Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 57 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 52 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Gussmoore, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

gun control

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Sun May 13, 2007 7:15 pm

my big issue with gun control is where to draw the line. lots of people say only guns if they are for target shooting or hunting, but you can just as easily misuse a 12 gague with a 21 inch barrel as you can a 15" one. and who is to say that a certian kind of gun is not primarily to be used for target shooting. why should the government be able to decide that people can not use a barrett .50 cal, while most of those guns are out on ranges in the desert. and why shouldn't someone be able to own a firearm that resembles one in use by the military. the federal assault weapons ban banned weapons because of the way that they looked, ammunition because it has the word "magnum" in it. it seems a little ridiculous to ban a gun becasue it is called a mac-10 or a tec-9, that just doesn't make sense
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Sun May 13, 2007 7:44 pm

A line has to be declared because it's human nature to keep pushing the boat out on this kind of thing as individuals try to be that little bit more individual than the last guy.

Even in a democratic country, governments don't want to have civilians that might have weaponry thats equal to or better than anything the military or law enforcement has.

What do they do if someone misuses it? At what level of weaponry power is it acceptable in the balance of risk to leave weapons in the hands of civilians, given that every now and again theres the chance of someone doing something seriously antisocial with it.

Rocket launchers? Portable half inch anti-materiel cannons?

I'd like to know where you would draw the line Beebs.
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Mon May 14, 2007 2:07 pm

to be honest with you, i draw the line at any firearm, no mines or grenade launchers. i believe that people should be able to legally own any firearm as long as they have not been convicted of certian crimes, and can pass a psych test to make sure that they are not insane. even though that will probably never happen in this country, i just pray that the gun laws will not get too much stricter within the next 6 years(ill be 21)
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Tue May 15, 2007 4:59 am

From that I would cut out fully automatic anythings, explosive/frangible/AP ammunition, freestanding or (intended to be)mounted weaponry.
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue May 15, 2007 5:10 am

Hotwired wrote:From that I would cut out fully automatic anythings, explosive/frangible/AP ammunition, freestanding or (intended to be)mounted weaponry.


Er... frangible ammunition penetrates less and is actually less lethal than FMJ ammo.

What about small and silenced 0.22 pistols and rifles?
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Tue May 15, 2007 6:39 am

Theres something else I was thinking of,

Suppressors have no effect on gun crime. Theres no excuse for having a suppressed firearm in a public place that isn't intended for firearm use though.

What do you think gun control should be like then jack?
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue May 15, 2007 6:54 am

Hotwired wrote:Suppressors have no effect on gun crime. Theres no excuse for having a suppressed firearm in a public place that isn't intended for firearm use though.


That's the differnce between Europe and the US - in America, silencers are associated with covert work and assasination and as such are heavily regulated - on the other hand, it's child's play to get a silencer for your firearm in the UK for example (provided you have a FAC) and it's considered to be inconsiderate to others if you donn't use one - even suppressed shotguns are fairly common.

Personally, I think gun control should target the individual, not the type of gun. Someone like Cho would likely have done less damage with a fully automatic weapon, in a "massacre" situation the deliberate, calculated use of a semi-auto is much more "effective". The point is that in criminal hands, even the most basic of weapons can be very deadly.

Of all the 0.50 calibre anti-material rifles owned in the US, how many have actually been used to commit a crime? The only "criminal" use I've ever encountered was the use of Barrett rifles in Northern Ireland to murder UK policemen.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Tue May 15, 2007 8:53 am

There is no civilian requirement for fully automatic weaponry or even 0.50 cal rifles. One was created for putting more rounds into the air than an opponent to increase chances of killing them and the other was specifically designed to put a bullet the size of a small cannon shell through both sides of lightly armoured vehicles.

The issue with trying to target the individual is that the individual is generally in a sane and responsible state when legally obtaining their weaponry. What kind of test could you put in to determine how responsible someone is or for that matter will be?

So the only thing a government can control is the type of available weapons so that when someone does cut loose with one theres less of a problem.

