You opinion on gun ownership?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT
 

CM156:
Anyhow. I'm looking at something with stopping power over armor piercing. I doubt a common thief will be wearing armor of any degree. Thanks for the tip, though.

If you want stopping power the .40 is generally considered to be the best all around self defense round. Personally, if I had the money, I would pick up a Baby Eagle, especially since they started making the all steel versions again.

http://www.magnumresearch.com/Browse.asp?Category=Baby+Eagle:Pistols

CM156:

usmarine4160:

CM156:

I'm looking for a good CCW handgun, and what I've been told is that 1911s are good ones for that purpose. The Five-SeveN is also one I've been looking at. That's got a lot of stopping power, I take it?

It's a 5.7mm, so no. The thing it's great at is penetration (one of the very few handguns designed to pierce armor) and it's accurate as hell.

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k118808_bullets-%205.7x28%204.6x30%20.17HMR%20.22WMR%20.17HM2%20.22%20LR.jpg

Is it wrong that I read that whole thing in the voice of your avatar? I think it is.

Anyhow. I'm looking at something with stopping power over armor piercing. I doubt a common thief will be wearing armor of any degree. Thanks for the tip, though.

OT: I am two years from legally being able to own a pistol, so what can I say to add to this line of reasoning. :/

I do have a .22 rifle and a Mausburg on order (cross state importation is a nightmare for my state).

farson135:

CM156:
Anyhow. I'm looking at something with stopping power over armor piercing. I doubt a common thief will be wearing armor of any degree. Thanks for the tip, though.

If you want stopping power the .40 is generally considered to be the best all around self defense round. Personally, if I had the money, I would pick up a Baby Eagle, especially since they started making the all steel versions again.

http://www.magnumresearch.com/Browse.asp?Category=Baby+Eagle:Pistols

Wow, those are some nice guns. And they're within my price range. I better keep saving up for that big 21, eh? I'm thinking a semi-auto would probably be better for self defense than a revolver, right?

Not G. Ivingname:

CM156:

usmarine4160:

It's a 5.7mm, so no. The thing it's great at is penetration (one of the very few handguns designed to pierce armor) and it's accurate as hell.

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k118808_bullets-%205.7x28%204.6x30%20.17HMR%20.22WMR%20.17HM2%20.22%20LR.jpg

Is it wrong that I read that whole thing in the voice of your avatar? I think it is.

Anyhow. I'm looking at something with stopping power over armor piercing. I doubt a common thief will be wearing armor of any degree. Thanks for the tip, though.

OT: I am two years from legally being able to own a pistol, so what can I say to add to this line of reasoning. :/

I do have a .22 rifle and a Mausburg on order (cross state importation is a nightmare for my state).

I see. Yeah, cali has some pretty restrictive gun laws, don't they? They limit ammo capacity to 10 per mag, if I'm not mistaken. Personally, that'd be annoying for me. I like not having to stop until 30.

tsb247:

Who is to say that reducing the number of firearms present will do anything? Removing firearms will likely not remove the underlying cause of suicide. Instead of focusing on how people kill themselves, you must instead ask why. This is a distinction that I don't think you have picked up on and you seem incapable of grasping. People do not kill themselves, "Because there was a gun on the table," and they don't kill themselves because they feel that it's easy to do just because they have a gun. No, people kill themselves because they feel they have no other options. Wouldn't counseling do more to prevent suicide than removing guns? After all it addresses the real problem - the individual. What you seem to advocate is removing a means to kill oneself. That is ultimately futile since there are still a infinite number of ways in which a person can kill themselves. If you start by fixing the person, then the firearm issue becomes moot. This is true all the way across the board.

Seconded, I have stated before and I will say it again socio-economic cultural factors on the ground lead to more or less suicide. If you want to slow down suicide rates then address those issues and not the presence of an object.

CM156:

tsb247:

CM156:

I'm looking at handguns for when I turn 21. That's how I want to spend my 21st birthday: Shopping for guns, not getting drunk. I'm partial to a M1911 for a regular pistol, and a Colt Python for a revolver. A longer barrel one, at least. My father has a 4 inch Colt Python

My first handgun was a Taurus PT145 Pro Millenium. It's a subcompact .45. I enjoy shooting it, but the 3" barrel means that it lobs the bullets rather than fire them in a reasonably straight line. I bought it because it was all I could afford at the time, and the Springfield XD that I wanted was about $200 more than I had. It's a good little handgun for defending my home. I doubt I will ever need it, but I am glad to have it.

My second handgun was my FN Five-SeveN. I saved up for over a year to get that thing, and I am still so proud of it. Everyone notices when I fire it at the range. It is louder than most large caliber handguns and produces a fireball comparable to the size of a basketball. It's a shame my front sight has some wobble due to an incident with a (non)universal holster I got for it a few years ago.

