GUN CONTROL!

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

Ignorance. Like it is now.

I just proved free states wrong.

Oh yes because you say I am "ignorant", that means I am wrong.

Yes, devert to name calling why don't we. That makes you sound "very knowledgeable"doesn't it. No it does not, you now look even more ignorant than I.

[Hathradic States]

-A figure for gun deaths was used.
-Said figure included suicides by gun, which was contested and mentioned it shouldn't be included for a fair comparison.
-Claim that suicides by guns were appropriate to use and more measures neccessary as that would '...start to reduce the number of corpses.'
-Imperializt Russia mentioned how suicide statistics in the UK were similar in trend to those in the US despite gun control measures.

And yet the UK numbers say nothing about how many were by gun. Instead an irrelevant gender difference was cited.

Because it just proves that by gun doesn't matter, and suicidal people are going to find ways to kill themselves.

And I question anybody who says that suicide by gun is easier, because it really isn't.

[Occupied Deutschland]

-A figure for gun deaths was used.
-Said figure included suicides by gun, which was contested and mentioned it shouldn't be included for a fair comparison.
-Claim that suicides by guns were appropriate to use and more measures neccessary as that would '...start to reduce the number of corpses.'
-Imperializt Russia mentioned how suicide statistics in the UK were similar in trend to those in the US despite gun control measures.

And yet the UK numbers say nothing about how many were by gun. Instead an irrelevant gender difference was cited.

That's what was brought up it was in response to.
It was claimed US suicides were biased in favor of men using guns because of...something, Emerald kind'a just alluded to it and I'm not sure what it was in reference to.

Imperializt showed how the same trend was present in the UK, so guns weren't the causal factor.

[Imperializt Russia]

People shouldn't have fully automatic assault rifles. Why can people not defend themselves with pistols and rifles instead of high powered shotguns and assault rifles?

Because the former are more likely to cause collateral damage. A hunting rifle will go straight through a wall if you miss, and will probably go through your attacker. An "assault rifle" (because what most people thing are assault rifles really aren't) won't, due to the lower power cartridge. A shotgun won't, either, unless you are using slugs.

Unless you're using expanding, frangible, fragmenting or other such ammunition, rifle ammunition is plenty likely to pass through an attacker as well.
5.56 travels at a kilometre per second at the muzzle.

[Chernoslavia]

Ignorance. Like it is now.

I just proved free states wrong.

Not really you just said basically the same thing everybody in support of gun prohibition before you has said on every other gun control thread and was proven wrong.

[Imperializt Russia]

-A figure for gun deaths was used.
-Said figure included suicides by gun, which was contested and mentioned it shouldn't be included for a fair comparison.
-Claim that suicides by guns were appropriate to use and more measures neccessary as that would '...start to reduce the number of corpses.'
-Imperializt Russia mentioned how suicide statistics in the UK were similar in trend to those in the US despite gun control measures.

And yet the UK numbers say nothing about how many were by gun. Instead an irrelevant gender difference was cited.

A gender difference that I didn't bring up, but chose to refute.

[Hathradic States]

Because the former are more likely to cause collateral damage. A hunting rifle will go straight through a wall if you miss, and will probably go through your attacker. An "assault rifle" (because what most people thing are assault rifles really aren't) won't, due to the lower power cartridge. A shotgun won't, either, unless you are using slugs.

Unless you're using expanding, frangible, fragmenting or other such ammunition, rifle ammunition is plenty likely to pass through an attacker as well.
5.56 travels at a kilometre per second at the muzzle.

True, but it will be slowed down a lot more upon leaving the attacker.

Hollow points are best ammo for home defense, due to the expanding nature of them.

[Greed and Death]

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

People shouldn't have fully automatic assault rifles. Why can people not defend themselves with pistols and rifles instead of high powered shotguns and assault rifles?

Fully Auto weapons have been practically banned since 1986, with the exception of those who own a pre ban weapon and under go extensive licensing requirements.

[Imperializt Russia]

Unless you're using expanding, frangible, fragmenting or other such ammunition, rifle ammunition is plenty likely to pass through an attacker as well.
5.56 travels at a kilometre per second at the muzzle.

