NationStates Jolt Archive

By William Bratton
LAPD Chief

As chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and a 28-year veteran of law enforcement, I have seen firsthand the death and destruction that can be brought by military-style assault weapons.

These guns are not necessary for hunting or self-defense, but their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them weapons of choice for criminals. Congress has only five working days to renew the federal ban on 19 different models of semiautomatic assault weapons. If they fail to do so, these killing machines will soon be rolling off the assembly lines at major gun manufacturers and flying off the shelves of your local gun shop.

In 1994, the nation's law enforcement community, from small towns to large cities, rallied together in support of the assault-weapons ban for very practical reasons. Violent criminals and thugs had weapons of war far more powerful than our own, making it nearly impossible to protect neighborhoods that were being torn apart by vicious assault-weapon attacks in which hundreds of rounds of ammunition were spray-fired on innocent men, women and children.

Our mission to rid the streets of assault weapons was buoyed by the support of Presidents Ford, Carter and the late Ronald Reagan, who affirmed in a letter to Congress that a ban on assault weapons was common-sense public-safety legislation.

Thanks to their support, today police are safer and the public is safer. This progress will be in vain if the ban is allowed to evaporate. Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton have now sent another letter to Congress urging renewal of the ban.

Since enactment of the federal assault-weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 66 percent. That's why virtually every federal, state and local law enforcement association supports pending legislation that will reauthorize the current ban. Since its passage, this legislation has been instrumental in increasing public safety, lowering incidents of violent crime and keeping new caches of these dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, street gangs, drug traffickers and terrorists.

The nation's law enforcement agencies will face a tremendous threat on the streets if Congress fails to renew the federal assault-weapons ban. If the gun lobby succeeds and President Bush and Congress allow the law to expire, then we can expect the return of military-style assault weapons such as the AK-47 and Uzi to our streets. This would be a crushing setback to the record-breaking reduction of violent crime in this country over the past decade.

Renewing the assault-weapons ban is more important now than ever, since we have evidence that it is exactly these kinds of weapons that are used and sought out by terrorists. In fact, an al-Qaida training manual uncovered in Kabul underscores their preferred usage among terrorists in the following instruction to terrorist cells overseas: "In countries like the United States, it's perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations."

We know that the best defense of our homeland security will depend on the front lines of local law enforcement officers. We need our lawmakers' help by putting obstacles, such as the assault-weapons ban, in the path of terrorists.

It is time for the president and Congress to support our nation's law enforcement professionals in their fight against crime and terrorism by showing their leadership on this issue. Now is the time to take the easy step of renewing the federal assault-weapons ban before it is too late. Failure to do so may prove to be a mistake that our nation will never forget.

---
William Bratton is chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%7E24781%7E2334862,00.html


Well...now what do you think?

I think he needs to leave the world of LA every once in awhile to see the rest of the country :)

It is the citizens that decide who and what kind of represenative they want in congress and the presidency. And the police are obviously a very small percentage of that population of citizens.

These guns are not necessary for hunting or self-defense, but their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them weapons of choice for criminals.Neither of these are "assault weapon" features.
Violent criminals and thugs had weapons of war far more powerful than our own, making it nearly impossible to protect neighborhoods that were being torn apart by vicious assault-weapon attacks in which hundreds of rounds of ammunition were spray-fired on innocent men, women and children.1) They could still get the guns; they just had to look different.
2) You can spray fire a weapon not labeled an assault weapon.
Since enactment of the federal assault-weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 66 percent.Did the proportion of other weapons traced to crimes go up?
these dangerous weaponsMost of the banned features aren't dangerous; some would even make the weapons less useful (I'll put these features in bold below.).
If the gun lobby succeeds and President Bush and Congress allow the law to expire, then we can expect the return of military-style assault weapons such as the AK-47 and Uzi to our streets.They were both legal to own before the ban, during the ban, and after the ban.
This would be a crushing setback to the record-breaking reduction of violent crime in this country over the past decade.Statistics (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
The reduction of violent crime began before 1994.
In fact, an al-Qaida training manual uncovered in Kabul underscores their preferred usage among terrorists in the following instruction to terrorist cells overseas: "In countries like the United States, it's perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations."Assault rifle=/=Assault weapon
Assault rifle=A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres
Assault weapon=any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and

`
(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;

(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
(Made small to use less space)
Source=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html

Yea, concidering this was an opinion piece... and he presented no source to his claims.. I'll take it with a grain of salt.
No, infact I think he made most of that stuff up.

crime rates are steadily at it's lowest point since 1973...

i remember hearing somewhere that an ak-47 is really more of a battle rifle than an assault rifle in the classic sense, because of its robust construction and relatively high calibre.

Yea, concidering this was an opinion piece... and he presented no source to his claims.. I'll take it with a grain of salt.
No, infact I think he made most of that stuff up.

Yeah, I suppose the Chief of Police from one of the largest cities in the country made all that information up.

:rolleyes:

Stupidest thing I've read all night.

Neither of these are "assault weapon" features.
1) They could still get the guns; they just had to look different.
2) You can spray fire a weapon not labeled an assault weapon.
Did the proportion of other weapons traced to crimes go up?
Most of the banned features aren't dangerous; some would even make the weapons less useful (I'll put these features in bold below.).
They were both legal to own before the ban, during the ban, and after the ban.
Statistics (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
The reduction of violent crime began before 1994.
Assault rifle=/=Assault weapon
Assault rifle=A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres
Assault weapon=any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and

`
(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;

(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
(Made small to use less space)
Source=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html

Ok. I'm not going to pay attention to the Chief of Police for one of the nation's largest cities. Obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about. :rolleyes:

</sarcasm>

Yeah, I suppose the Chief of Police from one of the largest cities in the country made all that information up.

:rolleyes:

Stupidest thing I've read all night.

Well, since I have read statistics that go directly against items he's stated... and he didnt bother to cite any source to his information, not even internal statistical information I believe he made things up, or at least highly skewed things to fit his position.

Those poor, oppressed Gun owners need there assault weapons to spray deer with automatic fire, protect there families from an ARMY of converging criminals and defend against a government with precision weapons and vastly superior technology.

Oh please!

If the gun lobby succeeds and President Bush and Congress allow the law to expire, then we can expect the return of military-style assault weapons such as the AK-47 and Uzi to our streets.

They were both legal to own before the ban, during the ban, and after the ban.

Only in semi automatic settings.

That is to say, on an AK-47, the three shot burst, and full auto settings, are usually disabled.
However, you can still rip off as many shells as you have in your clip, as fast as you can pull the trigger.

There is no reason the average citizen should have this weapon, or anything like it.