The Five-SeveN is expensive to feed, but it is SO accurate! Not to mention the 20 round magazine, low recoil, and the fact that it is very easy to fieldstrip. The only cons are the overall price, and the fact that if it needs repair, you need to ship it off to FN or it will void your warrenty.

I also have a Nagant revolver. It's more of a novelty that I picked up at a gunshow for about $130. It isn't really good for anything more than striking up conversation. The trigger may very well have a 20lb pull and then (weird) little rounds are quite expensive.

I'm looking for a good CCW handgun, and what I've been told is that 1911s are good ones for that purpose. The Five-SeveN is also one I've been looking at. That's got a lot of stopping power, I take it?

The Five-SeveN can create a larger wound channel than a 9mm (due to the tumbling ballistic-tip bullet), but it delivers far less kinetic energy. It's also quite large. It's not a good candidate for CCW. Stick with anything from a .30 up to a .45.

Personally, I love my .45, but in reality a 9mm will do. I have been told not to go with a .40S&W though due to how sensitive they are to pressure. The chambering and rechambering of the round can press the bullet deper into the casing. This can compress the powder and sometimes cause the round to explode.

Don't quote me on that last bit though. I just heard it around my local range. That does not make it a fact.

farson135:

tsb247:

Who is to say that reducing the number of firearms present will do anything? Removing firearms will likely not remove the underlying cause of suicide. Instead of focusing on how people kill themselves, you must instead ask why. This is a distinction that I don't think you have picked up on and you seem incapable of grasping. People do not kill themselves, "Because there was a gun on the table," and they don't kill themselves because they feel that it's easy to do just because they have a gun. No, people kill themselves because they feel they have no other options. Wouldn't counseling do more to prevent suicide than removing guns? After all it addresses the real problem - the individual. What you seem to advocate is removing a means to kill oneself. That is ultimately futile since there are still a infinite number of ways in which a person can kill themselves. If you start by fixing the person, then the firearm issue becomes moot. This is true all the way across the board.

Seconded, I have stated before and I will say it again socio-economic cultural factors on the ground lead to more or less suicide. If you want to slow down suicide rates then address those issues and not the presence of an object.

I saw that's what you were getting at, and I am sleep-deprived after a long day of work. I doubt this little tid-bit will sink in though. We can only hope right?

CM156:

Not G. Ivingname:

CM156:

Is it wrong that I read that whole thing in the voice of your avatar? I think it is.

Anyhow. I'm looking at something with stopping power over armor piercing. I doubt a common thief will be wearing armor of any degree. Thanks for the tip, though.

OT: I am two years from legally being able to own a pistol, so what can I say to add to this line of reasoning. :/

I do have a .22 rifle and a Mausburg on order (cross state importation is a nightmare for my state).

I see. Yeah, cali has some pretty restrictive gun laws, don't they? They limit ammo capacity to 10 per mag, if I'm not mistaken. Personally, that'd be annoying for me. I like not having to stop until 30.

Restrictive? Not a strong enough word.

Confusing as all God, YES.

Trying to just keep up with the constantly changing laws is a nightmare, with many different laws depending on the county and city, with none of them overlapping. The inner state is basically shall issue, but the cost either is may issue with good reason or not issuing, and any permit is only good IN THAT COUNTY.

CM156:

Wow, those are some nice guns. And they're within my price range. I better keep saving up for that big 21, eh? I'm thinking a semi-auto would probably be better for self defense than a revolver, right?

Hey if a revolver is good enough for this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7HN7THecwg&feature=related) what right have you to say otherwise ;).

Seriously though there are a few things to consider. First of all if you get into a fight where you need more than 5-6 shot you are probably screwed anyway, so the capacity is not really a factor. In fact a friend of mine is thinking about getting this-http://heizerfirearms.com/. I would even consider getting it if not for the price.

Second a revolver is a lot wider than a semi. So concealing one is a little more problematic. Not enough to cause significant problems but if you have a thin frame is might be a little more noticeable.

Third semis can jam, revolvers generally cannot unless you block the cylinder. So if you carry a semi make sure to perform even more regular maintenance.

Fourth in close range fighting semis are easier to disable so if you carry a semi make sure you have a knife handy.

Fifth revolvers tend to have handles that fit the hand better. Because of that point shooting is much easier. In a self defense scenario point shooting is probably all you will have time to do.

Sixth if you want to carry extra ammo a magazine is much more compact than a speed reloader.

