Gun-Control

[GarfieldJL]

As people are well aware there was a shooting in New York recently, what people may not have known was the fact that it was a gun free zone. If you look at the Virginia Tech shootings you have a similar situation, where there were several members of the class whom were in ROTC and should have been allowed to carry a concealed firearm.

 

Then we next have the issue where the Media continued to pound on about 90% of the Guns confiscated in Mexico were from the United States, however that isn't exactly true.

 

But in written Congressional testimony on March 12, the National Rifle Association's Chris W. Cox noted that the missile and rocket launchers Mora cited are "weapons that isn't available over the counter anywhere in the U.S., but is reportedly often smuggled from Guatemala." And, as with the "AK-47s" mentioned above, if the drug cartels have actual assault rifles, they're not getting them from the U.S. Automatic weapons (machine guns) have been heavily regulated since 1934 and the sale of new machine guns for private ownership ended in 1986.

 

Also in his testimony, Cox pointed out that the Mexican government itself has hindered the efforts of U.S. agents to attack the problem, refusing to share serial numbers of captured weapons and not allowing local authorities to cooperate with U.S. authorities.

-- Newsbusters

 

I feel I must point out that testifying under oath, means that if the man lied he would be committing perjury which gives his testimony added credibility, because if he had lied under oath the Dems would have had him up on perjury already.

 

See Also:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

 

I'm under the mindset that the reason they want to do away with the 2nd Amendment is because they want to eliminate the keystone amendment. Without the 2nd Amendment, none of your rights are protected. The reason the 2nd Amendment was created was due to the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion and the populace being angered by the abuse of power via the Massachusetts Government. When the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the Constitution was created, the reason why the 2nd Amendment was put in place was so that a situation like that would hopefully never happen again (excessive taxation to the point people couldn't keep their land and homes).

 

Articles of Interest where Guns actually thwarted Criminals:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/03/police-gun-store-clerk-shoots-robber.html

 

 

Kates goes further, writing that "a very substantial proportion" of the articles supporting individual gun rights are by scholars who would have been happy to find evidence that guns could be banned. When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.

-- Townhall.com

 

John R. Lott: The number is large, but we only really know about the events through media coverage and the media rarely reports these events when they occur. Often when an attack is stopped only about one percent or so of the news stories will mention it. In other cases where permit holders stop an attack before anyone is harmed the attack simply isn't considered as newsworthy. This latter type of case occurred just last month in Memphis, Tennessee. Another recent case took place at a mall in Utah (a gun free zone) where an off-duty police officer stopped the attack).

--Washington Post

[Astor]

Wait, is this actually a topic for debate, or another platform for bashing liberals and the media?

[True_Avery]

Instead of setting up for a topic about gun-control, you started off with "The Media, Liberals" as your starting point and then made a blog post about happenings full of supposition based on a blog. I'm not even inclined to call your posts "blogs" anymore, but posts bordering on hate flames being used only to attack those of a specific party affiliation. These threads are blatant flames and you know it.

[Rogue Nine]

Wait, is this actually a topic for debate, or another platform for bashing liberals and the media?

 

It's Garfield, do you really need to ask?

[GarfieldJL]

Wait, is this actually a topic for debate, or another platform for bashing liberals and the media?

 

This is a topic for debate, you can debate the actual motivators, whether or not the gun control is a legitimate stance, the media isn't actually doing this, etc.

[Astor]

This is a topic for debate, you can debate the actual motivators, whether or not the gun control is a legitimate stance, the media isn't actually doing this, etc.

 

I think that gun-control is a perfectly legitimate stance, and one I whole-heartedly agree with.

 

Now, i'm not saying that they should be banned outright, as criminal elements will always be able to get their hands on things that the civilian populace are denied, but tight controls on certain weapons is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

When the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the Constitution was created, the reason why the 2nd Amendment was put in place was so that a situation like that would hopefully never happen again (excessive taxation to the point people couldn't keep their land and homes).

 

That was 250 years ago - I don't think that an armed revolt would arise from gun control.

[EnderWiggin]

That was 250 years ago - I don't think that an armed revolt would arise from gun control.

 

Plus, in today's day and age, something like that wouldn't even get off the ground before the army got involved. If the government decides to go rogue on you, Garfy, your puny 45 caliber colt isn't going to do well against M16A1s and kevlar.

 

_EW_

[Samuel Dravis]

I think gun control is legitimate, just as with any other hazardous item. Although usually the 'control' is aimed at assault weapons when statistically the most dangerous guns are handguns.

[Achilles]

Hopefully, if history has taught us anything, it's that military superiority doesn't mean squat against an indigenous force willing to engage in guerrilla warfare in order to ensure their survival. All the same, I wouldn't mind having the same equipment though.

 

And with that said, I don't think crazy people and criminal should be allowed to own weapons. 2nd Amendment or no.

 

How we protect our rights and ensure our safety would probably be a productive conversation worth having.

[Q]

The only way that I think it's legitimate is if it's aimed at taking them away from criminals and not from law-abiding citizens.

 

Just think about it: if a person is law-abiding to begin with, what would be the logic behind restricting or taking away his/her right to own a gun? Penalizing people for being law-abiding makes no sense to me.

[Rake]

The only way that I think it's legitimate is if it's aimed at taking them away from criminals and not from law-abiding citizens.

 

Just think about it: if a person is law-abiding to begin with, what would be the logic behind restricting or taking away his/her right to own a gun? Penalizing people for being law-abiding makes no sense to me.

 

But aren't most scenarios. Law abiding citizen buys gun. Citizen commits crime with gun. How do you know someone is a criminal before they commit the actual act?

[jrrtoken]

Guns are fine, however, they should be only limited to low and sporting grade profiles. An AK-47 is not, and never will be, a "personal defense weapon"; It's called an assault rifle for a good reason.

