Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on December 05, 2008, 10:37:54 AM
-
This IMHO is an interesting article and it asks some good questions and makes some good points..............
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/02/jlott_guncontrol/
and IMHO it's NOT about anything BANNED!
-
See Rule #14
-
I think everyone should carry a gun. The stupid ones with no control will die off quickly leaving the rest of us with fewer people to support and if there ever is a situation where you need to pull your gun out there will be more people to cover the firing line that is blocked to your position.
Win/win.
-
Oh yeah, win win.
You seem to forget that there are some folks who have no self control. There will be a cost in your little slice of hell and it won't be confined to the ones who have the problem. They will extract a severe price until they are no longer capable of continuing to fire.
If I were as shallow a person as your concept I would be wishing the ones in the front of the bad guys were your family. How's that for collateral damage?
-
Actually I was counting on the ones that have no self control to be the first to leave our fine existence.
Thanks for threatening my family in such a callous way though. Heres to yours!
-
Why would anyone count on the ones who have self control to "off themselves"? Rather silly to forget that they are far far more likely to prey on others.
-
On second thought most people would try to mind their own business and not get involved but my thought was everyone would join in in killing losers that try to prey on others. The 'wild west' proved that wasnt true. Some of us dont play the role of lamb very well.
-
dang it i don't think i broke rule 14, i tried to word it nicely, but anyway, gun control is needed, too many gun crimes so that needs to change so responsible people can enjoy them
and plaxico needs to get his act together, he can afford a body guard, athletes need to send a good message to kids and act like they are the role models that they are supposed to be
-
The most likely people to kill other people in a gunners paradise are the ones who sholdn't carry one in the first place.
Hence the general fact that when a population of low quality, or just a general population, leaves more corpses if there are many guns....
If everyone around me always carried a gun, I'd be dead for sure...
-
Show me one act of terrorism stopped by armed civilians in the USA. Are armed US civilians in a terror attack going to 'take down' terrorists or simply act as these indian police did, take cover. I doubt they would, they can't even stop to help a fallen walmart door guard let alone return firm to armed crazies.
And do the cops want armed civilians engaging terrorists? How many armed civilians are going to be mistaken for terrorists and killed?
It's a stupid argument for an armed population. And whilst terrorists did get into the country with firearms, they had to make a huge effort to do it, whereas relaxed firearm controls would've allowed them to source their weapons locally, making acts of terrorism easier to commit and more likely to increase in frequency.
-
dang it i don't think i broke rule 14, i tried to word it nicely, but anyway, gun control is needed, too many gun crimes so that needs to change so responsible people can enjoy them
and pelagic needs to get his act together, he can afford a body guard, athletes need to send a good message to kids and act like they are the role models that they are supposed to be
So millions should be denied ND amendment rights cause Pelagic Burris is an idiot gangster wannabe ?
Insert Quote
The most likely people to kill other people in a gunners paradise are the ones who shouldn't carry one in the first place.
Hence the general fact that when a population of low quality, or just a general population, leaves more corpses if there are many guns....
If everyone around me always carried a gun, I'd be dead for sure...
Your from Iceland. You have been pre-programmed to feel that way. In fact being from Iceland why are you even in the thread?
Show me one act of terrorism stopped by armed civilians in the USA. Are armed US civilians in a terror attack going to 'take down' terrorists or simply act as these indian police did, take cover. I doubt they would, they can't even stop to help a fallen walmart door guard let alone return firm to armed crazies.
Show one act of terror stopped by the Police. Besides try reading concealed carry Laws. They dont allow, "acting like Police", and have been remarkably effective and trouble free where they have been written into law.
And do the cops want armed civilians engaging terrorists? How many armed civilians are going to be mistaken for terrorists and killed?
Remember that incident at the Russian school? Belsan? I wonder if the teachers and local population were still pro-gun control as those kids were getting slaughtered en-masse? Or in India for that matter.
It's a stupid argument for an armed population. And whilst terrorists did get into the country with firearms, they had to make a huge effort to do it, whereas relaxed firearm controls would've allowed them to source their weapons locally, making acts of terrorism easier to commit and more likely to increase in frequency.
This is just typically silly from you. The IRA had zero problems getting firearms into two countries with stiff gun control. How hard would it be to get a case of automatic weapons into this country?
And heres another thing to think about. If such a thing as happened in India happened here? It would be worse. In most big cities, or even small ones, "most" Police either dont have access to high power weapons or dont have military training on how to fight them effectively in combat. Get 6 to 12 terrorists trained in combat tactics , with high power weapons, and the Police here couldn't even protect themselves let alone you.
Hows that grab you?
-
My tax return is going towards a good CCW and carry gun in Febuary. Why? In most violent crimes the police show up to gather evidence. Antigun people will say (or do) anything to farther thier cause while ignoring any data proving them wrong. How can I say that? Almost every piece of indepent or unbiased study shows gun control doesnt work. Look at the UK (no disrepect intended) with almost a total ban on guns yet they have some of the highest crime rates per capita. I feel the cultural issues over there compound the issue but my point stands.
Race
-
This is just typically silly from you. The IRA had zero problems getting firearms into two countries with stiff gun control. How hard would it be to get a case of automatic weapons into this country?
And heres another thing to think about. If such a thing as happened in India happened here? It would be worse. In most big cities, or even small ones, "most" Police either dont have access to high power weapons or dont have military training on how to fight them effectively in combat. Get 6 to 12 terrorists trained in combat tactics , with high power weapons, and the Police here couldn't even protect themselves let alone you.
Hows that grab you?
Funny I thought thats what he said
Tronsky
-
Show me one act of terrorism stopped by armed civilians in the USA. Are armed US civilians in a terror attack going to 'take down' terrorists or simply act as these indian police did, take cover. I doubt they would, they can't even stop to help a fallen walmart door guard let alone return firm to armed crazies.
And do the cops want armed civilians engaging terrorists? How many armed civilians are going to be mistaken for terrorists and killed?
It's a stupid argument for an armed population. And whilst terrorists did get into the country with firearms, they had to make a huge effort to do it, whereas relaxed firearm controls would've allowed them to source their weapons locally, making acts of terrorism easier to commit and more likely to increase in frequency.
You are very much incorrect Vulcan. How easily people forget the victims of 9/11 and Flight 93. People can fight back and armed citizens are not a bad thing. We just had an incident recently where an officer was knocked down by gunfire and was going to die with the perp on top of him, but luckily the store clerk being robbed was a gun owner and said criminal was DRT before he could finish the cop.
Race just make sure you can hit what you shoot at.
-
So millions should be denied ND amendment rights cause Pelagic Burris is an idiot gangster wannabe ?
well aside from messing up quoting me you didnt read what i said, there needs to be more control since the gun crimes here happen all too frequently, i think responsible people should be allowed to own them, the only problem with that too is that people are people, even regular people snap, but thats just the chance you take.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
As for plaxico i had said something similar to you in my first post, he can afford a body guard and he used to have a concealed weapons permit, he should have had one or the other, and he shouldn't have a gun at all because he's suppposed to be a role model.
*edit* lol sorry man i guess you just misspelled my name, the quoting changes p buress's name (didn't want to spell it out) for some reason, like its a curse or something
-
See Rule #4
-
I think everyone should carry a gun. ,
Just curious; what kind of guns everyone should be able to carry:
1. Single shot guns
2. Semi-automatic guns
3. Full automatic guns (subrmachine guns, miniguns etc.)
4. Grenade launchers, fragmentation bombs, flame-throwers, light artillery.
5. Nerve gas, bio weapons, radioactive materials.
I'm really interested to hear the opinions of the gun nuts.
(I guess this is not "politics" thread since it is not closed by now.)
-
Just curious; what kind of guns everyone should be able to carry:
1. Single shot guns
2. Semi-automatic guns
3. Full automatic guns (subrmachine guns, miniguns etc.)
4. Grenade launchers, fragmentation bombs, flame-throwers, light artillery.
5. Nerve gas, bio weapons, radioactive materials.
I'm really interested to hear the opinions of the gun nuts.
(I guess this is not "politics" thread since it is not closed by now.)
I like how you put that 'gun nuts.' I guess I should refer to you as a 'bedwetter' and ignore the rest of your question.
-
Maybe the "guns" topic should be eliminated as well? After only two pages it has devolved into name calling.
Next person to do it will get banned for a month (if you have been banned before, then it will be permanent). Now, let's see if you can really have a respectful discussion about this topic, without dragging politics into it.
Everyone has been warned. Carry on.
-
dang it i don't think i broke rule 14, i tried to word it nicely, but anyway, gun control is needed, too many gun crimes so that needs to change so responsible people can enjoy them
and plaxico needs to get his act together, he can afford a body guard, athletes need to send a good message to kids and act like they are the role models that they are supposed to be
I disagree re MORE gun control. We have thousands of gun control laws on the books now. All the gun control laws do is DISARM people that obey the law.
AND IMHO those are the ones we want to arm because they will follow reasonable laws.
You are the kind of person the Brady people look at and start drooling.
IMHO There is NO SUCH thing as REASONABLE gun control when it comes to restricting the rights of law abiding people.
Washington D.C. had the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and they had the highest violence and murder rate in the nation.
Want to try something? Look at the crime statistics by the FBI and see where all the crime is.
Pretty sure you will find it's in all the cities with the strict gun control in place. Why is that? Because the good guys, the ones that believe in the law, are disarmed and easier prey!
Criminals are criminals because they have no, or very little, respect for the law.
-
I disagree re MORE gun control. We have thousands of gun control laws on the books now. All the gun control laws do is DISARM people that obey the law.
AND IMHO those are the ones we want to arm because they will follow reasonable laws.
You are the kind of person the Brady people look at and start drooling.
IMHO There is NO SUCH thing as REASONABLE gun control when it comes to restricting the rights of law abiding people.
Washington D.C. had the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and they had the highest violence and murder rate in the nation.
Want to try something? Look at the crime statistics by the FBI and see where all the crime is.
Pretty sure you will find it's in all the cities with the strict gun control in place. Why is that? Because the good guys, the ones that believe in the law, are disarmed and easier prey!
Criminals are criminals because they have no, or very little, respect for the law.
well, like i said responsible people should be able to have them
and maybe youre right, maybe more gun control won't solve it, but they need to devise something to help get guns out of criminals, just this last week in st. petersburg two clerks, in two different stores were shot and robbed on two consecutive nights (they actually were even cousins). Then yesterday in Plant City, about an hour away, a wanted murderer was spotted by detectives and a shoot out insued in which an innocent bystander was killed. The guy who was wanted had an ak-47 and a hand gun. I mean it's just stories like that that kill me, innocent people being affected. There is a tooooon of gun crimes in Florida because guns are fairly easy to obtain here, something needs to be done, and like i said maybe more gun control won't do it, but there needs to be a solution.
Solving the gun issue needs to be done somehow while not affecting the 2nd amendment, right now keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is failing about as badly as the war on drugs.
-
well, like i said responsible people should be able to have them
and maybe youre right, maybe more gun control won't solve it, but they need to devise something to help get guns out of criminals, just this last week in st. petersburg two clerks, in two different stores were shot and robbed on two consecutive nights (they actually were even cousins). Then yesterday in Plant City, about an hour away, a wanted murderer was spotted by detectives and a shoot out insued in which an innocent bystander was killed. The guy who was wanted had an ak-47 and a hand gun. I mean it's just stories like that that kill me, innocent people being affected. There is a tooooon of gun crimes in Florida because guns are fairly easy to obtain here, something needs to be done, and like i said maybe more gun control won't do it, but there needs to be a solution.
Solving the gun issue needs to be done somehow while not affecting the 2nd amendment, right now keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is failing about as badly as the war on drugs.
The instances you cited are the exact reason more gun laws won't work. The criminal doesn't care about the law, therefore he will have guns no matter what the law says. Now, if his/her intended victims are law abiding citizens who have been stripped of there guns through laws, then its easy for him to commit his crimes. He doesnt have to worry if the person he is about to rob can defend himself. If the law abiding citizens do carry guns, then he has to worry when he decides to commit a crime if he will come out of the encounter alive.
There have been criminals since the beginning of time, and there always will be. There has also never been any study that I know of where gun laws have lowered over all crime rate. Criminals will always find a weapon of some sort, but as for me I want to be carrying the pistol regardless of what weapon he does find.
Just my .02
-
well, like i said responsible people should be able to have them
and maybe youre right, maybe more gun control won't solve it, but they need to devise something to help get guns out of criminals, just this last week in st. petersburg two clerks, in two different stores were shot and robbed on two consecutive nights (they actually were even cousins). Then yesterday in Plant City, about an hour away, a wanted murderer was spotted by detectives and a shoot out insued in which an innocent bystander was killed. The guy who was wanted had an ak-47 and a hand gun. I mean it's just stories like that that kill me, innocent people being affected. There is a tooooon of gun crimes in Florida because guns are fairly easy to obtain here, something needs to be done, and like i said maybe more gun control won't do it, but there needs to be a solution.
Solving the gun issue needs to be done somehow while not affecting the 2nd amendment, right now keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is failing about as badly as the war on drugs.
And it will keep failing IMHO.
Also I'm betting the ton of gun crimes in Florida is LESS then in states and cities where guns are NOT so easily obtainable!
If the guy really had an AK-47 then he was BREAKING some serious laws! AK-47 is illegal IIRC as it's capable of full auto operations. AND VERY difficult to obtain without a class III license.
The actual weapon used is of little concern here. It's what the criminal did with it that is the problem.
PUNISH the criminal not the law abiding!
As to doing something hmmm.... MORE INNOCENT people are KILLED by automobiles then by firearms AND MORE INNOCENT people are KILLED by medical misadventure then by firearms!
So perhaps we should change our focus to cars and doctors and leave OUR RIGHT to defend ourselves ALONE.
-
Maybe the "guns" topic should be eliminated as well? After only two pages it has devolved into name calling.
Next person to do it will get banned for a month (if you have been banned before, then it will be permanent). Now, let's see if you can really have a respectful discussion about this topic, without dragging politics into it.
Everyone has been warned. Carry on.
<Looking very carefully through his post for name calling>
wait! I rarely use any name calling in post on this BBS so?
Guess I'm safe? :devil
-
The instances you cited are the exact reason more gun laws won't work. The criminal doesn't care about the law, therefore he will have guns no matter what the law says. Now, if his/her intended victims are law abiding citizens who have been stripped of there guns through laws, then its easy for him to commit his crimes. He doesnt have to worry if the person he is about to rob can defend himself. If the law abiding citizens do carry guns, then he has to worry when he decides to commit a crime if he will come out of the encounter alive.
i understand everything you're saying and it all makes sense, but in at least the instances i said, all the people weren't ready for it and were shot so fast they didn't even know what happened, so being armed wouldn't really wouldn't have helped.
If the guy really had an AK-47 then he was BREAKING some serious laws! AK-47 is illegal IIRC as it's capable of full auto operations. AND VERY difficult to obtain without a class III license.
The actual weapon used is of little concern here. It's what the criminal did with it that is the problem.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article928233.ece this is the story, it just says assualt rifle but i had seen and read from other sources that it was an ak-47.
and this is the st petersburg shootings of the two clerks http://www.abcactionnews.com/mostpopular/story/Police-Store-shootings-in-St-Petersburg-related/w_HIJEszm0Wg6t6gwxLxpw.cspx
unfortunatly things like this happen on basically a daily basis around here.
-
well aside from messing up quoting me you didnt read what i said, there needs to be more control since the gun crimes here happen all too frequently, i think responsible people should be allowed to own them, the only problem with that too is that people are people, even regular people snap, but thats just the chance you take.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
As for plaxico i had said something similar to you in my first post, he can afford a body guard and he used to have a concealed weapons permit, he should have had one or the other, and he shouldn't have a gun at all because he's suppposed to be a role model.
*edit* lol sorry man i guess you just misspelled my name, the quoting changes p buress's name (didn't want to spell it out) for some reason, like its a curse or something
Nope I thought your post was pro-gun control. Try reading it from my perspective. dang it i don't think i broke rule 14, i tried to word it nicely, but anyway, gun control is needed, too many gun crimes so that needs to change so responsible people can enjoy them
The thing that gets me is that many people think that Govt. and the Police can protect you and the "thing" really is that we cant. We try, but lets face it, the odds are much bigger we'll be writing the report on you instead of just happening upon your on view crime.
And to make it even worse I think many people believe there is "good in everybody" and we in the biz know there are a lot of criminals with no good in them at all and your only chance with them is in using superior force. I'm sorry about that but its a hard ball world.
And terrorism? Like India? :lol We, the Police, would be up the creek without a paddle so where would that leave you? Were pretty good at chasing gangs around the block but rifle teams? with Ranger level infantry training? That know how to move together and shoot? And have no fear of death? Ask any Policeman/veteran type what kind of chance we'd have in stopping them before they killed all kinds of people. We have a hard enough time with untrained bank robbers shooting up a street or high school kids shooting up a school. Military trained rifle teams are on a completely different level.
Anyway, sorry if I misread your post and/or intent Cav.
-
Maybe the "guns" topic should be eliminated as well? After only two pages it has devolved into name calling.
Next person to do it will get banned for a month (if you have been banned before, then it will be permanent). Now, let's see if you can really have a respectful discussion about this topic, without dragging politics into it.
Everyone has been warned. Carry on.
Sorry Skuzzy thats exactly what I was trying to point out and stepped in it myself.
-
dang it i don't think i broke rule 14, i tried to word it nicely, but anyway, gun control is needed, too many gun crimes so that needs to change so responsible people can enjoy them
and plaxico needs to get his act together, he can afford a body guard, athletes need to send a good message to kids and act like they are the role models that they are supposed to be
I pray to God that you aren't this naive. What is a moron who cut class repeated repeatedly and now shot himself, after his CCW permit expired in March, going to "teach a kid"? I'll tell you: "Some athletes are best left allowing other fellow peers to teach."
Randy Moss is expected "to teach"? Dexter Manley? Ricky Williams? Michael Irvin? The Vick brothers? OJ?
Spitting 101 - Instructor Roberto Alomar
Bat Throwing 101 - Delmon Young
Gun Safety 101 - Plaxico Burress and the "ATF Agent"
Line Cutting 101 - Dexter Manley and Michael Irvin
How to get away with Murder 101 - Randy Moss and OJ
Dogfighting 101 - Michael Vick and not Chuck Yeager
Pot 101 - Ricky Williams
Come on.
-
Out of curiousity, - since it seems to be some folks saviour to be able to carry a gun, - what is there so terrible and commonly abroad to make that a necessity?
-
I pray to God that you aren't this naive. What is a moron who cut class repeated repeatedly and now shot himself, after his CCW permit expired in March, going to "teach a kid"? I'll tell you: "Some athletes are best left allowing other fellow peers to teach."
Randy Moss is expected "to teach"? Dexter Manley? Ricky Williams? Michael Irvin? The Vick brothers? OJ?
Spitting 101 - Instructor Roberto Alomar
Bat Throwing 101 - Delmon Young
Gun Safety 101 - Plaxico Burress and the "ATF Agent"
Line Cutting 101 - Dexter Manley and Michael Irvin
How to get away with Murder 101 - Randy Moss and OJ
Dogfighting 101 - Michael Vick and not Chuck Yeager
Pot 101 - Ricky Williams
Come on.
do you think i'm a total moron, it's pretty insulting that you assume that i believe he's the first athlete to do anything wrong. I think they SHOULD be role models since kids look up to them and for the most part grow up striving to be athletes, they should set good examples. They oblivously don't set good examples all the time and alot of them are idiots. If you're in a postion of power like that I believe you should try and do good, as alot of athletes do.
-
do you think i'm a total moron, it's pretty insulting that you assume that i believe he's the first athlete to do anything wrong. I think they SHOULD be role models since kids look up to them and for the most part grow up striving to be athletes, they should set good examples. They oblivously don't set good examples all the time and alot of them are idiots. If you're in a postion of power like that I believe you should try and do good, as alot of athletes do.
Family and Teachers should be the ONLY "role models".
I never insulted anyone.
-
i understand everything you're saying and it all makes sense, but in at least the instances i said, all the people weren't ready for it and were shot so fast they didn't even know what happened, so being armed wouldn't really wouldn't have helped.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article928233.ece this is the story, it just says assualt rifle but i had seen and read from other sources that it was an ak-47.
and this is the st petersburg shootings of the two clerks http://www.abcactionnews.com/mostpopular/story/Police-Store-shootings-in-St-Petersburg-related/w_HIJEszm0Wg6t6gwxLxpw.cspx
unfortunatly things like this happen on basically a daily basis around here.
Then the sources that claim it was an AK-47 are not telling the truth? Or they're telling the truth, SEVERAL GUN LAWS were broken by this criminal, and how would another such gun law make any difference?
Basically? Please Clarify that......
Daily basis? This sort of thing is going on all over the world! Some places are way WORSE IMHO. Try living in the Congo or one of those other warring African nations? Or the Palestine/Israel border? Or Chechnya?
IMHO much of the problem is people that refuse to live in the REAL world. Hmmm think on this....
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of
folly, is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
English philosopher
I think Rich46yo nailed it. This is the REAL world, and in it there are people that only one word will fit.
EVIL.
You want it to stop?
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of
vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
W. R. Inge (1860-1954)
Dean of St. Paul's, London
How do you stop someone that just doesn't care?
Perhaps this guy was on to something....
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear
rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because
of the punishment that it brings than because of its own
foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
-
Out of curiousity, - since it seems to be some folks saviour to be able to carry a gun, - what is there so terrible and commonly abroad to make that a necessity?
Not sure I fully understand the question?
necessity? Think we need to discuss this on a much DEEPER level?
Because we can?
It's our right.
-
Here ya go wrag
ak 47 http://plantcity2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/06/plant-city-man-denied-bail-day-after-manhunt/
ak 47 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwL0j4MxBQ_kmyEXqgQgQJhiPwnQD94SMUM80
so i guess the other article decided to only say assualt rifle
-
Here ya go wrag
ak 47 http://plantcity2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/06/plant-city-man-denied-bail-day-after-manhunt/
ak 47 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwL0j4MxBQ_kmyEXqgQgQJhiPwnQD94SMUM80
so i guess the other article decided to only say assualt rifle
So you understand, I was not questioning you or what you said. I do however question the reporters.
Again IIRC the AK-47 is illegal to own without a class III license as it is full auto capable.
So either the reporters don't know what they're talking about or the criminal broke MANY gun laws including the Federal law against owning full auto weapons!
-
So you understand, I was not questioning you or what you said. I do however question the reporters.
yeah i know i wanted to find it to show you, and to make sure I'm not crazy either lol.
-
So you understand, I was not questioning you or what you said. I do however question the reporters.
Again IIRC the AK-47 is illegal to own without a class III license as it is full auto capable.
So either the reporters don't know what they're talking about or the criminal broke MANY gun laws including the Federal law against owning full auto weapons!
There are plenty of AK-47s that are semi-auto only. The overwhelming majority of them in the USA are semi-auto only.
-
Out of curiousity, - since it seems to be some folks saviour to be able to carry a gun, - what is there so terrible and commonly abroad to make that a necessity?
Its called 'being a victim' when you dont have a gun. Some people love being a victim and look for excuses to be a victim. Other people dont like being a victim and pack heat. Those in the middle try to ignore the fact that there might be a situation one day when they will become a victim so they can avoid packing heat. Im betting one group in particular has the best chance of avoiding Darwins list of endangered species and thats why (one reason) I carry a gun.
I also believe as a citizen it is our duty to remain vigilant and assure that our loved ones are protected by well stocked and supplied National Guard Armories and the Guard unit itself within each individual State so that our own government cannot force tyranny upon us. Otherwise the right to bear arms will be taken from us by an overwhelming force.
-
this is just how difficult it is for anyone with a semiautomatic AK-47 to get a full auto.
http://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt (http://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt)
so as you see getting the weapon is the most difficult part of the process. you can find this type of modification information on virtually any semiautomatic firearm. its all right here on the web if your willing to take the time to look.
just because the one the guy had was full auto at the time doesn't mean he bought it that way.
unfortunately its not the guns that are to easy to get, its the information. you can look up and download the chemical composition of almost every explosive in use in the world today. this includes most military grades.
if one person figures out how to convert his weapon to full auto, but doesn't have the intardnet to brag it to the world, then how many people can he actually tell how to do it? the number of illegally converted weapons would be far less if the information wasn't so easily gotten by the masses.
hell you can actually go to your neighborhood library to get almost any information on weapons manufacture that may peak your interest.
there was a saying that i heard as a child that rings true in every aspect of civilization and laws
"locks only keep honest people honest"
make as many laws as you want, a person with criminal or evil intent in his heart doesn't care if he is breaking one or one hundred of them. how many criminals have you ever heard of that actually took the time to pre-read the laws in advance of committing a crime. at what point down the list of laws he intends to violate does he finally say, oh wow well number 377 is just one to many, i better go get a day job.
the worse the consequences he is risking at breaking any given law just translates into the higher the chances are that he will kill his victim in order to leave no witnesses. if he is gonna get 20 years for having the gun whats the big deal if he gets 25 for shooting someone with it?
coming to this conversation with what i shall describe as a colorful back ground i can tell you this for a fact. if a person is known to be armed that person is less likely to be a victim. criminals are generally looking for the EASY score, not the one that shoots back.
now yes people who have weapons do get victimized from time to time, but it is much less often compared to those who are unarmed. yes guns do get stolen, but if you look into those types of cases the homes were broken into when the person was not home. the criminal wanted the weapons but doesn't want the risk of taking on the gun owner.
how many guns store have you heard of being held up? now how many corner stores. why do you think that is?
having rational gun control boils down to properly storing them so stealing them becomes much harder, and properly educating those who will own them to prevent accidents.
taking them away from people who will obey the laws only creates a situation that helps guarantee that only the criminal will be armed.
FLOTSOM
-
I never understood the whole "full auto" fear thing from law enforcement. Who cares if a rifle is f/a or just semi auto. It's not really any more dangerous in full auto then in semi, and in fact, in the hands of an amateur, it's LESS dangerous in f/a than semi.
FYI there are dozens of locally made AK47 variants in the USA, and we here in Canada can get the Czech VZ58 and CZ858's, and to my knowledge, unless you are a convicted felon in the US, owning one is the same in many states as just another rifle, and rightly so.
-
I never understood the whole "full auto" fear thing from law enforcement. Who cares if a rifle is f/a or just semi auto. It's not really any more dangerous in full auto then in semi, and in fact, in the hands of an amateur, it's LESS dangerous in f/a than semi.
now that depends on whether or not you are the intended target.
-
I never understood the whole "full auto" fear thing from law enforcement. Who cares if a rifle is f/a or just semi auto. It's not really any more dangerous in full auto then in semi, and in fact, in the hands of an amateur, it's LESS dangerous in f/a than semi.
well my assumption would be that instead of pulling the trigger once and hitting one maybe two people with a single bullet, someone pulling the trigger once with a fully automatic sprays 30 rounds into a small area and hits 5, 6 or 7 or more people in a quick burst. as well as your chances of survival is much greater if your hit only once as apposed to your chances of survival when you are hit multiple times.
a man with only a single shot must try to aim that shot to make it count, but an automatic sends so many rounds in rapid succession that aiming it becomes marginal, spray and pray. your odds of hitting grow with each round sent.
FLOTSOM
-
I wold prefer the M1 Springfield myself and its semi-auto. Its bigger its heavier which are not good traits but its also accurate which is something the AK misses out on but please dont think for an instant the AK isnt dangerous. Bullet for bullet though I think the Springfield is much better.
-
Its called 'being a victim' when you dont have a gun. Some people love being a victim and look for excuses to be a victim. Other people dont like being a victim and pack heat. Those in the middle try to ignore the fact that there might be a situation one day when they will become a victim so they can avoid packing heat. Im betting one group in particular has the best chance of avoiding Darwins list of endangered species and thats why (one reason) I carry a gun.
No offense, but that just kind of sounds like paranoia, the chances of you needed your gun for protection or a shoot out are awfully slim, you should be able to feel safe without a gun, the world isn't out to get you.
-
No offense, but that just kind of sounds like paranoia, the chances of you needed your gun for protection or a shoot out are awfully slim, you should be able to feel safe without a gun, the world isn't out to get you.
The chance of needing homeowners insurance is actually pretty slim, but most people have it. Same for life insurance when you are young, but again, most have it. The difference of course is a gun might save your life, insurance just saves your money. Which is worth more to you?
-
I wold prefer the M1 Springfield myself and its semi-auto. Its bigger its heavier which are not good traits but its also accurate which is something the AK misses out on but please dont think for an instant the AK isnt dangerous. Bullet for bullet though I think the Springfield is much better.
You are referring to the M1A?
An M14 on full auto is nearly impossible to control UNLESS you are using a bipod and firing from the prone position (and even then it will still lift your body upward if your firing down hill) or fire very short burst with you aim allowing for the climb.
-
The chance of needing homeowners insurance is actually pretty slim, but most people have it. Same for life insurance when you are young, but again, most have it. The difference of course is a gun might save your life, insurance just saves your money. Which is worth more to you?
i still think its paranoia, i own a gun, it stays at home, theres no need to walk around with one, that's just a little too extreme for me, theres more of a chance of someone unarmed taking your gun from you and using it on you than there is you'll needed to use your gun on someone whos armed. I just think people shounldn't walk around being prepared and expecting the worst to happen.
-
i still think its paranoia, i own a gun, it stays at home, theres no need to walk around with one, that's just a little too extreme for me, theres more of a chance of someone unarmed taking your gun from you and using it on you than there is you'll needed to use your gun on someone whos armed. I just think people shounldn't walk around being prepared and expecting the worst to happen.
so what your saying is that preparation is futile and submission when confronted is the answer?
yes i agree that the odds of being a victim are low, but so are the odds your 2 year old will set himself on fire if he plays with matches because he is not likely to figure out how to ignite them. does this mean you are more than willing to supply him with them? or will you take the preventative measure to keep them out of his reach?
does your home have a smoke alarm? do you know what the odds are of dying in a house fire are?
but of course those who built the dikes in New Orleans said that the odds of catastrophic flooding were so low that they didn't need to reinforce the old and decrepit dikes already in existence.
what do you think the odds were of Pompey exploding and completely covering burying an entire roman city? do you think their unpreparedness and wishful thinking stopped even one of them from being buried alive?
well I'm a damn good driver, but my car still comes with airbags and seat belts. why should i have to buy equipment that i don't feel that i need?
my point is, you are saying that because the odds are low that you will ever need to use it to defend yourself that you don't need to carry a firearm, and i disagree completely with this rational. there are thousands of things that will kill or harm you in the world, and most of them are avoided by simply taking precautions.
and as a last point, if you have received proper weapon handling instruction and training, like any responsible adult would before carrying a weapon, then the chances of someone who is unarmed taking it away from you is extremely unlikely. the chances of an unarmed person assailing you knowing that you are armed is astronomically unlikely. i wont say these things are impossible, but then again you are not gonna find many people willing to take those risks.
i do not object to your want of belief that this is a safe world and that self defence is merely a mythical thing that need not be believed in, but i fear that is just the wishful thinking of an optimistic dreamer.
FLOTSOM
-
i still think its paranoia, i own a gun, it stays at home, theres no need to walk around with one, that's just a little too extreme for me, theres more of a chance of someone unarmed taking your gun from you and using it on you than there is you'll needed to use your gun on someone whos armed. I just think people shounldn't walk around being prepared and expecting the worst to happen.
1) Some people may not live in the neighborhood you do and are not safe in their neighborhood
2) Some people may not be able to physically defend themselves without a firearm
3) What you believe should not of course be forced upon others
I personally have a CCW, but don't carry, as the area I live in is pretty safe. Because I don't carry means I don't think others should be denied the right to do so.
-
I think everyone should carry a gun. The stupid ones with no control will die off quickly leaving the rest of us with fewer people to support and if there ever is a situation where you need to pull your gun out there will be more people to cover the firing line that is blocked to your position.
Win/win.
Where did you learn that,Somalia?
-
Dago i'm not forcing my beliefs on you, i'm stating my opinion
Flotsom you bring up good points, but everyone has smoke detectors because it's housing code.
All I'm saying is in my opinion, carrying a gun everywhere is a bit extreme, however if you have the permit, and you legally own the gun it's in acordance with the law and you have the right to do that, and I'd prefer you sane, law abiding people be doing it rather than a criminal with an illegal firearm.
I don't live in la la land and believe i'm going to be safe everywhere i go, i just prefer to not worry about things like that, and i don't think being armed will keep me safe in every situation. Like i said I'm not saying any of this to offend you guys, I respect you for doing it the right way as opposed to plaxico, I just disagree with it.
-
Dago i'm not forcing my beliefs on you, i'm stating my opinion
Flotsom you bring up good points, but everyone has smoke detectors because it's housing code.
All I'm saying is in my opinion, carrying a gun everywhere is a bit extreme, however if you have the permit, and you legally own the gun it's in acordance with the law and you have the right to do that, and I'd prefer you sane, law abiding people be doing it rather than a criminal with an illegal firearm.
I don't live in la la land and believe i'm going to be safe everywhere i go, i just prefer to not worry about things like that, and i don't think being armed will keep me safe in every situation. Like i said I'm not saying any of this to offend you guys, I respect you for doing it the right way as opposed to plaxico, I just disagree with it.
Then let us agree to disagree.
<SALUTE>
FLOTSOM
-
The question here is not about firearms for self defence, but two different questions:
1) do firearms controls in india help prevent terrorist incidents
2) would armed civilians help in the case of a terrorist incident
IMHO:
1) Yes they do help. This terrorist operation took so much effort that the finger is being pointed at Pakistani Intelligence agencies.
2) How would a cop feel having armed civilians running around shooting what they decide are terrorists. What happens when armed civilians mistake each other as terrorists. I feel that armed civilian responses in highly populated area's has a potential to make the death toll even worse. Rich46yo, can you describe to me what a terrorist looks like and what an armed civilian looks like?
On the self defence question I think thats a personal choice in the USA and I can completely understand the need.
-
2) How would a cop feel having armed civilians running around shooting what they decide are terrorists. What happens when armed civilians mistake each other as terrorists. I feel that armed civilian responses in highly populated area's has a potential to make the death toll even worse. Rich46yo, can you describe to me what a terrorist looks like and what an armed civilian looks like?
The terrorists will be the ones who are shooting helpless civilians, woman and kids, while they are begging for their lives.
I need to tell you that?
What country are you from BTW?
-
What people dont seem to understand is that the bad guy will always get what they want.
War on Drugs?
Prohibition?
Illegal firearms?
Prostitution?
Etc, etc.
Etc etc. Laws are only followed by the good. Laws are on a piece of paper and can not be backed by anything other than the threat of force. That means the bad guys are kept in check by the threat of force by the good guys. Oh, and keep in mind the LEO's are reactionary and they have very little chance of "preventing" crime.
In each and every country where firearms have been clamed down on the past 10-15 years there has been an INCREASE in gun crime. Too bad you dont hear that in the media. There is more gun crime now in the UK than prior.
-
The terrorists will be the ones who are shooting helpless civilians, woman and kids, while they are begging for their lives.
I need to tell you that?
What country are you from BTW?
Thought so, as usual you don't have a real answer do you.
-
In each and every country where firearms have been clamed down on the past 10-15 years there has been an INCREASE in gun crime. Too bad you dont hear that in the media. There is more gun crime now in the UK than prior.
Actually thats wrong.
"There was a significant increase in the number of firearm offences recorded between 1998/99 and 2001/02, though figures may have been partially influenced by some forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard prior to its national introduction on 1 April 2002.
The increases have slowed since 2001/02, and the 2006/07 fall is the first since 1997/98."
To clarify on the first point firearms offences include anything where a firearm is alleged to have been used. In some cases no firearm is used or a replica (ie toy) is used.
Note that despite this there was a fall in recorded firearm offences in 2006/07. Feel free to pull your foot out of your mouth now.
-
Thought so, as usual you don't have a real answer do you.
I thought he answered you quite well. I thought your original question was kind of ridiculous though.
How would a cop feel having armed civilians running around shooting what they decide are terrorists. What happens when armed civilians mistake each other as terrorists. I feel that armed civilian responses in highly populated area's has a potential to make the death toll even worse. Rich46yo, can you describe to me what a terrorist looks like and what an armed civilian looks like?
-
I thought he answered you quite well. I thought your original question was kind of ridiculous though.
What exactly is ridiculous about it?
The article cites using armed civilians as a means to defeat terrorists. As a police officer I would like to know how he is going to decide - when encountering two groups of 'civlians' - who are the terrorists and who are the civilians returning fire. The other question is who do civilians decide are terrorists? If one civilian sees another civlian who is armed do they start shooting at each other.
p.s. rich46yo, I'm in that country where you are THIRTY times less like to be killed with a firearm than in the USA, where firearm ownership is ~1 firearm per 4 people, where you can legally buy suppressors/silencers for your firearm, and where you can legally buy Norinco products.
-
p.s. rich46yo, I'm in that country where you are THIRTY times less like to be killed with a firearm than in the USA, where firearm ownership is ~1 firearm per 4 people, where you can legally buy suppressors/silencers for your firearm, and where you can legally buy Norinco products.
And they are 100 times less likely to answer a question when asked. For the record its for guys like you that I wish AH would reinstall the ignore feature in this forum.
-
p.s. rich46yo, I'm in that country where you are THIRTY times less like to be killed with a firearm than in the USA, where firearm ownership is ~1 firearm per 4 people, where you can legally buy suppressors/silencers for your firearm, and where you can legally buy Norinco products.
You can buy chinese AK clones, and QBZ's etc off the shelf in Aotearoa?
Tronsky
-
The gun control argument is nothing more than a political and news paper selling cow that gets milked hard when/if a middle class school full of mostly white kids suffers a mass killing (God forbid this happens to any place or people). The "black" communities had/have dealt w/this for years... and all the gun control in the world did not matter. The concept that a nation that can not control DRUGS or PEOPLE can restrict the ownership of guns by criminals is INSANE....yes INSANE...
The "gun" violence seen today that is tied directly to crime (and not ie domestic etc) isn't a gun matter. Its a social and economic matter. The problem is that our press and politicans aren't the brightest bulbs in the shed and refuse to address this simple fact then use it for pure "vote for me look I care" politics or buy my paper,read my article about the latest murder.
What I'm saying is simple.... happy people have a much less desire to kill,rob and steal from one another. The prisons are predominately full of black men... or at least have a significantly higher population. WHY is this.... simple, its called ECONOMICs. This use to be phenomenon of the Irish and somewhat of the Italian immigrants and as that grouped moved up the economic ladder you began to see less of them or at least the crime w/in those communities lessened.
Get those morons we call our leaders to finally address this issue and my money is you'll see much less crime.
Thank you.
-
Yup, Norinco's and Saiga's
(http://www.guncity.co.nz/site/images/144966.jpg)
...and blinged out AK's.
rich46yo, you don't have to read my posts if you don't want too.
-
The ones who kill others with a firearm are normally not the biggest bulbs. And those same ones shouldn't normally be allowed to.
That is the challenge of gun control.
-
The ones who kill others with a firearm are normally not the biggest bulbs. And those same ones shouldn't normally be allowed to.
That is the challenge of gun control.
IIRC english is a second language for you?
Thinking what you meant to say was more along the line of...
The ones who murder others with firearms are normally not the brightest bulbs. And those same ones shouldn't be allowed to.
That is the challenge of gun control.
Is that closer to what you meant?
Problems!
How do you KNOW who will and will not murder?
It's not always so easy to tell until they have committed such an act.
And under our legal system all are SUPPOSED to be consider innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
So gun control has some problems right out of the gate.
And then add in that criminals are criminals due to a lack of respect for the law AND the rights of others and......
I say AND because throughout history many that have respected the rights of others were been considered criminals by an oppressive Government only because they have resisted that oppressive Government.
-
There are plenty of other examples of licensing though wrag, such as driver/vehicle licensing. Or are you implying that people should be able to drive without a license, test, training, until such time as they have a crash?
Throughout history there have been examples of governments overthrown without the civilian population being armed to the teeth. In that situation all you are going to create is martyrs.
-
Most importantly : WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BUY A NORINCO?
-
I paid for my CHL last week, class in January :rock
I don't intend to carry it on my person all the time, but it will likely stay in the car.
Has been something on the "to do" list for years, but considering the economy, and the president elect who is going to.. well nobody knows what he may do.. I opted to get one while I still could.
And of course there is the biggest cliche of all time.. "better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
:aok
-
There are plenty of other examples of licensing though wrag, such as driver/vehicle licensing. Or are you implying that people should be able to drive without a license, test, training, until such time as they have a crash?
Throughout history there have been examples of governments overthrown without the civilian population being armed to the teeth. In that situation all you are going to create is martyrs.
True about the licensing thing.
BUT....
There is NO right to drive a car within the Bill of Rights.
And if something is a RIGHT it can not or should not be licensed?
Why?
Because with licensing required to enjoy a right one can be denied that right and therefore it is no longer a right but becomes a privilege that can be denied at the governments whim.
Unalienable means it CAN NOT be taken away.
It's a concept that I imagine can be difficult for people of other countries to follow as there are Americans that can't seem to understand it, or it's true purpose.
-
Yeah understand that wrag, just talking in a global/general way (given as the original post refers to an article refering to gun laws in india).
-
Most importantly : WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BUY A NORINCO?
Because they're not a bad low end rifle. Everyone I known who uses them says they're rough around the edges but fairly good shooters.