True, but it will be slowed down a lot more upon leaving the attacker.

Hollow points are best ammo for home defense, due to the expanding nature of them.

People are less than 50cm wide.

[Hathradic States]

True, but it will be slowed down a lot more upon leaving the attacker.

Hollow points are best ammo for home defense, due to the expanding nature of them.

People are less than 50cm wide.

I didn't contest that.

[Spreewerke]

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

People shouldn't have fully automatic assault rifles. Why can people not defend themselves with pistols and rifles instead of high powered shotguns and assault rifles?

If you think I'm talking about fully-automatic assault rifles being the norm, you are apparently not well-versed in firearms law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made full-automatics all but illegal (same for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, destructive devices, and "any other weapons"). In order to obtain one, you had to have written permission from the BATFE and pay a $200 tax to the government. In 1986, the Hughes Amendment made it where no machinegun registered after that amendment's introduction was legal to own by civilians. Because of that, machineguns were now finitely limited and their prices skyrocketed. My father mentioned that a full-auto drop in sear was capable of being purchased from Shotgun News in the early 1980s for ~$20.00. Assuming you did all your NFA paperwork and paid the $200 tax, you received your sear, dropped it in, and had a full-auto. So, basically, $220.00 is what it took to have a full-auto AR-15/M16 before the Hughes Amendment. The price for just the full-automatic receiver for an AR-15 (not the entire rifle) today? $16,000+ before taxes.

Legal machineguns haven't been used but in two crimes. Illegal machines, yes, but those were typically gang-supplied by Chinese or Mexican smugglers (thus why we no longer import Norinco items), or modified by the individual themselves (such was the case in the Hollywood Shootout).

Full-auto weapons are insanely rare: I've only been around three of them in my lifetime as a civilian and only fired one. I also worked at an FFL07/SOT2 that could legally supply firearms to police units, etc.; we had federal permission to obtain post-'86 full-autos. I worked in a business where full-auto was perfectly legal, and still we only had three in the shop ever. Now imagine how many non-legally-permitted individuals have been around full-automatics. I'll give you a hint: outside of my relatives that served in the military, I am the only one to my knowledge to have ever experienced full-automatic fire with my own two hands. I come from a family of sports shooters, one of my relatives previously being an FFL himself many years ago. I still have more full-auto experience than my entire family combined sans military experience. Full-auto is rare. Very, very rare.


As for assault rifles being high-powered, nope. I'll let old man sports jacket guy address this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw

As for high-powered shotguns, I really don't know what you're talking about. One of my friends has an old 10 Gauge goose gun that is literally more powerful than 99% of military shotguns ever used. It was designed solely for hunting. Is it illegal now under your proposition? What about the Winchester Model 1897? Hunting shotgun that was also repurposed into a military shotgun. Same goes for the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500/590. Majority of military shotguns are simply repurposed civilian shotguns. Same can be said for many of the sniper rifles.

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

I just proved free states wrong.

Not really you just said basically the same thing everybody in support of gun prohibition before you has said on every other gun control thread and was proven wrong.

Agreed. He has proved nothing, by calling me names. He is just trying to change the subject, which in a thread titled "GUN CONTROL" I would find very difficult.

He is also trying to prop himself up on something called "self-esteem".

[Spreewerke]

True, but it will be slowed down a lot more upon leaving the attacker.

Hollow points are best ammo for home defense, due to the expanding nature of them.

People are less than 50cm wide.

Go look up Hornady 55gr. VMax in .223 Remington. That's what I keep my bedside rifle loaded with.

[Tule]

I don't think I've ever seen any data that supports the banning of full auto weapons.

Historically, hundreds of thousands of them have been in the hands of Swiss, American, Norwegian and Swedish citizens yet none of these countries have had problems with machine-gun related gun crime as far as I know. Legally registered machine-guns have been used twice to commit murder in the US since the 1930's, and all the other countries have historically had very low homicide rates.

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

I don't think I've ever seen any data that supports the banning of full auto weapons.

