Politcal Views: Gun Control

requiem
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Politcal Views: Gun Control

Hey Guys (or Girls). I am gathering opinions and since this seems like a well read collection of individuals I would like to ask you:
What do you believe about gun control in America?
Do you believe there should be more or less?
Do you believe higher or lower taxes should be given to gun salesmen and manufacturers?
Do you believe it is wiser for most people to have guns or very few?

I look forward to your responses.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
requiem wrote:Hey Guys (or

requiem wrote:

Hey Guys (or Girls). I am gathering opinions and since this seems like a well read collection of individuals I would like to ask you:
What do you believe about gun control in America?
Do you believe there should be more or less?

Less

 

requiem wrote:

Do you believe higher or lower taxes should be given to gun salesmen and manufacturers?

I don't believe tax rates should be used for social engineering. Everyone should pay the same rate regardless of what items they may manufacture or sell.

 

requiem wrote:

Do you believe it is wiser for most people to have guns or very few?

That is completely up to the individual. For me, it is wise to have many guns. If many people want to own guns, fine. If only a few want to, fine. Most citizens should not be restricted from buying guns if they choose to do so. 

 

We have a recent thread going that touches on the subject of gun control regulations you might want to check out.  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29303

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
I may be an statistical outlier but...

I would say that usually the basis of every gun control argument hinges on whether you think a person should have to rely on another person or group for their security. Most gun controls laws, in my opinion, are mostly pushes by the government for more control over the populace, and their "we will be safer if we only ban (X)" arguments are more to convince well meaning people to hand over their rights. Some people may trust the police and the military to "responsibly" use a monopoly of force, but when you grow up poor and/or with slightly more melanin then others it's hard not to remember the history of who that force is usually used against. Bruises, scars, and broken bones tend to leave an indelible mark on ones memory.

So, many people may disagree with me, but I find that most gun control laws are just attempts by forces within the government to create more dependency on their self-perpetuating hierarchy, which is always good for their business of control and coercion, by using well meaning, peaceful people and their aversion to suffering to further that agenda.

And before anybody jumps to conclusions about my political persuasion who hasn't read any of my posts, I'm not what one could call a conservative in ANY way, unless Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin count as conservatives now!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
requiem wrote:What do you

requiem wrote:

What do you believe about gun control in America?

I believe its just another social issue, like abortion that politicians use to tug on people's emotions


Quote:
Do you believe there should be more or less?

More in some places, and definitely less in others


Quote:
Do you believe higher or lower taxes should be given to gun salesmen and manufacturers?

Whatever the sales tax is for a carton of Milk, so should it be with guns

 

Quote:
Do you believe it is wiser for most people to have guns or very few?

I think every law abiding citizen should be able to own a gun if they want... wise is in the perspective of the boholder


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 requiem wrote:What do you

 

requiem wrote:
What do you believe about gun control in America?

 

Gun control is evil. Apart from the very few people who need to be kept from guns, everyone shouls have the right to open carry. If I want to go Wyatt Earp with a tactical holster, that is my right. If I want to carry a carbine or long gun around, that too is my right.

 

requiem wrote:
Do you believe there should be more or less?

 

There should be none. Granted, I would not want Warren Buffet to have nukes but in general, the right of the people to keep and bear arms seems pretty clear to me.

 

requiem wrote:
Do you believe higher or lower taxes should be given to gun salesmen and manufacturers?

 

Guns should only be taxed in exactly the same manner as any other common item. The standard sales tax is fine. The same should hold for bullets. Sin taxes are not fine for either.

 

requiem wrote:
Do you believe it is wiser for most people to have guns or very few?

 

As I said above, there are a tiny number of people who should not have guns.

 

However, under the current system, if those people want guns, they can have them. Something is really wrong with that. On the other hand, if we let anyone have guns, then the people who should not have them would have to figure on the chance that they will get shot.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
violin

Quote:
Gun control is evil. Apart from the very few people who need to be kept from guns, everyone shouls have the right to open carry. If I want to go Wyatt Earp with a tactical holster, that is my right. If I want to carry a carbine or long gun around, that too is my right.

Gun control is evil, but on the other hand firearms kill pretty easily. Having someone shove his loved rifle around would not be pleasant for me and for a lot of people, I think, and could lead to very irresponsible acts. Surely it's a matter of education, but I would not be happy to walk on the same road with some carrying weapons.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:requiem

Beyond Saving wrote:

requiem wrote:

Hey Guys (or Girls). I am gathering opinions and since this seems like a well read collection of individuals I would like to ask you:
What do you believe about gun control in America?
Do you believe there should be more or less?

Less

 

requiem wrote:

Do you believe higher or lower taxes should be given to gun salesmen and manufacturers?

I don't believe tax rates should be used for social engineering. Everyone should pay the same rate regardless of what items they may manufacture or sell.

 

requiem wrote:

Do you believe it is wiser for most people to have guns or very few?

That is completely up to the individual. For me, it is wise to have many guns. If many people want to own guns, fine. If only a few want to, fine. Most citizens should not be restricted from buying guns if they choose to do so. 

 

We have a recent thread going that touches on the subject of gun control regulations you might want to check out.  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29303

Still stuck in utopia thought. More guns is the solution. Tell that to the 31,000 suicide/murder victims in 07, and not all of them were strangers or even criminals at the time of their deaths. And that is one year. I wonder how many people have died in the past ten years from guns.

You keep getting stuck on history which is NOT lost on those who understand the Constitution. I think IT IS good to have an armed public.

As I said in the other thread, Japan for example would be much easier for a future leader, if a power dramatically shifted, times can and do change, for that leader to oppress the country.

HAVING SAID THAT, there is absolutely no rational control to prevent these deaths, criminal or not, I do not think flooding the market and arming everyone will work.