Seventh you can ignore everything I said and just use both with a New York Reload-

Or even a Texas Reload- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=titikcyivTE

There are lots of things to consider and I am too tired to remember everything. Do your research and figure out what is best for you. I suggest you find a good range that rents pistols and try out as many as you can. The most important thing about shooting is that you need to be comfortable. The firearm you pick has to be one that you WANT to shoot. Every time you go to the range you need to practice with it. Every time you are sitting in front of the TV doing nothing you need to take it out and practice trigger squeeze. This firearm might save your life someday and you need to know everything about it. So just make sure that the firearm you pick is one that you both want to shoot and you would trust your life to it.

tsb247:

Personally, I love my .45, but in reality a 9mm will do. I have been told not to go with a .40S&W though due to how sensitive they are to pressure. The chambering and rechambering of the round can press the bullet deper into the casing. This can compress the powder and sometimes cause the round to explode.

Don't quote me on that last bit though. I just heard it around my local range. That does not make it a fact.

Yes it is a myth. Compressing the powder does nothing but compress the powder. The only way the round would go off it to introduce a heat source or to strike to firing pin. As for chambering and rechambering it would not happen any more than it would for a .45 (the 9mm case is shaped differently but the .45 has the same case shape as a .40).

However there is some truth in the myth. Chambering and rechambering can push the bullet into the case and doing so increases pressure so that when the bullet fires the chances of a case split increases. Also due to the high pressures involved case failures have occurred when the firearms fire out of battery. However modern firearms have been built to deal with those problems and if you take the proper precautions (such as using a heavier recoil spring and ensuring the bullets are crimped properly) the chances of major problems are low.

CM156:

reonhato:
you are an ignorant fool, one day your love of guns may very well come back and bite you in the ass, like it does to 1000s of americans every year.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Considering that the majority of those deaths are suicides and justified homicides, I think I'm safe. 11,000 is pretty low, compared to 75,000 from booze or 32,708 from cars. I'm not afraid of either of those things, because that would be silly. And it's worth noting that violent crime is on the decline in the states. I plan on packing heat because I don't plan on going down without a fight. I'm not ready to meet the Lord quite yet.

when you consider how much booze people drink and how often cars are used compared to guns then no 11000 is not low, it is astronomically high.

farson135:

reonhato:

you clearly have no understanding of the matter.

You know, saying the same thing over and over again does not make what you said true. Why don't you try proving that I have no idea what I am talking about instead of just saying it? Let us see how you do here.

a gun causes suicide,

From Merriam Webster's dictionary.com
SUICIDE:
1
a : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally

An ACT. An act cannot be performed by an inanimate object. It is impossible.

you cannot commit firearm suicide without a gun,

No you can't but neither can an inanimate object perform an act on its own.

yes some people will commit suicide with another method, but some will not. it saves lives, its that simply.

You still have not explained why a truly suicidal person will not simply substitute say a knife for a gun. Let us add another country to this discussion, Jamaica. Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates on earth and massive numbers of guns (mostly illegal but illegal guns are easy to come by). Jamaica has a suicide rate of about 0.3 per 100,000. Once again if the presence of guns equals the presence of suicide then why doesn't Jamaica have a high suicide rate? The obvious answer would be socio-economic cultural conditions combined with other issues.

the fact that you think we do not have the right to tell people not to kill themselves says it all.

You can tell them all you want but forcing them to live when they do not want to is immoral.

there are many people on this forum who would not be here if it were not for the fact that societies around the world recognize the fact that helping people who have suicidal thoughts is a good thing. you obviously have no insight into the world of mental health and suicide.

My great-grandfather ordered his doctors to stop all treatment so that he could go home and die in peace. Some asshole doctors tried to have him committed and even called in a judge saying they could expand his life by a few years, years that he would have to spend in a bed, fed by an IV drip. My family told them to fuck off and he died in peace with his wife, son, grandkids, and great-grandkids.

i do not havea a messiah complex, i know not everyone can be saved, that does not mean we should not do anything to help reduce the number of lives loss.

Forcing people to live a life that holds no meaning to them is not saving them you arrogant ass.

your entire response shows the attitude of gun nuts well. you keep asking for things that have been given to you time and time again. you ignore study after study, dismissing them as if somehow you know much more than those people do.

So you are not going to provide evidence. Instead you are going to deflect and pretend like you have provided actual proof of what you believe. Kid, your studies are not as conclusive as you want them to be. So either show me conclusive proof or stop posting.

you are an ignorant fool,

You are the one who attempts to argue that inanimate objects are capable of forcing people to commit actions.

one day your love of guns may very well come back and bite you in the ass,

Maybe but you know what, that will be my fault and I will not be asking society to take the blame for my mistakes.

the gun nuts of america are just yet another demographic of people who make america look stupid to the international community.