If you allow assault weapons and part of your argument for them is this checks and balance BS, and this way the Gov knows they can’t get away with this or that. Then you stop too soon. The constitution that allows you to carry weapons was written when the most powerful weapon one man could carry was a rifle or pistol. So many civilians so armed could be a check against a tyrannical government. Now that is not true.
So if you want checks a balances etc then you must make it legal for every citizen to carry what ever weaponry is available to the armed forces. So they can have stingers, RPGs, battle back nukes, flame throwers etc etc. If not the checks and balance BS is exactly that.

The lifting of our Federal AWB will have little affect on the LAPD:

California has a stricter assault weapons ban that effectively trumps Federal law in all but the most obscure corner cases.

He knows this, I know this, but Mom&Pop watching KLAX or whatever don't know it.

Grrr...

(proud owner of several California-banned, registered assault weapons...)

If you allow assault weapons and part of your argument for them is this checks and balance BS, and this way the Gov knows they can’t get away with this or that. Then you stop too soon. The constitution that allows you to carry weapons was written when the most powerful weapon one man could carry was a rifle or pistol. So many civilians so armed could be a check against a tyrannical government. Now that is not true.
So if you want checks a balances etc then you must make it legal for every citizen to carry what ever weaponry is available to the armed forces. So they can have stingers, RPGs, battle back nukes, flame throwers etc etc. If not the checks and balance BS is exactly that.

Why not? Privatization of the military on a wide scale is long overdue anyway.

i remember hearing somewhere that an ak-47 is really more of a battle rifle than an assault rifle in the classic sense, because of its robust construction and relatively high calibre.I'd still call it an assault rifle, but 7.62mm is rather large for an assault rifle.
assault weapons to spray deer with automatic fireAssault weapons (legal term) are not necessarily capable of automatic fire. Assault rifles (technical term) are.
Ok. I'm not going to pay attention to the Chief of Police for one of the nation's largest cities. Obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about. :rolleyes: I'd trust the actual text of the law over a chief of police.
Another definition of assault rifle from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle: Assault rifles are fully-automatic and select-fire (multi-shot burst) intermediate-power long guns.
Only in semi automatic settings.Fully automatic weapons are legal in the USA.
Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:
Machineguns;
The frames or receivers of machineguns;
Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machineguns;
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machinegun;
Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer;
Short-barreled rifles;
Short-barreled shotguns;
Destructive devices; and,
"Any other weapons."

A few examples of destructive devices are:
Molotov cocktails;
Anti-tank guns (over caliber .50);
Bazookas; and,
Mortars.

A few examples of "any other weapon" are:
H& R Handyguns;
Ithaca Auto-Burglar guns;
Cane guns; and,
Gadget-type firearms and "pen" guns which fire fixed ammunition.

(M2) How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms? [Back]

Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, state, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFA firearms:

(1) By lawful transfer of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same state as the transferee. Obtain any forms needed from the Bureau of ATF, NFA Branch, Washington, DC 20226.
(2) By obtaining prior approvals to make NFA firearms. [27 CFR 179.84-179.87 and 179.62-179.67]
That is to say, on an AK-47, the three shot burst, and full auto settings, are usually disabled.An AK-47 doesn't have 3-round burst.
However, you can still rip off as many shells as you have in your clip, as fast as you can pull the trigger.Actually, you can do it even faster than that...That'll probably hurt the anti-ban arguments, but I'm just here to be anti-fallacy and -irrelevant. AK-47s don't use clips. A clip feeds a magazine, while a magazine feeds a gun.
There is no reason the average citizen should have this weapon, or anything like it.Assault weapons are not the only semi-automatic weapons.

Edit: More links!
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm - Interesting charts, links farther down
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/guic.htm - Information on what guns are used in crimes
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm - Information on what weapons are used in crimes

Each police agency in every city has the right to make recomendations to the city councils and the people. It is still left up to that community, as it is in LA and California as a state.

Yeah, I suppose the Chief of Police from one of the largest cities in the country made all that information up.

:rolleyes:

Stupidest thing I've read all night.

Another thing...
If we are to believe the police chief, we have to believe his assertion that the assault weapon ban actually had a quantifiable effect.

Since, if you actually read the text of the law banning assault weapons, it was purely cosmetic (with the exception of magazine size) the awb had no effect on removing any guns from circulation. It only removed "scary looking" versions of guns still in circulation.

Criminals mostly like small concealable weapons, or cheap easily available ones. Pistols and sawed off shotguns fit those needs. An AR15 is too bulky for casual carrying, and too expensive for the average street thug. The ban also only eliminated a few features from the market, bayonet lugs, pistol grips flash supressors and folding stocks. How does that help anyone? When's the last time a guy got bayonetted to death in the USA? These guns are popular for home defense, collectors, and recreational shooters. Leave them alone.

Funny thing is, I bought an AK47 legally DURING the assualt weapons ban. Its a very fun weapon to shoot at he range, and they shouldn't ban it on the acount of a minority that usualy aquires them illegaly, anyways.

Yeah, I suppose the Chief of Police from one of the largest cities in the country made all that information up.

:rolleyes:

Stupidest thing I've read all night.

And maybe he plans to be more than just Chief of Police one day in a state and county that is very pro gun control

Criminals mostly like small concealable weapons, or cheap easily available ones. Pistols and sawed off shotguns fit those needs. An AR15 is too bulky for casual carrying, and too expensive for the average street thug. The ban also only eliminated a few features from the market, bayonet lugs, pistol grips flash supressors and folding stocks. How does that help anyone? When's the last time a guy got bayonetted to death in the USA? These guns are popular for home defense, collectors, and recreational shooters. Leave them alone.

In all fairness... if we see an explosion of drive by bayonettings.. then we know that letting the ban expire was the wrong thing to do... only time will tell

Criminals mostly like small concealable weapons, or cheap easily available ones. Pistols and sawed off shotguns fit those needs. An AR15 is too bulky for casual carrying, and too expensive for the average street thug. The ban also only eliminated a few features from the market, bayonet lugs, pistol grips flash supressors and folding stocks. How does that help anyone? When's the last time a guy got bayonetted to death in the USA? These guns are popular for home defense, collectors, and recreational shooters. Leave them alone.


dont forget the grenade launcher mount.

A key feature for the discerning carjacker.

In all fairness... if we see an explosion of drive by bayonettings.. then we know that letting the ban expire was the wrong thing to do... only time will tell

Ok im going to hold ya to it!

Ok im going to hold ya to it!
As was also mentioned.. if there is an increase in grenades launched during the commission of crimes I will take back what I said about the ban being a bad thing.

As was also mentioned.. if there is an increase in grenades launched during the commission of crimes I will take back what I said about the ban being a bad thing.

Ok I am holding you to that also!

ps: I can not recall ever hearing of either being used anyways lol

I have an idea thats going to save more lives than the anti-gun folks ever imagined possible.

Lets ban CARS!