You are stuck in this utopia that humans when left to their own devices will always do the right thing. I don't want honest people to suffer because of criminals, but I do not think 31,000 gun deaths is acceptable, EVEN though I agree with the second amendment.

So the issue isn't black or white, but HOW do we maintain the needed check on government without the continuing bloodbath on our streets.

The right to own a gun is not my issue, but HOW do we maintain it AND prevent gun death at the same time.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Still stuck in

Brian37 wrote:

Still stuck in utopia thought. More guns is the solution. Tell that to the 31,000 suicide/murder victims in 07, and not all of them were strangers or even criminals at the time of their deaths. And that is one year. I wonder how many people have died in the past ten years from guns.

You keep getting stuck on history which is NOT lost on those who understand the Constitution. I think IT IS good to have an armed public.

As I said in the other thread, Japan for example would be much easier for a future leader, if a power dramatically shifted, times can and do change, for that leader to oppress the country.

HAVING SAID THAT, there is absolutely no rational control to prevent these deaths, criminal or not, I do not think flooding the market and arming everyone will work.

You are stuck in this utopia that humans when left to their own devices will always do the right thing. I don't want honest people to suffer because of criminals, but I do not think 31,000 gun deaths is acceptable, EVEN though I agree with the second amendment.

So the issue isn't black or white, but HOW do we maintain the needed check on government without the continuing bloodbath on our streets.

The right to own a gun is not my issue, but HOW do we maintain it AND prevent gun death at the same time.

 

Funny that you accuse me of being stuck in utopia thought when you are the one who thinks it is possible to prevent gun death while also protecting the Second Amendment. I'm not concerned about suicides. If people decide to end their lives I think they should be allowed to. If I know them I might try to convince them not to, but I am not going to force them to live. 

 

I'm not worried about forcing people to do the "right thing". I am aware that many people will choose to do the wrong thing. I am ok with that. I would rather give a few people the opportunity to do the wrong thing than to pretend that I know what is right for everyone else. I don't know what is right for you and frankly, I don't care. That is the difference between me and you. You think you know what is right for everyone and are willing to use government force to impose it on everyone else in the belief that somehow, using government force, you can make the world such a wonderful place. I hold no such illusions. I accept that the world isn't perfect and that people are not perfect and accept them as they are. 

 

Ironic that you accuse me of being utopian when you are the one who apparently believes that some undefined regulations are going to eliminate suicide or murder and make the world safe. I make no such claim. No system of government can keep you 100% safe. The best you can do, is take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

 

 Tell that to the 31,000 suicide/murder victims in 07 ...( snip )   And that is one year. 

  

 

   Okay, if you will tell it to the 195,000 hospital patients who die each year from medical mistakes.....

      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

 

    

Brian37 wrote:
  I wonder how many people have died in the past ten years from guns.

 

         I wonder how many patients have died in the past ten years just from being admitted to a hospital ?

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

 I'm not concerned about suicides. If people decide to end their lives I think they should be allowed to. If I know them I might try to convince them not to, but I am not going to force them to live.

Agreed.   Everyone has the right to walk out of this life if they feel they've overstayed their welcome.  A bullet to the brain is a fast way to exit a fucked up life.  Why deny them an efficient and relatively pain free method ?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
  I'm not worried about forcing people to do the "right thing". I am aware that many people will choose to do the wrong thing. I am ok with that. I would rather give a few people the opportunity to do the wrong thing than to pretend that I know what is right for everyone else. I don't know what is right for you and frankly, I don't care. That is the difference between me and you. You think you know what is right for everyone and are willing to use government force to impose it on everyone else in the belief that somehow, using government force, you can make the world such a wonderful place. I hold no such illusions. I accept that the world isn't perfect and that people are not perfect and accept them as they are.
 

  Agreed.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
  Ironic that you accuse me of being utopian when you are the one who apparently believes that some undefined regulations are going to eliminate suicide or murder and make the world safe. I make no such claim. No system of government can keep you 100% safe. The best you can do, is take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones.

 

    Gun control proponent: "If guns made us safer we would be the safest nation on Earth."

    Gun ownership advocate : "And if laws made us safer there wouldn't be any crime. "

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't think anyone should

I don't think anyone should have an AK-47, RPG, or Galtling Gun in their possession. But hand guns with limited clip size or hunting rifles I can't argue against. I may think you're a pussy for using them, but I can't logically argue against their presence either. Much like with drugs, prohibition merely creates a black market with less safety overall and reduces the quality of the product as well. 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't think

Vastet wrote:

I don't think anyone should have an AK-47

 

OK, but why?  Specifically what is there about an AK 47 that is so bad?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
me

I think that with a good education people could own what they want, but this is not a world filled with well-manned people. And firearms could give the edge one needs to find a way to kill someone.
It's absolutely true that firearms and laws don't prevent crimes! They don't solve people problems! It's simply that!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't think

Vastet wrote:

I don't think anyone should have an AK-47, RPG, or Galtling Gun in their possession. But hand guns with limited clip size or hunting rifles I can't argue against. I may think you're a pussy for using them, but I can't logically argue against their presence either. Much like with drugs, prohibition merely creates a black market with less safety overall and reduces the quality of the product as well. 

Thats about where I am at.

The problem is a double edge sword with no easy solution. Someone once said "Violence is the product of living in a free society".

But I am not so sure, we'd have to be able to live long enough to see Germany and Japan 1,000 years from now to see if the open society they have now still holds even without an armed citizenry.

It would be nice to have both a less violent society and no guns. But it is better to me, to worry about a neighbor being a criminal, than the entire government. If the citizens are armed it makes it hard for the government to turn on them.

Our government would have a hard time even if it wanted to. It would be a lot like Iraq and Afghanistan and a ton of suburban and urban warfare with NO way to tell enemy from friend since no one is wearing a clear uniform.

