NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

Not quite, but some famous and prominent outdoorsman has had his career destroyed by gun enthusiasts for questioning the need and want for assault rifles. It becomes apparent that gun "enthusiasts" are nothing more than "gun fanatics" extending the size of their wangs with their rifle caliber and firing rate.

Questioning the ownership and need for ownership of assault rifles is, according to the NRA (National Rifle man-gun-love Association), is threatening the right to own any sort of gun (and has convinced a bunch of other people who think they have small dicks to think the same way). And that is exactly what they are saying about Jim Zumbo. Don't believe me? "Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."

If anything this "grassroots passion" only shows how unstable, incredulous, and borderline insane the gun lobby and gun enthusiast group is. They destroy the career of a man who has been a NRA member for 40 years, and not a small one, and a famous outdoorsman because he questioned the need and want for assault rifles. (And I'm pretty sure he, as a 40 year member of the NRA, knows guns so Myrmidonisia, Deep Kimchi puppets, and anyone else, you can take your pissing and moaning about semantics of firearm definitions elsewhere.)

I fully support the ownership of guns, for both hunting and personal protection. Assault weapons however, are excessive in both of those cases. You don't need an AK-47 to kill a deer, or to protect your house.

I agree that using assault weapons to go hunting is more than a bit absurd. It's not even sporting.

I agree that using assault weapons to go hunting is more than a bit absurd. It's not even sporting.

I never saw the point to being sporting when hunting. If you actually have to hunt for food because you have no other food source--which is the only reason you'd catch me hunting--why take the risk? Why not just make it as easy as possible for yourself?

That said, I don't see a point to having assault weapons for hunting either. And to think I was considering joining the NRA...

Interestingly enough, in my decade plus of hunting, I've never seen anyone using anything more "Assault Weapony" than an M14.

Interestingly enough, in my decade plus of hunting, I've never seen anyone using anything more "Assault Weapony" than an M14.

So basically it's an excuse to indulge in the sheer joy of owning a weapon that could destroy things much more effectively than a pistol or a hunting rifle*?


*Not implying I would actually delight in such a thing.

I fully support the ownership of guns, for both hunting and personal protection. Assault weapons however, are excessive in both of those cases. You don't need an AK-47 to kill a deer, or to protect your house.

I disagree, since I use a semiautomatic Romanian WASR-1 AK variant to protect my house.

So basically it's an excuse to indulge in the sheer joy of owning a weapon that could destroy things much more effectively than a pistol or a hunting rifle*?


*Not implying I would actually delight in such a thing.

A hunting rifle can take many forms. Anything from a 18th century black powder smoothbore musket to the most modern things that Remington puts out. It's all a matter of personal opinon. Some people want to get more out of a hunt.

I disagree, since I use a semiautomatic Romanian WASR-1 AK variant to protect my house.

Oh you CAN use an assault weapon, but I was arguing that it is excessive to do so. A 12-gauge shotgun will do for home protection, unless your neighborhood cat burgler wears body armor and packs a mac-10.

A hunting rifle can take many forms. Anything from a 18th century black powder smoothbore musket to the most modern things that Remington puts out. It's all a matter of personal opinon. Some people want to get more out of a hunt.

Fair enough. I am, after all, a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I do, however, think there should be a sensible limit on the level of firearms. Assault weaponry pushes the line. When it comes to lowering crime commited with firearms, though, I prefer ammunition control over gun control. Makes more sense, as that gun is as useful as jack without bullets.

If there is a seller and a buyer and they can agree on a price then let there be trade.

It's true you don't need an fully automatic assault weapon to hunt but it sure does make things a lot easier and a bit more fun.;)

An assault weapon is simply a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name, appearance, or design to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. The problem with this is that a gun doesn't need to look pretty or have a fancy name to kill you.

Oh you CAN use an assault weapon, but I was arguing that it is excessive to do so. A 12-gauge shotgun will do for home protection, unless your neighborhood cat burgler wears body armor and packs a mac-10.

A 12 gauge loaded with 00 Buckshot is going to create a lot of collateral damage.

I fully support the ownership of guns, for both hunting and personal protection. Assault weapons however, are excessive in both of those cases. You don't need an AK-47 to kill a deer, or to protect your house.

One would think an argument like that would be logical, but there are still those among us who feel the need to protect their homes with a Barrett (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn02-e.htm).

So basically it's an excuse to indulge in the sheer joy of owning a weapon that could destroy things much more effectively than a pistol or a hunting rifle*?


*Not implying I would actually delight in such a thing.

Ridiculous, right? One cannot dismiss legitimate collectors however, and guys like myself who simply enjoy the history and engineering behind guns.

I mean, I really have no desire to own a firearm, but I still marvel at anything that can efficiently blow a couple of cinderblocks to peices...must be a guy thing...

Fair enough. I am, after all, a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I do, however, think there should be a sensible limit on the level of firearms. Assault weaponry pushes the line. When it comes to lowering crime commited with firearms, though, I prefer ammunition control over gun control. Makes more sense, as that gun is as useful as jack without bullets.

Why does everyone have such a fear of "Assault Weapons"?

EDIT: I'm so going to regret asking this...

Why does everyone have such a fear of "Assault Weapons"?

Maybe because they're created exclusively to inflict mass carnage?

Maybe because they're created exclusively to inflict mass carnage?

All firearms are designed to inflict wounds.

All firearms are designed to inflict wounds.

Agreed, but shotguns and rifles are intended to wound/kill animals in a hunting context, whereas automatic weapons are intended to wound/kill humans in a war context.

I mean, I really have no desire to own a firearm, but I still marvel at anything that can efficiently blow a couple of cinderblocks to peices...must be a guy thing...

Are you kidding? I understand that feeling completely! Hell, I have fun blowing stuff up in video games all the time.

However, I find destruction in real life to not be so pleasant, especially the violent kind that harms and/or kills people. The problem I see is that assault weapons kill people just a wee bit too easily. It's not gun collectors I fear. It's those who might steal said gun and use it against people indiscriminately, or those without a criminal record who buy said gun to use in such a manner.

That said, I do know that banning such weapons won't do a damned thing to stop black market purchases, which is why I support ammunition control over gun control. I simply think that assault weaponry should at least be much more difficult to buy, if only to ensure that those who really would not go on a shooting spree could buy them legally without a lot of trouble, and those that want them for the sake of collecting can still enjoy that weapon in their collection.

Agreed, but shotguns and rifles are intended to wound/kill animals in a hunting context, whereas automatic weapons are intended to wound/kill humans in a war context.

Ah, so we fear "Assault Weapons" because of the context of their creation?

All firearms are designed to inflict wounds.

Ach! There's the rub!

Personally, I find ANY weapon, let alone something that can mow down a small mob, in the hands of Mr. Kegger who bought it over the counter a LITTLE bit disconcerting.

My point: We need to make sure the right kind of people are allowed to own weapons. To that end: Background checks. And crackdowns on illegal sales.

Ah hell, lets just go back to swords. Things were so much simpler when everyone just had a sword.

Are you kidding? I understand that feeling completely! Hell, I have fun blowing stuff up in video games all the time.

However, I find destruction in real life to not be so pleasant, especially the violent kind that harms and/or kills people. The problem I see is that assault weapons kill people just a wee bit too easily. It's not gun collectors I fear. It's those who might steal said gun and use it against people indiscriminately, or those without a criminal record who buy said gun to use in such a manner.

That said, I do know that banning such weapons won't do a damned thing to stop black market purchases, which is why I support ammunition control over gun control. I simply think that assault weaponry should at least be much more difficult to buy, if only to ensure that those who really would not go on a shooting spree could buy them legally without a lot of trouble, and those that want them for the sake of collecting can still enjoy that weapon in their collection.


I ask when the last time someone stole an "assault weapon" and went on a shooting spree?

If you go back and look at the statistics, you will find that "assault weapons", and longarms in general, are very rarely used in crimes.

Ah, so we fear "Assault Weapons" because of the context of their creation?

I fear them for what their intended purpose is.

Maybe because they're created exclusively to inflict mass carnage?
Let's get one thing straight here, assault weapons are semi-automatic weapons that look like or have similar names to fully automatic or military weapons. All weapons are created for the exclusive purpose of inflicting carnage or can be modified to do so. We are fragile creatures and there's a lot that can kill us.

My point: We need to make sure the right kind of people are allowed to own weapons. To that end: Background checks. And crackdowns on illegal sales.



All purchasers go through an instant backround check. The big issue is people legaly buying firearms, and selling them illegaly on the street.

Let's get one thing straight here, assault weapons are semi-automatic weapons that look like or have similar names to fully automatic or military weapons. All weapons are created for the exclusive purpose of inflicting carnage or can be modified to do so. We are fragile creatures and there's a lot that can kill us.

I thought assault weapons were fully-automatic military weapons....

I fear them for what their intended purpose is.

As opposed to a handgun, shotgun, musket that will kill you just as dead?

Every weapon is designed to kill.

I thought assault weapons were fully-automatic military weapons....

Totally wrong. But don't feel bad. It's a very common misconception. Fully automatic weapons can only be legally acquired with a Level III FFL, which costs several thousand dollars and is, in practice, available only to ex law enforcement or ex military.

I thought assault weapons were fully-automatic military weapons....
Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon)
Assault weapons vs. Automatic weapons
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain, mostly cosmetic features associated with military or police firearms.


What you were thinking of are assault rifles and there is a world of difference.

All purchasers go through an instant backround check. The big issue is people legaly buying firearms, and selling them illegaly on the street.

*Ahem* Good...

*Goes off to do something that he actually knows how to do*

I say again comrades...SWORDS!

Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon).

What you were thinking of are assault rifles and there is a world of difference.

Indeed, I don't have a problem with assault weapons, provided a background check is required for anyone buying one.

Indeed, I don't have a problem with assault weapons, provided a background check is required for anyone buying one.

A backround check is required for anyone buying any firearm. From the big .50 cals down to the little .22s.

I ask when the last time someone stole an "assault weapon" and went on a shooting spree?

If you go back and look at the statistics, you will find that "assault weapons", and longarms in general, are very rarely used in crimes.

I question how much influance recent assault weapon bans have had on these statistics before using them to completely deflate my argument. We should research that.

I do have a question for you: do you support the limitation of ammunition as a way to attempt to control violent crime commited with firearms?

Bolol: How about a staff six feet long, made out of the toughest wood in the world(that's some kind of oak, right?)...WITH STEEL BLADES ON BOTH ENDS! :D

I do have a question for you: do you support the limitation of ammunition as a way to attempt to control violent crime commited with firearms?
Would you support it if the government could use it to stop open rebellion sparked by intrusive and oppressive policies?

I question how much influance recent assault weapon bans have had on these statistics before using them to completely deflate my argument. We should research that.

