!!BAD!! the assault weapon ban may come back!!

And I bet Stingers are great fun too ~:)

I see two different reasons for having guns: one for personal defense and one to fight against your government that suddenly has turned fascist or whatever the IMO far out scenario is.

Now I can understand handguns and maybe even rifles for self defense but if you want to protect yourself against a government turned bad you need more than rifles.

Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?

Of course I live in socialist heaven so what do I know ~:)


CBR

Thank you Taffy. Excellent point. How does putting a pistol grip on a shotgun make it any more deadly? It doesnt'. It just makes you look like a bad ass. Yet, this was one of the features outlawed under the so-called assault weapons ban.

Hell, Janet Reno boasted one time during a DNC fundraiser that if the NRA didn't calm down, she'd show them that if she chose to she could get a 22 revolver declared as an assault weapon.

I bet stingers are great fun too but, well, you can't really use them for proper target shooting and I bet they wouldn't be too useful for home defense or pest control.

I think Gawain was saying in here one time if one had had the finanical wherewithal, the 2nd ammendment guarantees their right to own a ballistic nuclear submarine.

Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?
'


yes they should.

Thats true but they would be an essential weapon for those who wants to protect themselves against a dictatorship.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

For those of you who are pro gun do you think there are limits to what you should be allowed to own.

---

Absolutely. The problem is that the guns I would (perhaps) ban, would be banned just as much for emotional reasons as for technical reasons. Which blows my argument out of the water, yet I still feel the way I do. Go figure.

The basic argument boils down to whether a person can reason that a gun that can kill twenty people a minute is really so much worse than a gun that can kill ten people a minute, that it should be banned while the other is not. We'll use a Lee-Enfield built in 1914 with an 11 shot capacity vs. an AK-series rifle built yesterday with a thirty round capacity as examples.

Is one really so much worse than the other. Yes. And no. The argument has just as much to do with phychology as with mechanics.

Sweden has 9 million inhabitants and 1,1 million hunting weapons. Only 5% of the murders here are committed with these weapons. Does that not prove that ordinary citisens with weapons does NOT have a tendens to murder innocent people on the street?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

Sweden has 9 million inhabitants and 1,1 million hunting weapons. Only 5% of the murders here are committed with these weapons. Does that not prove that ordinary citisens with weapons does NOT have a tendens to murder innocent people on the street?

---

You got any statistics on weapons used in murders?


CBR

No, I´m sorry I don´t. But the numbers are pretty clear. Legaly obtained weapons does not harm the society...

Also criminals dont usually have and ar15 or a colt gold cup. They use brands like hi point and jennings for 2 reasons.

1 they are usually poor and cant afford good guns.
2 many times they get rid of the gun after a crime would you rather lose something worth less then 100 dollars or something worth over 1000 dollars :dizzy2:


And other thing keep mac 10s and tec 9s around (DONT BAN THEM) some gangsters (with some cash) get guns like these and they are JUNK(the semi auto versions jam alot after about 500 rounds)... they get them because they look scary. For not much more money they could get a cz75 this is a VERY good gun and it is not as big and bulky like the beretta 92 or the glock17. (I think the Us military should adopt this gun it can fire with sand in it)


Another myth gun grabbers like to use is that glocks are undetectable by air port security... this is no true the outside is made of polymer but the inside has metal in it and can be picked up by a metal detector as easily as an all metal gun like a 1911.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

No, I´m sorry I don´t. But the numbers are pretty clear. Legaly obtained weapons does not harm the society...

---

Well if we assume they are correct then all it shows is that rifles and shotguns are not used much in murders. Gun statistics for USA shows handguns to be the big killer. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

I doubt that assault rifles will take over that role as handguns are small and easy to conceal and therefore will always be used more. When the handguns appeared back in the 16th century people saw them as weapons of assassins and thieves IIRC


CBR

I think you are right on that...

Wow. I have to say, I find the passion for weapons in this thread a little scary.

$0.02: Any society without guns is preferable for me. It just resembles a mini arms race from my outsider's perspective. Like, "the criminals have got guns, so I need a gun to protect myself from their guns". Too many guns overall, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CBR

I doubt that assault rifles will take over that role as handguns are small and easy to conceal and therefore will always be used more. When the handguns appeared back in the 16th century people saw them as weapons of assassins and thieves IIRC

---

Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)

In response to the "what if our government went bad" reason for guns, as pointed out the US army, being made up of freedom loving US citizens would probably stomp on the bad guys rather than other freedom loving US citizens - so I don't think its necessary to keep a anti-tank missile under the kitchen sink just yet, and that does seem very extreme, but then again, when was the last time an A-T missile was used for a criminal purpose?

My gut feeling is a populace armed to the teeth isn't necessary, and when it is necessary then it's not permitted - but then here in little england it's not permitted and I don't think its necessary.

I'll end my confusing rant on that confusing point methinks.

I think something like an AT missile was used in Scandinavia a few years ago during a feud between a couple of bike gangs/clubs.

Wow, are AT missiles legal in scandinavia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)

---

If I only could ban one them then I would ban handguns yes. I would prefer to ban assault rifles too but I will do another post on that later...


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Wow, are AT missiles legal in scandinavia?

---

No they were stolen from a Swedish Army Depot.



CBR

I don't think the people who used that missile were particularily concerned about its legality.

I do hope they are legal though.

The uk is living proof of why not to ban them ... In London gangs of thugs go around and attack people they call it "happy slapping" some people have been raped and killed by them. Now if they leagalize guns and let people get permits to carry them (with back round checks and training just dont let any moron start carrying) like in the USA. all it would take is a few dead "happy slappers" to clean it all up ~:cheers:


ask some of our london members here they may not agree with what i say but they will know what happy slapping is.

Well in that case we should see a tendency in US of very little crime compared to countries that didnt allow guns?

If guns are easy to get to I would imagine criminals "upgrade" to guns too but of course then you can start using assault rifles instead...


CBR

I'm more concerned about the rise in gun crime SINCE they banned hand guns in the U.K....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Well in that case we should see a tendency in US of very little crime compared to countries that didnt allow guns?

If guns are easy to get to I would imagine criminals "upgrade" to guns too but of course then you can start using assault rifles instead...


CBR

---

Look at vermont you dont even need a permit to carry there and they have some of the lowest crime in the usa. Then look at dc they are banned and have high crime but that will change soon the ban is ending http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2...wsdc01guns.txt

now dc needs a carry permit...



and it is NOT an "assault rifle" unless it is full auto :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK Home Office

The current situation

In some areas, gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress.

Most worrying is the rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms, either to boost their image, or from a misguided idea about self-protection. Some of this is linked to gang activity, which itself is linked to the illegal drug trade.

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms
Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it.

---

...

Papewaio

Indeed. However, gun crime levels are still higher than when hand guns were legal in the U.K.

See they are banned and the criminals still carry all that law does is keep law abiding members of society from being able to defend them selves. even pepper spray is baned :help:

Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.

what's the deal with almost every Swiss adult male being allowed an assault weapon?

You don't hear about them going on killing sprees so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

And I bet Stingers are great fun too ~:)

I see two different reasons for having guns: one for personal defense and one to fight against your government that suddenly has turned fascist or whatever the IMO far out scenario is.

Now I can understand handguns and maybe even rifles for self defense but if you want to protect yourself against a government turned bad you need more than rifles.

Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?

Of course I live in socialist heaven so what do I know ~:)
CBR

---

Well living in a country like Denmark I don't suppose you would ever have to deal with a Fascist government. As you say it's really a "far out scenario". However in the unlikely scenario that a Fascist government assumed power in Denmark, or even perhaps Denmark was invaded by an outside Fascist government, not that it could ever come to that of course, but, if it did, the presence of firearms would become a matter of national freedom. Perhaps you could rely on an outside nation to supply the Danish underground, or perhaps not. Some of us prefer a little more solid of a guarantee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)

In response to the "what if our government went bad" reason for guns, as pointed out the US army, being made up of freedom loving US citizens would probably stomp on the bad guys rather than other freedom loving US citizens - so I don't think its necessary to keep a anti-tank missile under the kitchen sink just yet, and that does seem very extreme, but then again, when was the last time an A-T missile was used for a criminal purpose?

My gut feeling is a populace armed to the teeth isn't necessary, and when it is necessary then it's not permitted - but then here in little england it's not permitted and I don't think its necessary.

I'll end my confusing rant on that confusing point methinks.

---

A population armed to the teeth means it never has to become necessary. Simply trusting your leaders to be nice guys is one to go. Didn't work too well for the Weimer Republic of Germany but it's one way to go. The Freikorps had weapons and the various militia's as well but the citizenry was largely unarmed. So it was the militia that ended up as top dog that decided Germanies future. One wonders if Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) would ever have occurred if the Jews had been heavily armed?