I don't think anyone here would want to live in China. Bejing(sp) has virtually no crime, but it is very easy for the government to make you disappear if they want.

Japan has about 150 million on an Island about the size of California which, when I was there, was entirely city and suburbs, and NO CRIME.

So HOW do we keep the long term protection from government being the criminal, while reducing gun violence, without flooding the market with too many guns in the wrong hands?

There is no easy solution to this.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Funny

Beyond Saving wrote:

Funny that you accuse me of being stuck in utopia thought when you are the one who thinks it is possible to prevent gun death while also protecting the Second Amendment. I'm not concerned about suicides. If people decide to end their lives I think they should be allowed to. If I know them I might try to convince them not to, but I am not going to force them to live. 

 

I'm not worried about forcing people to do the "right thing". I am aware that many people will choose to do the wrong thing. I am ok with that. I would rather give a few people the opportunity to do the wrong thing than to pretend that I know what is right for everyone else. I don't know what is right for you and frankly, I don't care. That is the difference between me and you. You think you know what is right for everyone and are willing to use government force to impose it on everyone else in the belief that somehow, using government force, you can make the world such a wonderful place. I hold no such illusions. I accept that the world isn't perfect and that people are not perfect and accept them as they are. 

 

Ironic that you accuse me of being utopian when you are the one who apparently believes that some undefined regulations are going to eliminate suicide or murder and make the world safe. I make no such claim. No system of government can keep you 100% safe. The best you can do, is take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones.

+1

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 Tell that to the 31,000 suicide/murder victims in 07 ...( snip )   And that is one year. 

  

 

   Okay, if you will tell it to the 195,000 hospital patients who die each year from medical mistakes.....

      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

 

    

Brian37 wrote:
  I wonder how many people have died in the past ten years from guns.

 

         I wonder how many patients have died in the past ten years just from being admitted to a hospital ?

 

 

 

Apples and oranges. Hospitals are not manufactured for the purpose of killing or designed to kill.

Our high "mistake rate" is due to pace(not enough time to take the time to do things right), Greed(over conflated medical prices on drugs and supplies and insurance) and lack of funding(not enough staff).

I find it funny that you'd put gun death and hospital death in the same category.

But yea, that too is a problem we should work on. If you want to make that the case, I would agree, but I wouldn't compare the two.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Apples and

Brian37 wrote:

 Apples and oranges. Hospitals are not manufactured for the purpose of killing or designed to kill.

  

    

   Do you think the survivors give a shit about such distinctions ?  Dead is dead.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  Our high "mistake rate" is due to pace(not enough time to take the time to do things right), Greed(over conflated medical prices on drugs and supplies and insurance) and lack of funding(not enough staff).
   

     Perhaps.  You're still left with 195,000 needless deaths.

Brian37 wrote:
  I find it funny that you'd put gun death and hospital death in the same category.
 

     Why ?  I could have easily substituted any number of statistics that far exceed deaths by firearm.  I find it funny that you feel  the need to sound the alarm concerning gun related deaths but when it concerns a far greater number of deaths due to medical ineptitude you choose to equivocate.

 

Brian37 wrote:
   But yea, that too is a problem we should work on. If you want to make that the case, I would agree, but I wouldn't compare the two.

 

            What ever.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I don't think anyone should have an AK-47

 

OK, but why?  Specifically what is there about an AK 47 that is so bad?

 

They are generally cheaply made guns and some can suffer from many malfunctions over time. There are some decent ones made, but the uneducated AK-47 purchaser can easily find themselves with a lemon. And even if you get a good one, they still look and feel really cheap. 

 

Also, the 7.62x39mm round it uses causes a lot of damage at a distance, but in close range situations it is not as effective because much of the damage is actually caused by the bullet tumbling. As such, the AK-47 is not a very adaptable firearm when compared to most other modern assault rifles which can easily beat the AK in distance accuracy and close quarters lethality. 

 

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say no one should own one. They do have a lot of historical significance and can certainly be fun to tinker with, and since they can be purchased cheaper than most other guns, why not? It just wouldn't be my preferred gun if I needed to shoot someone.  

 

Edit:

Oh yeah, and everyone knows that the guy in the movie carrying the AK-47 is a bad guy, so if you are walking around with one you might get shot by the good guys. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: They

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

They are generally cheaply made guns and some can suffer from many malfunctions over time.

  

Are you kidding me ?  The main appeal to potential purchasers of all the Kalashnikov type weapons is their mechanical reliability in even the most inhospitable conditions.  Jesus, why do you think the IDF based the Galil on that design.  So did the Valmet, South African R5, etc.    There's a reason that it's the most prolifically produced firearm in history ( over 50,000,000 in circulation world wide )  and even our elite fighting units in Viet Nam used them and they were given wide discretion as to what weapon systems they could choose.

  Even in modern Africa with it fratricidal wars there are "freedom fighters" who are wielding extremely mistreated, aging

  It is a design that was duplicated by Soviet client states and was even refined by distinctly non-communist designers because it continues to function when most other rifles in the same conditions are nothing more than a club.

 

  (PS, even in modern Africa with its many fratricidal wars there are "freedom fighters" who are wielding extremely aged and neglected examples of even first model AK's which would put those particular weapons ages at well over 50 years. )

Beyond Saving wrote:
    There are some decent ones made, but the uneducated AK-47 purchaser can easily find themselves with a lemon.
 

 

The AK was intended to be used by fairly uneducated individuals, like Soviet conscripts.  It's a rifle whose simplicity was not by accident.  It is thoroughly GI proof.   

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
  And even if you get a good one, they still look and feel really cheap.
 