How many people die in car accidents every year? If there were no cars there would be no death right? WRONG

How many major crimes have assault weapons been used in since the ban went into effect? The Bank of America shootout and....I can't think of any others. Now how many crimes have been committed with kitchen knives? Assault weapons are no different than steakknives or baseball bats: used correctly they are useful, used incorrectly they are deadly. So why ban them?

End of rant.

So why ban them?

Because they think their feelings are more important than your rights.

"Guns don’t kill people, people kill people"

HA HA HA... this is true, but if Lee Harvey Oswald did not have that gun, would Kennedy still be dead? Yes because Oswald didn’t kill him. This is beside the point.

A couple of years back in 97, in L.A, a bank was robbed. Now, Mistero should know about this, but it wasn’t a normal bank robbery. The two suspects were using assault weapons, armor piercing bullets and heavy body armor to rob the bank. The suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. Seven civilians, and eleven officers were wounded, thankfully no one was killed.

I got my info from...
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html

Ya, ok so "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people." But I am more afraid of some guy with a gun than a knife. Ya, ok so you should be allowed to hunt, but you don’t need fully automatics, armor piercing bullets, handguns and body armor to hunt. I mean, unless you’re hunting a poisonous, 20-foot deer, you don’t need these things. You shouldn’t have scatter guns either.

Well there you go, guns do really kill people, and you don’t need this stuff to hunt.

PS: "Charlton Heston is my president” (sarcasm)

(snipped because it was a long post and I only want to address this one issue)

You shouldn’t have scatter guns either.

Well there you go, guns do really kill people, and you don’t need this stuff to hunt.

PS: "Charlton Heston is my president” (sarcasm)

Scatter guns... I assume you mean shotguns? Scatter gun being the name used in many westerns refering to shotguns.

Shotguns are used in hunting too.

"Guns don’t kill people, people kill people"

HA HA HA... this is true, but if Lee Harvey Oswald did not have that gun, would Kennedy still be dead? Yes because Oswald didn’t kill him. This is beside the point.

A couple of years back in 97, in L.A, a bank was robbed. Now, Mistero should know about this, but it wasn’t a normal bank robbery. The two suspects were using assault weapons, armor piercing bullets and heavy body armor to rob the bank. The suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. Seven civilians, and eleven officers were wounded, thankfully no one was killed.

I got my info from...
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html

Ya, ok so "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people." But I am more afraid of some guy with a gun than a knife. Ya, ok so you should be allowed to hunt, but you don’t need fully automatics, armor piercing bullets, handguns and body armor to hunt. I mean, unless you’re hunting a poisonous, 20-foot deer, you don’t need these things. You shouldn’t have scatter guns either.

Well there you go, guns do really kill people, and you don’t need this stuff to hunt.

PS: "Charlton Heston is my president” (sarcasm)
Automatic weapons are already illegal. That's federal law. All rifles fire armor piercing bullets. Bullet proof vests that can stop a rifle bullet are too bulky for police work. Handguns are used in hunting. You obviously don't know what you are talking about please go away.

The two suspects were using assault weaponsOkay, it looks like these were real assault rifles...Not the same thing as what the assault weapons ban banned.
armor piercing bulletsEven a regular rifle bullet would penetrate most body armor.
heavy body armor...that made them "unable to move swiftly and with tactical flexibility and this hampered their ability to escape".
I mean, unless you’re hunting a poisonous, 20-foot deer, you don’t need these things.Would you believe me if I said there was an angry herd of them staring at me through a big window? :D
You shouldn’t have scatter guns either.Scatter gun=Shotgun?
Shotguns are also used in hunting and are the best firearm for self-defense.
Automatic weapons are already illegal.No, they're not. See post 15 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7024205&postcount=15).
All rifles fire armor piercing bullets.Although a rifle bullet will penetrate soft body armor, that doesn't make it an armor-piercing bullet.

If you allow assault weapons and part of your argument for them is this checks and balance BS, and this way the Gov knows they can’t get away with this or that. Then you stop too soon. The constitution that allows you to carry weapons was written when the most powerful weapon one man could carry was a rifle or pistol. So many civilians so armed could be a check against a tyrannical government. Now that is not true.
So if you want checks a balances etc then you must make it legal for every citizen to carry what ever weaponry is available to the armed forces. So they can have stingers, RPGs, battle back nukes, flame throwers etc etc. If not the checks and balance BS is exactly that.

I believe citizens deserve to own anything the government does, though WMDs i'm not too sure about... Perhaps maybe hydrogen cyanide gas for those who are sensible and not criminals.

I believe citizens deserve to own anything the government does, though WMDs i'm not too sure about... Perhaps maybe hydrogen cyanide gas for those who are sensible and not criminals.
Actually it's totaly legal to own cyanide. In fact they used to put sodium ferrocyanide in children's chemistry sets. Simply mix it with a strong acid and you get HCN

The problem with gun control is that the average civilian lacks access to protection from the people who use guns without care for other lives or to kill

Actually, you can own a fully automatic weapon in certain states in the USA legally by getting a class III permit and paying $10,000+ for an automatic weapon (Since post 1986 made automatic firearms are illegal for sale to civilians) almost no legally owned automatics are used for criminal activities either.

Now, about those guys with the assault weapons holding up the bank:

ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES that look like fully automatic ones... You do know what semiautomatic means, right? That means, one pull of the trigger=one shot.

Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated.

the problem with gun control is that the average civilian lacks access to protection from the people who use guns without care for other lives or to kill

Yes, this is true.

Look, If i so wanted to I could go around the corner and down the alley to talk to Guido the corner arms dealer and get myself a fully automatic G-3 and an M-79 grenade launcher. The reason I don't is because I am a law abiding citizen, but I am sure a criminal doesn't have those those same inhibitions I do.

If drug dealers can smuggle hundreds of tons of cocaine and heroin into the USA, what makes anyone think they couldn't smuggle hundreds of tons of guns and ammo in. Banning guns would only disarm law abiding citizens. They would be easy prey for any thug. Also, if people were disarmed, those who want to kill may resort to homemade bombs. Bombs kill much more indiscriminately than guns do. They can be made with a wide assortment of chemicals found in hardware stores, pharmacies, and garden shops. When I was a kid I made my own firecrackers out of homemade blackpowder. If a kid can mix up blackpowder from stuff he buys at the drugstore, a murderous adult can do the same.

Now, about those guys with the assault weapons holding up the bank:

ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES that look like fully automatic ones... You do know what semiautomatic means, right? That means, one pull of the trigger=one shot.The link says they used "both semi-automatic and full automatic", but yea, assault rifles aren't what the ban is about.