Hey kid, you need to stop holding back and tell us how you really feel. Kid, we gun nuts are well respected in the international community because we are good people. Go to any international shooting competition and you will see large groups of people cheering for the shooters. In fact here you go- http://www.ipsc.org/matches/calendar.php. Then again I expect you have never even been out of your own country or met a significant number of foreigners so how would you know anyway. I on the other hand have done both, in fact I have been to international shooting competitions.

It is people like you who hold distain and hatred for others that makes our world as screwed up as it is. One of my favorite quotes of all is one from the Roman playwright Terence, "I am a man and I consider nothing that is human is alien to me". You could learn a few things from him.

your ideas on suicide and your complete lack of understanding as to why people with that mindset should not be left to their own choices is simply wrong. it shows your are an asshole of a human being and simply not worth talking to.

tsb247:

reonhato:

a gun causes suicide, you cannot commit firearm suicide without a gun, yes some people will commit suicide with another method, but some will not. it saves lives, its that simply. how you do not understand this is beyond human knowledge.

No. Just no. A gun does not cause suicide. A firearm is simply an object. It is a conglomeration of pins, springs, steel, and wood/plastic. It is nothing more than that. It can only be used for whatever purpose the operator intends it to be. Just because a gun can be used for suicide, it does follow that it must.

Again, people can swallow pills, jump in front of a train, drown, jump in front of a bus, drink bleach, suffocate, and well, you get the idea.

Having a gun present does not alter a person's state of mind and cause them to kill themselves. External factors that are completely independent of the issue of firearms altogether are what generally lead to suicide. Things like losing a job, a divorce, a major loss, physical disability, etc. are just a few things that may lead to suicide. However, blaming the gun for the death of the person is irrational and stupid. In the end, the person made the decision to end their own life, and the fact is that there are many different ways to do that.

My point is this: Making the claim that more guns = more suicide and fewer guns = less suicide is not valid because the presence of guns does not have a direct effect on what pushes people to kill themselves (dispair, regret, depression, etc.). Period. Suicidal tendencies are an emotional problem; not a firearm problem.

The fact is that there are too many factors to take into account when looking at suicide statistics anyway seeing as each case is unique to the individual. The cause of the suicide attempt was the emotional state of the person involved and the events that led them to that emotional state - NOT the gun. That is probably why he is skeptical of those studies - as am I. Those studies probably do not go deep enough to determine what led to those deaths, but rather they only state that a death occurred.

I can't comment on Farson's views since I cannot fully understand him based on a few pages of text. However, I will ask you this:

Who is to say that reducing the number of firearms present will do anything? Removing firearms will likely not remove the underlying cause of suicide. Instead of focusing on how people kill themselves, you must instead ask why. This is a distinction that I don't think you have picked up on and you seem incapable of grasping. People do not kill themselves, "Because there was a gun on the table," and they don't kill themselves because they feel that it's easy to do just because they have a gun. No, people kill themselves because they feel they have no other options. Wouldn't counseling do more to prevent suicide than removing guns? After all it addresses the real problem - the individual. What you seem to advocate is removing a means to kill oneself. That is ultimately futile since there are still a infinite number of ways in which a person can kill themselves. If you start by fixing the person, then the firearm issue becomes moot. This is true all the way across the board.

In essence, you are spouting nonsense.

you are an ignorant fool, one day your love of guns may very well come back and bite you in the ass, like it does to 1000s of americans every year. the gun nuts of america are just yet another demographic of people who make america look stupid to the international community.

Have you not noticed that you aren't making yourself look to great either? There are still quite a few posts that you have happily ignored. I wonder why that is? The fact that you have resorted to name calling doesn't help your case either.

again there are numerous studies that show reducing guns reduces suicide. to deny that no one has ever made a spur of the moment decision as shot themselves is stupid. there are many mental conditions that make people vulnerable to this. both you and farson obviously have no understanding of the complicated nature of suicide. you say people do not see a gun and simply decide to shoot themselves... actually yes sometimes that is all it takes. when a person is struggling through life, when they are not thinking as one would consider normally, sometimes all it takes is one thing to push them over the edge. its called impulse suicide and is far more common than you and farson obviously think.

as pyrate as stated, people like you and farson think in black and white. you only see 2 sides to everything. it is simply not the case with such complicated issues as suicide.

also i dont have time to answer every stupid post. i ignore those that are just plain stupid, or i think others will answer.

Seeing you can no longer even be civil we are done.

To paraphrase Einstein, 'there are limits to everything, except stupidity.'

farson135:
WHAT LEGAL MEANING. I have never seen a "legal" definition for assault rifle in the US. You know why? Because it does not exist. There is the military meaning and the colloquial meaning that Y'ALL are using.