  

It was originally issued as a military weapon and if you are familiar with typical Soviet military designs superb function over rides all other concerns.  I seriously doubt the appearance of cheapness was ever a consideration to Mikhail Kalasnikov or his overseers. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Also, the 7.62x39mm round it uses causes a lot of damage at a distance,

  True assault rifles are designed to function at intermediate distances, not long range.  That's why they were created in the first place, to fill the ballistic gap between submachine guns and full powered battle rifles ( ie, FN FAL, G3, M 14 ) .  The AK round is the ballistic equivalent of a 30 30 but can never match the performance of high powered rifle cartridges ( ie, 7.62x51, 30.06, 7.62x54 ) but it was never intended to.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
but in close range situations it is not as effective because much of the damage is actually caused by the bullet tumbling.

 

Even in CQB scenarios the AK still delivers a 123 grain 30 caliber bullet at 2,300 fps.   That is more than enough energy to tear through any typical target one would possibly encounter in an up close and personel encounter.  With AP rounds it will easily defeat body armor and penetrate mild steel.  I dispute bullet tumbling within typical effective ranges. Sorry. Certainly not tumbling in flight if that's what you mean. 

Some bullets, even the .308, after impacting tissue will invert so that the base of the bullet is facing forward in the wound channel  The later Soviet round 5.45x39 was designed to tumble but only after it impacted in tissue.  The AK 74 exceeds 3,000 fps, has a fast barrel twist, and its bullet is stable in flight.

  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
  As such, the AK-47 is not a very adaptable firearm when compared to most other modern assault rifles which can easily beat the AK in distance accuracy and close quarters lethality.
 

 

OMG, the AK is one of the most adapted mechanical configurations on the planet.   Besides being refined as an assault rifle ( many, many later design concepts were tested.  some were dead ends, others were marked improvements ) it was adapted as a distinctly CQB weapon with the introduction of the truly diminutive AKSU74 otherwise referred to as the Krinkov.  Tank crews find it useful for precisely such reasons, as well. 

  The Kalshnikov action is also the basis of the Soviet GPMG ( the PKM ) which fires the full-powered 7.62x54 and ...surprise!...is noted for it's extreme simplicity and dependability even when maintenance is neglected.

Saiga even makes a .12 guage semi automatic shotgun that,   you guessed it,   uses the Kalshnikov style action. It's usually fielded by elite units who frequently employ it in CQB.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
    It just wouldn't be my preferred gun if I needed to shoot someone.  

 

  Well, I would prefer one of the Israeli or South African variants in a real life and death encounter.   The deficiencies of the original, post WW 2 examples have long since been remedied.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Oh, BTW, I have complete

  Oh, BTW, I have complete respect for your own personal military training and first hand knowledge you may have gained regarding weaponry.  I do not claim expert status regarding my knowledge ( but I'm pretty f**king sure ) of weapons and such.  I am willing to revise my pov with credible sources. 

  I've been an AK owner since 1989, fired multiple thousands of rounds, owned many examples and have immersed myself in that particular weapon system both academically and experientially, without actually killing anyone of course, so that is the basis of my knowledge.

 


 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  Oh,

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Oh, BTW, I have complete respect for your own personal military training and first hand knowledge you may have gained regarding weaponry.  I do not claim expert status regarding my knowledge ( but I'm pretty f**king sure ) of weapons and such.  I am willing to revise my pov with credible sources. 

  I've been an AK owner since 1989, fired multiple thousands of rounds, owned many examples and have immersed myself in that particular weapon system both academically and experientially, without actually killing anyone of course, so that is the basis of my knowledge.

 

Well I have to admit, most of my knowledge of AK's is what I have been told by others. I have fired one once but never owned one or even really considered buying one. When I was talking about poor quality I wasn't thinking of the Russian AK's I was thinking of the many ripoffs created which anyone not familiar with an AK probably couldn't tell the difference. I have heard negative things about the WASR-10 for example. 

 

But all told, considering I was TRYING as hard as I could to come up with reasons not to buy an AK, I have to say the list is pretty short. And in all fairness, it takes comparing it to modern weapons like the FN mk-17 (which actually can fire AK-47 magazines) or the Tavor TAR-21 (I really want to play with a micro-Tavor) to find guns that I believe are unarguably superior. Compared to other guns from its era, it is certainly a competitive weapon and no doubt will continue to be seen on battlefields for years because they are cheap and basic compared to ultra-modern assault rifles, which are looking less and less like guns.

 

In a real combat situation I would take an M-16 over an AK-47, but that is because I have fired a lot more rounds through an M-16. Actually, when combat is concerned, I have always felt more comfortable with the idea of an M-40 from over 800 meters, it is good to shoot your target before they can see you. I'm a coward like that. CQC is for people who can't shoot straight, can't hide and can't run fast. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 Oh yeah, the AK has

 Oh yeah, the AK has probably reached the end of its ability to be improved upon.  As you inadvertently referenced, even the IDF is supplementing its Galils with the Tavor and I believe a similar scenario is occurring in South Africa within their own indigenous bull pup.   Austria has had their bull pup for ages ( the Steyer AUG )  and France has also been fielding their bull pup design  ( the FAMAs F2 )  for quite a while.

 

And, incidentally you want to know the secret to the AK and its variants reliability ?   A large, heavy ( piston driven ) bolt carrier.  That's it.  

 

The German arms maker HK has just come out with a very expensive ( 3,000 usd ) civilian AR that is piston driven, not gas impingement per the original AR / M 16 design.  The article that I read considered it a vast improvement.

  When you were in the Marines had you guys received the newer GPMG the M240G ?    It's actually based upon the Belgian FN MAG 58.   Also the M249 SAW has Belgian roots as well .....

 

 I was just curious as to what period you served and therefore what weapons you were allowed to train on ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 All very well. However,

 

All very well. However, it was a statement made by Vastet and I would like to hear specifically why he thinks an AK 47 is a weapon which should be banned.

 

As far as the Galil and the probably 120 odd other AK variants out there, I was kind of hoping to use them for follow up questions but now that that is out, it is a fact that the AK design is probably the most copied design in the world. They really are reliable in most environments. In fact, I have heard that there are cases on record where they were found rusted over and have been made fireable simply by kicking the charging handle loose again.

 

As far as the ammunition goes, it also bears noting that while specific production runs are intended for specific ammunition, the variants are often chambered to whatever the originating nation prefers and for many designs, conversion kits can be had easily enough.

 

If you want to hunt anything about the size of a wolf or smaller, then Warsaw Pact ammo is probably not a good choice. On the other hand, even at modest range, Warsaw Pact rounds will probably do just fine for deer and similar animals.

 

All that having been said:

 

Vastet, would you care to explain why you feel that an AK 47 is a problem for private owners?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Okay.  I yield the floor to

Okay.  I yield the floor to Vastet


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Some ballistics info for Prozac

 

 

These are some ballistics gelatin tests comparing the 7.62x39 to the 5.56. As you can see, the 5.56 creates a lot more havoc but does not have the same penetration. This is what I meant by the bullet tumbling- when the 7.62 tumbles it causes far more damage that is closer to the 5.56, but it takes a little distance to do that. At point blank range, the 7.62 will go right through a body without fragmenting and keep going. The disadvantage is that if the target survives the shock, they will have a hole, but will probably survive. Whereas, with the 5.56 they will have a large hole in their body to deal with. At point blank range, penetration can actually harm a bullets performance. But it sounds like you probably know more about ballistics than I do. I'm more of a "give me a target" guy. If you aim well enough, it doesn't really matter what kind of gun you use. 

 

I served in the late 90's early 2000's. I wanted to be a sniper and was going through scout sniper school when illness forced me to drop out , but at least I got to play with some great rifles first. I was in a force recon unit so we used the M249 SAW over the M240G because it is a bit lighter. Although now I hear they are replacing the M249 with the M27 made by H&K which is a mere 7.9 pounds. Lucky kids.... they won't even have to break a sweat. Why, back in my day we had to lug the SAW around, uphill, both ways..... Along the way, I got to play with the M-40, M-82, SR-25, M4, Mp5 and of course, the M-16 is everyones friend. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I see what you're

  I see what you're referring to according to the graph.   Off the top of my head ( no pun intended ) my recollection was the damage from the 5.56 was caused by the copper jacket separating from the bullet's core which allowed the bullet to break apart.  It's acting like a frangible round and not so much like a typical FMJ.  That would be more an aspect of bullet construction than a caliber or weight issue. 

  As long as soft tissue is hit then it's more damaging but once a more resistant medium is encountered ( body armor, furniture, architectural barriers ) then I could see it as having serious consequences in a CQB envirornment.   If forced to choose I'd take my chances with the 5.56 AP round and try to ensure lethality with multiple hits if possible.

  Regardless of bullet type the super lightweight 5.56 bullets already have a draw back in that their trajectory is easily deflected.  One of the complaints that our guys in Viet Nam had regarding this new round was that while firing through  vegetation the bullets were being deflected even by small branches and therefore reducing the effectiveness of their weapons. Alot of them preferred the heavier .308 for that reason.

 Obviously there's a trade off of sorts. 

Perhaps an operator of a 5.56 weapon could compensate by loading  his magazine with alternating normal ball FMJ rounds and AP rounds ?  Best of both worlds ? 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Apples and oranges. Hospitals are not manufactured for the purpose of killing or designed to kill.

  

    

   Do you think the survivors give a shit about such distinctions ?  Dead is dead.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  Our high "mistake rate" is due to pace(not enough time to take the time to do things right), Greed(over conflated medical prices on drugs and supplies and insurance) and lack of funding(not enough staff).
   

     Perhaps.  You're still left with 195,000 needless deaths.

Brian37 wrote:
  I find it funny that you'd put gun death and hospital death in the same category.
 

     Why ?  I could have easily substituted any number of statistics that far exceed deaths by firearm.  I find it funny that you feel  the need to sound the alarm concerning gun related deaths but when it concerns a far greater number of deaths due to medical ineptitude you choose to equivocate.

 

Brian37 wrote:
   But yea, that too is a problem we should work on. If you want to make that the case, I would agree, but I wouldn't compare the two.

 

            What ever.

Dead is dead, yea, and?

There are lots of things that can kill you besides guns. DUH.

Cars are involved in death of  people too, and I am not out to ban cars. Nor am I out to ban all guns.

I don't know what you are trying to get at here. Hospital deaths are not a result of someone trying to kill someone.

Saying that gun violence is a problem in this country is not a denial of other problems. The topic of this thread is what I was discussing. Cancer is also a problem. DUIs are a problem. So?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:     Nor

Brian37 wrote:

    

 Nor am I out to ban all guns.


 

 

                     Which guns are you interested in banning ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:    I

Brian37 wrote:


 


 

 

 

I don't know what you are trying to get at here.

 

 

 

  Let me put the shoe on the other foot . Have you ever heard someone start out a discussion by stating " guns kill more people than....   Do you still not get it ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Perhaps an operator of a 5.56 weapon could compensate by loading  his magazine by alternating normal ball FMJ rounds and AP rounds ?  Best of both worlds ? 

 

I have heard this suggested before and have seen it vigorously debated. In my experience, most guys with actual combat experience downplay this idea. At close ranges the FMJ is going to be enough to get through most body armor and the potential of an AP bullet going through a wall to hit an unseen non-combatant or friendly on the other side is a real concern (which is why many HRT's use JSP or even JHP). In cases where you really need an AP round, you will probably have time to swap magazines because your target is either at a distance, or is behind significant cover in which case you ought to be seeking cover yourself. 

 

Many military and ex-military men have been pushing for conversion to a heavier round because of deflection/lethality concerns. Several prominent generals have advocated the 6.8mm and it is already in use among some special ops, however it appears unlikely that it will ever be adopted as general issue because of political and financial reasons. In an ideal world, our soldiers would get weapons and ammo specifically modified to the terrain they are fighting in. In a desert like Iraq, the lighter 5.56 is fine because there simply isn't much that can deflect it, in a jungle or heavily wooded environment a heavier bullet is certainly preferable. Unfortunately, as Rummy said

 

Quote:
 

you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:. In

Beyond Saving wrote:
. In cases where you really need an AP round, you will probably have time to swap magazines because your target is either at a distance, or is behind significant cover in which case you ought to be seeking cover yourself.
 

  Yes,  especially if you are fighting alone without back up it would probably be the only sensible way to deal with a quickly changing scenario. Just swap magazines according to need.  

  Perhaps ...speaking as an arm chair "warrior" ...if you were with a small entry team it would be prudent to arm one or two soldiers with a short .308 rifle ( eg, an FN FAL Paratrooper ) and instruct them that their primary function within the group is to immediately take over all targets at that range to relieve the 5.56mm operators from possibly wasting their less powerful ammo or even having to use 5.56mm AP except as a last resort.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Many military and ex-military men have been pushing for conversion to a heavier round because of deflection/lethality concerns. Several prominent generals have advocated the 6.8mm and it is already in use among some special ops, however it appears unlikely that it will ever be adopted as general issue because of political and financial reasons.

 

 

  Hmmm, I've only read just a little about the 6.8 SPC but now that you bring it up I will have to check it out more thoroughly.  Funny, I do know there are civilian assault rifles on the market that chamber this round.   If the new caliber were to become widely embraced in the civilian world perhaps it could help influence the military to accept it as a more lethal replacement for the old 5.56mm. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101, you live in Texas

robj101, you live in Texas like I do.  Have you heard on the news that there is a bill moving through the state legislature that would remove the" concealment" restrictions on CHL holders and would allow open carry ?  What do you think ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, I guess that Vastet

 

Well, I guess that Vastet is not going to get back to us on that matter. Pity that. I always wanted to get into a debate with an anti about the definition of assault weapons.

 

I certainly know what the definition is in the great state of Connecticut. Oddly enough, the AK 47 is banned by name but none of the derived variants are banned unless they fall under a different section of the law which provides several tests. For example, the Galil is only banned if it has both the flash suppressor and the folding stock. If I was all that interested in getting one modified to be legal, I would think that a barrel replacement would at least be an opportunity to think about ballistic performance and I could keep the folding stock (which I see no real use for).

 

Also, as far as stacking clips with different ammo goes, I just don't see that as the greatest idea. In all honesty, what comes out the front when you fire is what is in the chamber at that point. It is not like you can choose which round to fire in which situation.

 

I do know someone who stacks clips with light weight rounds on top and stronger stuff below. His idea is that if his attacker is a 90 pound drug addict, the lighter rounds are less likely to overpenetrate. Nice in theory I suppose but questionable in actual use. Again, the round fired is in no way sure to be the right one for the situation. If the attacker is the size of a linebacker, he would have to shoot several times before he gets to the right one.

 

Probably a better way to do something like that would be to sister to weapons together. I have only seen that done rarely (if you don't count real military weapons like an undermounted grenade launcher) but they have been done from time to time. If you are familiar with Red Jacket Firearms, they make one called the master key. It is a short barrel shotty mounted under a rifle. That was done specifically for HRT. The shotty is for breaching and then the rifle for once you get in. Separate magazines and triggers. I suppose that something like that could be done for the need to possibly switch between two different rifle rounds about as easily.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Well, I guess that Vastet is not going to get back to us on that matter. Pity that. I always wanted to get into a debate with an anti about the definition of assault weapons.

   

Yeah, I don't think he's coming back.   

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I certainly know what the definition is in the great state of Connecticut. Oddly enough, the AK 47 is banned by name but none of the derived variants are banned unless they fall under a different section of the law which provides several tests. For example, the Galil is only banned if it has both the flash suppressor and the folding stock. If I was all that interested in getting one modified to be legal, I would think that a barrel replacement would at least be an opportunity to think about ballistic performance and I could keep the folding stock (which I see no real use for).
  

    Are you talking about the "sporterized"  assault weapons that were reconfigured with one piece thumb hole stocks, no bayonet lugs, permanently attatched flash hiders, etc to make them compliant with the now expired federal law ?

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Also, as far as stacking clips with different ammo goes, I just don't see that as the greatest idea. In all honesty, what comes out the front when you fire is what is in the chamber at that point. It is not like you can choose which round to fire in which situation.

 

  It makes sense if you remember that these weapons are frequently fired in full automatic mode. Not single shots,  but a burst of multiple rounds which would make my suggestion at least a time saving alternative when compared to replacing magazines.    (  besides, my suggestion was simply a stop gap solution to offset the limits of a particular type of round that BS and I were discussing.  ) 

  Alternating types of rounds in weapons that fire full auto are done as a matter of course.  Belt fed weapons, rotary barreled, etc routinely load tracer rounds as every fourth or fifth round to enable the firer to correct aim by allowing him to visually observe his ammo stream.    

  Some special ops guys will load tracer rounds as the first few and last few rounds of their magazines to visually notify them that a magazine is about to run dry.  They load tracer as the first few rounds so that an observing enemy who is aware of this technique cannot determine the loaded / unloaded status of the weapon and consequently whether the spec ops soldier is still capable of returning fire at any given moment. 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I do know someone who stacks clips with light weight rounds on top and stronger stuff below. His idea is that if his attacker is a 90 pound drug addict, the lighter rounds are less likely to overpenetrate. Nice in theory I suppose but questionable in actual use. Again, the round fired is in no way sure to be the right one for the situation. If the attacker is the size of a linebacker, he would have to shoot several times before he gets to the right one.
  

   As I stated in another thread my personal preference with regard to self defense rounds is to restrict myself to the heaviest bullet available.  Others have different requirements.  Their choice I suppose.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
  If you are familiar with Red Jacket Firearms, they make one called the master key. It is a short barrel shotty mounted under a rifle. That was done specifically for HRT. The shotty is for breaching and then the rifle for once you get in. Separate magazines and triggers. I suppose that something like that could be done for the need to possibly switch between two different rifle rounds about as easily.

    There's a solution for every problem, ay?  I've also noticed that some operators use a single point sling to carry a pistol grip shotgun.  They can blast hinges off a door and then simply shift the shotgun out of their way ( while still retaining it ) and then transition to either a hand gun or assault carbine, etc.  The small shotgun is always hanging right below their armpit if they need it.

                                                                   

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I certainly know what the definition is in the great state of Connecticut. Oddly enough, the AK 47 is banned by name but none of the derived variants are banned unless they fall under a different section of the law which provides several tests. For example, the Galil is only banned if it has both the flash suppressor and the folding stock. If I was all that interested in getting one modified to be legal, I would think that a barrel replacement would at least be an opportunity to think about ballistic performance and I could keep the folding stock (which I see no real use for).

 

Are you talking about the "sporterized" assault weapons that were reconfigured with one piece thumb hole stocks, no bayonet lugs, permanently attatched flash hiders, etc to make them compliant with the now expired federal law ?

 

Ah no. I was talking about the CT specific assault weapons ban. It lack the special insanity of the Clinton ban but replaces it with our own insanity.

 

Basically, there is a “short list” of specifically banned guns (not very short, I think there are about 75 entries) and a list of specifics as a test. My read on that is that, like the Clinton era mods, it should be reasonable to come up with a gun which is functionally the same as a banned gun as long as it was not specifically listed and designed around the rules.

 

Here is what I see from my state's web site:

 

It must not be capable of burst or FA (no select fire lever).

 

 

A conversion kit “which may be rapidly assembled” is as bad as the above. No clue on what rapidly assembled means but probably if you need tools and an hour of work, then it is only subject to the relevant federal law on FA weapons (which happen to disallow kits unless you already have the paperwork to use them anyway).

 

 

Any two of the following:

 

  1. A folding or telescoping stock.

  2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

  3. A bayonet mount.

  4. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.

  5.  

  1. A grenade launcher.

 

 

There are also separate sets of rules for when a hand gun or shot gun may become an assault weapon but I will leave those alone for now. Suffice to say that my point remains. It should be not even hard to make a non assault weapons that is in function the same as the real deal, whatever that is.

 

 

Had Vastet showed up, I would have gone further into the matter of the definition. There are certain types of guns for which there is a fairly clear definition.

 

 

A revolver is what it is.

 

A semiauto hand gun is what it is.

 

A semiauto hand gun is often called a pistol apart from a revolver but I am not so sure on that one. Hell, a single handed wheel lock is called a pistol.

 

 

Long guns generally include anything you are likely to take into the woods. Basically, a standard shotty or a rifle with a barrel longer than a couple of feet that fires big bullets.

 

 

Carbines are in between the two. But how do you decide where to draw a clear line on that? There is no loss for hand guns with really long barrels. I guess that if the action is not “rifle like” (whatever that means) then a 12 inch barrel still counts as a hand gun. However, what of a rifle like gun with a 20, 24, 28 or 32 inch barrel? At some point, a carbine becomes a rifle but apart from laws that very from one place to another, is there a clear scientific line between the two?

 

 

Now, given the above, where do you fit the category of “assault weapon”?

 

 

I have my own set of ideas for what that means but they would probably be as debatable as any other definition. Regarding the list from my law:

 

  1. A carbine designed for holding with two hands has uses. CQC/HRT being obvious. Then who cares about the stock?

  2. A pistol grip that protrudes “significantly”? WTF does that mean? A clip that is a foot longer than the grip, well, that is fairly standard for gang bangers but the list specifies detachable clips apart from that. A “regular” grip with a lengthy magazine does not seem to be included.

  3. What exactly is meant by a bayonet mount anyway? Early bayonets had a ring at the end that used friction to grab the barrel. I could do that and have the real deal without the mounting point.

  4. A flash suppressor. Pardon? Is that even relevant if you are going into an HRT/CQC situation? If you are worried about a possible sniper, then sure. Also, while my law does not specify this, I would think that a silencer would have similar use/issue.

  5. A grenade launcher? Huh? What? That is such a huge issue on the streets of Hartford/New Haven/various other cities in CT that we even need that specified. Um, is there not a federal law which is relevant there?

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

A grenade launcher? Huh? What? That is such a huge issue on the streets of Hartford/New Haven/various other cities in CT that we even need that specified. Um, is there not a federal law which is relevant there?

Since I know one nam vet marine from Florida who has a grenade launcher a part of his regular gun, I would assume there isn't an outright ban.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Well, if this gentleman's

Well, if this gentleman's "regular rifle" is an AR 15 ( semi auto civilian version ) or an actual M 16 ( select fire military version ) the only currently fitted under barrel grenade launcher that I am aware of is an M203.  Did it look like this ?

 

               

 

  My understanding is that certain classes of weaponry ( Class 2 weaponry )  are not prohibited for sale to civilians( select fire, fully automatic only firearms, shotguns with barrels less than 18", the "Street Sweeper / Stryker " 12 round shotgun which is now classified as a "destructive device", sound suppressors, etc  but all such weaponry must be signed off on by your local chief law enforcement officer ( first step ) and then after a thorough screening process ( second step ) you must receive approval from the BATF.  It's a tightly regulated process but if you've got the cash for a pricey weapon system...class 2 weapons are highly expensive....and you satisfy legal scrutiny you can own one.

