Gun Control

[das1330]

 

Here is the difference between an assault rifle and a 6 shot revolver

 

 

 

self defense--both can be used to take out one or two attackers easily

 

 

 

going on a killingn spree--opening up in a crowded mall with a revolver lets you fire 6 shots without reloading, thats 12 kills under the luckiest of circumstances. By the time you reload a revolver, most people will have run out of your firing range. Something like a tec 9 allows you to fire at least 20 shots before reloading and has a fireing range that allows for at least one reload before anyone could escape the initial firing range.

 

 

 

Can there please be a requirement that people have first-hand experience with firearms before they speculate on the relative effectiveness differences between them? I have already said this several times, and I will say it again - anyone that is experienced in the use of a gun can effectively kill large number of people with it, be it a M134 minigun or a bolt action .22 rifle.

 

 

 

My point was they are using particular statistics for each state to suit their point. A better and more academic approach would have been to look at each state and compare them over a similar period (for example murder rate by firearm over the last 10 years).

 

 

 

Murder rate and gun ownership are (generally) inversely related - States with the strictest gun control laws have the highest murder and violent crime rates. For instance, California, Washington D.C. and Massachusetts have the strictest gun control laws in the country, as well as the highest crime rates. In D.C's case, after passing a law (now struck down) banning the private ownership of handguns, the murder rate almost doubled in 10 years - compared to a 20% countrywide drop in murder in the same time period.

 

 

 

 

 

And assualt weapons can't compare to a homemade bomb surrounded by thousands of ball berrings. Don't get me wrong, i'm not opposed to regulating the ownership of assualt weapons, but i want them to be possible to own.

 

 

 

The problem with so-called "assault-weapons bans" is that they ban scary looking guns, and have nothing to do with actual characteristics that make the gun more dangerous. The last AWB (now expired) prohibited, among other things, barrel shrouds (a safety device that prevents the shooter from burning their hands), flash hiders (another safety device to protect the shooter's vision from the blinding flash of a gunshot) and bayonet lugs (no one in the US has EVER been bayoneted to death in the commission of a crime). This video shows just how insignificant the differences are between a so-called "hunting rifle" and an "assault weapon" (a term created by the gun banners)

[mmmcannibalism]

I recognize the term assault weapon implies too much on appearence but its a want of a better term situation to be honest.

 

 

 

Yes, any gun can be used to very lethal effect, the main concern I have is regulating things that require no skill to be put to such effect(ie fully automatic weapons and "high capacity" for want of a term pistols). I fully support legal gun ownership, but (easy to get)liscensing of guns that arent hunting rifles seems like a reasonable approach to me.

[War_Junky_91]

The guy in texas used a handgun. And by possible to own i mean with a federal permit that requires multiple background checks and a pysch evaluation along with a hundred hours of gun safety courses.

 

That was my point.

 

 

 

Shouldn't they just do the bold for all gun sales? Well, the hundred hours seems a bit much, but proper permits and training seem like something that the government should require. In fact, I think that's been said a few times in this thread. Always a good suggestion though!

 

Yeah, a hundred hours is too much, but yeah i'm all for a background check, pysch evaluations mandatory gun safety and permits for deadlier weapons and right to carry. In fact fellow marksmen have been trying to get mandatory gun safety classes in schools, but it meets feirce opposition at every turn.

 

 

 

And cannibalism, high capacity magazines become more of a hinderance than a help once it passes the point of double ammo. And besides it only takes a quater second to change a magazine.

 

 

 

 

 

[yt]GCDIfxHcJkw[/yt]

[das1330]

I recognize the term assault weapon implies too much on appearence but its a want of a better term situation to be honest.

 

 

 

Yes, any gun can be used to very lethal effect, the main concern I have is regulating things that require no skill to be put to such effect(ie fully automatic weapons and "high capacity" for want of a term pistols). I fully support legal gun ownership, but (easy to get)liscensing of guns that arent hunting rifles seems like a reasonable approach to me.

 

 

 

On the contrary, fully automatic guns are extremely difficult to use effectively - unless you are rambo, the massive recoil of a machine gun makes it practically impossible to hit anything past 5 feet in front of you, it wastes massive amounts of ammunition, and is generally ineffective for actually killing people. The US army and Marines do not even issue regular soldiers fully automatic guns because they can't hit anything with them - only special forces units with special requirements are issued fully automatic weapons.

 

 

 

The definition of "hunting rifle" is as arbitrary as the definition of "assault weapon" is, as well. Any large caliber weapon is an effective hunting gun (in fact, hunting weapons are generally more dangerous to humans, because they shoot larger rounds that do more damage upon contact. A 5.56 mm round (used in many "assault weapons" is designed to wound a 150 pound enemy soldier, while a 30 06 (a hunting round) is designed to cleanly kill a 400 pound moose.

[Quoi_Tu]

Yeah, a hundred hours is too much, but yeah i'm all for a background check, pysch evaluations mandatory gun safety and permits for deadlier weapons and right to carry. In fact fellow marksmen have been trying to get mandatory gun safety classes in schools, but it meets feirce opposition at every turn.

 

I would oppose mandatory classes too mainly because I'm never going to own a gun. It would be a waste of my time and government resources. It would make more sense to require classes for those buying guns not people who will never own a gun.

[1_man_army]

 

Yeah, a hundred hours is too much, but yeah i'm all for a background check, pysch evaluations mandatory gun safety and permits for deadlier weapons and right to carry.

 

 

 

What could possibly be so urgent that you can't wait just over 4 days for a gun?

[War_Junky_91]

Yeah, a hundred hours is too much, but yeah i'm all for a background check, pysch evaluations mandatory gun safety and permits for deadlier weapons and right to carry. In fact fellow marksmen have been trying to get mandatory gun safety classes in schools, but it meets feirce opposition at every turn.

 

I would oppose mandatory classes too mainly because I'm never going to own a gun. It would be a waste of my time and government resources. It would make more sense to require classes for those buying guns not people who will never own a gun.

 

I see your point. Maybe then we could just mandate they have to provide the option of a gun safety class?

 

 

 

And another portion of the gun safety classes, i do support that there be mandatory gun safety for elementray students. Such as teaching them what to do when they see a gun and etc. The NRA's Eddy the Eagle program has had great success with this and would help alot if it was mandatory. Even if it was just one hour things once a year, just pop in a video for the kids or have a police officer come in and speak. Not really a waste of cash their.

 

 

 

1_man_army, read my earlier post. I suggested 100 hours of gun safety classes. Thats what i was refering to.

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

1_man_army, read my earlier post. I suggested 100 hours of gun safety classes. Thats what i was refering to.

 

 

 

Fair enough.

[mmmcannibalism]

For some reason Ive had a bad day in this thread as far as good wording goes

 

 

 

to clarify some things, when I said hunting rifle I mean anything that is reasonably used for hunting ie any bolt action a good amount of semi auto rifles.

 

 

 

my assault rifle statement was aimed at fully automatics and their ability to empty a full clip into a crowd before there is time to react.

 

 

 

Finally, I am pro gun overall but do believe in regulation such as psych checks etc. My apologies for having a bad night on this thread.