The "Assault Weapons Ban" did not ban assault weapons, oddly enough. The newly imported ones just had to be modified so they didn't have certain, largely cosmetic, features. During the ban, it was still extremely easy to legally acquire a "Assault Weapon"


I do have a question for you: do you support the limitation of ammunition as a way to attempt to control violent crime commited with firearms?


No I do not. I favor more police funding for specialized anti-illegal firearms teams to get illegal firearms off the streets and jail weapons runners.

Bolol: How about a staff six feet long, made out of the toughest wood in the world(that's some kind of oak, right?)...WITH STEEL BLADES ON BOTH ENDS! :D
What do you mean by that? Are we talking a quarterstaff with small blades at the ends or two full swords joined at the hilt? What size and style of blades are we talking about? Spearhead, spatha, katana, cutlass...

Would you support it if the government could use it to stop open rebellion sparked by intrusive and oppressive policies?

I can see why that would obviously be a bad thing, but come on: if you tried to use that argument for everything, you'd dismantle society completely.

Unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, in which case you're okay with that.

Frankly, I would still support a limit to ammunition.

South Islands: May I ask why you do not support any such limitations? Mere curiosity, I assure you.

I can see why that would obviously be a bad thing, but come on: if you tried to use that argument for everything, you'd dismantle society completely.
Fine with me.

South Islands: May I ask why you do not support any such limitations? Mere curiosity, I assure you.

I question how it would be executed. How do you limit ammunition so that only the good guys get them?

That, and ammo is pretty easy to smuggle. Probably easier than Firearms. And it only takes one bullet for a gang member in chicago to kill someone.

What do you mean by that? Are we talking a quarterstaff with small blades at the ends or two full swords joined at the hilt? What size and style of blades are we talking about? Spearhead, spatha, katana, cutlass...

Basically a quarterstaff with blades. The blades should be small in size, though shaped like broadsword blades. Think something like the Ultima Weapon from Final Fantasy IX, Zidane's strongest thief sword.

Basically a quarterstaff with blades. The blades should be small in size, though shaped like broadsword blades. Think something like the Ultima Weapon from Final Fantasy IX, Zidane's strongest thief sword.

It would make one..erm, killer kitchen knife.

Oh, my sides.

And it only takes one bullet for a gang member in chicago to kill someone.
If they're a sniper, sure. But how dangerous is a single bullet in a drive by or other gang shooting? As dangerous as any other, but far less dangerous than, say, 10 or 20 fired from a semi-auto.

I question how it would be executed. How do you limit ammunition so that only the good guys get them?

That, and ammo is pretty easy to smuggle. Probably easier than Firearms. And it only takes one bullet for a gang member in chicago to kill someone.

...Honestly? I have no clue. I've not exactly educated myself in the ways of smuggling prevention. All I know is that trying to prevent guns from being smuggled everywhere is useless, while ammunition control at least suggests something of a reduction.

Also, hah hah on the kitchen knife comment. I'm serious. I fully intend to have such a weapon made for me when I finally get the chance.

...

You know, it occurs to me...what if we subsidized the distribution of violent video games to those who have violent tendencies and/or get excited by violence? In other words, the ones who would be likely to commit violent crimes if they had no safe way to expunge their urges. There's an idea to consider, since violent crime has gone down sharply since the introduction of such video games, like Doom.

Personally, I think everyone should go hunting with .50 caliber bullets. Make sure that deer is not just dead, but fucking blown to bits. *nod*

No idea who "Zumbo" is or was, but the NRA's statement:

"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."

..sounds reasonable enough to me.

If they're a sniper, sure. But how dangerous is a single bullet in a drive by or other gang shooting? As dangerous as any other, but far less dangerous than, say, 10 or 20 fired from a semi-auto.

The drive-by is out.. the walk-up is today's trendy new thing. The kill rate is far, far better and efficiency in general is way up, according to one of my old professors, who's also a prison warden. In any case, you'd want an automatic for a drive-by, I'd think.

Personally, I think everyone should go hunting with .50 caliber bullets. Make sure that deer is not just dead, but fucking blown to bits. *nod*

But then all that nice delicious Venison goes to waste. :(

But then all that nice delicious Venison goes to waste. :(

Aye, and the point to any hunting is to eat the animal, along with using every single bit of the animal for something, or else you're wasting it.

Aye, and the point to any hunting is to eat the animal, along with using every single bit of the animal for something, or else you're wasting it.

Exactly.

It's too bad that more hunters don't do that. :(

*wishes he had some venison sausage*

Exactly.

It's too bad that more hunters don't do that. :(

*wishes he had some venison sausage*

Yes, well, I regret it even more so, especially as I live in prime hunting country and we have a lot of sport hunters. Of course, I know we have to allow sport hunting because otherwise the deer and elk will overpopulate...but still, it irks me that parts of the deer and elk are wasted. I'm not exactly a person who insists on being one with nature--though that's not a bad thing--but I do like efficiency, as wasting part of an animal you've hunted is inefficient.

Yes, well, I regret it even more so, especially as I live in prime hunting country and we have a lot of sport hunters. Of course, I know we have to allow sport hunting because otherwise the deer and elk will overpopulate...but still, it irks me that parts of the deer and elk are wasted. I'm not exactly a person who insists on being one with nature--though that's not a bad thing--but I do like efficiency, as wasting part of an animal you've hunted is inefficient.

Me too. I hunt because it's a challenge, a one on one duel with a deer. And, dispite my rifle and my brains, I lose alot. And when I win, it really feels good. And, to me, it isn't sporting just to waste the animal you killed. It's almost like you're disrespecting the spirit of the animal. I know it sounds odd, but many real hunters feel the same. That's why alot of hunters really hate these people using treestands and scent maskers and calls. It just isn't a challenge.

This makes me think of the guy about two years ago here who seriously claimed that he needed a sniper rifle to hunt birds. I don't know why, but a poster here seriously claimed that once.

This makes me think of the guy about two years ago here who seriously claimed that he needed a sniper rifle to hunt birds. I don't know why, but a poster here seriously claimed that once.

A sniper rifle? To hunt birds? That's excessive. Just put a scope on a regular hunting rifle. You get the same result.

A sniper rifle? To hunt birds? That's excessive. Just put a scope on a regular hunting rifle. You get the same result.

It was either a sniper rifle or an assault rifle. Whatever it was, it was utterly ludicrous, since the weaponry he claimed to need would pretty much destroy the entire bird.

A sniper rifle? To hunt birds? That's excessive. Just put a scope on a regular hunting rifle. You get the same result.

There really isn't that much difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle. Aside from the Barretts that take .50 BMG. Those are just ludicrous.

It was either a sniper rifle or an assault rifle. Whatever it was, it was utterly ludicrous, since the weaponry he claimed to need would pretty much destroy the entire bird.

That's just disgusting.

South Islands: Really? Here I would have thought sniper rifles were designed for their specific purpose, in that they were made to be hidden easily, easily disassembled and assembled for transportation, and completely silent. Or I've been watching too many movies.

South Islands: Really? Here I would have thought sniper rifles were designed for their specific purpose, in that they were made to be hidden easily, easily disassembled and assembled for transportation, and completely silent. Or I've been watching too many movies.

Lol, sorry, but you have been watching too many movies.

http://images.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_Rifles_3.jpg

These are standard issue sniper rifles for the US Military.

http://www.hunting-rifles.com/images/rifle600.JPG

These are examples of typical hunting rifles.

As you can see, they are very similar.

Well that's odd...you'd think there would be a difference apart from paint colour...maybe the exterior is similiar but the interior is different? This confuses me.

Well that's odd...you'd think there would be a difference apart from paint colour...maybe the exterior is similiar but the interior is different? This confuses me.

No. A bolt action rifle is a simple design, largely unchanged in a hundred years. I know it's odd, but a hunting rifle can be a target rifle, and vise versa.

Hey pa!! I'm gonna go out huntin' fer some squirell!

OK Bubba, what you gonna take wit you?

Ma M Two Fordy-Nine Squad AutoMatic Weapon!

Hahaaarrr that's my boy! Get out daer 'n put some food on the table!


Idiots. What in fuck's name is happening to free speech? Even our own citizens don't care about it anymore. That man did nothing wrong. Oh God.....

I mean having a gun is cool and all, you know for a collection or going out once in a while to fire it at a shooting range, but you don't need a gun that can put a round through a cement block at 900 rpm to take out a deer or poor beaver.....

IT'S A FUCKING GUN!!
who cares?!! [/rant]

Oh you CAN use an assault weapon, but I was arguing that it is excessive to do so. A 12-gauge shotgun will do for home protection, unless your neighborhood cat burgler wears body armor and packs a mac-10.

Yeah they do, Compton LA....City of Compton, City of Compton.

IT'S A FUCKING GUN!!
who cares?!! [/rant]

People who like guns and are interested in guns and/or weaponry in general?

People who like guns and are interested in guns and/or weaponry in general?

Or, alternatively, people that seek to take away other people's ability to possess firearms.

Or, alternatively, people that seek to take away other people's ability to possess firearms.

Most gun control advocates don't hate the guns, they hate the crimes commited with them. Only a few are hardcore gun haters(like my sister, though she has many valid reasons, such as this tragic event at our school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platte_Canyon_High_School_shooting) as the girl who died was her best friend). Just remember that, South Islands. I've seen many defenders of the second amendment get too worked up about it and start accusing everyone of hating guns and generally going nutso, and it's not pretty. ('Course that can happen with any issue, really, but that's beside the point.)

Most gun control advocates don't hate the guns, they hate the crimes commited with them. Only a few are hardcore gun haters(like my sister, though she has many valid reasons, such as this tragic event at our school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platte_Canyon_High_School_shooting)as the girl who died was her best friend). Just remember that, South Islands. I've seen many defenders of the second amendment get too worked up about it and start accusing everyone of hating guns and generally going nutso, and it's not pretty. ('Course that can happen with any issue, really, but that's beside the point.)

You would be suprised.

The big issue is people legaly buying firearms, and selling them illegaly on the street.

This could be solved by having periodic checks to ensure that the person who bought the gun still has it, or if having sold it legally, kept receipts. Or was lost of course.

But how many gun owners would agree to periodic checks of this sort?

This could be solved by having periodic checks to ensure that the person who bought the gun still has it, or if having sold it legally, kept receipts. Or was lost of course.

But how many gun owners would agree to periodic checks of this sort?

I would, if I owned a gun.

Mmm, eh.

So he's a 40-year member of the NRA.

Big.

Effing.

Deal.

Michael Moore is a life member of the NRA too.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/18603-2/safetyban.jpg

*snip*
Um...wouldn't this make the remaining firearms a lot more dangerous potentially to the users and thus make using guns to defend oneself from others less of a choice and thus harm law-abiding citizens a lot more than it would harm criminals?

I live in the UK and over here ownership of any gun, save shotguns and rifles for hunting, is illegal. If you do want to own a hunting weapon there is a very strict police checking procedure to go through and extremely tough penalties for mis-using one. I think the law over here makes much more sense than the US gun laws. If you own a handgun to defend your home then it is just more likely that anyone trying to break in will be armed. And then when the police arrive who are also armed there is a very high likelyhood of someone leaving the scene in a bodybag. As for assault rifles, they are designed for use by the military in combat situations, not for hunting deer. I'm not saying that there is no gun crime in Britain but there is much less over here than in the US.

I agree with Ishkebar. We don't want an arms race of criminals and other people. In defence of homes in the UK the handy improvised frying pan and other implements are enough

I live in the UK and over here ownership of any gun, save shotguns and rifles for hunting, is illegal. If you do want to own a hunting weapon there is a very strict police checking procedure to go through and extremely tough penalties for mis-using one.

Which is sort of the problem in the USA, dare it be a stero type but, it would appear that a lot of the harcore gun owneres (whatever that might be) seem to be rather anti government too. So implementing a system of government checks be that federal, state or county wide would prove tricky to implement.

I think that is half the problem with any debate on gun owership it is so polarised that there is often a lot of heat in the arguements but very little light.

I agree with Ishkebar. We don't want an arms race of criminals and other people. In defence of homes in the UK the handy improvised frying pan and other implements are enough

Cricket bat mate, shorter and more swingable :)

I live in the UK and over here ownership of any gun, save shotguns and rifles for hunting, is illegal. If you do want to own a hunting weapon there is a very strict police checking procedure to go through and extremely tough penalties for mis-using one. I think the law over here makes much more sense than the US gun laws. If you own a handgun to defend your home then it is just more likely that anyone trying to break in will be armed. And then when the police arrive who are also armed there is a very high likelyhood of someone leaving the scene in a bodybag. As for assault rifles, they are designed for use by the military in combat situations, not for hunting deer. I'm not saying that there is no gun crime in Britain but there is much less over here than in the US.

What's the rate of violent crime commited with firearms there compared to our own rate? I'm curious as to whether there is a correlation between the rates in some way or not.

Um...wouldn't this make the remaining firearms a lot more dangerous potentially to the users and thus make using guns to defend oneself from others less of a choice and thus harm law-abiding citizens a lot more than it would harm criminals?

Give this man his interweb.

Quite interesting topic I read on the news before last year, about the problem of deactivated "antique" guns being sold at Military shows such as the War and Peace Show down in England, then reactivated via special dealers with the essential parts.
Here included is some current and proposed legislation on Anti-gun measures in Britain.

A BBC News investigation showing how decommissioned guns can be bought and reactivated has highlighted the threat that replica and deactivated firearms can pose on the streets.
The government has tightened legislation in recent years to reclassify realistic replicas alongside genuine firearms and to restrict the use of weapons capable of conversion.


Current and proposed legislation governing possession and use of firearms (with maximum penalties) includes:


FIREARMS - GENERAL
GUN CRIME FACTS 2004/5

Half the 22,789 firearms offences involved air weapons
Total firearms offences fell 5%
Imitation-firearm offences rose 55%
5,358 people were injured in gun crimes
Almost half the 78 firearm deaths involved handguns
Firearms were used in just 0.4% of all crimes
44% of firearm offences ended in cautions
Source: Home Office (Eng/Wales)

Possession of firearm with intent to endanger life: Life/unlimited fine

Possessing or distributing prohibited weapon or ammunition: 10 years/unlimited fine (min: five years)

Prohibited firearms: Machine guns, sub-machine guns, most self-loading rifles, short-barrelled "assault shotguns" and stun guns

Licensable firearms and shotguns: Include most hunting and target-shooting high-powered air rifles and muzzle-loading pistols, and most long-barrelled shotguns used for vermin control and recreational shooting






IMITATION WEAPONS

Police are concerned at how realistic replica guns are

Carrying firearm or imitation with intent to commit indictable offence: Life/unlimited fine

Carrying imitation in public place: Being extended from six to 12 months in Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Selling imitation firearm to person under 18: To become offence under Violent Crime Reduction Bill, currently before the House of Lords

Manufacture/import/sell realistic imitations: The bill also seeks to make these offences


FIREARMS CONVERSION

Converting a firearm/shortening a shotgun: Seven years/unlimited fine

Possession of a replica rifle capable of conversion to fire live ammunition: Regarded as a genuine firearm and requires relevant certificate




AIR WEAPONS



Possession of self-contained air cartridge gun without certificate: 10 years (min: five years)

Carrying an imitation or air gun in public: Now an offence to do so without lawful authority or reasonable excuse

Manufacture/sell/purchase/ transfer/acquire weapon using self-contained gas cartridge system: Now an offence

*snip bullshit*
Apparently my warning drove off all but the most dedicated numbskulls.

. Zumbo helped establish the NRA's Great American Hunting Tour by appearing at the first program in l987. Since then, he has appeared in more than 70 cities with the NRA and other show producers. [...]
Professionally, he was chairman of the New York State Metropolitan Chapter of the Society of American Foresters, president of the Utah Chapter of The Wildlife Society, a two term Board member of the Outdoor Writer's Association of America, and served seven years on The Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF). He is a Professional Member of the Boone and Crockett Club, currently serves on board of the US Sportsmen's Alliance, and also serves again on the RMEF board.
I'm pretty sure he is highly aware of what are classified as assault rifles and your continued bullshit just reenforces my first post about fanatacism.

You could care less about the right to own guns than the right to extend your wang size. Which is the only logical way all this fanatacism and bullshit overreaction can be explained when people question the need for weapons without practical uses.

Apparently my warning drove off all but the most dedicated numbskulls.



Are you implying I'm a numbskull?



You could care less about the right to own guns than the right to extend your wang size.

Ugh.

You know, I wonder why I bother. I'm outta this thread.

Owning guns should be like owning anything else. It's nobodies business but your own. It's like owning an iPod.

Owning guns should be like owning anything else. It's nobodies business but your own. It's like owning an iPod.

Would you support it if the government could use it to stop open rebellion sparked by intrusive and oppressive policies?

I know you guys all have that Red Rock or Red Dawn whatever fantasy floating in your head, but you all need to face it sooner or later-that ship sailed.

Even if they suddenly let you buy any rifle you wanted, they have more.

Let it go.

Owning guns should be like owning anything else. It's nobodies business but your own. It's like owning an iPod.

What about owning a car? Shouldn't that be like owning anything else? Its nobodies business but your own right, no need for licenses, registration or age limit?

Owning guns should be like owning anything else. It's nobodies business but your own. It's like owning an iPod.

The rather obvious difference being that you are not likely to go on a killing spree with your iPod or hold me up with it.

"Give me all your money or I'll play that Linkin Park song again!"

The rather obvious difference being that you are not likely to go on a killing spree with your iPod or hold me up with it.

"Give me all your money or I'll play that Linkin Park song again!"

If someone said that I'd cough up all the money straight away

Owning guns should be like owning anything else. It's nobodies business but your own. It's like owning an iPod.

An iPod that can cause death.

(Well it can, but not by itself.)

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/18603-2/safetyban.jpg

Note that only one of those bothers to say how it makes it safer. The rest point out how it makes it easier to use, which isn't safer.

If you are opposed to restrictions on weapons designed to kill multiple humans, you shouldn't care if anyone can get a nuke if they want to.

Note that only one of those bothers to say how it makes it safer. The rest point out how it makes it easier to use, which isn't safer.

To be fair, they do make the weapon safer for the one using it. The problem is that they also make it much more unsafe for the people it's being used on in the process.

To be fair, they do make the weapon safer for the one using it. The problem is that they also make it much more unsafe for the people it's being used on in the process.

I mainly took issue because it didn't bother to explain why they made it safer.

Also, isn't the rifle in the picture an assault rifle? Those are as close to banned as can be without being banned.

One of the troubles with semiauto weapons is that they can very easily and cheaply be converted back to full auto. Just look online for conversion kits. There was a recent scare here in my hometown about some local neonazis or some such who got there hands on some semi versions of auto weapons that had even had their barrels plugged and managed to convert them back to full auto weapons. Fortunately, the police got their hands on them before they could get any ammo, but still the prospect is frightening.

Of course, the black market is equally worrisome--there was a meth dealer who somehow bought himself a .50-cal heavy machine gun, the kind they mount on the back of trucks and use to shoot down low-flying aircraft. He also had a few full-auto military-grade assault rifles and a whole bunch of other highly powerful (and illegal) weapons, as well as ammunition. The cops raided his place when he wasn't home and confiscated everything, then arrested him when he got back, but imagine what might have happened had he been there when they showed up. One of the cops described his machine gun as being able to "put a bullet through that house across the street, then through the house behind it, then through the house behind that one and have it land in their back fence." I mean, if you're a collector, I can see that being legitimate, but the gun must be absolutely non-functional and irreparable. Nobody needs weapons like that.

It was either a sniper rifle or an assault rifle. Whatever it was, it was utterly ludicrous, since the weaponry he claimed to need would pretty much destroy the entire bird.
I remember that...The whole time, I imagined a bird going *POP*.

Apparently my warning drove off all but the most dedicated numbskulls.


I'm pretty sure he is highly aware of what are classified as assault rifles and your continued bullshit just reenforces my first post about fanatacism.

You could care less about the right to own guns than the right to extend your wang size. Which is the only logical way all this fanatacism and bullshit overreaction can be explained when people question the need for weapons without practical uses.

Seems all the BS is coming from you. If you actually read what was going on from a non-third hand source, you might actually discover that Zumbo admits he knows little about "Assault Weapons" or thier capabilities.

Jim Zumbo:

... I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. ...

...As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?....

...But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. ...

You can claim "over reaction" and "BS" all you want, doesn't make it true.

One of the troubles with semiauto weapons is that they can very easily and cheaply be converted back to full auto. Just look online for conversion kits. There was a recent scare here in my hometown about some local neonazis or some such who got there hands on some semi versions of auto weapons that had even had their barrels plugged and managed to convert them back to full auto weapons. Fortunately, the police got their hands on them before they could get any ammo, but still the prospect is frightening.


Most "Conversion Kits" are absolute bogus. The ones that do work damage the firearm beyond repair and make it glaringly obvious that it has been converted. They are more dangerous to the user than to the person it is used against.

... I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. ...
Said ex posto facto. He is trying to save his ass, to no avail but he is still trying.

You can claim "over reaction" and "BS" all you want, doesn't make it true.
And you can point to things he said after the overreaction bullshit that destroyed his career all you want, but it doesn't mean he is sincere.

Said ex posto facto. He is trying to save his ass, to no avail but he is still trying.


And you can point to things he said after the overreaction bullshit that destroyed his career all you want, but it doesn't mean he is sincere.