  PS, for civilians who own full auto weapons buying pistol and rifle ammunition is pretty straight forward.  It's easily obtained.  Even the .50 cal BMG rounds can be found without much hassle.    Where does one go to legally purchase large quantities of 40x46mm ?  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
  Kapkao wrote:  Answers

 

 

Kapkao wrote:


 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
A grenade launcher? Huh? What? That is such a huge issue on the streets of Hartford/New Haven/various other cities in CT that we even need that specified. Um, is there not a federal law which is relevant there?


Since I know one nam vet marine from Florida who has a grenade launcher a part of his regular gun, I would assume there isn't an outright ban.


 

You confuse federal and state jurisdictions. What is legal in CT is what I said before. The guy in Florida does not need to deal with CT laws. Why a grenade launcher helps with pretty much anything at all is not very clear to me.


 

When the fire department shows up to put out his fire then, well, what?


 

When the governor says that we have done the last election we will ever need and there are guys with M16s attempting to enforce that, well, gee, dude with a grenade launcher is only a small part of what they need to worry about.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
requiem wrote: I look

requiem wrote:

 

I look forward to your responses.

 

    I look forward to you actually expressing an opinion.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I don't think anyone should have an AK-47

 

OK, but why?  Specifically what is there about an AK 47 that is so bad?

It's a WMD. It's not very accurate, and I don't see any value in such a weapon beyond using one for terrorism, mass murder, or war. The first two being crimes in every country in the world to my knowledge.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
People should only use

People should only use accurate weapons for terrorism and mass murder.

N B 4 next rampage by gun wielding maniac.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol. If it were accurate, it

Lol. If it were accurate, it wouldn't be terrorism, it'd be assassination.

*Rolls eyes*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Answers in Gene

Vastet wrote:
Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

OK, but why?  Specifically what is there about an AK 47 that is so bad?

It's a WMD. .

 

  An assault rifle is a weapon of mass destruction ?  So does that mean the US military invaded Iraq to take away their rifles because part of Bush jr's excuse for invading was the alleged presence of WMD's.   Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought WMD's were things like NBC weapons or at least attacks by things like ICBM's which can level cities.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You can be a smart ass all

You can be a smart ass all you like. Fact is fact.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You can be a

Vastet wrote:
You can be a smart ass all you like. Fact is fact.

 

 Wow, simply disagreeing with you makes me a smart ass ?    ...... for someone like you who repeatedly employs highly condescending and insulting language when responding you've got really thin skin.  Figures.  

  Here's some facts for you ( ie, real facts, not Vastet facts )   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/weapon_of_mass_destruction

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  An

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  An assault rifle is a weapon of mass destruction ?  So does that mean the US military invaded Iraq to take away their rifles because part of Bush jr's excuse for invading was the alleged presence of WMD's.   Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought WMD's were things like NBC weapons or at least attacks by things like ICBM's which can level cities.

A little sidenote about Bush Jr's excuses...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:A little

Kapkao wrote:

A little sidenote about Bush Jr's excuses...

   Yes, I was aware of Powell later back pedalling on the issue ( 2007 Meet The Press ) but Powell never said looking for WMD's meant looking for assault rifles, which was my point.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Vastet

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You can be a smart ass all you like. Fact is fact.

 

 Wow, simply disagreeing with you makes me a smart ass ?

No. Being a smart ass makes you a smart ass.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
...... for someone like you who repeatedly employs highly condescending and insulting language when responding you've got really thin skin.

If you say so.

*Rolls eyes*

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Here's some facts for you ( ie, real facts, not Vastet facts )   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/weapon_of_mass_destruction

Good for you. Now pull out a dictionary while I laugh at your failure to prove me wrong.

Just because an AK can't destroy a city with a single round doesn't disqualify it. Any weapon which can be wielded by a child and wipe out a few dozen people in less than a minute is a WMD. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK, you don't accept the

 OK, you don't accept the definition on wikipedia. Got it. Here are a few other sources from presumably more reliable organizations:

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/917314/weapon-of-mass-destruction-WMD

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/index.html

 

http://www.fas.org/terrorism/wmd/

 

Note that none of those authorities list and regular firearms as WMD. In fact, they are pretty much in agreement with wikipedia on the matter of just what the term WMD actually means. So just throwing it out there does not make an AK into WMD.

 

As far as the test that you are advocating, that would be a pretty specific configuration of an AK or any other type of weapon. If, as I noted before, the configuration of a weapon is not something that meets someone's arbitrary definition, then that is a different matter entirely.

 

There are plenty of AK variants out there which have been configured for hunting. Such features as small capacity magazines and no select fire option are fairly common and generally do not require the different paperwork that would come with an FA configured weapon.

 

Since your original statement was a blanket assumption which would apply to all AK-47s, do you have a problem with someone having a semiautomatic AK with a 5 round magazine? That would hardly meet even your definition of WMD.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
None of those links made a

None of those links made a case for you. A weapon capable of mass destruction, be it a city or a few dozen people, is a weapon of mass destruction. Period. End of story. I will no longer bother with claims to the contrary, because such claims sound ridiculously close to theist arguments, and don't contain a shred of logic.

However, no I wouldn't consider the model you describe to be a wmd. Yet, that is by no stretch of the imagination a standard model either. And I'm not going to bother spending hours researching all the ways a weapon can be modified when my blanket statement and follow-up cleary shows that such modifications remove that model from the label I rightfully gave it. You sound like a six year old. Seriously.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: A weapon

Vastet wrote:
A weapon capable of mass destruction, be it a city or a few dozen people, is a weapon of mass destruction. Period. End of story.

Using that ridiculously broad definition, exactly what kind of weapon isn't a WMD? Pretty much any weapon is capable of killing a few dozen people, and certainly any firearm is if the shooter is accurate, including the hand guns and hunting rifles you said you couldn't argue against. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X