Richards 0
Richards 0
Quote1-They want to ban a "style" of firearm, not a type of firearm. The AK-47's owned by individuals function in a semi-automatic mode, one shot per trigger pull, same as many hunting rifles and shotguns. In fact, the AK-47's 7.62 round is actually lower power than most deer rifles. The AR-15's 5.56 round is even more anemic. The politicians use the "scary looking" style of the weapon to whip up uninformed citizens into supporting those bans, making them think they are fully automatic machine guns, which they are not. Why not ban certain styles of clothing associated with criminal punks instead? That has more in common with violent crime than styles of firearms.
I think the issue is with high volume semi-autos. I know I am going to get ripped apart for saying this but if the two columbine guys had been using bolt action rifles that hold five rounds there might have been more survivors. Does a bolt action that holds five rounds not suffice for hunting and target shooting? I have shot assault weapons and quite enjoyed the experience and I do not think that people who own them are freaks, since I can see the appeal. But if there is an inherent risk to people owning them (I am not saying this is the case) then much like smokers who had to butt out in bars when second hand smoke became an issue, assault weapon owners might have to bite the bullet
QuoteThe self-styled gun control politicians admit that each incremental gun ban is not a end, but merely a starting point for more gun bans. As the next law and next law have no effect on violent crime, they preach for more and more gun control. Many admit they won't be happy until no one owns guns. I feel giving them an inch is like throwing more gas on the fire. ( I like mixed metaphors.)
I agree with you fully. In Canada they first had owners register asault weapons and then they prohibited them (grandfathered for those who already owned them), so there is merit to the creeping regulation argument. There needs to be some kind of agreement as to what is needed and where the law should stop. I am fully for defending gun owners rights. I simply feel that the NRA's fanaticism does a bad job of representing such owners.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteAR15's, for example are the most widely used rifle in a target competition called "highpower rifle", which is shot from 200, 300 and 600 yards. Just because they look like a military rifle, doesn't mean that in civilian hands that they are used for military purpose.
So, why do so many anti-gun advocates get upset about citizens owning military style firearms?
I think the issue is not so much the look but the capacity. Can someone not shoot a .556 rife in bolt action for the same ranges? Again I love shooting, but I think the pro-gun side would gain brownie points by showing a litle flexibility.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteQuoteYes, Americans kill each other more often with knives than in other countries too.
Ummm - no, not much diffferent at all. Very similar to Australia and only slightly higher than Canada or UK. It's only GUN homicides that are way out of line.
Um, you forgot to respond to this part:"You presume that those gun murderers would not have committed the same murder using some other weapon. That's a false presumption. I would think a college professor would know better than to make such a illogical false presumption."Would you like to try again?
No, because your presumption that my presumption is false is an unproven presumption.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteQuoteKallend knows the truth, he just likes to play games to try and fool people into believing that guns are really bad things. See the "Ban Air Guns" thread for another example of his deceitful game playing. He's not interested in truth, logic or reasoned debate - only in trying to fool people into believing bad things about guns.
Are you feeling OK John? My only post in the air gun thread was www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2578910#2578910, which does not seem to fit the description you just gave.
Correction: the other thread in which kallend is currently playing games to try and fool people about guns is: "Violent crime UP in USA".
Thank you for pointing that out.
That's OK, no harm done. When you get excited about guns you tend to make these silly mistakes. Like calling me a liar.
Merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteI just think that since everything in life involves cmpromise why not meet in the middle with the anti-gun crowd and allow some restriction on weapons that have no real hunting value?
1. The weapons that have no real huting value aren't any less dangerous than the weapons that do.
2. Banning them isn't going to stop criminals from having them. If someone is going to kill someone, do you think an illegal weapons charge is of concern to them?
3. The anti-gun crowd doesn't want to meet in the middle. Their goal is to ban legal ownership of firearms, they're just working their way up to it with less restrictive laws until they get there.
Richards 0
QuoteIf you don't like the law, try and change it.
No. I am not a gun-o-phobe as you have phrased it. I am not into bringing in more laws.
QuoteAnd since you seem to presume that there is something horrible about .50 caliber rifles, please tell me what the maximum legal caliber should be, in your opinion.
If you are hunting bison then fine. Get a .50 cal. My concern is that people got so bent out of shape when someone tried to ban it. While I like shooting there are more pressing concerns in my world than someone trying to ban a 50 cal sniper rifle. Based on your prior threads you are likely our resident gun expert, and I am obviously at a disadvantage to you in gun knowledge and would be as out of my league debating technical aspects with you as I would debating physics with Bilvon. So if the debate coninues you can rip me apart on gun knowledge. I am just trying to point out that the NRA tend to come across (fairly or not) as being somewhat fanatical and are not doing any good representing law abiding gun owners
QuoteSo why are you so afraid of them?
I'm not. I think it would be really neat to own one and shoot it. I am simply saying that if someone bans them I will not lose much sleep over it.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Douva 0
QuoteDoes a bolt action that holds five rounds not suffice for hunting and target shooting? I have shot assault weapons and quite enjoyed the experience and I do not think that people who own them are freaks, since I can see the appeal. But if there is an inherent risk to people owning them (I am not saying this is the case) then much like smokers who had to butt out in bars when second hand smoke became an issue, assault weapon owners might have to bite the bullet.
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It's about defense. Semi-automatic weapons are far superior to bolt action rifles in most defense scenarios. As the facts I posted clearly state, assault weapons are really not a major problem in the U.S. The vast majority of criminals use pistols because they are so easily concealable. Removing every "assault weapon" from the United States would not even make a noticeable dent in violent crime statistics. Comparing owners of "assault weapons" to smokers is a false analogy because smokers endanger the public every time they smoke; whereas, you'd be hard pressed to find an "assault weapon" owner who has ever endangered the public.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteDoes a bolt action that holds five rounds not suffice for hunting and target shooting? I have shot assault weapons and quite enjoyed the experience and I do not think that people who own them are freaks, since I can see the appeal. But if there is an inherent risk to people owning them (I am not saying this is the case) then much like smokers who had to butt out in bars when second hand smoke became an issue, assault weapon owners might have to bite the bullet.
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It's about defense. Semi-automatic weapons are far superior to bolt action rifles in most defense scenarios. As the facts I posted clearly state, assault weapons are really not a major problem in the U.S. The vast majority of criminals use pistols because they are so easily concealable. Removing every "assault weapon" from the United States would not even make a noticeable dent in violent crime statistics. Comparing owners of "assault weapons" to smokers is a false analogy because smokers endanger the public every time they smoke; whereas, you'd be hard pressed to find an "assault weapon" owner who has ever endangered the public.
The 2nd Amendment would seem specifically to support the ownership of militia style weapons. Look around the world and see what actual, active, effective militias are using: full automatics, RPGs, etc. I can't for the life of me see why the most useful militia weapons are those most likely to be illegal in the USA. (Well, I can, the govt. doesn't really want an effctive militia in place in the USA).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteI am just trying to point out that the NRA tend to come across (fairly or not) as being somewhat fanatical and are not doing any good representing law abiding gun owners
How do they come across as being fanatical?
Richards 0
QuoteThe weapons that have no real huting value aren't any less dangerous than the weapons that do.
Then why don't we send our troops in to battle with bolt actions?
QuoteBanning them isn't going to stop criminals from having them. If someone is going to kill someone, do you think an illegal weapons charge is of concern to them?
I have never supported gun bans since I own some myself. I also realise that criminals will get guns if they want them. Lack of regulation does however make it easier for legal guns to proliferate into the black market.
QuoteThe anti-gun crowd doesn't want to meet in the middle. Their goal is to ban legal ownership of firearms, they're just working their way up to it with less restrictive laws until they get there.
I said from the outset that there are fanatics on both sides of the argument.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Whoa whoa...easy. I am far more on your side than my posts may have suggested. Again I strongly beleive in an individuals right to have a gun for self defence, and I think that in Canada we would do well to allow citizens a greater right to self defence like you have in the US (In canada you can scream pathetically at a 911 recording which will record the sounds of you begging for mercy as an attacker chooses to show you none). I was just trying to put into perspective the other sides view. I am sure that most owners of assault rifles are not criminals and I am not trying to suggest that gun owners are bad people (again..I am one). I just think that since everything in life involves cmpromise why not meet in the middle with the anti-gun crowd and allow some restriction on weapons that have no real hunting value?