If drug dealers can smuggle hundreds of tons of cocaine and heroin into the USA, what makes anyone think they couldn't smuggle hundreds of tons of guns and ammo in. Banning guns would only disarm law abiding citizens. They would be easy prey for any thug. Also, if people were disarmed, those who want to kill may resort to homemade bombs. Bombs kill much more indiscriminately than guns do. They can be made with a wide assortment of chemicals found in hardware stores, pharmacies, and garden shops. When I was a kid I made my own firecrackers out of homemade blackpowder. If a kid can mix up blackpowder from stuff he buys at the drugstore, a murderous adult can do the same.


And who says people like me will give up my guns? Most of the people where I live would hold onto them.

Yes, this is true.

Look, If i so wanted to I could go around the corner and down the alley to talk to Guido the corner arms dealer and get myself a fully automatic G-3 and an M-79 grenade launcher. The reason I don't is because I am a law abiding citizen, but I am sure a criminal doesn't have those those same inhibitions I do.

well, now that those launcher mounts are legal, maybe it is time to take a trip around the corner

well, now that those launcher mounts are legal, maybe it is time to take a trip around the corner

The MOUNT is legal for civilians now, but those can be added with minimal work by a criminal.

And who says people like me will give up my guns? Most of the people where I live would hold onto them.
I'd keep mine as well. But I've never been _too_ law abiding. ;)

Actually, you can own a fully automatic weapon in certain states in the USA legally by getting a class III permit and paying $10,000+ for an automatic weapon (Since post 1986 made automatic firearms are illegal for sale to civilians) almost no legally owned automatics are used for criminal activities either.

Now, about those guys with the assault weapons holding up the bank:

ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES that look like fully automatic ones... You do know what semiautomatic means, right? That means, one pull of the trigger=one shot.

Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated.
Actualy, yo can get a kit for a Glock 19 (yes, a handgun) that converts it into full auto, and its legal (but you still need that expensive automatic weapons lisence), and a cop told me this (he's anti-assualt weapon ban). But I've never heard of a fully automatic Glock used in a crime before, but I've heard of many cases where a TEC-9 was used (that's banned), so its obviously easy enough for criminals to get their hands on weapons as it is. Besides, getting rid of the ban would probably have unforseen side effects, such as dumb criminals attempting to aquire the weapons legaly, and getting busted becuase of it.

And there's no way I'm getting rid of my guns without the feds bursting in the door (both my guns are semi-auto, hahahahahahaha).

The MOUNT is legal for civilians now, but those can be added with minimal work by a criminal.

I understand.

What I was doing was making fun of how ridiculous it is for the govt to think that a person who wasnts to have a grenade launcher w/grenades(illegal) would not do so simply because the mount for it is not allowed.

The ban says nothing of grenade launcher mounts -- just having a grenade launcher.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html

The ban says nothing of grenade launcher mounts -- just having a grenade launcher.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html


`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and

`
(v) a grenade launcher;


work on your reading comprehension skills

"Guns don’t kill people, people kill people"

A couple of years back in 97, in L.A, a bank was robbed. Now, Mistero should know about this, but it wasn’t a normal bank robbery. The two suspects were using assault weapons, armor piercing bullets and heavy body armor to rob the bank. The suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. Seven civilians, and eleven officers were wounded, thankfully no one was killed.

PS: "Charlton Heston is my president” (sarcasm)

you said it yourself "1,110 rounds from three fully automatic ak-47's" and guess what, no one was killed. that's a real good arguement for banning assault "weapons".

So you're telling us that military-grade assault weapons don't kill? And that's your defense against the weapons ban?

work on your reading comprehension skillsHmmm...
a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazineIt IS semiautomatic and CAN have a detachable magazine.
and has at least 2 of--It DOES have at least two of the following.
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppresserIf a line applies, it DOES have the item listed.
or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresserIt CAN have a flash suppresser if that line applies.
(v) a grenade launcher;It DOES have a grenade launcher if that line applies.

Note the "(v)" indicating the grenade launcher is not another item that a threaded barrel accommodates.

BTW, (I think) a grenade launcher's mount is part of the launcher, not the gun. If anyone has actually used one and knows for sure, please share your knowledge.

Yeah, I suppose the Chief of Police from one of the largest cities in the country made all that information up.

:rolleyes:

Stupidest thing I've read all night.

Nope, the Chief of Police of any large metropolitan area is a POLITICIAN first, and a law enforcement agent second.

Of course he's going to babble what the controlling party in the state want him to say.

He sure didn't know what the ban actually banned.

Only in semi automatic settings.

That is to say, on an AK-47, the three shot burst, and full auto settings, are usually disabled.
However, you can still rip off as many shells as you have in your clip, as fast as you can pull the trigger.

There is no reason the average citizen should have this weapon, or anything like it.

Okay, you need to start learning about what you are discussing. AK-47s don't have a three round burst.

The reason pointing that small item out is to try to get you to read up on what the guns actually can do (same with that ban), as opposed to either assuming you know, or assuming those that are telling you what they can do know what they are talking about.

You're making an uninformed decision. I'd rather see intelligence put to good use. I'm pretty sure you're probably a smart person, so I just want to see you use it when you argue--even if you're not on my side.

For all the people screaming the crime rates in the US are so low:

Is that:
a) because the police are more aggressive and punishments are more severe?
b) people own guns?

The hypocracy of anti-gunners is amazing. When you point out that guns kill fewer people than cars, and that nobody really needs a car (the government can provide public transportation) they still say that somehow cars are more legitimate than guns. Sometimes they say that cars are not designed for killing, but guns are. That's just plain bullshit. The guns sold to law abiding citizens are designed for hunting, target shooting, and home defense. They can be used to kill, like a car, but that isn't the purpose they are sold for. If they were really killing machines we would all own full auto M-14s.

A couple of years back in 97, in L.A, a bank was robbed. Now, Mistero should know about this, but it wasn’t a normal bank robbery. The two suspects were using assault weapons, armor piercing bullets and heavy body armor to rob the bank. The suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. Seven civilians, and eleven officers were wounded, thankfully no one was killed.

I got my info from...
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html


Here's the deal. All center-fire rifle rounds can penetrate most kevlar vests. The vests were designed to stop pistol fire. So, pretty much all hunting ammo is "armor piercing" when used in that sense.

The LAPD bungled that from the get-go. If they'd just called in a sniper in the first place, it would have been over in a couple of minutes.

The hypocracy of anti-gunners is amazing. When you point out that guns kill fewer people than cars, and that nobody really needs a car (the government can provide public transportation) they still say that somehow cars are more legitimate than guns. Sometimes they say that cars are not designed for killing, but guns are. That's just plain bullshit. The guns sold to law abiding citizens are designed for hunting, target shooting, and home defense. They can be used to kill, like a car, but that isn't the purpose they are sold for. If they were really killing machines we would all own full auto M-14s.
Government provides public transportation, but people are reluctant to use it.
Purposes of the gun:
1) hunting -> equals killing
2) target practice -> target what? right living things -> killing
3) home defence -> by shooting in the air or the walls? no, by shooting at the intruders/attackes -> killing

Question for Americans. Is it legal to get a 0.50 in (12.7mm) sniper rifle in US? I hear Arny in Calfornia has now banned them. As for why you need a sniper rifle using a military round, God knows ...

Government provides public transportation, but people are reluctant to use it.
Purposes of the gun:
1) hunting -> equals killing
2) target practice -> target what? right living things -> killing
3) home defence -> by shooting in the air or the walls? no, by shooting at the intruders/attackes -> killing
Government wants to take away guns but people are reluctant to give them up.
Hunting = killing animals. You know what I meant. Don't be a wise-ass.
Home defense = protecting one's own life or the lives of his family members.
Target practice = shooting at inanimate objects, like paper or steel targets.

Question for Americans. Is it legal to get a 0.50 in (12.7mm) sniper rifle in US? I hear Arny in Calfornia has now banned them. As for why you need a sniper rifle using a military round, God knows ...
Yes it's legal, but it's not cheap, and it's only of interest to people who have large ammounts of empty space around them to practice hitting a target at a thousand yards or so.

I find it really ironic that they're rolling back lots of civil rights and liberties cause they're afraid of terrorists among us, (not to mention using that as an excuse for just about anything they do,) ...but they didn't seem to *think twice* about *putting more assault weapons out on the market, making them cheaper, more available, and probably, harder to track.*

Umm... Hello?

Government wants to take away guns but people are reluctant to give them up.
Hunting = killing animals. You know what I meant. Don't be a wise-ass.
Home defense = protecting one's own life or the lives of his family members.
Target practice = shooting at inanimate objects, like paper or steel targets.
Government really wants to take away guns when they let a gun-restriction expire

- killing animals is still killing. it's alive *boom* it's dead. IT'S CALLED KILLING!!!
- PRACTICE for what? shooting the real stuff. Why do I practice making music? to perform
- it's good that you want to defend your house, but by putting a human being in danger?

Yes it's legal, but it's not cheap, and it's only of interest to people who have large ammounts of empty space around them to practice hitting a target at a thousand yards or so.

Thanks. Not quite the same as a BSA air rifle, but you gotta start somewhere.

Government really wants to take away guns when they let a gun-restriction expire

- killing animals is still killing. it's alive *boom* it's dead. IT'S CALLED KILLING!!!
- PRACTICE for what? shooting the real stuff. Why do I practice making music? to perform
- it's good that you want to defend your house, but by putting a human being in danger?
So human life is no more valuable than animal life in your eyes? In that case, I don't care about your opinion.
Practice is an end unto it's self. Shooting at the range is fun and challenging.
If a human breaks in to my house and threatens the lives of me and my friends/family I will gladly kill him. He has forfeited his right to live by trying to infringe on mine.

Government provides public transportation, but people are reluctant to use it.
Purposes of the gun:
1) hunting -> equals killing
2) target practice -> target what? right living things -> killing
3) home defence -> by shooting in the air or the walls? no, by shooting at the intruders/attackes -> killing

You're just choosing to see the very small scope you're using. You're not looking at the entire picture.

Yes, hunting generally results in the killing of something you eat.
Target practice that I've experienced had NO living targets.
Home defense. More people live from gunshot wounds than die.

You just automatically assume killing happens with every pull of the trigger. That's a false assumption.

Government really wants to take away guns when they let a gun-restriction expire

- killing animals is still killing. it's alive *boom* it's dead. IT'S CALLED KILLING!!!
- PRACTICE for what? shooting the real stuff. Why do I practice making music? to perform
- it's good that you want to defend your house, but by putting a human being in danger?

What kind of BS explination is that? Are you, by chance, vegan? Thats cool but it would explan your reaction to killing animals.
Of coure you would practice to hit someone. If they enter your house, you wnt to be sure to kill them and not your walls, lamps, or fridge.
Would you like people to defend their homes with.....wet pasta? Maybe a foam bat. If some SOB enters my house, sorry bout your luck.
FYI Most cops that I know say that IF you were to shoot a person breaking into your house, you better kill them. Otherwise you will get SUED by the ass who was breaking the law.
Since this country no longer has a stomache or a backbone to stand up to criminals, that is No Bueno.
Kill 'em all, let God sort them out ;)

You're just choosing to see the very small scope you're using. You're not looking at the entire picture.

Yes, hunting generally results in the killing of something you eat.
Target practice that I've experienced had NO living targets.
Home defense. More people live from gunshot wounds than die.

You just automatically assume killing happens with every pull of the trigger. That's a false assumption.
-You do not need a gun to eat meat! You can also just buy it in certain stores
-You've practiced on no living target, which is good. But you practice to what end? So you can shoot animals or humans
-Every bullet fired has the potential of being lethal. Whe you defend your house you will not bother to shoot the intruder in the shoulder, the knee or whatever other place that is not lethal. You will aim for the gut, the chest of the head. All hits are potential killers

I find it really ironic that they're rolling back lots of civil rights and liberties cause they're afraid of terrorists among us, (not to mention using that as an excuse for just about anything they do,) ...but they didn't seem to *think twice* about *putting more assault weapons out on the market, making them cheaper, more available, and probably, harder to track.*

Umm... Hello?

They didn't PUT anything out there. They didn't change anything. The ban was made to self-destruct. The NIJ proved that it didn't do a thing. The ban didn't do anything to reduce the already almost non-existent crime stat of committing a crime with an assault weapon.

This was designed WAY before the Patriot Act was.

What ever happened to cultural relativism? When someone on this forum condems the practice of sharia law in islamic societies he's promptly barraged with posts that say no one culture is superior to another, only different. America is a gun culture. We are a nation born in war, expanded through war on a wild continent tamed by hunters and frontiersmen. Guns are our national heritage. Still we are looked upon as backward rednecks by europeans who are quick to excuse all the excesses of abusive, repressive sharia laws.

What kind of BS explination is that? Are you, by chance, vegan? Thats cool but it would explan your reaction to killing animals.
Of coure you would practice to hit someone. If they enter your house, you wnt to be sure to kill them and not your walls, lamps, or fridge.
Would you like people to defend their homes with.....wet pasta? Maybe a foam bat. If some SOB enters my house, sorry bout your luck.
FYI Most cops that I know say that IF you were to shoot a person breaking into your house, you better kill them. Otherwise you will get SUED by the ass who was breaking the law.
Since this country no longer has a stomache or a backbone to stand up to criminals, that is No Bueno.
Kill 'em all, let God sort them out ;)
I'm not a vegan (or vegetarian): I'm anti-guns

Don't confront your intruders/attackers. That's the safest. You have insurance right? Why bother getting killed over a TV?

