Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 9:55pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

seriously? a assault rifle for competition? what is the sport in shooting a paper whit 100 bullets?
have ever seen a actual competition gun? they look nothing like a normal gun at all. a competition gun has hundreds of settings that you dont have whit a normal gun of any kind.

Yes, modified ARs are used in many competitions. You can even buy some that are competition ready out of the box. Some of them don't look all that different. It depends on the shooter and the type of competition.

Deth666, if you're seriously going to argue that modern assault rifles were made for anything other than war, I'm going to start questioning some other things.

There's many assault rifles that are made for competition and not meant for war or killing. There's even a few AR frame hunting rifles. So, yeah...

Here's the definition of what I think they are. "A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

Yes, that's what the military gets. It's not what civilians can buy at a gun store. Everyone gets hung up on the fire rate of a gun. It depends on how fast you can pull the trigger, how fast the action of the gun can work. These rifles are civilian versions not fully automatic infantry rifles. I'm not saying it's drastically different but it is a bit different. By your definition a WWII M1 carbine is an assault rifle. Saying that an assault rifle has no other purpose but to kill is sensationalism. It's like saying a sword has no other purpose but to kill but look at all these ren fair guys running around practicing with swords for fun.

hello strawman. (yes i can do that aswell)

Sorry for the sarcasm, but maybe I just didn't understand your point. People with guns will be more apt to snap and shoot someone doesn't seem very likely. People walk around with guns all the time. I walk around with a gun all the time and never felt like I was gonna snap. I've even gotten into heated arguments with people that have gotten physical while carrying concealed. I've never snapped and shot them. Maybe, that's not what you mean?

Also known as, completely out matched. Imagine what the situation would be where the side that lost 4488 is on its homefield, where all of its heavy duty thingamabobs rest sitting around, where the police would be with them, where transportation costs would be so much less, and much, much more?

What can an armed mob do against an air strike? Tanks? Helicopters? All it would be is a blood bath.

I don't completely agree, but I suppose, I see your point.

As for what threat they are? None, in the hands of someone who isn't going to harm anyone with them.

Again, I don't see why such weapons can't be kept at gun clubs or shooting ranges or whatever. People could still legally own them, they just wouldn't be keeping them at their homes.

What's the advantage keeping them at the gun club locked up vs. in their homes locked up?

 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 9:57pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh07kudq …
Assuming
the information in the video is true, we need to understand where crime is happening, who it's happening to, and who is committing said crime. When it comes to violent crime, most of it is committed by gangs. Furthermore, we keep creating these hypothetical situations where innocent people are getting hurt, even though most of these victims are criminals themselves.

Most homicides happen to criminals who murder, by criminals who murder.

 

Posted Jan 17, '13 at 10:08pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

There's many assault rifles that are made for competition

look, it are these people that i call crazy and stupid gun lovers.
(thx for showing yourself)
i make the comments you spoke about against these people.

granted that i miss interpreted master and emperor in the begin. after they said what they actually stand for except bashing me back. i didn't made any reply in this way against them anymore.

 

Posted Jan 18, '13 at 1:46am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

There's many assault rifles that are made for competition

Modified for, maybe. I'm not aware of any assault rifles that were developed for the sole use of competition shooting. Link some if there are any...

What's the advantage keeping them at the gun club locked up vs. in their homes locked up?

Well, they wouldn't be within reach of anyone else in the household. They wouldn't be stolen in a simple robbery either.

It's like saying a sword has no other purpose but to kill but look at all these ren fair guys running around practicing with swords for fun.

Swords aren't guns. For one, they're highly conspicuous, and they are heavy. There's also a lot less of them out there, and what sports do use swords usually use specialized ones and aren't lethal.

 

Posted Jan 18, '13 at 2:47am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

Well, they wouldn't be within reach of anyone else in the household. They wouldn't be stolen in a simple robbery either.

They also wouldn't be around for self defense. Considering the guns are private property, you should be able to keep those guns within your own home.

Robbers will likely steal guns if they find them, but the chances of a robber going into a person's home, stealing their gun, then killing whoever is in that home with said gun is very, very, slim. As for having you gun somewhere else so those living with you can't get their hands on the gun, that's just assuming people can't be trusted to keep guns out of the hands of their loved ones. Yes, it's important we keep guns out of the hands of children, but it's also important we don't treat every gun owner as irresponsible.

Modified for, maybe. I'm not aware of any assault rifles that were developed for the sole use of competition shooting. Link some if there are any...

As long as people aren't using the guns to kill, it doesn't matter.