.50 cal rifles aren't used for criminal purposes because they're big, heavy and expensive. Mind you, so's a tank. Maybe they should be legal to drive and use with functional weapons systems too.

Incidentally, how comfortable are you that police are armed in the US? Do you think UK criminals would be more likely to be armed with firearms if UK police went around armed as standard?
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue May 15, 2007 9:38 am

Hotwired wrote:There is no civilian requirement for fully automatic weaponry or even 0.50 cal rifles.


There's no civillian requirement for cars that can go faster than the speed limit, so why doesn't the government go around fitting speed limiters to people's accelerator pedals? Let's face it, there are tonnes of things out there that we don't require but do for the heck of it, if you're going to go around banning such items/activities because they're not strictly essential you'll be sucking the whole joy out of life.

Incidentally, how comfortable are you that police are armed in the US? Do you think UK criminals would be more likely to be armed with firearms if UK police went around armed as standard?


The level of private gun ownership in the US means it would be downright foolish for a law enforcement officer not to be armed. Criminals in the US don't carry guns because they expect the police to be armed, rather vice-versa. If your local bobby expected to routinely encouncounter firearms on his daily beat then he would demand to carry a weapon himself.

There is no civilian requirement for fully automatic weaponry or even 0.50 cal rifles.


How about if you're out hunting r/c helicopters? :D :D :D
  • 0

Last edited by jackssmirkingrevenge on Tue May 15, 2007 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Tue May 15, 2007 11:26 am

You haven't noticed all the speed restrictions on the roads or the way police cars tend to turn their lights on and chase you when you exceed them? Loads of people die each year over the speed limits, often taking other people with them.

There will always be restrictions put on things that can endanger life, specifically other peoples. Projectile devices designed to kill kinda fall into that category.

So you think there should be no restrictions on civilian weaponry?

What would you replace gun control as it is now with then?
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue May 15, 2007 11:38 am

You haven't noticed all the speed restrictions on the roads or the way police cars tend to turn their lights on and chase you when you exceed them? Loads of people die each year over the speed limits, often taking other people with them.


I'm not justifying overspeeding - I'm saying that cars don't NEED to go over the limit, but virtually any car is capable of doing it. Manufaturers aren't prevented from making cars that can go this fast, and drivers aren't stopped from using them - why should guns be any different? Both are high speed machinery with no practical purpose.

The reality in the US is that thousands of civillians own functioning military hardware which they operate as a hobby, anything from tanks, artillery, anti aircraft guns, heavy machineguns etc - all extremely destructive devices - but virtually none of them are used to commit crimes. This is why I belive that it's the individuals who own the weapons should be controlled, not the weapons themselves.

What would you rather have living next door, an old military collector with a clean criminal record owning a 20mm cannon or a teenage convict with an air-rifle?
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Tue May 15, 2007 11:45 am

The bad press about so called "black guns" is what I'd change.It seems anything painted black was under the assault weapons ban(which did very little).That ban was stupid and I'm glad it's finally over.The stupidity behind allowing 20rd mags and not 30's is beyond me.I own an AK and a couple of SKS's, to me the SKS is a more deadly rifle due to the fact that it was made for accuracy unlike the AK.It isn't about the rifle and how many bullets it can spit.It's all about were you put that round.I believe gun control in the US should be limited to allowing all small arms.No grenade launchers and etc. but a 50 cal. is perfectly acceptable.It makes on heck of a hunting rifle.
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue May 15, 2007 12:30 pm

goathunter wrote:No grenade launchers and etc. but a 50 cal. is perfectly acceptable.It makes on heck of a hunting rifle.


How many legally held grenade launchers have been used for criminal purposes?
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Tue May 15, 2007 1:15 pm

There is such thing as a legal grenade launcher?I was just simply stating what I would consider ideal gun control.No ban on small arms, just the big stuff.
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: ShowNoMercy » Tue May 15, 2007 1:19 pm

Why would you say one thing is bad and another is ok? A bullet from a .22 or a grenade will still kill.
  • 0

Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way
User avatar
ShowNoMercy
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:08 am
Location: Jersey Bitches!
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Gussmoore, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'