-You do not need a gun to eat meat! You can also just buy it in certain stores


Fine. In Wisconsin here, we have an overpopulated deer herd. To save lives and property (car accidents when deer go flying over the road), not to mention mass starvation of deer, we hunt to keep down the numbers. Good enough for you? Even if it isn't, too bad. I'd rather save some people from dying by an accidental death due to a deer crossing the road and give the deer a quick death as opposed to one of lengthy suffering, than live by whatever it is you have for a moral code.


-You've practiced on no living target, which is good. But you practice to what end? So you can shoot animals or humans


Actually, I practice for fun. I'm glad it would come in handy for a self defense situation, but I mostly do it for fun. I like the challenge of hitting a target at distance.


-Every bullet fired has the potential of being lethal. Whe you defend your house you will not bother to shoot the intruder in the shoulder, the knee or whatever other place that is not lethal. You will aim for the gut, the chest of the head. All hits are potential killers

Yes, you shoot for the center of mass, because that will end the confrontation the quickest. You shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. Again, check the stats--more people live than die when shot. Even in the gut.

If you ban target practice does that mean you ban shoot em up video games and paintball games aswell?

I'm not a vegan (or vegetarian): I'm anti-guns

Don't confront your intruders/attackers. That's the safest. You have insurance right? Why bother getting killed over a TV?

Because more and more, theives don't like being caught and are starting to have the penchant for making sure no one can ID them.

Fine. In Wisconsin here, we have an overpopulated deer herd. To save lives and property (car accidents when deer go flying over the road), not to mention mass starvation of deer, we hunt to keep down the numbers. Good enough for you? Even if it isn't, too bad. I'd rather save some people from dying and give the deer a quick death as opposed to one of lengthy suffering, than live by whatever it is you have for a moral code.

Actually, I practice for fun. I'm glad it would come in handy for a self defense situation, but I mostly do it for fun. I like the challenge of hitting a target at distance.

Yes, you shoot for the center of mass, because that will end the confrontation the quickest. You shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. Again, check the stats--more people live than die when shot. Even in the gut.
It's ok to own a gun because there are many deer? There are professionals who can keep the number of deers in check. You do not need the entire population to have a gun

Go and play golf, or tennis, or baseball. Buy a slingshot, throw rocks. Buy an air rifle. Do something less lethal.

You shoot to kill, for that is the way to stop them. Don't give me that shit. If you do not shoot to kill they will get you. So don't shoot. Intruders are humans too. They might have children depending on them.

What ever happened to cultural relativism? When someone on this forum condems the practice of sharia law in islamic societies he's promptly barraged with posts that say no one culture is superior to another, only different. America is a gun culture. We are a nation born in war, expanded through war on a wild continent tamed by hunters and frontiersmen. Guns are our national heritage. Still we are looked upon as backward rednecks by europeans who are quick to excuse all the excesses of abusive, repressive sharia laws.

I just want 'em to leave us alone. That would involve getting our military the hell out of the rest of the world and back where it belongs--within out borders.

-You do not need a gun to eat meat! You can also just buy it in certain stores
-You've practiced on no living target, which is good. But you practice to what end? So you can shoot animals or humans
-Every bullet fired has the potential of being lethal. Whe you defend your house you will not bother to shoot the intruder in the shoulder, the knee or whatever other place that is not lethal. You will aim for the gut, the chest of the head. All hits are potential killers
That meat is no less dead than if you had shot it yourself. Plus controling the population of White Tail Deer in most of the USA is vital. Since their natural predators are pushed out by human settlements the deer overpopulate and pose a hazard to nightime drivers, and also suffer from starvation and disease if the herds are not culled.
Some people just like to shoot targets. They get together with friends and compete. It's good clean fun.
I have stated before that if someone breaks into my house to harm me I will kill him. There's no moral problem with self-defense. I will shoot 2-3 rounds of 115 grain JHP +p into him center mass with the intention of making him very dead.

What ever happened to cultural relativism? When someone on this forum condems the practice of sharia law in islamic societies he's promptly barraged with posts that say no one culture is superior to another, only different. America is a gun culture. We are a nation born in war, expanded through war on a wild continent tamed by hunters and frontiersmen. Guns are our national heritage. Still we are looked upon as backward rednecks by europeans who are quick to excuse all the excesses of abusive, repressive sharia laws.

Thats always your excuse history? What about germany its got a very violent history, so has Britain, so has asia but still you've got 10x the gun murder rate than these countrys and u still use history as an excuse. I think Micheal Moore's theory in Bowling for Columbine was right.

Because more and more, theives don't like being caught and are starting to have the penchant for making sure no one can ID them.
what does this have to do with anything?

I'm not a vegan (or vegetarian): I'm anti-guns

Don't confront your intruders/attackers. That's the safest. You have insurance right? Why bother getting killed over a TV?
What if he just wants to rape your wife and daughter? Let it happen? At least he won't die right?

If you ban target practice does that mean you ban shoot em up video games and paintball games aswell?

Good point. Full Spectrum Warrior is based on the tactics training program the military recieves for their infantry.

Paintball can teach people how to shoot just as easily as a gun that shoots lead. What's to stop someone from filling the paintballs with acid, or some kind of poison gas?

Good point. Full Spectrum Warrior is based on the tactics training program the military recieves for their infantry.

Paintball can teach people how to shoot just as easily as a gun that shoots lead. What's to stop someone from filling the paintballs with acid, or some kind of poison gas?
erm... common sense, not being able to buy a gun, not being able to use a paintballgun outside arena's (leave them at the club).

And what's the range of a paintballgun? It's small. Acids will only work on bare skin and who own poison gas?

Thats always your excuse history? What about germany its got a very violent history, so has Britain, so has asia but still you've got 10x the gun murder rate than these countrys and u still use history as an excuse. I think Micheal Moore's theory in Bowling for Columbine was right.
See my previous posts. My excuse is that there are plenty of legitimate uses for guns. Just like cars. If society really wanted to both could be banned. Banning cars would save more lives. We keep cars because people want them. The same goes for guns.

erm... common sense, not being able to buy a gun, not being able to use a paintballgun outside arena's (leave them at the club).

And what's the range of a paintballgun? It's small. Acids will only work on bare skin and who own poison gas?

The paintball actually has quite a long range, and some acids could quite easily burn through the flimsy overalls they give you.

THAT MEANS THEY WANT TO KILL THE VICTIM, SO THEY CAN'T BE IDENTIFIED. I thought that was fairly obvious.

That's what it has to do with it. Insurance may cover death, but it can't bring you back. I'll take my chances with the pistol, thanks.
Don't they wear masks anymore?
Insurance on your TV? On Breaking-and-Entering? Or is there no such thing in the US?

THAT MEANS THEY WANT TO KILL THE VICTIM, SO THEY CAN'T BE IDENTIFIED. I thought that was fairly obvious.

That's what it has to do with it. Insurance may cover death, but it can't bring you back. I'll take my chances with the pistol, thanks.