That's nice. So he meant one but not the other and you get to choose which. Gotcha. His original post stated that he wasw surprised to learn from a guide that it was common for varmint hunters to use semi-auto's. Try again.

Of course the reason people "overreacted" and "destroyed his career" is because of exaclty what you are doing, taking his words and using them against a large portion of firearms owners as an "expert".

He also recognizes that his professional career is over:

My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners.

I fully support the ownership of guns, for both hunting and personal protection. Assault weapons however, are excessive in both of those cases. You don't need an AK-47 to kill a deer, or to protect your house.

This is true. And, you don't need a quarter-pound hamburger just to get some grub. Let's start outlawing things based on how "needful" they are assessed to be.

That's nice. So he meant one but not the other and you get to choose which. Gotcha.
Oh right, so things he is saying after his career is digging its grave are automatically more sincere than things he said before then. That's a logical conclusion all right. :rolleyes:

His original post stated that he wasw surprised to learn from a guide that it was common for varmint hunters to use semi-auto's. Try again.
I fail to see how that matters in this.

Of course the reason people "overreacted" and "destroyed his career" is because of exaclty what you are doing, taking his words and using them against a large portion of firearms owners as an "expert".
His opinion on assault weapons for hunting is an expert opinion due to his professional career. They are trying to destroy his career because they are brain-washed, knee-jerk reactionists. They have been brainwashed to believe that any questioning of the need for any type of gun is a full out assault on the right to own any gun.

This is true. And, you don't need a quarter-pound hamburger just to get some grub. Let's start outlawing things based on how "needful" they are assessed to be.
An assault weapon is excessive and counter productive in both hunting and home defense. You are more likely to ruin the animal you are shooting thus making meat or stuffing undoable. And for home defense you are far more likely to cause property damage and friendly fire due to having an excessively powerful weapon with a spray pattern.

Oh right, so things he is saying after his career is digging its grave are automatically more sincere than things he said before then. That's a logical conclusion all right. :rolleyes:

You're the one claiming "sincerety". I'm claiming accuracy. See next.


I fail to see how that matters in this.

Of course you don't because it shows you're wrong. He didn't know anything about them before and admitted it yet you claim he did, only saying he didn't later to cover his ass. Try again.


His opinion on assault weapons for hunting is an expert opinion due to his professional career. They are trying to destroy his career because they are brain-washed, knee-jerk reactionists. They have been brainwashed to believe that any questioning of the need for any type of gun is a full out assault on the right to own any gun.

His opinion was based in ignorance, which he admits but you don't like so you won't accept. You can make all the insults you want. Seems the knee-jerking is being done by you.

Since he called them "terrorist weapons" and pushed for them being banned from hunting (of which they are regularly used in) all he was doing was giving fodder to the anti-gun groups that have called for bans on practically every type of firearm using mostly lies and misdirection ,especially semi-auto firearms. Kind of like you did in your OP and later. Thanks for making my point for me.

An assault weapon is excessive and counter productive in both hunting and home defense. You are more likely to ruin the animal you are shooting thus making meat or stuffing undoable. And for home defense you are far more likely to cause property damage and friendly fire due to having an excessively powerful weapon with a spray pattern.

You really have no idea what you're talking about yet keep banging your head against the keyboard and hitting send.

Where did you get this nonsense? The Brady Campaign.

"Assualt Weapons" don't "spray". They are semi-automatic, just like a large portion of "legitimate hunting rifles"

They come in a variety of calibers. From .223 for varmints all the way up to .308, traditional hunting rounds. They don't "ruin the animal" and are fantastic for home defense.

Talk about being brainwashed.

An assault weapon is excessive and counter productive in both hunting and home defense. You are more likely to ruin the animal you are shooting thus making meat or stuffing undoable. And for home defense you are far more likely to cause property damage and friendly fire due to having an excessively powerful weapon with a spray pattern.

A Big Mac is excessive and counter productive in terms of both hunger satisfaction and nutritional requirements. You are more likely to clog your arteries with splooge thus leading to an early death, causing our health system millions. And for hunger satisfaction, a tofu bar is far more likely to appease the beast within you - plus it doesn't involve the horrible slaughter of innocent and extremely cute cows!

Clearly, we need government to protect us from our own excesses and lead us to a more pious path of asceticism.

I am glad he got fired. I had a chance to read his blog as soon as it came up and he might be an "expert" in some things but not when it comes to semi-automatic firearms. In his own blog he stated he had only been around an AR-15 a couple of times.
I know plenty of people who use a AR-15 for hunting coyotes due to the fact that they can be very accurate, light weight,and fire a decent round for that animal. One thing to remember in most states that let you use a semi-auto for hunting you are limited to how many rounds you can have in your mag. When I go coyote hunting I generally use a modified AR-15 or AR-10 depending on where I am hunting and a shotgun and a handgun. The shotgun and the handgun are because I have seen a coyote sneak up and get within 25 feet of a hunter and at that range they work better for defending yourself then an AR would

You really have no idea what you're talking about yet keep banging your head against the keyboard and hitting send.

Where did you get this nonsense? The Brady Campaign.

"Assualt Weapons" don't "spray". They are semi-automatic, just like a large portion of "legitimate hunting rifles"

They come in a variety of calibers. From .223 for varmints all the way up to .308, traditional hunting rounds. They don't "ruin the animal" and are fantastic for home defense.

Talk about being brainwashed.
I was going to jump in here and try to get in on the fun. You've already given the 'Hero' a wedgie, so there isn't much left to do but say this...

What he said!

You're the one claiming "sincerety". I'm claiming accuracy. See next.
The point still applies. How is he more accurate after his career is lynched than before?

Of course you don't because it shows you're wrong.
No, it is because you have failed to make the connection.


His opinion was based in ignorance, which he admits but you don't like so you won't accept. You can make all the insults you want. Seems the knee-jerking is being done by you.
Illogical. His opinion was obviously made based on the information about semi-autos given to him by the guide. If he didn't know people hunted with such weapons, he wouldn't have made the statement. You are asserting that ignorance of the action implies ignorance of the thing, which has to be a logical fallacy.

Since he called them "terrorist weapons" and pushed for them being banned from hunting (of which they are regularly used in) all he was doing was giving fodder to the anti-gun groups that have called for bans on practically every type of firearm using mostly lies and misdirection ,especially semi-auto firearms.
Then they will be making logical fallacies and will be just as wrong as the dumbasses killing Zumbo's career.
However, if they use it as support after Zumbo's career is killed by these nutjobs (which is a given now), it will not be a logical fallacy because it will be the pro-gun groups making the connection, and not the anti-gun groups. The anti-gun groups will only have to point to the pro-gun group's reaction and show that they equate assault weapons with normal weapons and then use that to say all guns are dangerous. It's their own fault.

The point still applies. How is he more accurate after his career is lynched than before?

It's called education. Try it.


No, it is because you have failed to make the connection.

Only in your mind.



Illogical. His opinion was obviously made based on the information about semi-autos given to him by the guide. If he didn't know people hunted with such weapons, he wouldn't have made the statement. You are asserting that ignorance of the action implies ignorance of the thing, which has to be a logical fallacy.

Dodging around are we? He was informed by a guide that they were used in hunting. He admitted he had little knowledge of their use or operation but proceeded to demonize them. No fallacy except your denials.


Then they will be making logical fallacies and will be just as wrong as the dumbasses killing Zumbo's career.
However, if they use it as support after Zumbo's career is killed by these nutjobs (which is a given now), it will not be a logical fallacy because it will be the pro-gun groups making the connection, and not the anti-gun groups. The anti-gun groups will only have to point to the pro-gun group's reaction and show that they equate assault weapons with normal weapons and then use that to say all guns are dangerous. It's their own fault.

Right. That's why quotes from him were up on the Brady Myspace page w/i hours and pundits like you continue to skew the facts and make up excuses. Nice that you edited out the parts of my post that showed how you were making "falacies" and blatantly lying, just like the gun-grabbers.

Keep dodging. It's kinda funny.

Why don't you make up some more stuff on "Assault Weapons" so we can laugh at you some more? Since you have clearly shown you have no clue as to what an "assault weapon" is, how can you differentiate it from a "normal" firearm?

A Big Mac is excessive and counter productive in terms of both hunger satisfaction and nutritional requirements. You are more likely to clog your arteries with splooge thus leading to an early death, causing our health system millions. And for hunger satisfaction, a tofu bar is far more likely to appease the beast within you - plus it doesn't involve the horrible slaughter of innocent and extremely cute cows!

Clearly, we need government to protect us from our own excesses and lead us to a more pious path of asceticism.
Besides the comparison being practically incorrect, a tofu bar may be healthier, but more satisfying then a Big Mac? Doubtable. If you are hungry, a Big Mac is more likely to satisfy your hunger.

But the comparison is still apples and wax fruit. These weapons are dangerous to other people not the target when used offensively and defensively. I don't kill passersby with heart attacks when I down a Big Mac.

Besides the comparison being practically incorrect, a tofu bar may be healthier, but more satisfying then a Big Mac? Doubtable. If you are hungry, a Big Mac is more likely to satisfy your hunger.

But the comparison is still apples and wax fruit. These weapons are dangerous to other people not the target when used offensively and defensively. I don't kill passersby with heart attacks when I down a Big Mac.

Oh yes you do. The money spent (public tax money) on your hospital bills for heart problems - I need not remind anyone that heart disease is the first or second largest killer in this country - would otherwise be spent improving medical care or simply helping those who are victims of, say, circumstance instead of overindulgence. In a real sense you and others like you - Big Mac eaters all - are killing people with your phallic need for Huge burgers!

Therefore we should ban Big Macs.

Mind you, I don't agree with this kind of logic. But it's your logic. You may not actually kill passerbys when you eat a Big Mac, but you know what, I don't kill anyone by owning any kind of gun. Period. Both should be allowed.

It's called education. Try it.
So he suddenly became more educated? You quoted him as saying he hadn't yet learned everything about them. I wasn't aware that having your career killed magically made you smarter.



Dodging around are we? He was informed by a guide that they were used in hunting.
Exactly, which is when he made the argument that they had no place in hunting. You are still equating lack of knowledge of the action to lack of knowledge of the thing.

He admitted he had little knowledge of their use or operation but proceeded to demonize them.
After the fact.


That's why quotes from him were up on the Brady Myspace page w/i hours
Within hours of what? That is called "out of context." You saying that is pointless in an attempt to refute what I said unless you reference when the gun-nuts jumped him.

Nice that you edited out the parts of my post that showed how you were making "falacies" and blatantly lying, just like the gun-grabbers.
I edited out the parts? When? When I quoted your entire posts?


"Assualt Weapons" don't "spray".
Anyone weapon that can fire faster than you can recover from the recoil has a spray.

They come in a variety of calibers. From .223 for varmints all the way up to .308, traditional hunting rounds.
Which means what? Oh yeah, nothing. What ammo they are using has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Dedicated numbskulls.

Oh yes you do. The money spent (public tax money) on your hospital bills for heart problems
Is not the same as killing some one else with a heart attack when you bite into a Big Mac yourself.

Is not the same as killing some one else with a heart attack when you bite into a Big Mac yourself.

Sure it is. Let me remind you that your logic is thus as far as you've been describing.

1. "Assault" guns apparently "spray" bullets every which way, thus meaning that firing one results in the death of innocent people.
2. Assault guns are not necessary.
3. Therefore, assault guns should be banned.

Well...

1. Eating big macs causes heart disease, therefore requiring medical costs paid by the public and medical attention which could be spent doing other things (like patching up all those innocent passerbys who are killed by the assault guns, natch)
2. Eating big macs is not necessary.
3. Therefore, big macs should be banned.

So you're right, it's not precisely the same in every semantic and physical way, but the core logical pattern is the same. Assuming both of the first premises to be true, the conclusion follows. (And your premise here is itself flawed, but I'll let the experts address that.)

*snip crap*
You are still having problems with the definition of direct and indirect. A stray bullet killing some one may be indirect, but the firing of the weapon still directly resulted in another person's death. Biting into a Big Mac will never directly cause another person to have a heart attack. Nor will it ever cause a heart attack directly. Nor will it directly result in some one else receiving poor medical care. And you can make the argument that it can indirectly result in some one else receiving poor medical care, but that is a stretch to make and there are so many other factors that it is intellectually dishonest.

So he suddenly became more educated? You quoted him as saying he hadn't yet learned everything about them. I wasn't aware that having your career killed magically made you smarter.

So you can't learn anything new over the course of a few days? Well YOU can't, that's obvious. Nice how you mangle his quotes too.

Here's a few more for you to misuse from his original blog:

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles.

. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.

I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles.

We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."


Boy he really shows his expertise on the capabilities and use, doesn't he TPH?

And he says the same thing early the next day BEFORE all his sponsors bailed on him:

"How is it that Zumbo, who has been hunting for more than 50 years, is totally ignorant about these types of guns. I don't know. I shot one once at a target last year, and thought it was cool, but I never considered using one for hunting. I had absolutely no idea how vast the numbers of folks are who use them."

Here's a comment from the president of Remington firearms posted last sunday morning:

ALL - Jim Zumbo in NO WAY speaks for Remington! His opinions are his own. We at Remington take our 2nd Ammendment Rights extremely seriously and ourselves market and manufacturer a AR based 308 rifle. Remington Arms supports the lawful use of all firearms by thier owners in whatever legal manner they choose. We at Remington feel that it is the diversity of our tastes and uses of fireaems that should also be the binding element that assists us all in defending the rights granted to us by our fore fathers.

Rest assured that remington not only does not support jim's view, we totally disagree! I have no explaination for his perspective.

I proudly own AR's and support everyones right to do so!

What makes me sick is how quickly people on the internet have called to boycott Remington. All Jim said was he was hunting with our people! This is normal course in our industry. How else do people think we field test? with writers.

Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars to defend your rights and how quickly the thanks is threat and boycott! Please feel Free to post that remington does not agree with Zumbo in any way shape or form and we will assess our relationship with him accordingly.
Tommy Millner
CEO and President






Exactly, which is when he made the argument that they had no place in hunting. You are still equating lack of knowledge of the action to lack of knowledge of the thing.

Dance little monkey. The FIRST POST HE MADE STATED HE HAD LITTLE EXPERIENCE W/ THEM. Try reading slowly this time.


After the fact.

Only if "after the fact" = the original blog in TPH land.



Within hours of what? That is called "out of context." You saying that is pointless in an attempt to refute what I said unless you reference when the gun-nuts jumped him.

*sigh* w/i hours of the original blog. Keep dancing. You might get on TV.


I edited out the parts? When? When I quoted your entire posts?

Do I need to go back and post the edited parts now? Be disingenous on your own time. It's what you're apparently good at.

Anyone weapon that can fire faster than you can recover from the recoil has a spray.

You just make that up on your own then? So ANY semi-auto can "spray" in TPH land.


Which means what? Oh yeah, nothing. What ammo they are using has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Dedicated numbskulls.

More like retarded gun grabbers. Let's try thinking about this. I know it's hard for you but try.

If I pull the trigger on a .22 AR-15 and shoot a squirrel, it does the same damage to it as a .22 bolt-action or any .22 semi-auto or even a .22 single shot.

If I pull the trigger on a .308 AR-15 and shoot a deer, etc. etc.

Come on. Edit my posts some more and show what an ignorant twit you are.

intellectually dishonest.

You should know about that. Pot meet kettle.

Remember folks, making up definitions and capabilities and selectively editing posts is the way to go.

You are still having problems with the definition of direct and indirect.

It makes absolutely no difference. Is your problem with people dying, or is it only the "directness" of their death? Because that sounds a bit like a semantic bullshit argument instead of an actual valid viewpoint in favor of a greater good. Kind of shifting the goal posts.

The rest of your comments I "snipped" because turnabout is fair play and I'm tired of being the reasonable one. If you want to talk to yourself, you certainly don't need me.

Incidentally, the "crap" you "snipped" was the use of your own twisted logic. I agree - it is crap.

A hunting rifle can take many forms. Anything from a 18th century black powder smoothbore musket to the most modern things that Remington puts out. It's all a matter of personal opinon. Some people want to get more out of a hunt.

Good for you man.

Oh you CAN use an assault weapon, but I was arguing that it is excessive to do so. A 12-gauge shotgun will do for home protection, unless your neighborhood cat burgler wears body armor and packs a mac-10.
I fear them for what their intended purpose is.

You should move to Detroit then you will want the "Assault Weapon" and you will fear that cat burgler.

Boy he really shows his expertise on the capabilities and use, doesn't he TPH?


I'm done with you until you stop basing your entire argument on the false fact that lack of knowledge of one thing implies lack of knowledge of an unrelated thing - in your case, that not knowing that those weapons were used for hunting means he doesn't know anything about the guns. It's like saying you can't know anything about batteries because you didn't know they were used in child's toys.

It makes absolutely no difference. Is your problem with people dying, or is it only the "directness" of their death? Because that sounds a bit like a semantic bullshit argument instead of an actual valid viewpoint in favor of a greater good. Kind of shifting the goal posts.
Yes, it does, in your comparison. Eating a burger will never directly or indirectly give another person a heart attack. A stray shot, fired offensively or defensively, can kill some one.

Fair enough. I am, after all, a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I do, however, think there should be a sensible limit on the level of firearms. Assault weaponry pushes the line. When it comes to lowering crime commited with firearms, though, I prefer ammunition control over gun control. Makes more sense, as that gun is as useful as jack without bullets.

Pistol whipping hurts quite a bit and can be damaging though... so technically not...

I'm done with you until you stop basing your entire argument on the false fact that lack of knowledge of one thing implies lack of knowledge of an unrelated thing - in your case, that not knowing that those weapons were used for hunting means he doesn't know anything about the guns. It's like saying you can't know anything about batteries because you didn't know they were used in child's toys.

Translation: I'm being spanked so thoroughly that I'm going to run away.

Now let's say I said that a AA battery could power a car. Would I know what the hell I'm talking about?

He said terrorists used them around the world and that they were no good for hunting. Since that's not true , he didn't know what they were capable of.

You keep basing your argument off a complete lack of knowledge of anything firearm related.

Come on, dance for me some more. Give me some more Brady Bunch definitions.

Edit:

Here's Jimbo last sunday morning on the radio:

Gresham: No, I know. You know, look. I came to this slowly. See, I came to guns kind of the same way that you did. I'm basically a hunter, and like to shoot and all. And every body knows, I've said many times on this show here, that I've never had a huge interest in military guns and don't really know a lot about them, but I kinda got into the ARs slowly. Actually, I bought one - I'd never shot one - I bought one when they were going to have the Clinton gun ban, the Assault Weapon Ban of '94? I said "You know, if they're going to ban 'em, I'm going to buy one." And that's what got me into it. Well, after I got into it and started shooting it, I thought "This thing's fun." It's kinda like - the whole time I've been wondering what's everybody jazzed up about these things, then you go out and shoot one and you go "Oh, I get it. These things are a lot of fun." Then I started finding out all the things you can do with it, and it's a real... But, and I've said this a lot, I'm not saying this just now - people have heard me say it - they're ugly. You know, AKs are ugly. ARs are ugly. Uh, they don't appeal to my sense of what's a pretty gun. I like nice walnut and pretty wood and all that, but I like to shoot 'em. So all that's my way of saying I understand where you were coming from because that's where I was before I started getting into all this.

Zumbo: Well, see, I'm probably at that, that, that level where you were when you started. Heck, who knows? I might get into those and just enjoy the heck out of them.

He said terrorists used them around the world and that they were no good for hunting.

Which is not what he said, but you don't care.

I would say he destroyed his own career.

Saying that his career was destroyed by other people implies that he didnt warrant what happened to him.

I, for one, accept his appology. He will rebound eventually, and is already a well-heeled man. If nothing else, he has more time to hunt.

Even Clinton came to understand that banning "assault weapons" (or in zimboese, 'terrorist weapons' :rolleyes: ) is nothing but foolish and self-destructive.

Which is not what he said, but you don't care.


Whatever TPH. You're the one who doesn't seem to care what was said or not. I've already shown you that he didn't know what they did and put them down as "terrorist weapons" not "sporting firearms".

Why don't we play your game?

You said "assault weapons" "ruin the animal" yet obviously have no clue as to what you're talking about.

But you really don't care, do you?

Even Clinton came to understand that banning "assault weapons" (or in zimboese, 'terrorist weapons' :rolleyes: ) is nothing but foolish and self-destructive.

Where would you draw the line though?

I'd draw it at explosive ordnance and full automatic capability. Possibly clip/belt fed weapons above handgun level (shotguns not included since I have no idea what the ammo chamber is called).

I would say he destroyed his own career.

Saying that his career was destroyed by other people implies that he didnt warrant what happened to him.

I, for one, accept his appology. He will rebound eventually, and is already a well-heeled man. If nothing else, he has more time to hunt.

Even Clinton came to understand that banning "assault weapons" (or in zimboese, 'terrorist weapons' :rolleyes: ) is nothing but foolish and self-destructive.

More time to hunt? He already did it 200+ days out of the year. What more could you want? :)

Where would you draw the line though?

I'd draw it at explosive ordnance and full automatic capability. Possibly clip/belt fed weapons above handgun level (shotguns not included since I have no idea what the ammo chamber is called).

That's pretty much where the "red line" is today. There are full-autos out there but are rare and expensive.

That's pretty much where the "red line" is today. There are full-autos out there but are rare and expensive.

Don't you need some kind of license level as well? And a signed waiver that more or less give federal agents the right to knock on your door anytime they want?

On a side note though, there should probably be one more step in deactivation in regards to civilian release assault rifles. Rather than just semi-automatic ability, a modification that requires each round to be manually chambered I think.

Keep in mind as well, that even handguns can be considered assult weapons. The problem the NRA has with groups such as the Brady Campaign is that they are very broad in their description of assult weapons. We can all sit here and say automatic weapons shouldn't and needn't be used for hunting, but the argument the Brady Campaign puts forth would include common hunting rifles. Add to that the fact that they support a U.N. resolution banning these guns world wide, and that if it was passed, it would be the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution. I'm proud to be a member of the NRA, and, in the words of the former president of the NRA, "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hand."

Add to that the fact that they support a U.N. resolution banning these guns world wide, and that if it was passed, it would be the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution. I'm proud to be a member of the NRA,

It seems that as an NRA member, you are proud to be ignorant. That UN resolution was against illicit gun sales. Does the US constitution stand for gun running now? And of course, by that extension, does the NRA do too?

Perhaps, it does. Which would make the NRA a criminal organization if so.

Don't you need some kind of license level as well? And a signed waiver that more or less give federal agents the right to knock on your door anytime they want?

On a side note though, there should probably be one more step in deactivation in regards to civilian release assault rifles. Rather than just semi-automatic ability, a modification that requires each round to be manually chambered I think.

Semiautomatic rifles are almost never used in crimes, why would this be a good idea?

Semiautomatic rifles are almost never used in crimes, why would this be a good idea?

The question that should be asked is why would you need a semiautomatic rifle? From what most gun owners say here, shotguns are better for home defense due to low wall penetration of the buckshot, reducing the chances of accidental hits. They're not practical concealed carry weapons. As for hunting, well, if you need a semi-auto for one, that might mean you used the wrong caliber (.22 to go bear hunting), or it might mean you just need to spend more time at the local range.

What practical reason would there be for one?

Totally wrong. But don't feel bad. It's a very common misconception. Fully automatic weapons can only be legally acquired with a Level III FFL, which costs several thousand dollars and is, in practice, available only to ex law enforcement or ex military.


That is partially wrong. Full auto firearms manufactured before 1986 require a one-time $200 NFA tax stamp, which can only be gotten after sending in the appropriate paperwork (which requires the signature from the chielf law enforcement officer of the town/city of residence) and check to the BATFE. Also, NFA firearms have to be legal in your town/city and state in order to get the tax stamp.

Full Auto firearms manufactured after 1986 are the ones that only law enforcement and Class 3 dealers (with a special tax stamp) can own.

What about owning a car? Shouldn't that be like owning anything else? Its nobodies business but your own right, no need for licenses, registration or age limit?

Apples to oranges.

You can own an unregistered car (in the US) before you're old enough to get a driver's license, you're just not allowed to drive it on the roads.

Don't you need some kind of license level as well? And a signed waiver that more or less give federal agents the right to knock on your door anytime they want?

On a side note though, there should probably be one more step in deactivation in regards to civilian release assault rifles. Rather than just semi-automatic ability, a modification that requires each round to be manually chambered I think.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

If you are opposed to restrictions on weapons designed to kill multiple humans, you shouldn't care if anyone can get a nuke if they want to.


http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

A firearm isn't the same as a nuke. First off, a nuke is indiscriminate (a lot of collateral damage), where a firearm is much more precise. Also, a firearm is an inanimate object that can't do ANYTHING without being loaded, off safety, and the trigger being pulled (all deliberate actions, not accidental). Finally, I can fire 200+ rounds of ammo at the range, and put my rifle away dirty and unloaded. It won't spontaneously load itself and go off because I didn't maintain it. A nuke requires regular maintainance, or it could cause harm.

The question that should be asked is why would you need a semiautomatic rifle? From what most gun owners say here, shotguns are better for home defense due to low wall penetration of the buckshot, reducing the chances of accidental hits. They're not practical concealed carry weapons. As for hunting, well, if you need a semi-auto for one, that might mean you used the wrong caliber (.22 to go bear hunting), or it might mean you just need to spend more time at the local range.

What practical reason would there be for one?

No, that is NOT the question that should be asked.

Necessity doesn't matter. It doesn't. OK? It doesn't. I'm sick of having to say this over and over and over. We should be free to buy and own whatever "unneeded" things we want. You know, does anyone really have a practical use for a pet gerbil? I hope not. How about a pack of potato chips? Or okay, 2,000 used soda cans? None of these things are really "practical," or "necessary," yet they aren't banned. You know why? It's because things do not, in a reasonable and sane world, get banned just because someone - i.e, you - declares that they are impractical. That's why. Thanks, I'll be here all week.

The question that should be asked is why would you need a semiautomatic rifle? From what most gun owners say here, shotguns are better for home defense due to low wall penetration of the buckshot, reducing the chances of accidental hits. They're not practical concealed carry weapons. As for hunting, well, if you need a semi-auto for one, that might mean you used the wrong caliber (.22 to go bear hunting), or it might mean you just need to spend more time at the local range.

What practical reason would there be for one?

Why should I have to justify my firearms purchases with need?

If I really have to (for the purposes of this thread), I NEED a (30 round) magazine fed semi-auto rifle because I'm lazy. I don't want to spend my day at the range hand-loading every single bullet into the chamber before I shoot. I don't want to waste my 2 hours (the amount of time I have available at the range, as it's state run) cycling the action of my rifle after every shot. I go to the shooting range (with at least 200 rounds) to increase my skills at punching little holes in paper at farther than arms reach. The reason I attempt to increase my skills is I'd like to (one day) attend competitions with the reasonable chance of winning.

No I do not. I favor more police funding for specialized anti-illegal firearms teams to get illegal firearms off the streets and jail weapons runners.

Okay. Follow-up question: I already know your position on a number of other issues, so, would you support the taxes that would be required to bring this about?

Why should I have to justify my firearms purchases with need?


No, that is NOT the question that should be asked.

Necessity doesn't matter. It doesn't. OK? It doesn't.

Since you've both had more or less the same responses, I hope you don't mind if I give give you both the same reply.

Necessity does matter in quite a few cases. For example, if I were to purchase 3 tons of ammonium nitrate, I expect that without a legitimate reason for having that kind of thing, I would be visited shortly by local law enforcement. But that's an explosive application item, so I digress.

On the other hand, certain levels of firearms do require special licenses and special reasons/needs before they can be legally acquired. Full automatics for one fall under this category. And those larger than .50 caliber. Unless you're military, police or an arms dealer, one simply can't purchase and own these things.

Or what if a person buys 3,000 assault rifles and two tons of ammunition?

I know many people like to espouse capitalism, but money should not be the end all and be all of any and every kind of purchase. At least legally.

Need is there. The question is where the line falls for the application of need to allow the purchase and where it doesn't.

Hunting praire dogs using an assult rifle makes it more fun? I bet you play your computer games on "God Mode" the first day you get them.

A firearm isn't the same as a nuke. First off, a nuke is indiscriminate (a lot of collateral damage), where a firearm is much more precise. Also, a firearm is an inanimate object that can't do ANYTHING without being loaded, off safety, and the trigger being pulled (all deliberate actions, not accidental). Finally, I can fire 200+ rounds of ammo at the range, and put my rifle away dirty and unloaded. It won't spontaneously load itself and go off because I didn't maintain it. A nuke requires regular maintainance, or it could cause harm.

How often do these nukes randomly go off?

If someone gets training and is compentant in nuke maintenance then should they be allowed to own a nuke?

What about landmines and rocket launchers? Landmines would make a much better home defense than guns - I can't see many crooks crossing your lawn if they know you've mined the flowerbeds! They would also be more effective in defending against the government - likewise rocket launchers. And yet for some reason the NRA does not get it's panties in a twist over these weapons - which would be better for home defense and national defense than forearms.

Hunting praire dogs using an assult rifle makes it more fun? I bet you play your computer games on "God Mode" the first day you get them.

You do realize that even a real Assault Rifle, and not the bait-n-switch semi-auto onlies that the grabbers like to call them, can be fired in semi-auto, right?

You do realize that even a real Assault Rifle, and not the bait-n-switch semi-auto onlies that the grabbers like to call them, can be fired in semi-auto, right?

It's pretty clear that Shx has no idea what an "assault rifle" is.

Since you've both had more or less the same responses, I hope you don't mind if I give give you both the same reply.

Necessity does matter in quite a few cases. For example, if I were to purchase 3 tons of ammonium nitrate, I expect that without a legitimate reason for having that kind of thing, I would be visited shortly by local law enforcement. But that's an explosive application item, so I digress.

On the other hand, certain levels of firearms do require special licenses and special reasons/needs before they can be legally acquired. Full automatics for one fall under this category. And those larger than .50 caliber. Unless you're military, police or an arms dealer, one simply can't purchase and own these things.

Or what if a person buys 3,000 assault rifles and two tons of ammunition?

I know many people like to espouse capitalism, but money should not be the end all and be all of any and every kind of purchase. At least legally.

Need is there. The question is where the line falls for the application of need to allow the purchase and where it doesn't.

Making silly examples doesn't help. A person purchasing that many firearms at one time not through a gov't agency will get a visit by the BATFE.

There have been sales similar. Numerous cities sell off the firearms the police no longer use or that have been confiscated. They ussually sell them in bulk lots to large distributors.

How often do these nukes randomly go off?

Not very often, as I'm sure we'd hear about it if it had happened. Must be the maintainance.

If someone gets training and is compentant in nuke maintenance then should they be allowed to own a nuke?

I guess you missed the part about a nuke being indiscriminate and having a lot of collateral damage.

What about landmines and rocket launchers? Landmines would make a much better home defense than guns - I can't see many crooks crossing your lawn if they know you've mined the flowerbeds! They would also be more effective in defending against the government - likewise rocket launchers. And yet for some reason the NRA does not get it's panties in a twist over these weapons - which would be better for home defense and national defense than forearms.

Land mines? Are you kidding me? After they're placed in the ground, you have absolutely NO control over them. A dog, your next door neighbor, a child, or even you would be able to set them off.

As to rocket launchers, assuming you could pass the background check (as it is considered a destructive device by the US government, and therefore heavily regulated), I don't see why a license can't be issued to own one. However, I personally wouldn't want one, as I have no place I could legally fire it off (I don't own land large enough to do so, and I doubt the shooting range would allow me to bring that to the firing line).

There have been sales similar. Numerous cities sell off the firearms the police no longer use or that have been confiscated. They ussually sell them in bulk lots to large distributors.

Weapons dealers I assume you mean? It's hard to imagine Wallmart stocking squad automatic weapons and other large caliber ordnance.

I very much doubt that such sales would go to individuals.

Land mines? Are you kidding me? After they're placed in the ground, you have absolutely NO control over them. A dog, your next door neighbor, a child, or even you would be able to set them off.

Well, since you don't mind rocket launchers, how about remotely detonated explosives? Or air defense missile batteries? Or cruise missiles?

Although I think the US has some restrictions against owning guided missile weaponry.

Not very often, as I'm sure we'd hear about it if it had happened. Must be the maintainance.

I guess you missed the part about a nuke being indiscriminate and having a lot of collateral damage.
But what about collecters who want to own one for the joy own posessing their own nuke!


Land mines? Are you kidding me? After they're placed in the ground, you have absolutely NO control over them. A dog, your next door neighbor, a child, or even you would be able to set them off.
Well they shouldn't be on your property :)
And a responsible owner would map where they plant them so they could be removed at a later date and so they can advise people where they are.

I understand that in a lot of states you are allowed to shoot someone who comes on your property without permission - a landmine is just an automated way of doing this.


As to rocket launchers, assuming you could pass the background check (as it is considered a destructive device by the US government, and therefore heavily regulated), I don't see why a license can't be issued to own one.
Why are rocket launchers more heavily regulated than firearms?

And surface to air missiles...

By the way, for all the Pro-Gun people who espouse that you need a firearm for personal and household protection ("You can't rely on Police etc"), why does it have to be a lethal firearm? Why not non-lethal firearms such as those riot grenade launchers with rubber shells, or rifles with rubber bullets? Is there any specific reason why whenever you fire your gun at an attacker or burglar you must gamble with his life and yours? Why isn't specifically non-lethal weaponry and ammunition used more often?

Weapons dealers I assume you mean? It's hard to imagine Wallmart stocking squad automatic weapons and other large caliber ordnance.

I very much doubt that such sales would go to individuals.

1. The so-called "assault rifles" in question here are not fully automatic.
2. The fully automatic weapons for sale in the US require an NFA permit, which takes about 90 days to get, and cannot be had in all US states.
3. Only a handful (read as less than 10) crimes have EVER been committed with NFA registered fully automatic weapons in the US since 1934.
4. Well over 100,000 weapons are currently registered via the NFA permit process.
5. No one in the US has ever used a 50 caliber (read as large caliber military cartridge) rifle in any crime in the US - ever.

You do realize that even a real Assault Rifle, and not the bait-n-switch semi-auto onlies that the grabbers like to call them, can be fired in semi-auto, right?

Semi-Auto just seems very unsporting.

The 'fun' aspect many people have refered to for using such weapons for hunting seems to be more the "blow everything to bits" kind of fun rather than taking enjoyment from the challenge of the hunt.

Semi-Auto just seems very unsporting.

The 'fun' aspect many people have refered to for using such weapons for hunting seems to be more the "blow everything to bits" kind of fun rather than taking enjoyment from the challenge of the hunt.

I'm just imagining someone going full-auto on a Deer with an AK-47...
It seems quite horrible, riddling something like that with metal and puncturing multiple holes through it. I think I agree with someone earlier in this thread that hunting should be done with a bolt-action rifle. Seems more respectful if it's just one shot. Then you can actually use the meat etc so as not to spoil the animals life. With an AK-47 surely you'd have to spend hours picking out all the bullets if you wanted to use the meat for anything.

Semi-Auto just seems very unsporting.

The 'fun' aspect many people have refered to for using such weapons for hunting seems to be more the "blow everything to bits" kind of fun rather than taking enjoyment from the challenge of the hunt.

It isn't unsporting. It also doesn't enhance your accuracy at all.

Looks like you've never fired one.

1. The so-called "assault rifles" in question here are not fully automatic.

Which is why I specifically stated full automatics deary. Do read up a bit won't you?


5. No one in the US has ever used a 50 caliber (read as large caliber military cartridge) rifle in any crime in the US - ever.

Because it's impractical. Most crimes committed via firearms are generally easy to carry and conceal. Meaning, handguns, and occasionally, submachine guns which are usually of pistol caliber.

Rifles make poor weapons to commit crimes with anyway.

Semi-Auto just seems very unsporting.

The 'fun' aspect many people have refered to for using such weapons for hunting seems to be more the "blow everything to bits" kind of fun rather than taking enjoyment from the challenge of the hunt.

Now tell me what happens when you pull the trigger on a semi-auto rifle. How many bullets get fired.

But what about collecters who want to own one for the joy own posessing their own nuke!

:rolleyes:

Even if someone WANTED a nuke, who would be able to afford one, and who would sell one to a civilian?

Well they shouldn't be on your property :)
And a responsible owner would map where they plant them so they could be removed at a later date and so they can advise people where they are.

I understand that in a lot of states you are allowed to shoot someone who comes on your property without permission - a landmine is just an automated way of doing this.

:rolleyes:

You missed some of my examples. What if, at some point, you forget that they're there, and you set one off? What if (hypothetically speaking) you had kids, and your kids set them off? What if you were having a party at your house, and one of your guests set one off?

As far as shooting someone on your property, you can't just shoot someone for being in your yard. If they broke into (or were attempting to), then depending on the state, it'd be different (in some states, you have a responsibility to retreat, even to the point of leaving the house, before you're allowed to shoot an intruder).

Why are rocket launchers more heavily regulated than firearms?

And surface to air missiles...


Explosives are considered destructive devices, and are therefore more heavily regulated than most firearms (NFA firearms have a similar level of regulation).

Because it's impractical. Most crimes committed via firearms are generally easy to carry and conceal. Meaning, handguns, and occasionally, submachine guns which are usually of pistol caliber.

Rifles make poor weapons to commit crimes with anyway.

Ah, so that's why California is going out of their way to ban the 50 caliber rifle as "dangerous".

I'm just imagining someone going full-auto on a Deer with an AK-47...
It seems quite horrible, riddling something like that with metal and puncturing multiple holes through it. I think I agree with someone earlier in this thread that hunting should be done with a bolt-action rifle. Seems more respectful if it's just one shot. Then you can actually use the meat etc so as not to spoil the animals life. With an AK-47 surely you'd have to spend hours picking out all the bullets if you wanted to use the meat for anything.

And were we talking about full auto, that would be reasonable. However, some people on this board still don't know the difference yet keep making claims about it anyway.

If I pull the trigger once on a .308 chambered AR-15, what happens?

By the way, would anyone be good enough to address my other post about non-lethal weapons? It's just all the Pro-Gun experts seem to be around, and I was just curious about what you thought.

Weapons dealers I assume you mean? It's hard to imagine Wallmart stocking squad automatic weapons and other large caliber ordnance.

I very much doubt that such sales would go to individuals.

What do you think a firearm dealer is? An individual or small company.

And we're not talking about SAW's or ordnance. We're talking about pistols, rifles, shotguns, and assoc. equipment.

And were we talking about full auto, that would be reasonable. However, some people on this board still don't know the difference yet keep making claims about it anyway.

If I pull the trigger once on a .308 chambered AR-15, what happens?


OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer! :D

It would go bang, the action would cycle, then it would just sit there until the trigger was released and pulled again.




Do I win a cookie? :D :D

By the way, for all the Pro-Gun people who espouse that you need a firearm for personal and household protection ("You can't rely on Police etc"), why does it have to be a lethal firearm? Why not non-lethal firearms such as those riot grenade launchers with rubber shells, or rifles with rubber bullets? Is there any specific reason why whenever you fire your gun at an attacker or burglar you must gamble with his life and yours? Why isn't specifically non-lethal weaponry and ammunition used more often?

Ironically, in the areas that have the most severe firearm restrictions, also heavily restrict "less than lethals/non-lethals" and even mace.

However, a good reason not to use them is because of effectiveness. Stimulants tend to make people more immune to pain and these won't stop them.

There's also the matter of lawsuits. Only recently have states begun disallowing criminals from sueing thier victims after being injured during a break-in. Would you want to be sued by a burglar after defending your home?

By the way, would anyone be good enough to address my other post about non-lethal weapons? It's just all the Pro-Gun experts seem to be around, and I was just curious about what you thought.


Non-lethal is a misnomer. It's actually less-lethal (as rubber bullets, bean bags, etc, can still kill under the right circumstances).

Less-lethal weapons aren't what I'd pick up, simply because if I'm going to pull the trigger on someone, it's because I feel my life (or that of my family/friends) is in mortal danger. I'm not going to take the chance that someone's going to get back up after being knocked down with a rubber bullet/bean bag/etc to attack me and my family/friends again.

Ironically, in the areas that have the most severe firearm restrictions, also heavily restrict "less than lethals/non-lethals" and even mace.

However, a good reason not to use them is because of effectiveness. Stimulants tend to make people more immune to pain and these won't stop them.

There's also the matter of lawsuits. Only recently have states begun disallowing criminals from sueing thier victims after being injured during a break-in. Would you want to be sued by a burglar after defending your home?

Why wouldn't he sue you after you shot a lethal round into his shoulder or leg? Are you actually supposed to shoot to kill?

OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer! :D

It would go bang, the action would cycle, then it would just sit there until the trigger was released and pulled again.

Do I win a cookie? :D :D

Cycling the action is like watching two hot chicks making out.

Cycling the action is like watching two hot chicks making out.

You need help pal.

OOOH! OOOH! I know the answer! :D

It would go bang, the action would cycle, then it would just sit there until the trigger was released and pulled again.




Do I win a cookie? :D :D

GM, you did not wait until you were called on. Go sit in the corner. :mad:

GM, you did not wait until you were called on. Go sit in the corner. :mad:


:(

/me sits in the corner
//me is reminded of when he used to have to stand in the corner as a kid

Now tell me what happens when you pull the trigger on a semi-auto rifle. How many bullets get fired.

My initial post was directed at Dossun on the first page who said:

It's true you don't need an fully automatic assault weapon to hunt but it sure does make things a lot easier and a bit more fun.

But I forgot to do the quote, but even then - a semi-automatic where you have a whole magazine and can repeatadly fire more or less as fast as you can pull the trigger still seems very unsporting.

:(

/me sits in the corner
//me is reminded of when he used to have to stand in the corner as a kid

Ok, you can get up now.

*Hands GM a lollipop.*

Ah, so that's why California is going out of their way to ban the 50 caliber rifle as "dangerous".

Well, there is an exception to the rule where rifles make poor criminal implements. And that is expressly for planned murder. Then they make excellent weapons due to the range and power delivered.

Take for example, the Washington sniper. It can be argued that with a less powerful weapon, such as a handgun or such, he would have been forced to attack from a much closer range, thereby making his escape much harder.

As to .50 caliber rifle rounds, well, aside from even greater range and firepower, the same rulings in regards to rifles used in crimes apply. It would also have sufficient power to target and cripple police cars, armored vans, etc, etc.

My initial post was directed at Dossun on the first page who said:

Fair enough.



But I forgot to do the quote, but even then - a semi-automatic where you have a whole magazine and can repeatadly fire more or less as fast as you can pull the trigger still seems very unsporting.

And if you that, you won't hit anything but trees and the ground.

The AR-15 family of firearms are extremely accurate and come in a variety of calibers. It may seem "unsporting", but that is a matter of opinion, not a reason to restrict them.

:rolleyes:

Even if someone WANTED a nuke, who would be able to afford one, and who would sell one to a civilian?

People spend a hundred million dollers on a painting - I think you'll find a few people who would be able to fork out for the joy of owning a nuke.


You missed some of my examples. What if, at some point, you forget that they're there, and you set one off? What if (hypothetically speaking) you had kids, and your kids set them off? What if you were having a party at your house, and one of your guests set one off?
well now you're talking about irresponsible land-mine ownership. Your examples would be like saying we should not allow people to own guns incase they leave them lying about on the kitchen table for the kids to play with without teaching them about the dangers of guns, or some guy who gets drunk and starts shooting at birds in a suburban neighborhood without thinking of there being people walking about.


As far as shooting someone on your property, you can't just shoot someone for being in your yard. If they broke into (or were attempting to), then depending on the state, it'd be different (in some states, you have a responsibility to retreat, even to the point of leaving the house, before you're allowed to shoot an intruder).
I'm pretty sure in some states you are allowed to shoot someone for entering your property/land without permission without giving them warning, and a lot of states most definately do not require you to retreat. I'd like of someone could confirm this though.


Explosives are considered destructive devices, and are therefore more heavily regulated than most firearms (NFA firearms have a similar level of regulation).
Why is a gun not a destructive device?

What do you think a firearm dealer is? An individual or small company.

And we're not talking about SAW's or ordnance. We're talking about pistols, rifles, shotguns, and assoc. equipment.

Ah, so you've caught me with a loophole. Allow me to clarify, when I say individuals, I mean individuals who are not in the business of legally selling and trading in firearms.

As to rifles, what sort? Bolt action, semi-automatic, full automatic? Although that is rather moot since they are after all, sold to weapons dealers who should have the appropriate licenses.

People spend a hundred million dollers on a painting - I think you'll find a few people who would be able to fork out for the joy of owning a nuke.


well now you're talking about irresponsible land-mine ownership. Your examples would be like saying we should not allow people to own guns incase they leave them lying about on the kitchen table for the kids to play with without teaching them about the dangers of guns, or some guy who gets drunk and starts shooting at birds in a suburban neighborhood without thinking of there being people walking about.


I'm pretty sure in some states you are allowed to shoot someone for entering your property/land without permission without giving them warning, and a lot of states most definately do not require you to retreat. I'd like of someone could confirm this though.


Why is a gun not a destructive device?

Landmines are still indescriminate. The same as you can't set up a booby-trap using a firearm. A firearm is descriminate and hence not a "destructive device".

The majority of states still have a "duty to retreat". That is slowly changing. There are a little over a dozen that have changed that.

As for being on your land only, I'm unaware of any state that you could get away w/ that. Now if the person was a known, violent criminal and/or had caused problems there before, that's a different story.

I'm pretty sure in some states you are allowed to shoot someone for entering your property/land without permission without giving them warning, and a lot of states most definately do not require you to retreat. I'd like of someone could confirm this though.

Wrong.

You have to be able to define them as a lethal threat in every state.

Now, if it's dark, and you're inside your house, and it's 2 AM, in many states, that qualifies.

In other states, you have to see them with a weapon in their hands. Given the short distances involved, shouting a warning is tantamount to suicide, as someone can traverse a short distance with a knife and kill you inside of the time it takes to say, "Stop or I'll shoot!".

In still others, you are required to retreat, even if it means leaving your own home.

And in every state, once you shoot someone, you have to call the police, and the DA gets to decide whether or not to try to fry you. Very often, that is more of a political decision than a judicial one.

It's best to call 911 after a shooting, and then immediately call your lawyer.

Even if the police end up not charging you, it is very common for the survivors of the person you shot to sue the living daylights out of you, even if you were found to be completely in the right.

Ah, so you've caught me with a loophole. Allow me to clarify, when I say individuals, I mean individuals who are not in the business of legally selling and trading in firearms.

As to rifles, what sort? Bolt action, semi-automatic, full automatic? Although that is rather moot since they are after all, sold to weapons dealers who should have the appropriate licenses.

Then they'ld get a visit from the ATF after 3000 NICS checks head into their office.

You answered your own second question.

Ok, you can get up now.

*Hands GM a lollipop.*



WHEEEEE! :D

Wrong.

You have to be able to define them as a lethal threat in every state.

Now, if it's dark, and you're inside your house, and it's 2 AM, in many states, that qualifies.

In other states, you have to see them with a weapon in their hands. Given the short distances involved, shouting a warning is tantamount to suicide, as someone can traverse a short distance with a knife and kill you inside of the time it takes to say, "Stop or I'll shoot!".

In still others, you are required to retreat, even if it means leaving your own home.


Interesting. Does anyone happen to know a source where I can see which states have which policy?

Interesting. Does anyone happen to know a source where I can see which states have which policy?

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

http://www.gunlaws.com/links/

Thanks for the links :)

Lemme clue you geniuses into something real quick, about this whole 'assault weapon' scheme.

The difference between an automatic weapon and an assault rifle, as define by law, is that assault weapons are semi-automatic. So, the only difference is the rate of fire, correct?

Then, let's also look at this - assault weapons are small or shortened cartridge. That means they are either smaller or shorter than hunting cartridges. So, as far as the menace of 'inflicting massive damage' goes, it's actually the quite opposite. They're designed to inflict less damage - a basic tenant of warfare: Kill a man, tag 'em and leave him for Graves Registration. Injure a man, and you take at least three people out of combat - the man you injured and the men taking care of him.

Second - all that shit on an 'assault rifle' like bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, etc. - do you know how much impact it has on the ability for a rifle to physically fire? Absolutely none. It will fire the same ammunition, just as fast and just as effectively as a 'regular' rifle. Here's some more specific myth busting:

1) Flash suppressors don't hide the flash, it actually makes it easier to see a rifle being fired. What it does is it keeps the flash from interfering with your sights when you're firing automatically (which, as we have just pointed out, assault rifles can't do).

2) How many drive by bayoneting have you heard of? Does the ability to place a bayonet on a rifle matter? I think not.

3) Using a stockless weapon pretty much means you're not going to hit anything. Folding stocks are meant more for carrying a rifle without it being cumbersome.

Third - do you know how many crimes have been committed with legal assault weapons? Almost none. Death by assault weapon is far outclasses by knives, blunt objects, poison, etc. - all of which are more concealable and in many cases, more deadly.

I realize than many people are not worried about everyday crime so much as they are worried about 'mass killings.' Sad to say, if someone is that intent on killing a number of people, he will find the means to do so no matter what is banned. More deadly, automatic weapons are to be had on the black market, the ability to make explosives out of household goods can be easily found on the internet, and if you're crazed enough, even a simple knife will do.

Fourth - Why did the US life the assault ban? Because Dept. of Justice data and numerous studies have shown that it has absolutely no impact on crime. Instead of actually trying to correct the problem, the criminals, Congress threw you a feel-good piece of legislation that did NOTHING.



Gun control organizations do it all the wrong way - they attack gun owners, when if they paid attention, they find that gun owners are willing to work with them on the issue. So instead they have scared them into believing that any gun control is bad, because as we have seen, they use it as a stepping stone to stripping guns way. That's why people who own guns are paranoid about it. Owning guns reduces crime, it's been proven time and time again, that's why states have been adapting right-to-carry legislation and reciprocity laws in the past few years - states where people can carry weaponry have lower crime rates, and their crime rates are dropping. Work with gun owners, not against them, and you can get something done.

The question that should be asked is why would you need a semiautomatic rifle? From what most gun owners say here, shotguns are better for home defense due to low wall penetration of the buckshot, reducing the chances of accidental hits. They're not practical concealed carry weapons. As for hunting, well, if you need a semi-auto for one, that might mean you used the wrong caliber (.22 to go bear hunting), or it might mean you just need to spend more time at the local range.

What practical reason would there be for one?

I would answer that a semi-automatic rifle is more effective than an archaic single-action rifle.

Thus, for any use an archaic single-action rifle might find, a semiautomatic counterpart is more effective.

The constitutional right to bear arms is linked to their military value, and while I allow that as with other rights, the interest of broad public safety has to be taken in balance, semiautomatic rifles do not threaten the public safety the way that readily available fully-automatic ones do.

It seems, aside from hoplophobia, that there is no coherant reason to ban semi-automatic weapons.

The question that should be asked is why would you need a semiautomatic rifle? From what most gun owners say here, shotguns are better for home defense due to low wall penetration of the buckshot, reducing the chances of accidental hits. They're not practical concealed carry weapons. As for hunting, well, if you need a semi-auto for one, that might mean you used the wrong caliber (.22 to go bear hunting), or it might mean you just need to spend more time at the local range.

What practical reason would there be for one?

does everything need a practical reason?

Ah, so that's why California is going out of their way to ban the 50 caliber rifle as "dangerous".

California's law isn't based on fighting crime, since crimes aren't committed in the US using the outrageously expensive 50bmg round and outrageously expensive 50bmg firearms.

At the heart of California's shame is hoplophobia and the ascendancy of people in quite over their heads and capabilities.

Why wouldn't he sue you after you shot a lethal round into his shoulder or leg? Are you actually supposed to shoot to kill?

You are more or less expected to shoot to kill.

Using a gun at all is only legally justified in the most dire circumstance, the literal "kill or be killed."

Shooting for the leg or some other amateur inanity is good evidence for the criminal to use in claiming you didn't really shoot him in self defense.

After all, if your life was in danger, wouldn't you have used maximum force?

Well, there is an exception to the rule where rifles make poor criminal implements. And that is expressly for planned murder. Then they make excellent weapons due to the range and power delivered.

Take for example, the Washington sniper. It can be argued that with a less powerful weapon, such as a handgun or such, he would have been forced to attack from a much closer range, thereby making his escape much harder.

As to .50 caliber rifle rounds, well, aside from even greater range and firepower, the same rulings in regards to rifles used in crimes apply. It would also have sufficient power to target and cripple police cars, armored vans, etc, etc.

You seem to be under the impression that a .50 caliber round has some magic ability to 'target and cripple police cars, armored vans, etc'.

Far from the truth. There are a number of rounds perfectly capable of penetrating police vehicle armor or fouling up an engine.

The sort of 50bmg rounds the military uses, incendiary armor piercing, are not readily available to civilians as it is.

--

An even better way to commit premeditated murder is to use a piece of rope or cord to strangle someone from behind. Perhaps this should be banned as well?