Historically, hundreds of thousands of them have been in the hands of Swiss, American, Norwegian and Swedish citizens yet none of these countries have had problems with machine-gun related gun crime as far as I know. Legally registered machine-guns have been used twice to commit murder in the US since the 1930's, and all the other countries have historically had very low homicide rates.

The more people who have guns the better, it deters crime, it deters theft, it deters murder, and it deters tyranny.

[Siaos]

I don't think I've ever seen any data that supports the banning of full auto weapons.

Historically, hundreds of thousands of them have been in the hands of Swiss, American, Norwegian and Swedish citizens yet none of these countries have had problems with machine-gun related gun crime as far as I know. Legally registered machine-guns have been used twice to commit murder in the US since the 1930's, and all the other countries have historically had very low homicide rates.

The more people who have guns the better, it deters crime, it deters theft, it deters murder, and it deters tyranny.

Assuming its not the criminals or KKK who have the guns...

[Greed and Death]

Because the former are more likely to cause collateral damage. A hunting rifle will go straight through a wall if you miss, and will probably go through your attacker. An "assault rifle" (because what most people thing are assault rifles really aren't) won't, due to the lower power cartridge. A shotgun won't, either, unless you are using slugs.

Unless you're using expanding, frangible, fragmenting or other such ammunition, rifle ammunition is plenty likely to pass through an attacker as well.
5.56 travels at a kilometre per second at the muzzle.

If I get shot by full metal jacket ammunition I will be relieved as it means I have a good chance of surviving compared to a proper expanding bullet.

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

The more people who have guns the better, it deters crime, it deters theft, it deters murder, and it deters tyranny.

Assuming its not the criminals or KKK who have the guns...

Not if everyone has guns.

[Spreewerke]

Unless you're using expanding, frangible, fragmenting or other such ammunition, rifle ammunition is plenty likely to pass through an attacker as well.
5.56 travels at a kilometre per second at the muzzle.

If I get shot by full metal jacket ammunition I will be relieved as it means I have a good chance of surviving compared to a proper expanding bullet.

Now, now... depends on the round construction itself, too! Take a look at 5.45x39mm 7N6, 7.62x39mm 8M2, or even 5.56x45mm M193. Those are three FMJs I would very much not like to be shot with.

[Occupied Deutschland]

If I get shot by full metal jacket ammunition I will be relieved as it means I have a good chance of surviving compared to a proper expanding bullet.

Now, now... depends on the round construction itself, too! Take a look at 5.45x39mm 7N6, 7.62x39mm 8M2, or even 5.56x45mm M193. Those are three FMJs I would very much not like to be shot with.

I'm gonna take the third option here and say I'd rather not be shot by any kind of ammo. Expanding, FMJ, marshmallow, nothing.
I'm a delicate and fragile flower.

[Siaos]

Assuming its not the criminals or KKK who have the guns...

Not if everyone has guns.

I suppose this

is a bit more intimidating than this

to criminals

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

Not if everyone has guns.

I suppose this

is a bit more intimidating than this

to criminals

Yes it is.

[Chernoslavia]

I don't think I've ever seen any data that supports the banning of full auto weapons.

Historically, hundreds of thousands of them have been in the hands of Swiss, American, Norwegian and Swedish citizens yet none of these countries have had problems with machine-gun related gun crime as far as I know. Legally registered machine-guns have been used twice to commit murder in the US since the 1930's, and all the other countries have historically had very low homicide rates.

Let's not forget Finland. They have yearly competitions involving full autos.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

The strongest weapon anyone (unauthorized civilians being "anyone") should own is a pistol. Specifically, a Mauser.

Now, now... depends on the round construction itself, too! Take a look at 5.45x39mm 7N6, 7.62x39mm 8M2, or even 5.56x45mm M193. Those are three FMJs I would very much not like to be shot with.

I'm gonna take the third option here and say I'd rather not be shot by any kind of ammo. Expanding, FMJ, marshmallow, nothing.
I'm a delicate and fragile flower.

I second þat.

[Aeken]

And if that were free?

I just think we ought to have more control in big cities than in Rural areas.

I can agree with that.