Ermmm... I doubt many would go that far... a balaclava or ski mask would be a lot easier and less risky.

what does this have to do with anything?

THAT MEANS THEY WANT TO KILL THE VICTIM, SO THEY CAN'T BE IDENTIFIED. I thought that was fairly obvious.

That's what it has to do with it. Insurance may cover death, but it can't bring you back. I'll take my chances with the pistol, thanks.

The paintball actually has quite a long range, and some acids could quite easily burn through the flimsy overalls they give you.
ok... who has strong acid paintball pellets?

ok... who has strong acid paintball pellets?
Forget about paintballs. If you ban guns people who are inclined to kill may resort to pipe bombs. Explosives kill much more indescriminately than guns. Also criminals can smuggle guns and ammo in just as easily as they smuggle in cocaine and heroin.

It's ok to own a gun because there are many deer? There are professionals who can keep the number of deers in check. You do not need the entire population to have a gun


I don't know where the hell you live, but you don't know anything about wild herd animals in Wisconsin, that's for sure. We had a break out of Chronic Wasting Disease in our herds, and because the DNR DOESN'T have enough staff to go about taking enough deer down, they opened up another hunting season, so we could help out. Just because you think you know, doesn't mean you do.


Go and play golf, or tennis, or baseball. Buy a slingshot, throw rocks. Buy an air rifle. Do something less lethal.


I have yet to kill a person. Or even shoot at one. You think that just because someone even possesses a gun, that they're just going to go right out and shoot someone. What kind of LOGIC is that? That's emotional fear rulling your thought process.


You shoot to kill, for that is the way to stop them. Don't give me that shit. If you do not shoot to kill they will get you.


You can choose not to believe me. I'm telling you the truth. I would shoot to stop, not kill.

If you've seen footage and photos of people shot and still alive, they don't do what is done by the action hero in the movies. Go find real information--not fiction. If you're shot in the gut, you're not doing much of anything other than bleeding.


So don't shoot. Intruders are humans too. They might have children depending on them.

Any human that chooses to violate my space forfeits their potential future. Yeah, they're human, but I really don't value their existence all that much at that point in time. Just because they chose to have kids and chose to break into someone's house is not my fault, nor my responsibility. If they make the foolish decision, they live (or potentially die) with their actions. Blame the guy that's breaking into your house, not the tool used to stop the guy from committing the crime.

Forget about paintballs. If you ban guns people who are inclined to kill may resort to pipe bombs. Explosives kill much more indescriminately than guns. Also criminals can smuggle guns and ammo in just as easily as they smuggle in cocaine and heroin.
And where would you get a pipe bomb?
You can get a gun in many stores.
Slight difference

Ermmm... I doubt many would go that far... a balaclava or ski mask would be a lot easier and less risky.

You can doubt all you want, doesn't mean it's not happening.

You can doubt all you want, doesn't mean it's not happening.

You know what? That was unfair of me. I apologize, Abnor.

-You do not need a gun to eat meat! You can also just buy it in certain stores
-You've practiced on no living target, which is good. But you practice to what end? So you can shoot animals or humans.

Nobody cares about animals. Shut up about it.

Stupid hippies.


-Every bullet fired has the potential of being lethal. Whe you defend your house you will not bother to shoot the intruder in the shoulder, the knee or whatever other place that is not lethal. You will aim for the gut, the chest of the head. All hits are potential killers

You're damn right you go for the head or chest. You want the person who broke into your house down and out. He would most likely not think a second about shooting you for..what..a TV? Is your life really worth only a TV?

And where would you get a pipe bomb?
You can get a gun in many stores.
Slight difference

All the ingredients for a pipe bomb are at your local hardware store, in the US.

And where would you get a pipe bomb?
You can get a gun in many stores.
Slight difference
pipe bomb ingredients
Saltpeter
sulfur
charcoal
All available at your local independantly owned pharmacy

Hexamine tablets (used as fuel in boy scout stoves)
Citric acid (used in canning fruits and vegetables at home)
Strong solution of Hydrogen Peroxide (used to shock swimming pools sanitized with baquacil)

Potassium chlorate (found in matches)

Explosives are easy to make.

I don't know where the hell you live, but you don't know anything about wild herd animals in Wisconsin, that's for sure. We had a break out of Chronic Wasting Disease in our herds, and because the DNR DOESN'T have enough staff to go about taking enough deer down, they opened up another hunting season, so we could help out. Just because you think you know, doesn't mean you do.
Don't they have guns over at the DNR? Why does the average civilian need to have a gun? 'Cause every month there is a severe excess of deer?

I have yet to kill a person. Or even shoot at one. You think that just because someone even possesses a gun, that they're just going to go right out and shoot someone. What kind of LOGIC is that? That's emotional fear rulling your thought process.
I don't think they will shoot some one. THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO SHOOT ONE! What if you're in a big fight and you'd have a gun on you?

And you're saying I can't be afraid to get shot?
You can choose not to believe me. I'm telling you the truth. If you've seen footage and photos of people shot and still alive, they don't do what is done by the action hero in the movies. Go find real information--not fiction. If you're shot in the gut, you're not doing much of anything other than bleeding.
I know not all people die when they get shot, but all people COULD. You (and most gun carrying Americans) are not that good shots. You just hope you'll hit them right
Any human that chooses to violate my space forfeits their potential future. Yeah, they're human, but I really don't value their existence all that much at that point in time. Just because they chose to have kids and chose to break into someone's house is not my fault, nor my responsibility. If they make the foolish decision, they live (or potentially die) with their actions. Blame the guy that's breaking into your house, not the tool used to stop the guy from committing the crime.
You have the choice of letting him/her live or not. By shooting a gun at them, you drastically decrease their chances.

You have the choice of letting him/her live or not. By shooting a gun at them, you drastically decrease their chances.

Do you have anything besides hypothetical situations? Of course you CAN go and buy a gun, and you CAN load it with acid-filled armor-piercing exploding bullets, and you CAN just go out and shoot someone because they're not wearing the same color that you are, but how many people do?

Don't they have guns over at the DNR? Why does the average civilian need to have a gun? 'Cause every month there is a severe excess of deer?


Yes, they have guns at the DNR. They don't have the personel to manage a herd that is in the millions. Not every month. Every fall, more than anything. Spring, you get herds moving around as well.

You know my reasons for owning a gun already. I was explaining why it is necessary to hunt. Keep on topic, instead of using smoke and mirrors.


I don't think they will shoot some one. THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO SHOOT ONE! What if you're in a big fight and you'd have a gun on you?


You avoid fights--that's a logical perspective. Big fight? You get into those much? You seem to think that gun-owners are just dying to use the guns on someone and intentionally escalate bad situations. Another bad assumption.


And you're saying I can't be afraid to get shot?