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

//etc

I did link this before.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103eMX7ZD::

reonhato:
when you consider how much booze people drink and how often cars are used compared to guns then no 11000 is not low, it is astronomically high.

Guns are used at a rather high rate, my friend. Just last week I fired off 300 rounds at the range. And yet, none of them managed to hurt anyone. So I think I'm good. Unless you want to claim that people consume booze seven times more than use guns. Go right ahead. 11,000 is rather low. It's only like, 700 in my state anyways. Which is an even lower number. I, personally, feel safer around guns and armed people. So I'm not bothered by open carry.

Not G. Ivingname:

CM156:

Not G. Ivingname:

OT: I am two years from legally being able to own a pistol, so what can I say to add to this line of reasoning. :/

I do have a .22 rifle and a Mausburg on order (cross state importation is a nightmare for my state).

I see. Yeah, cali has some pretty restrictive gun laws, don't they? They limit ammo capacity to 10 per mag, if I'm not mistaken. Personally, that'd be annoying for me. I like not having to stop until 30.

Restrictive? Not a strong enough word.

Confusing as all God, YES.

Trying to just keep up with the constantly changing laws is a nightmare, with many different laws depending on the county and city, with none of them overlapping. The inner state is basically shall issue, but the cost either is may issue with good reason or not issuing, and any permit is only good IN THAT COUNTY.

And this is why I am glad I live in Alabama, gun laws are reasonable due to the large hunting culture. No open carry on pistols though, so I have to get a CCW for this beauty.

TechNoFear:
Seeing you can no longer even be civil we are done.

To paraphrase Einstein, 'there are limits to everything, except stupidity.'

farson135:
WHAT LEGAL MEANING. I have never seen a "legal" definition for assault rifle in the US. You know why? Because it does not exist. There is the military meaning and the colloquial meaning that Y'ALL are using.

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

//etc

I did link this before.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103eMX7ZD::

While I can give you an, "A," for effort, I need to point out that the ban has expired and the second bill you posted never made it far enough to become law. In essence, you are tryinng to say that these bills make legal definitions, but neither of them are recognized as law at this point. Therefore, they are not legal in any sense of the word. These are not legal definitions, but rather laundry lists of firearms and variants that a relatively small group of people do not like and wanted to ban for their own (sometimes ridiculous) reasons. I could cite the, "Barrel shroud," reasoning again, but I won't.

This little video demonstrates what differentiates an, "Assault," rifle from an ordinary semi-auto rifle. It's old, but the points are the same now as they have always been.

EDIT: The firearms in the list you posted were mainly chosen for their cosmetic appearance alone. A good many of those (AKs, AR-15s, Mini 14, SKS, and a few others), have different variations that are essentially the same firearm, but only different in appearance. Some of those cosmetic variations do not have those, "Evil," features such as a pistol grip and yet they are included in the list as well - despite resembling any other normal sporting rifle. One of those variations is displayed in the video I posted.

The list is simply a, "Catch-all," developed by the anti-gun platform to ensure every possible firearm they find disatsteful is banned.

reonhato:

again there are numerous studies that show reducing guns reduces suicide. to deny that no one has ever made a spur of the moment decision as shot themselves is stupid. there are many mental conditions that make people vulnerable to this. both you and farson obviously have no understanding of the complicated nature of suicide. you say people do not see a gun and simply decide to shoot themselves... actually yes sometimes that is all it takes. when a person is struggling through life, when they are not thinking as one would consider normally, sometimes all it takes is one thing to push them over the edge. its called impulse suicide and is far more common than you and farson obviously think.

First, if someone is going to make a, "Spur of the moment decision," to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it. Again, you are focused so much on how when the question as to why is more important. I don't think you have the ability to grasp this because you are too obsessed with trying to get your own point across - which is quite flawed.

My point is that if you address those mental conditions i.e. the problems of the individual, then the whole argument of removing guns to prevent suicide is rendered moot.

I also never implied that nobody ever made a spur of the moment decision to shoot themselves. However, I am saying that it doesn't matter whether guns are available or not. A person can still make an instant decision to kill themselves either way! The presence of a gun does not directly cause a death, but rather a person chooses that method. Eliminating a single choice, when millions are available does not mean that the same ultimate end will not be reached.

Again, those statistics you keep screaming from the rooftops are not 100% conclusive. If they were, there would be absolutely zero debate.

I can quote things too:

"According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [3], from 1985-2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, and firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[30] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[31] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Note the following:

"Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998."

Whether or not you will accept it is irrelevant to me because you still cannot grasp the fact that a firearm is simply a means to an end - not an end in and of itself. You also fail to make the raional conclusion that a person kills themselves because of a greatly decreased mental state - not simply because they have access to guns.

as pyrate as stated, people like you and farson think in black and white. you only see 2 sides to everything. it is simply not the case with such complicated issues as suicide.

