MERGED--> all Gun Control discussion

[bigjohn2441]

so, according to that definition, if i customized my $100 walmart .22 semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip and a folding stock, it would become an "assault rifle?"

i think the only thing that would be good for assaulting would be squirrels and rabbits

 

[HyperU2]

Yeah, if you hurry and put some stickers on your car it's not too late to race in next weeks NASCAR event.

 

[BVS]

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor

Well a folding or telescoping stock would allow one to conceal easier, correct?

Why would any hunter need a pistol grip on a rifle? What would that be used for? Gosh, I don't know.

You say these things are just aesthetics, but I say they are for intent. So I ask you again, can you show me why any law abiding citizen would need any of these things?

 

[HyperU2]

Why do cars go over 55 mph?

 

[bigjohn2441]

Why would any hunter need a pistol grip on a rifle? What would that be used for? Gosh, I don't know.

preference maybe?

 

[BVS]

Why do cars go over 55 mph?

So we're back to this weak argument again?

I know it might be hard for you to believe but cars are not only for entertainment, they actually serve a purpose of transport.

Guns were designed for one purpose.

 

[BVS]

preference maybe?

I've never in my life met a hunter that used a pistol grip. A pistol grip is designed so that a rifle can be versitile, can be used with stock on shoulder or held low... I've never in my life met a hunter that shot from the hip not using a sight.

 

[bigjohn2441]

I've never in my life met a hunter that shot from the hip not using a sight.

that is a funny thought

 

[HyperU2]

So we're back to this weak argument again?

I know it might be hard for you to believe but cars are not only for entertainment, they actually serve a purpose of transport.

Guns were designed for one purpose.

Thats gotta make it doubly tragic that they kill four times as many people a year as guns.

 

[BVS]

Thats gotta make it doubly tragic that they kill four times as many people a year as guns.

How many of them intentionally?

 

[HyperU2]

I don't think anyone really keeps track of that, sadly. By the way, your argument about banning cosmetic aspects of firearms is much weaker.

 

[BVS]

I don't think anyone really keeps track of that, sadly.

If there's a charge for voluntary vehicular manslaughter, there's probably a way to track the figures.

By the way, your argument about banning cosmetic aspects of firearms is much weaker.

Why, because you haven't been able to prove that they are only cosmetic? At least bigjohn tried to engage in that debate and answer my questions.

 

[bigjohn2441]

i understand the concerns with the accessories that could make a rifle easier to conceal, more versatile, magazine capacity, etc etc. almost all of these "assault weapons" are still only semi-automatic COPIES of military-style weapons. when i think of the term "assault weapon", i think of a military issued weapon (fully decked out with lazer scopes, night vison, etc) with select fire semi and full automatic, maybe even 3 round burst. some even have grenade launchers or even shotguns (see the movie Predator ) underneith the barrel. NOT some semi-automatic copy any joe schmoe can buy from JimBob's gun shop.

the problem i have is labeling those guns with those certain components "assault weapons" is that it makes them sound scarier than they are and makes the public think people are out walking around with military weapons, which they arent. like i said earlier, i could customize my $100 walmart .22 with folding stock and pistol grip and it would be considered an "assault weapon". OOOOH sooo scary

id love to see some statistics, if there are any, showing the rates of gun violence using these dreaded "assault weapons" versus handguns and other kinds of firearms. id be willing to bet "assault weapons" are towards the bottom if not last on the list. someone walks into someplace with pistols and blows a bunch of people away and we hear about "assault weapons" and banning them in the media.

 

[HyperU2]

Why, because you haven't been able to prove that they are only cosmetic? At least bigjohn tried to engage in that debate and answer my questions.

I find it pointless to debate when the stats show how little rifles of that type are used in crimes.

 

[bigjohn2441]

At least bigjohn tried to engage in that debate and answer my questions.

 

[BVS]

I find it pointless to debate when the stats show how little rifles of that type are used in crimes.

The difference between you and I is if I could save one life I would, you'd rather hide behind "a small amount" of death so that you can have more neat accesories and fun toys.

If someone could show me these things were needed, I'd be open minded about it, but no one has... It's just "these aren't really assault rifles" and "they are only a small number of murders".

 

[HyperU2]

You want to ban bayonet lugs thinking you're going to save a life? The gun industry made quite a mockery of the "assault weapons" ban last time around.


Here are a few you can feel safer about.

 

[maycocksean]

id love to see some statistics, if there are any, showing the rates of gun violence using these dreaded "assault weapons" versus handguns and other kinds of firearms. id be willing to bet "assault weapons" are towards the bottom if not last on the list. someone walks into someplace with pistols and blows a bunch of people away and we hear about "assault weapons" and banning them in the media.

I would agree with you.

Which is why I think more comprehensive legislation that limits the purchase of handguns to licensed professionals would be better.

Here in Saipan, ordinary people can't buy handguns period. You can buy rifles and such for use out on the farm and so on, but no pistols.

And you know what, the criminals just run rampant here, gunning down the innocent with impunity because all the good guys have been stripped of their ability to defend themselves. We all live in fear, I tell you. . . .

Seriously, though.

Gun violence is simply not an issue here at all. It doesn't happen.

 

[BVS]

The gun industry made quite a mockery of the "assault weapons" ban last time around.

Really? I can't believe "the gun industry" wouldn't support the assault weapons ban.

Here are a few you can feel safer about.

Care to explain?

 

[HyperU2]

Really? I can't believe "the gun industry" wouldn't support the assault weapons ban.



Care to explain?

Those are versions of AR15's that are legal in California, they lack the cosmetics that the assault weapons ban would make illegal.

 

[BVS]

Those are versions of AR15's that are legal in California, they lack the cosmetics that the assault weapons ban would make illegal.

But it's not just a cosmetic, I don't know why you are so stuck on that... Changing the grip changes the way the gun could be used.

 

[HyperU2]

No, it doesn't. I could wreck shit with an M14 (my personal favorite) and they've never had a pistol grip.

 

[BVS]

No, it doesn't. I could wreck shit with an M14 (my personal favorite) and they've never had a pistol grip.

Of course you could "wreck shit", any gun could.

But how do you shoot an M14? It's a sniper favorite. Are you purposely being obtuse?


And actually an M14 is often customed with a pistol grip.

 

[bigjohn2441]

But it's not just a cosmetic, I don't know why you are so stuck on that... Changing the grip changes the way the gun could be used.

i get what you are saying, but does it really matter that type of grip the weapon has? its it really that much harder to shoot from the shoulder with or without a pistol grip, or even from the hip? i've shot 12 gauge shotguns from the hip, and they dont have pistol grips.

i mean in theory pistol grips make the weapon more versatile, but you can still do the same with a rifle or shotgun that doesnt have one. so what's the big difference?

 

[BVS]

i get what you are saying, but does it really matter that type of grip the weapon has? its it really that much harder to shoot from the shoulder with or without a pistol grip, or even from the hip? i've shot 12 gauge shotguns from the hip, and they dont have pistol grips.

i mean in theory pistol grips make the weapon more versatile, but you can still do the same with a rifle or shotgun that doesnt have one. so what's the big difference?

I think the difference comes down to design intent. Of course any rifle could be shot from the hip, but that's not the intent.

Neither one of you have yet given me a reason as why a law abiding citizen would need a weapon like this. It's gonna come down to shits and giggles, I understand that and unfortunately the law is on your side, but I don't like it. I have no problem with hunting rifles, in fact I have all the respect for responsible hunters, there needs to be more of them. But I just don't see a need for guns like this.

 

[bigjohn2441]

Neither one of you have yet given me a reason as why a law abiding citizen would need a weapon like this. It's gonna come down to shits and giggles, I understand that and unfortunately the law is on your side, but I don't like it. I have no problem with hunting rifles, in fact I have all the respect for responsible hunters, there needs to be more of them. But I just don't see a need for guns like this.

ok ill try

first of all, do you believe law abiding citizens should be able to have A gun for personal defense in their home?

if so, then what's wrong with a gun like this, which is a "home personal defense model":

for personal defense in your home when:

-the person doesnt want a pistol because they arent good with them. if you've ever shot a pistol as opposed to a rifle, you'd know pistols take a lot more skill to shoot accuratly, ESCPECIALLY in a high intensity self-defense situation. certain calibers that are designed for self-defense may be too much for smaller people.

- shotguns are too powerful for the person. what good is trying to defend yourself with it if it knocks you on your ass?

these types of weapons are the only thing left. you wouldnt use a hunting rifle for home defense cause the rounds are just too powerful and could potentially go right through the person, your house, and into your neighbor's. also, these "assault weapons" ( ) are lighter and more "versatile" when it comes to a self-defense situation. they are much more easy to shoot than a pistol or shotgun. and if an attacker, burglar, whatever sees that thing pointed at them, it would probably take all the "attack" out of him.

well, there's my best effort, for now.

 

[HyperU2]

I think the difference comes down to design intent. Of course any rifle could be shot from the hip, but that's not the intent.

Neither one of you have yet given me a reason as why a law abiding citizen would need a weapon like this. It's gonna come down to shits and giggles, I understand that and unfortunately the law is on your side, but I don't like it. I have no problem with hunting rifles, in fact I have all the respect for responsible hunters, there needs to be more of them. But I just don't see a need for guns like this.

Hunting rifles like Charles Whitman used.

 

[Irvine511]

ok ill try

first of all, do you believe law abiding citizens should be able to have A gun for personal defense in their home?

if so, then what's wrong with a gun like this, which is a "home personal defense model":

for personal defense in your home when:

-the person doesnt want a pistol because they arent good with them. if you've ever shot a pistol as opposed to a rifle, you'd know pistols take a lot more skill to shoot accuratly, ESCPECIALLY in a high intensity self-defense situation. certain calibers that are designed for self-defense may be too much for smaller people.

- shotguns are too powerful for the person. what good is trying to defend yourself with it if it knocks you on your ass?

these types of weapons are the only thing left. you wouldnt use a hunting rifle for home defense cause the rounds are just too powerful and could potentially go right through the person, your house, and into your neighbor's. also, these "assault weapons" ( ) are lighter and more "versatile" when it comes to a self-defense situation. they are much more easy to shoot than a pistol or shotgun. and if an attacker, burglar, whatever sees that thing pointed at them, it would probably take all the "attack" out of him.

well, there's my best effort, for now.

you make a good point.

it's totally worth all those dead people.

 

[bigjohn2441]

you make a good point.

it's totally worth all those dead people.

oh yeah, you have statistics that show how many people have been killed with "assault weapons" as opposed to other guns?

i'd love to see them.

i guess "assault weapons" are the only guns that kill people.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Is there a pink one for women?