 

Posted Jan 18, '13 at 3:33am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,031 posts

Knight

They also wouldn't be around for self defense. Considering the guns are private property, you should be able to keep those guns within your own home.

But private guns are exactly those I like the least. Besides, as I mentioned already, endorsed by nicho, the chance of actually making the robber shoot at you is critically increased if you have a gun yourself. Playing hero only cost lives. But if that's what you want...

Yes, it's important we keep guns out of the hands of children, but it's also important we don't treat every gun owner as irresponsible.

Accidents happen so quickly. Increasing the safety of a household is not necessarily treating them as irresponsible, it's common sense.

 

Posted Jan 18, '13 at 7:48am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

But private guns are exactly those I like the least. Besides, as I mentioned already, endorsed by nicho, the chance of actually making the robber shoot at you is critically increased if you have a gun yourself. Playing hero only cost lives. But if that's what you want...

Guns have very often saved lives, and likely saved more lives than they have taken. Most gun crimes are committed between  criminals and are gang related.

Accidents happen so quickly. Increasing the safety of a household is not necessarily treating them as irresponsible, it's common sense.

Accidents happen so quickly, but often accidents don't happen at all. Some accidents smell of feces, and others result from broken condoms. Accidents are all over, and it's a word that's easy to throw around. We have to look at reality though.

Almost all families who own guns are successful in keeping guns out of their children's hands. These accidents you speak of are VERY uncommon. I'm not saying these accidents never happen, but with the number of people that populate this country, it's statistically astonishing that you feel like gun ownership is a significant threat to children.

Safety is great and all, but we can't Styrofoam the whole world. If you want to significantly increase the safety of your children, don't drive them around with you if you can help it and find a babysitter instead of taking them to the store - after all, it's safer for them to be left home than in the seat of a mess of metal screaming 60 miles per hour down the road and risk getting them killed in a head on collision!

 

Posted Jan 18, '13 at 10:30am

Solarisflair

Solarisflair

6 posts

That was honestly the worst fake hypothetical I've ever read, and I've read some really bad ones.

I was not trying to tell a convincing story I was trying to show that riot shields only work a portable fences not force-fields.

Yes...give all the anger management, mentally unstable, extremist believers, irresponsible jocks and whatever other groups you want weapons which can kill with the pull of a trigger.

You do have a point there, if every single person owned a gun lots of people might be shot. But at the same time look at Switzerland, every single resident is required to have a machine gun in their house and most will have many other guns but Switzerland's crime rate is almost null.

I suspect you didn't mean "everybody" but still, why should everyone own a gun? What if they don't want to? Why is it necessary?

Say nobody has a gun except the military. There would be no shootings or armed robberies and it would be harder to commit suicide. Plus it would give illegal gun trading over borders a real kick in the pants.

But now imagine that the government becomes corrupt and tries to establish a dictator or something. How would you defend yourself without a gun?

And look at London their crime rate is despicable and nobody is allowed to own a gun.

Not going into how if things were regulated as they should be, said traumatized soldier shouldn't have a high calibre gun to begin with.

Explain to me how a traumatized soldier can get one of these and not a rifle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcnQ5jVGEds

 

Posted Jan 18, '13 at 11:27am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

As long as people aren't using the guns to kill, it doesn't matter.

Well, in many ways it does. Owning a military grade weapon is essentially pointless, even if it were modified for competition, the potential to cause harm is far greater than that of a handgun. As many of us have said before, we're not advocating the banning of guns, we're advocating stricter gun control policy. Background checks, reducing the type of weapons available to civilians, that sort of thing.

But now imagine that the government becomes corrupt and tries to establish a dictator or something. How would you defend yourself without a gun?

This argument is stupid. An untrained civilian population has very little chance against the American military's technological advantage, and training. It's stupidity is further increased by the implication that America will magically transform into a totalitarian state in which people will unite whole heartedly and resist.

 

Posted Jan 18, '13 at 11:28am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,031 posts

Knight

You do have a point there, if every single person owned a gun lots of people might be shot. But at the same time look at Switzerland, every single resident is required to have a machine gun in their house and most will have many other guns but Switzerland's crime rate is almost null.

This is excessively exaggerated. No citizen is required to keep a weapon at home except those who do military service, they just take their service weapon back home. I personally don't know anyone that has many weapons at home, this is an exageration too. And even though our crime rate is low, sadly low=/=almost null.

Besides, there are gun licenses to be acquired first. Even though the latest case has shown that some weapons do not need one, and that our gun legislations need to be updated (for several reasons).

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!