No. Again, just no.

Let me ask you this. How are you not seeing things in black and white? You are saying that the presence of firearms in society simply = more suicide. I am saying that a direct correlation cannot and has not been established. Why? People can and have successfully killed themselves without the aid of a firearm.

I am saying that firearms are not directly linked to suicide. People have been killing themselves without them for thousands of years. I am also saying that when looking at something like suicide, once must address the underlying cause for the death; why the person made the choice in the first place, and what situations or circumstances led to their decision. What was their mental state? The fact that a firearm is present does not cause a person to reason that they should simply die. If that were the case, then everyone who owned a gun and got depressed would simply die because they could not resist the urge to shoot themselves.

I am delving deeper beyond the firearm issue and looking at the issue of suicide as a whole. You are obsessed with the method when in fact, the method does not matter very much when it is in fact only a small part of a much larger problem.

You are screaming, "Fewer firearms means fewer firearm-related deaths!" Well OF COURSE IT DOES! However, that does not mean that people will be any less likely to kill themselves if firearms are taken away. They just choose another method. Your logic is very circular and you are refusing to take other factors into account such as the events in a person's life that led them to want to kill themselves to begin with.

also i dont have time to answer every stupid post. i ignore those that are just plain stupid, or i think others will answer.

No, you seem to ignore the ones that you cannot argue against and/or would prove you wrong. Silly Bear still has a post a few pages back you have not addressed - even though you have been asked to respond directly. I have a few as well. There are still plenty of questions to be answered.

farson135:

tsb247:

Personally, I love my .45, but in reality a 9mm will do. I have been told not to go with a .40S&W though due to how sensitive they are to pressure. The chambering and rechambering of the round can press the bullet deper into the casing. This can compress the powder and sometimes cause the round to explode.

Don't quote me on that last bit though. I just heard it around my local range. That does not make it a fact.

Yes it is a myth. Compressing the powder does nothing but compress the powder. The only way the round would go off it to introduce a heat source or to strike to firing pin. As for chambering and rechambering it would not happen any more than it would for a .45 (the 9mm case is shaped differently but the .45 has the same case shape as a .40).

However there is some truth in the myth. Chambering and rechambering can push the bullet into the case and doing so increases pressure so that when the bullet fires the chances of a case split increases. Also due to the high pressures involved case failures have occurred when the firearms fire out of battery. However modern firearms have been built to deal with those problems and if you take the proper precautions (such as using a heavier recoil spring and ensuring the bullets are crimped properly) the chances of major problems are low.

I did not mean to imply that the round would simply explode due to the powder being compressed, but rather explode when fired due to the powder being compressed. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. We appear to be on the same page.

I like the gun laws we have here - you can buy one if you are a licensed hunter or belong to a shooting range (shooting club?), and store them in a proper manner. That way, in order to buy a gun, you need to have training to use it properly and a safe storage which only you have access to.

reonhato:

when you consider how much booze people drink and how often cars are used compared to guns then no 11000 is not low, it is astronomically high.

Actually kid in the US 10s of thousands of people carry guns every single day and many of them carry to work, in the car, to the grocery store, and on. In other words 10s of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people carry firearms either open or concealed for 12 hours or more per day. Aside from truckers how many people do you know who drive 12 hours a day?

your ideas on suicide and your complete lack of understanding as to why people with that mindset should not be left to their own choices is simply wrong. it shows your are an asshole of a human being and simply not worth talking to.

First of all kid, I did notice you did not (and by tacit admittance could not) answer my questions. Good job, you are further proving why your side is losing ground.

Second the fact that you want to control people and make their decisions for them only proves that you do not care about human life. What is life without choice? Slavery, and slavery is not life.

again there are numerous studies that show reducing guns reduces suicide.

And there are many countries that prove you wrong.

to deny that no one has ever made a spur of the moment decision as shot themselves is stupid.

To state that spur of the moment decisions can only be made with a gun is stupid.

there are many mental conditions that make people vulnerable to this. both you and farson obviously have no understanding of the complicated nature of suicide. you say people do not see a gun and simply decide to shoot themselves... actually yes sometimes that is all it takes. when a person is struggling through life, when they are not thinking as one would consider normally, sometimes all it takes is one thing to push them over the edge. its called impulse suicide and is far more common than you and farson obviously think.

So you are arguing that complex socio-economic cultural conditions are what cause the want of suicide in the first place? So why don't you concentrate on that instead of removing necessary tools from a society?

as pyrate as stated, people like you and farson think in black and white. you only see 2 sides to everything. it is simply not the case with such complicated issues as suicide.