Sure you can. You can even allow that fear to control your actions. You cannot, however allow your fear to attempt to control MY actions.


I know not all people die when they get shot, but all people COULD. You (and most gun carrying Americans) are not that good shots. You just hope you'll hit them right


All people could die from just about anything. Bad argument. We're not that good of shots--I'd love to see the proof of that. It's the police stats that are scary when shots are fired.


You have the choice of letting him/her live or not. By shooting a gun at them, you drastically decrease their chances.

Their chances drastically dropped the moment they broke in to my house. THEIR choice to take their lives for granted, by endangering others.

Do you have anything besides hypothetical situations? Of course you CAN go and buy a gun, and you CAN load it with acid-filled armor-piercing exploding bullets, and you CAN just go out and shoot someone because they're not wearing the same color that you are, but how many people do?
40% of all Americans own a gun

40% of all Americans own a gun
Aside from coming with a statistic out of a bodily orifice... I think this is a good thing.

40% of all Americans own a gun
Owning a gun doesn't make one a murderous criminal. Not owning one doesn't make one a non-violent law abiding citizen. Gun ownership is irrelevant to crime.

If you own an assault weapon you are much less safe if it is illegal.

Yes, they have guns at the DNR. They don't have the personel to manage a herd that is in the millions. Not every month. Every fall, more than anything. Spring, you get herds moving around as well.
You missed my point. Why would you have to own a gun if the proper authorities own guns. IF you want to hunt, rent a gun from DNR (or whatever).
You avoid fights--that's a logical perspective. Big fight? You get into those much? You seem to think that gun-owners are just dying to use the guns on someone and intentionally escalate bad situations. Another bad assumption.
No I don't get in fights at all. I've never been in a fight. I do not think you can't wait to use your gun. All I'm saying is you are morelikely to draw your gun, just because you have one.
Don't tell me you don't have emotional reactions on things.
Sure you can. You can even allow that fear to control your actions. You cannot, however allow your fear to attempt to control MY actions.
I am not letting fear control my discussion. I think you should not have a gun not because I'm afraid of you, but for you. By carrying a gun you increase you chances of getting killed or killing. Period. (ooh stats say otherwise... well other stats confirm this)
All people could die from just about anything. Bad argument. We're not that good of shots--I'd love to see the proof of that. It's the police stats that are scary when shots are fired.
Not a bad argument. What are my chances of being shot and still survive without being severely handicapped?
Their chances drastically dropped the moment they broke in to my house. THEIR choice to take their lives for granted, by endangering others.
Again: You'd kill over a TV?

Has anyone taken the time to read the current gun laws. If the police and arms dealers would just follow the current law we would not need to have this discussion.

40% of all Americans own a gun

And that means we're all going to go out and start shooting people?

What was the purpose of that stat?

If you own an assault weapon you are much less safe if it is illegal.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.

And that means we're all going to go out and start shooting people?

What was the purpose of that stat?
That there are 40% of all Americans able to shoot a gun at some one.

AGAIN: I'M NOT SAYING THEY WILL, THEY ARE JUST MORE LIKELY TO

Owning a gun doesn't make one a murderous criminal. Not owning one doesn't make one a non-violent law abiding citizen. Gun ownership is irrelevant to crime.

Especially since that stat is legal gun ownership, as opposed to illegal ownership.

I was quite pissed it didn't start raining AK-47's and Uzi's.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/Krazny13/M4gery.jpg

As you can see what my position is. . . (assembled at 12:01 am 9/13/04)


The AWB was a bullshit law, it didnt work, and now it is gone. And there won't be any huge surge in crime due the these firearms.

+1 to everyone who has spoken the truth and stood up for Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. *Hoists a pint*

That there are 40% of all Americans able to shoot a gun at some one.

AGAIN: I'M NOT SAYING THEY WILL, THEY ARE JUST MORE LIKELY TO

So, gun ownership somehow makes a person more likely to shoot at someone. Rather, responsible gun ownership means people are LESS likely to shoot another person because they are better informed.

A chef is less likely to cut himself with a knife, despite the fact he uses more of them, and more often than the avg housewife because he is better trained in their use.

So, gun ownership somehow makes a person more likely to shoot at someone. Rather, responsible gun ownership means people are LESS likely to shoot another person because they are better informed.

A chef is less likely to cut himself with a knife, despite the fact he uses more of them, and more often than the avg housewife because he is better trained in their use.
chef=trained professional
civilian with gun=untrained

bad analogy

chef=trained professional
civilian with gun=untrained

bad analogy
You are making the assumption that civilian with gun=untrained. Note I wrote responsible gun ownership.

That there are 40% of all Americans able to shoot a gun at some one.

AGAIN: I'M NOT SAYING THEY WILL, THEY ARE JUST MORE LIKELY TO

Oh...BAD. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's going to be used in all manners you find distasteful.

That's a VERY large gap in logic, Pirates.

There is nothing to say that anyone is more likely to do anything.

chef=trained professional
civilian with gun=untrained

bad analogy

I'm not trained? Wow...what was all that practice for, then? Oh well, might as well go kill myself.

You're the one with the faulty analogies. I AM trained. Just because I wasn't trained in a police academy doesn't mean I'm not trained.

Don't confront your intruders/attackers. That's the safest. You have insurance right? Why bother getting killed over a TV?Larceny is not the only reason for breaking into a house.
Go and play golf, or tennis, or baseball. Buy a slingshot, throw rocks. Buy an air rifle. Do something less lethal.Different people enjoy doing different things.
You shoot to kill, for that is the way to stop them. Don't give me that shit.To increase the probability of a hit, one may aim for the center of mass. Killing is not necessarily the objective when shooting in the area of vital organs.
If you do not shoot to kill they will get you.If the person is incapacitated, (s)he can't do that.
What are my chances of being shot and still survive without being severely handicapped?
I'll add a quote about survival without being severely handicapped if I find one. Until then, here are some quotes that don't handle the handicap part of your question.
It is estimated that in the US, there are about 190,000 injuries per year relating to gunshot wounds (suicidal, homicidal, or accidental). Overall, about 20% of these cases are fatal. Gunshot wounds to the heart are among the most serious, with an overall mortality rate of about 70-80%. On a more positive note, of people with gunshot wounds to the heart who arrive at the hospital with signs of life, there is a survival rate of 70-90%.
[...]patients with penetrating gunshot wounds of the abdomen causing visceral or vascular injuries [...] The overall survival rate for the series was 88.3%
[...] patients with penetrating gunshot wounds of the abdomen [...] without vascular injuries [...] the survival rate was 97.3%.
The mortality rate from gunshot wounds to the brain is now at about 35%, leaving a large population of survivors of violent injuries with potentially devastating, lifelong disabilities.

I just saw: class of 1999. :D How cool would that be if it would become reality? :cool: