ForumsWEPRGun Control Legislation

92 23856
samiel
offline
samiel
421 posts
Shepherd

personaly i stand by the logic that steel is nothing without the flesh that wealds and that people that say that guns kill are wrong that its the people that kill guns are tools for the intentions of the user and that gun bans and gun control are unproperly used and moniterd thats were the black market comes in people that really to get a weapon can what are your thoughts

  • 92 Replies
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,211 posts
Peasant

Also, what is it with banning assault rifles? A pistol is just as deadly, and there is such a thing as a machine pistol. You want to ban them for their aesthetic look? Sure. Let's also ban 80lb longbows because they're too big. Also, let's not let post-marines (no such thing as ex marine) keep their KA-BAR knife, it's too violent in its look.

lol. I hope you are trying to say something else, because of what I understand, your post is pretty stupid, sorry for the harsh direct statement. So, you are telling me that Assault Rifles are as deadly as pistols? I do want to see your logic in saying that a automatic weapon that can kill 10-20 people in a couple of seconds is as bad as a revolver or pistol which takes many seconds to fire one after an other and with a smaller clip then an AR.

I do. Not because I don't like guns or don't uphold the use of them, quite the contrary, but because I prefer the Age of the Tradesman, when a Gunsmith wasn't a Hobbyist, he and his kind supplied to armies. A Tradesman learned his craft and worked alone, and kept the profit. Unlike companies, where your very existence is superfluous (the machines do the work), although older guns by bad craftsmen were finicky and often killed their user.

Ah, yes, the great age where small (or big) barons (city states) waged continuous war to neighbour barons (city states) by getting supplies from the many independent traders and gunsmiths(or swordsmiths, depending how far back you are talking about.)
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

lol. I hope you are trying to say something else, because of what I understand, your post is pretty stupid, sorry for the harsh direct statement. So, you are telling me that Assault Rifles are as deadly as pistols? I do want to see your logic in saying that a automatic weapon that can kill 10-20 people in a couple of seconds is as bad as a revolver or pistol which takes many seconds to fire one after an other and with a smaller clip then an AR.


This is an AK-47.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Rifle_AK-47.jpg

Scary, right? It was made in WW-II. It can fire 600 rounds a minute, if it had the ammo to, and has clips of 10, 20, 30, 40, 75, or 100, and an effective range of 400 meters and is semi-automatic. Scary, right?

This is a Calico M95.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Subs/Calico_M-950.jpg

This is a semi-automatic machine pistol. It has a rate of fire of 740 rounds a minute, an effective range of 300+ yards, and a clip of 50 or 100. Not scary? After all, it is just a pistol.

He is right. It is really stupid to ban assault rifles when you have no clue what an assault rifle is.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Small fix. The machine pistol is a Calico M950, I left off the 0. Typo.

loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,211 posts
Peasant

He is right. It is really stupid to ban assault rifles when you have no clue what an assault rifle is.

Obviously I'm not talking about automatic machine pistols which are basically the same thing as AR or worse. I mean when I said pistol/revolver I meant the average glock. After all I said automatic weapon in my post above, which is what a Calico M95 is. Please read my post more carefully next time, it usually makes for better arguments and doesn't humiliate.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Obviously I'm not talking about automatic machine pistols which are basically the same thing as AR or worse. I mean when I said pistol/revolver I meant the average glock. After all I said automatic weapon in my post above, which is what a Calico M95 is. Please read my post more carefully next time, it usually makes for better arguments and doesn't humiliate.


You stated that "So, you are telling me that Assault Rifles are as deadly as pistols", which is WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, as well as the fact he is saying "Machine pistols are just as deadly as ARs", witch you where ignoring.

And two more things.

1. As I said, it was an M950. Typo on my part.
2. Glocks ARE semi-automatic pistols. Just like the Calico up there...
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Before you post again, I feel the need to triple post. It seems you don't know what a semi-automatic weapon is, and how it is different than the automatic.

The Ak-47, Calico, and Glock are all semi-automatic weapons. This basically means it makes itself ready to fire again. You don't have to **** (Is that blocked?) it or anything, it just gets the next bullet ready.

Do you know what the difference between the semi-automatic and the automatic ones are? When you hold down the trigger on an automatic, it fires until it runs out of bullets or you let go. Semi-automatics fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. That is the only difference between the weapons. Trigger pulling.

dair5
offline
dair5
3,379 posts
Shepherd

So why don't we just have a strict regulation on guns with a certain fire rate, since that seems to be what everyone is worried about to begin with. Theres no reason to have guns with high fire rates to protect yourself or to hunt. We could also let firing ranges have those guns with really high firing rates so people can still shoot those guns if they really want to. To be honest though, I don't see why anyone should have a tool whose only purpose is to kill.

EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,223 posts
Nomad

So, you are telling me that Assault Rifles are as deadly as pistols?


Pistols account for nearly 90% of murders and violent crime in America. Yes, pistols are more deadly, if only relatively. Yes, an assault rifle can kill with more power, but it simply isn't used enough to even care. It's a weapon of war, not a weapon of crime.

automatic weapon


Illegal illegal illegal. How many times must it be said? Assault weapons are not by default automatic, and in America, an automatic rifle would actually remove it from the category and place it into automatic rifles, not assault rifles.

I meant the average glock


Glocks are easily converted to automatic, and some are made purpose built for that. Just saying.

PS: You'll spend ten years in federal prison if you do, so don't try it.

That is the only difference between the weapons.


Don't forget the part where one is highly illegal and one isn't.

I don't see why anyone should have a tool whose only purpose is to kill.


This is your emotional response. Look to logical facts before attempting to support gun regulation.

Automatic weapons are pointless to outlaw. They account for so few murders, the simple enforcement of the law and the economic value of that outweigh the risk. Millions are spent each year trying to enforce a law that is almost completely pointless. Even before the 1986 ban, automatic weapons (especially rifles and machine guns) accounted for just a few murders a year and almost zero robberies. The $200 transfer fee on pre-1986 automatic weapons can simply never compete.

Also, you know how many legally owned (pre-1986) automatic weapons are used in crime? Zero.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Well, even if they account for few murders, why do they need one? You don't NEED an automatic weapon in your home. I keep knives, bows, swords, a crossbow and even a revolver, but nothing automatic.
We should just make them illegal so the few murders that ARE made with the weapons are cut down to zero. To the enforcement, one murder is too many.

EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,223 posts
Nomad

You don't NEED an automatic weapon in your home


And? What difference does that make? Just because someone doesn't need something, doesn't mean they shouldn't have it.

We should just make them illegal so the few murders that ARE made with the weapons are cut down to zero.


Quoting myself:

Also, you know how many legally owned (pre-1986) automatic weapons are used in crime? Zero.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

26 years ago. And how many weapons have been made, acquired, and used since then?

dair5
offline
dair5
3,379 posts
Shepherd

This is your emotional response. Look to logical facts before attempting to support gun regulation.


I wasn't talking about just automatic weapons.

If most crimes commited are by people who obtain handguns illegaly, then we should at least figure out how people are illegally obtaining these handguns and stop them. Have we already made laws about that? If we have then they obviously aren't good enough and we need to change our stratagy.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

And? What difference does that make? Just because someone doesn't need something, doesn't mean they shouldn't have it.

Well, as you yourself said, those are weapons of war. Why should civilians possess them? Unless your country is invaded and you need a militia, but that's what arsenals are for. A pistol at home is enough for self-defence in case of a break-in.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,223 posts
Nomad

26 years ago. And how many weapons have been made, acquired, and used since then?


Of the weapons made since then? All of them are illegal, every last one of them. The ban says it's legal for weapons with a pre-1986 receiver to be transferred for a relatively modest fee of $200, as it's classified as a destructive device. What the law doesn't mention is that most of these weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars, hence why they aren't used in crime. A criminal can buy an entire arsenal for that price. Any automatic weapon with a receiver made after 1986 is completely banned, and there is almost no way of actually getting one. The only options for people are convert a semi-automatic weapon (a very, very serious felony) or start mass producing such weapons. The only ones in private hands are in Class II FFL holders, who I'm pretty sure aren't going to use those weapons for crime seeing as they're the manufacturers of them.

If most crimes commited are by people who obtain handguns illegaly, then we should at least figure out how people are illegally obtaining these handguns and stop them.


Most acquire them from drug dealers or steal them. The drug dealers typically get them from arms dealers who usually deal in stolen or imported weaponry. There is nothing you can do about that, unless you propose we ban guns because they might get stolen, and if you do that, well...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7oq5k17pY1r3084q.jpg

Why should civilians possess them?


Why shouldn't they? Just because they're associated with a certain usage, doesn't make them any more likely to be used in crime. Gun laws, as with all laws, and meant to protect the population. Banning a weapon that is not a danger to the population is just a pathetic waste of money and clamps down on potential markets.

A pistol at home is enough for self-defence in case of a break-in.


Who cares what people NEED? If people want something, they deserve to have it. This is the land of freedom, not the land of restriction. If something isn't a danger to everyone else, who cares if people have it? You're not going to end up staring down the barrel of a legally acquired automatic weapon or semi-automatic assault rifle any time soon, at least if statistics are anything to go on.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

I know I'm attacking a weak front here, but you're sounding like a class A, selfish, self-centered American. What if I said "I want a city!" By your reasoning, I deserve to get a city because I want one. Your views are hypocritical, and you bite back on your own words, most likely without you knowing. Can you actually give us a good, solid reason a person should own an automatic weapon?

Showing 61-75 of 92