WE see things in complex socio-economic cultural issues. Y'ALL see the world in GUNS, GUNS, and GUNS. I think y'all see the world in black and white not us.

also i dont have time to answer every stupid post. i ignore those that are just plain stupid, or i think others will answer.

Or, more likely, you ignore everything you know you do not have the ability to refute. Which is why you have refused to answer any of my questions. Once again kid by refusing to even acknowledge the questions you are tacitly admitting you do not have the ability to answer them.

TechNoFear:
Seeing you can no longer even be civil we are done.

To paraphrase Einstein, 'there are limits to everything, except stupidity.'

farson135:
WHAT LEGAL MEANING. I have never seen a "legal" definition for assault rifle in the US. You know why? Because it does not exist. There is the military meaning and the colloquial meaning that Y'ALL are using.

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

I did link this before.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:1:./temp/~c103eMX7ZD::

Kid, I asked for the legal definition of assault RIFLE NOT assault WEAPON. You provided a definition (a non-legal definition since it was never passed into law) of assault weapon but NOT assault rifle. Kid you have lost, admit defeat and stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't personally own a gun but I think the right to own one should not be infringed without a reasonable excuse as to why a certain type of gun should not be owned by civilians or why a certain individual should not be allowed to own a gun (someone who is mentally ill or a minor, or someone with a violent criminal record). Banning the sale and/or ownership of all kinds of firearms by civilians is right out. Regulating the sale and ownership of firearms on the other hand is acceptable and even prudent depending on the nature of such regulations.

The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

usmarine4160:
The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

Doesn't it also have to be above a specific caliber too? I mean, my gun has a few of those features, but it only shoots .22 LR

usmarine4160:
The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

First of all the AWB of 94 requires two of those features, it's the 07 ban (that was never passed) that only has one feature.

Second, the law does not define assault rifle therefore I will use the military definition. And the military definition holds that assault rifles have to be rifles that use an intermediate round, a detachable box magazine, and a selector switch. Because no assault weapon has a selector switch no assault weapon can be defined as an assault rifle.

Once we start to argue semantics, I think the debate is just a pool of blood on the ground where a horse used to stand once...

CM156:

usmarine4160:
The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

Doesn't it also have to be above a specific caliber too? I mean, my gun has a few of those features, but it only shoots .22 LR

CM156:

usmarine4160:
The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

Doesn't it also have to be above a specific caliber too? I mean, my gun has a few of those features, but it only shoots .22 LR

Depends on where you are I guess, in California they'd probably try to charge me for an airsoft gun. In Tennesee they'd go "awww, a .22... that's so cute!"

I'm a big fan of firearms but not a very big fan of gun laws. Not that I don't think they should be regulated, but I think that more of the regulation should go into providing and requiring training and education in the use of firearms. Switzerland is a great example of a highly firearm-educated society and it seems to correlate with pretty low gun violence rates. They seem to be able to have their cake and eat it as well.

usmarine4160:

CM156:

usmarine4160:
The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

Doesn't it also have to be above a specific caliber too? I mean, my gun has a few of those features, but it only shoots .22 LR

CM156:

usmarine4160:
The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

Doesn't it also have to be above a specific caliber too? I mean, my gun has a few of those features, but it only shoots .22 LR

Depends on where you are I guess, in California they'd probably try to charge me for an airsoft gun. In Tennesee they'd go "awww, a .22... that's so cute!"

Well, I've got to start somewhere if I want to build my way up to a .50 cal. .22 is fun to shoot because it's dirt cheap (I can get 100 rounds for like, $6.50-$7.00)

But yeah.

tsb247:

No, you seem to ignore the ones that you cannot argue against and/or would prove you wrong. Silly Bear still has a post a few pages back you have not addressed - even though you have been asked to respond directly. I have a few as well. There are still plenty of questions to be answered.

both me and pyrate answered to silly bear after she showed a complete lack of knowledge. with random and outright wrong assumptions and numbers, at least she had the decency to stop posting after being shown the actual reality

reonhato:

tsb247:

No, you seem to ignore the ones that you cannot argue against and/or would prove you wrong. Silly Bear still has a post a few pages back you have not addressed - even though you have been asked to respond directly. I have a few as well. There are still plenty of questions to be answered.

both me and pyrate answered to silly bear after she showed a complete lack of knowledge. with random and outright wrong assumptions and numbers, at least she had the decency to stop posting after being shown the actual reality

Actual reality? You continue to assert that guns cause suicide, i.e. an object forces an action on a sentient being. In addition you ignore the fact that suicide is going down in the US, the number of guns and gun owners in the US is increasing, and the population in the most gun friendly areas is increasing. Plus you continually ignore the fact that Jamaica has the highest murder rate on earth and more illegal guns, proportionally, than any other country and has one of the lowest suicide rates on earth. Despite those facts you still argue that the presence of guns equals the presence of suicide. Then you have audacity to tell us that socio-economic factors are the initializer of suicide but still argue that guns cause suicide.

Kid, you are not just biased you are ignoring reality and you continue to contradict yourself. Why don't you start by justifying that contradiction then you can actually answer my other questions.

reonhato:

tsb247:

No, you seem to ignore the ones that you cannot argue against and/or would prove you wrong. Silly Bear still has a post a few pages back you have not addressed - even though you have been asked to respond directly. I have a few as well. There are still plenty of questions to be answered.

both me and pyrate answered to silly bear after she showed a complete lack of knowledge. with random and outright wrong assumptions and numbers, at least she had the decency to stop posting after being shown the actual reality

What Farson135 said...

Oh, and you again did not bother to respond to the rest of my post. Could it be that you cannot? I think so...

How is it so hard to admit that firearms are not the cause of suicide?

I also find it odd that you focus entirely on suicide as the crux of your argument. Could it be that you have been proven wrong on the self-defense front? I think so.

farson135:

usmarine4160:
The law uses the term assault weapon instead of assault rifle so you can't go around it quite as easily... an assault rifle has 1 of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
-Primary pistol grip
-Forward grip
-Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
-Barrel shroud

First of all the AWB of 94 requires two of those features, it's the 07 ban (that was never passed) that only has one feature.

Second, the law does not define assault rifle therefore I will use the military definition. And the military definition holds that assault rifles have to be rifles that use an intermediate round, a detachable box magazine, and a selector switch. Because no assault weapon has a selector switch no assault weapon can be defined as an assault rifle.

by that definition what does that make the steyr AUG given that it lacks the selector switch? or is it an exception that proves the rule?

tsb247:

reonhato:

tsb247:

No, you seem to ignore the ones that you cannot argue against and/or would prove you wrong. Silly Bear still has a post a few pages back you have not addressed - even though you have been asked to respond directly. I have a few as well. There are still plenty of questions to be answered.

both me and pyrate answered to silly bear after she showed a complete lack of knowledge. with random and outright wrong assumptions and numbers, at least she had the decency to stop posting after being shown the actual reality

What Farson135 said...

Oh, and you again did not bother to respond to the rest of my post. Could it be that you cannot? I think so...

How is it so hard to admit that firearms are not the cause of suicide?

I also find it odd that you focus entirely on suicide as the crux of your argument. Could it be that you have been proven wrong on the self-defense front? I think so.

because i am tired of saying the same thing over and over again to zealots who chose to ignore mountains of evidence simply because they feel the need to increase their penis size by carrying around a deadly weapon.

i concentrate more on suicide because its what i know, just like tech concentrates more on the argument he knows. combined, pyrate, tech and i cover a pretty big area, we use numbers, numerous studies, you use correlation, and yeah but you cannot compare and hey look jamaica

blind_dead_mcjones:

by that definition what does that make the steyr AUG given that it lacks the selector switch? or is it an exception that proves the rule?

The Steyr AUG is a select fire firearm. In other words you can switch between semi and some type of automatic fire. The Steyr AUG does have a different kind of selector switch (namely the trigger mechanism) but it still can be considered a selector switch. Although it would probably be more accurate to state that all assault rifles must be select fire rather than stating they all must have selector switches. Thank you for reminding me of this, I honestly forgot about it.

reonhato:

tsb247:

reonhato:

both me and pyrate answered to silly bear after she showed a complete lack of knowledge. with random and outright wrong assumptions and numbers, at least she had the decency to stop posting after being shown the actual reality

What Farson135 said...

Oh, and you again did not bother to respond to the rest of my post. Could it be that you cannot? I think so...

How is it so hard to admit that firearms are not the cause of suicide?

I also find it odd that you focus entirely on suicide as the crux of your argument. Could it be that you have been proven wrong on the self-defense front? I think so.

because i am tired of saying the same thing over and over again to zealots who chose to ignore mountains of evidence simply because they feel the need to increase their penis size by carrying around a deadly weapon.

i concentrate more on suicide because its what i know, just like tech concentrates more on the argument he knows. combined, pyrate, tech and i cover a pretty big area, we use numbers, numerous studies, you use correlation, and yeah but you cannot compare and hey look jamaica

Well, it took 15 pages, but we finally got to a tiny dick joke!

I know women who pack heat too. And who really love guns. Do they do it because they want to increase their penis size?

Of course not, you big silly.

And again, skippy, I have no idea why you even bother. I mean, as you admitted yourself, you have no idea what policies should be implemented. And if you try to round up all guns as his Holyness advises, you're going to meet resistance from a lot of pissed off gun owners. Just sayin'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked