit crimes, this shouldnt stop the vast majority of the country owning a gun responsibly if they so please.
Now these guys didn't actually kill those dozen in a couple of seconds, they did it at their leisure. But if they had chosen to line up a dozen kids in a line and shoot them they would have easily mowed them down in seconds time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...they had shotguns and rifles...and a handgun. they did not have an assault rifle.
<a href='http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/co/columbine_high_school_massacre_1.html' target='_blank'>here.</a>
btw, if those who own automatic weapons are outlaws, then only outlaws will own automatic weapons.
one more thing... the assault wapons ban doesn't really even ban assault weapons...i think most of those are actually state (?) laws. i could be wrong though.
The police are not a defense. They'll help you out after the crime is commited, but they cant do **** beforehand. As said before, they're more of a cleanup crew now. Then there are security systems. What does a security system do to defend you? Alert the authorities? They wont arrive immediately.And as I said before, pretty much all handguns are semi-automatic, and do pretty much the same amount of damage to an unarmored target. Smaller != less deadly.
EDIT: Yeah, the article says they shot 50 rounds from a handgun. You've been saying this entire time that handguns are somehow an exception.
if a burglar had a handgun and i had an uzi, i think the burglar would think twice before robbing me.
yeah, that was a bad argument, but it's a funny mental picture, so i had to post it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just want to say that people that says that never experienced auto fire shooting...
Automatic fire is nothing but waste of ammo that only works in movies.
If I had to kill someone, I would take a shotgun (buckshots or rifled slugs) or a hunting rifle (able to shoot accurately to a long distance a bullet that makes enough damage to kill a 2000 pounds moose). What hapened at Washington could happen again with a normal hunting rifle.
And there will allways be banned weapons on the black market for criminals and psycho people. Drugs are banned and they are still easy to find on the black market, right?
If guns kills people, why don't we send guns to jail and set serial killers free?
Automatic fire is nothing but waste of ammo that only works in movies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
um..?
1. We're talking about semi-auto here.
2. I'm saying it <i>isnt</i> possible to do that. Either I'm missing your point or you're missing mine.
As for gun control, I believe it is OK for responsible, law-abiding citizens to own concealed handguns. Regardless of the legal status of guns, criminals will be armed and dangerous. The gun simply gives the responsible, law-abiding citizen a greater chance to survive the encounter. I'm also OK with requiring a license to legally own a handgun.
Remember, America is a very diverse country. Some areas have very low levels of crime, while others have very high levels of crime. It would be best to have two seperate laws, since each area is very different. However, if we're talking about a federal law, this isn't an option. You shouldn't assume that everyone experences the same levels of crime you do. This also applies to people who don't live in America.
A child that takes their parent's gun without their permission is technically breaking the law. They are stealing the gun. That child could just as well aquired the gun through other illegal means. As far as accidents go, parents who choose to own guns take that risk knowingly. It's ultimately the parent's choice and the parent's responsibility, not the government's. With all the safety devices that exist nowadays, there is simply no excuse.
This topic deals with semi-automatic "Assault Rifles." If I read the previous responses correctly, only those with very specific licenses can own these types of weapons legally. I'm not familiar with the license qualifications, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like they involve restricting the gun's use to hunting or sporting activities.
Semi-automatic rifles are not that effective in CQC, nor are they are easy to conceal. Therefore, it would make no sense to allow them for self-defense purposes. Also, the banned attachments, such as grenade launchers, bayonets, large clips, and flash suppressors would not apply to the limited legal uses of these weapons.
Apparently, based on posts of explanations of this law, it has no actual effect other than to appease anti-gun voters. The fact that some people felt it was successful at blocking guns seems to demonstrate a significant problem. Either these people didn't bother to read the law, or they did not understand the law. Honestly, that seems far more dangerous to me than a semi-automatic assault rifle.
Hand grenades - Illegal to own, I don't even think you can get a liscence for em.
Assault Weapons - Illegal to own without more background checks then suspected terrorists go through.
Military Explosives - Illegal to own.
Surprisingly I don't see many people using C-4 to blow up buildings, breaking into homes with USAS automatic shotguns and M-79 grenade launchers, and lobbing fragmentation grenades into people's windows. Surprisingly, these weapons are near-impossible to get. At most we have... fertilizer-filled Ryder trucks.
To say that gun control does nothing is rediculous. I imagine that if ordinary handguns took a Class III gun lisence to own, they too would become a significantly reduced presence on the streets and in the hands of ne'er-do-wells.
To those who say that 'bigger guns = more safety', I can find dozens of countries where AK-47's and RPGs are found in supermarkets that are rife with civil war, internal conflict, and violent bloody clashes.
Life is not like Die Hard. White dudes in suits don't attack office buildings with nuclear weapons and VX-filled missile, miniguns, and helicopters with rocket launchers on them.
On a completely unrelated yet related to the topic note, I don't see much point in bayonet mounts being banned, but flash surpressors/silencers should DEFINATELY be controlled.
But they didn't.
And don't you think if they tried to do that some people would run or revolt? Have you ever fired a semi-automatic weapon? They are not some magical device that lets you slaughter dozens of people in seconds. It would take some careful aiming. Aiming that I am sure the people on the other end wouldn't stand still and wait for.
On a completely unrelated yet related to the topic note, I don't see much point in bayonet mounts being banned, but flash surpressors/silencers should DEFINATELY be controlled. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Silencers are illegal. They have been for several decades.
Why should flash suppresors be controled? No one was ever killed by a flash suppresor.
I will be testing that in a short while. I am quite curious to see exactly how difficult they are to get.
Based upon my background. There should be no reason to deny me a license. I have been entrusted by the government with far more dangerous things than machine guns.
If I am denied however, I would be quite interested to find out the reasons.
Isnt the whole idea of a flash suppressor so you can shoot and not be given away by the muzzle flash? Sounds like the perfect stuff for the urban sniper. I think if you're going to fire a weapon, the having it loud and flashy is a good thing, because it lets people know what you're doing. If your doing the right thing, you have nothing to hide. If you aint, well then people are going to know what you're doing and where exactly you are doing it from.
That said, Wizard, no one has ever been killed by a Silencer. Unless they were beat to death with it. Likewise, hand grenades don't kill people. It's the bits of steel razorwire severing arteries and organs that kill them. Therefore we should unban hand grenades and ban razor wire as well. It should be illegal to propel bits of flechettes at high speeds with explosions into human flesh.
Isnt the whole idea of a flash suppressor so you can shoot and not be given away by the muzzle flash? Sounds like the perfect stuff for the urban sniper. I think if you're going to fire a weapon, the having it loud and flashy is a good thing, because it lets people know what you're doing. If your doing the right thing, you have nothing to hide. If you aint, well then people are going to know what you're doing and where exactly you are doing it from. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny... A flash suppressor does nothing of the sort. What a flash suppressor does is hide the flash from the shooter... allowing for faster follow up shots. If you actually owned a firearm... You'd know that it is nice for 3-gun shoots where you go through a course and are required to shoot specific targets a certian number of times as fast as possible. They are incredibly fun... and get quite competative (with nice prizes if you go to a big enough one). Just doing my part to teach the ignorant masses... If everyone else did the same we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
On to the ban. This ban stems from one thing... Fear. People fear what they do not understand. You people for gun control are quite often not expirienced in gun's safe use and maintenance. Thats cool... you guys can go ahead and do your thang. But when you come by and say "hey pal... how about NOT using guns?" thats when it starts infringing on MY rights. My basic rights... Life (defense), Liberty (safety from a tyrannical government), and the pursuit of happiness (kicking back at the end of a long day at the range).
You think we are parinoid for arming ourselves against attack? last i checked, the average response time for police in my area is around 2-3 minutes. You've played Natural-selection haven't you? Exactly HOW MUCH can happen while fighting during those 2-3 minutes? things happen just as... or even FASTER in real life (people only need one good shot). Funny thing about police... they aren't obligated by law to protect you... they are their to enforce the law! It is the personal responcibility of the citizen to protect one's self untill the proper authorotah arrives. Everyone that doesn't own and operate a firearm should be THANKING these people for going through the trouble of learning how to use and buy firearms. This just means more people are protecting you... FREE OF CHARGE. How this could be turned into a negative thing is BEYOND me... it just has been this way ever since i could remember expressing interest in firearms.
I've seen concern over every single citizen being armed in this thread. Imagine... EVERY citizen armed to the TEETH (a horrible picture for some I'm sure). Local nutjob John Doe buys a M60 and starts shooting up town. Even in a town as small as 2000... hell 500 people, Could you imagine that nut going far? if they all fired one damn shot at the guy, the area he is in is swiss cheese. Wow... would YOU want to rob someone's house in a city like that? Its a criminal's nightmare.
I love it when people from other countries voice THEIR opinion on OUR countries laws... as though we are all wrong and they are all right. You do realise our countries are TOTALLY different. What may work in the small UK will not work in the extreamly large United States. You foreigners need to respect that our culture is just DIFFERENT then yours. Sorry... We didn't try to be this way... we just were this way when we came over on the boat.
There have been countless studies on criminals in prison, It is a KNOWN and PROVEN fact that criminals fear a armed civilian more then a armed cop. The civilian is much more willing to shoot the criminal since he is defending what is his. A cop has countless regulations and rules to follow to prevent an accidental killing. An armed citizen has no such things... other then "if its uninvited and on my property... it shouldn't be there."
On to the "Its an old law" arguement. Do you realise what OTHER rights are on that same piece of paper you (seemingly) dismiss as outdated? Perhaps we should limit free speach... it can be harmful if misused. Lets start with banning KKK rallies... Oh my, all those soccer moms don't want their children exposed to these horrible sights of biggotry. Next thing you know... you're trying to protest for a war you don't agree with and a heavily armed police officer beats you with a nightstick untill what used to be your mouth is quiet.
These types of topics end up going in circles... as new sheeple (i love that term) enter the mix and ask the same repetative questions to (hopefully) knowledgeable firearm owners. feel free to pick out the spelling errors in my post... rather then discuss the topic at hand. I've seen gun threads before... and i know its not worth coming back into this thread again.
BTW: I've always considered this board <b>very</b>anti-gun... its nice to see other firearm activists on it.
On to the ban. This ban stems from one thing... Fear. People fear what they do not understand. You people for gun control are quite often not expirienced in gun's safe use and maintenance. Thats cool... you guys can go ahead and do your thang. But when you come by and say "hey pal... how about NOT using guns?" thats when it starts infringing on MY rights. My basic rights... Life (defense), Liberty (safety from a tyrannical government), and the pursuit of happiness (kicking back at the end of a long day at the range).
You think we are parinoid for arming ourselves against attack? last i checked, the average response time for police in my area is around 2-3 minutes. You've played Natural-selection haven't you? Exactly HOW MUCH can happen while fighting during those 2-3 minutes? things happen just as... or even FASTER in real life (people only need one good shot). Funny thing about police... they aren't obligated by law to protect you... they are their to enforce the law! It is the personal responcibility of the citizen to protect one's self untill the proper authorotah arrives. Everyone that doesn't own and operate a firearm should be THANKING these people for going through the trouble of learning how to use and buy firearms. This just means more people are protecting you... FREE OF CHARGE. How this could be turned into a negative thing is BEYOND me... it just has been this way ever since i could remember expressing interest in firearms.
I've seen concern over every single citizen being armed in this thread. Imagine... EVERY citizen armed to the TEETH (a horrible picture for some I'm sure). Local nutjob John Doe buys a M60 and starts shooting up town. Even in a town as small as 2000... hell 500 people, Could you imagine that nut going far? if they all fired one damn shot at the guy, the area he is in is swiss cheese. Wow... would YOU want to rob someone's house in a city like that? Its a criminal's nightmare.
I love it when people from other countries voice THEIR opinion on OUR countries laws... as though we are all wrong and they are all right. You do realise our countries are TOTALLY different. What may work in the small UK will not work in the extreamly large United States. You foreigners need to respect that our culture is just DIFFERENT then yours. Sorry... We didn't try to be this way... we just were this way when we came over on the boat.
There have been countless studies on criminals in prison, It is a KNOWN and PROVEN fact that criminals fear a armed civilian more then a armed cop. The civilian is much more willing to shoot the criminal since he is defending what is his. A cop has countless regulations and rules to follow to prevent an accidental killing. An armed citizen has no such things... other then "if its uninvited and on my property... it shouldn't be there."
On to the "Its an old law" arguement. Do you realise what OTHER rights are on that same piece of paper you (seemingly) dismiss as outdated? Perhaps we should limit free speach... it can be harmful if misused. Lets start with banning KKK rallies... Oh my, all those soccer moms don't want their children exposed to these horrible sights of biggotry. Next thing you know... you're trying to protest for a war you don't agree with and a heavily armed police officer beats you with a nightstick untill what used to be your mouth is quiet.
These types of topics end up going in circles... as new sheeple (i love that term) enter the mix and ask the same repetative questions to (hopefully) knowledgeable firearm owners. feel free to pick out the spelling errors in my post... rather then discuss the topic at hand. I've seen gun threads before... and i know its not worth coming back into this thread again.
BTW: I've always considered this board <b>very</b>anti-gun... its nice to see other firearm activists on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa whoa whoa - I used to be a fierce anti gun advocate but I'm on your side now dammit. Friendly fire - that was framed as a question because it WAS a question. I know zip about guns, and gun legislation.
If you check my earlier post I stated that Australia had very strict weapons laws, and when they came in place firearm deaths went down, stabbings etc went up.
"Class 2 Weapons License
Issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) after a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background test (this is no instant test, taking minimum 90 days). This license allows the purchase and possession of automatic weapons and silencers. The license costs $200 per year plus $100 per weapon or silencer. There is a 50% chance that a person will be turned down for this license, and a person may not reapply for two years. Possession of a automatic weapon or silencer without Class 2 license is a felony. Possession of a stolen Class 2 weapon is a felony with mandatory jail time."
<a href='http://www.modus-operandi.co.uk/portal/article.asp?TOPIC_ID=124' target='_blank'>http://www.modus-operandi.co.uk/portal/art...sp?TOPIC_ID=124</a>
Didn't know about the silencer part. I'm of the opinion that those definitely shouldn't be owned, they dont add to the "experience" of gun ownership, and can only be used for really really shady reasons.
When was the last time you turned on the news to see boy scouts target shooting? Ever see a news program that studied in detail how a poor hunter brings in large amount of venison for his hungry family? when was the last time you saw a terrified old woman talking about how the mere presense of her firearm turned away a 300 pound attacker? (with no loss of life mind you)
That news doesn't "sell" very well to the public. I hate to say it...but it seems people want to hear bad news more then good news. School shootings and other terrible news get so much publicity because they drive up ratings.
BloodySloth... The term is not Silencer (as hollywood oh so loves to use), its suppressor. the gun will still make noise, and if it is using supersonic ammunition there will in fact still be a loud audible crack (much like a .22 rifle being fired) as the bullet breaks the sound barrier. You seem to not know much about firearms... what gives you the right to determine what adds and detracts from the "expirience" when you have yet to expirience them yourself?
While the reasons to lawfully use suppressors are limited... they DO exist. If you live near people... and plan on shooting alot they would be useful. (again... if they were not so damn expensive and hard to get people would use them in this fashion) I am also bewildered at how a criminal would lawfully go through all this paperwork and annual fees just to use the suppressor in a unlawful manner.
why does this post lack content on the subject at hand?
I was answering that. Am I not allowed to retort or what?
I was answering that. Am I not allowed to retort or what? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
feel free... I was merely informing you that a suppressor doesn't make you invisable or turn you into a bush after you shoot someone. They aren't magic... and in fact i can't think of a incident in which they were used in a unlawful manner. you brought them into discussion here... perhaps you could point out a few examples of this blatent abouse for me. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->