[Q]

But aren't most scenarios. Law abiding citizen buys gun. Citizen commits crime with gun. How do you know someone is a criminal before they commit the actual act?

Because criminal behavior usually begins to manifest itself at a young age, which is why I'm actually in favor of thorough background checks.

Guns are fine, however, they should be only limited to low and sporting grade profiles. An AK-47 is not, and never will be, a "personal defense weapon"; It's called an assault rifle for a good reason.

It's also great fun to shoot, the ammunition's cheap as dirt, and it requires very little maintenance to remain fully functional. It's a great home defense weapon, and a fun plinker. You should try one out.

 

And aside from accuracy, the only difference between an "assault rifle" and certain types of sporting arms is ammunition capacity. In other words: put a large magazine on a sporting rifle and *POOF* -"it's an assault rifle! Ban it!" Ridiculous.

 

Really, though, everyone should just check out what the DoJ has to say about crimes involving firearms and draw their own conclusions instead of listening to politically-motivated scare tactics.

[True_Avery]

The difference is, full auto guns have limits and bans placed on them while single fire do not have as much. Assault Rifles are not controlled because they are guns; they are controlled because they are capable of full auto fire. In other words, "assault". And no, the ammunition capability is not kept down because of the ammo, but because of spray.

 

Now, if you can justify why a civilian would need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 30-60 round magazine then I'll be glad to hear you out.

[Q]

Where did you hear that? You have to have a Federal Firearms License to legally purchase and own a full-auto firearm of any kind, and those don't grow on trees. And you can't buy a full-auto firearm at Wal-Mart.

[True_Avery]

Where did you hear that? You have to have a Federal Firearms License to legally purchase and own a full-auto firearm of any kind, and those don't grow on trees. And you can't buy a full-auto firearm at Wal-Mart.

Then I recommend you re-look at the definition of assault rifle:

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

 

The difference between an assault rifle and any other rifle is that an assault rifle is capable of full-auto fire and semi-automatic modes.

 

As you resonded to Pastrami about Assault Rifles, I thought it was important to bring up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47

 

So, in summary, an assault rifle is not a sporting rifle with a larger magazine.

 

Unless you are being sarcastic, and I will detract my posts. I just thought you were implying that is was ridiculous that civilians don't have access to them, and I asked for justification on why they should.

 

If I misunderstood your post, however, I apologize.

[Q]

Avery, the "assault rifles" that are commonly available to the public are all semi-automatic, and are incapable of full-auto fire without a lot of illegal modification. This includes the AK-47s that you can buy at your local gun store. They've been manufactured to be semi-auto only. Do you seriously believe that the full-auto versions are commonly available? What you're referring to are the versions that are only available to the military and the police.

 

Like I said, you have to have a Federal Firearms License, which is very hard to get, to legally purchase and own a full-auto weapon. Machine guns are not commonly available to the public.

 

So yeah, I think that you misunderstood me.

[True_Avery]

Avery, the "assault rifles" that are commonly available to the public are all semi-automatic, and are incapable of full-auto fire without a lot of illegal modification. This includes the AK-47s. Do you seriously believe that the full-auto versions are commonly available?

 

Like I said, you have to have a Federal Firearms License, which is very hard to get, to legally purchase and own a full-auto weapon. Machine guns are not commonly available to the public.

I stand corrected.

 

However, seeing as they no longer have full auto capability they should not be called "Assault Rifles" any longer as they do not fit the definition.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault%20rifle

 

I believe what Pastrami was pointing out was the desire some civilians have for actual Assault Rifles to be available to the public, which I believe I debated against in the Gun Control thread in Kavars a long time ago.

 

However, thank you for pointing out the variants that are available. Had forgotten about them.

[Q]

Well, I've never wanted one. They're impractical, and civilians don't have any real need for them, although they were available to the public until the 1920s and Prohibition, I think. The only thing that they're really useful for is war. I certainly don't believe that full-auto assault rifles should be available to the general public. That would be crazy. I don't think that even the NRA is advocating something like that.

 

And I agree with you that they should not be called "assault rifles" if they are semi-auto only because they don't fit the definition, just like you said.

[Tommycat]

Now, if you can justify why a civilian would need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 30-60 round magazine then I'll be glad to hear you out.

Ever go fishing on a stream in bear country? Which would you rather have if you saw a bear comin at you. Single shot rifle, or an AK-47 with enough ammo to take him down.

 

I live in AZ. recently there have been a few home invasions. Multiple armed men. They kill the homeowners regardless of if they cooperate.

 

Then of course there's the collector. though you can get the permit to have those.

 

Z-Day

 

WWIII

 

Graboids

 

unforseen reasons.

[True_Avery]

Which would you rather have if you saw a bear comin at you. Single shot rifle, or an AK-47 with enough ammo to take him down.

Personally? If I had a full auto, I'd be too eager to spray in desperation and probably miss most of the shots due to feedback, leave myself open, then get mauled depending.

 

If I was going to have a gun on me in such a situation I'd have either a high caliber side arm, or a high caliber semi-automatic. A .45 or so Revolver is what I hear is the norm for such a backup weapon.

 

I live in AZ. recently there have been a few home invasions. Multiple armed men. They kill the homeowners regardless of if they cooperate.

Which is indeed terrible, but it is up for speculation on how well prepared they would be for such an invasion even with the guns. They are nice around to have in concept, but when someone breaks down a door and points a gun at you there isn't a lot of time to kick open the case.

 

Then of course there's the collector. though you can get the permit to have those.

Indeed, valid reason. Although, I think their ammunition and clip sizes when loaded are limited as well unless they have supervision from a Fed licensed individual or have the license themselves.

 

Z-Day

Zombie Survival Guide warns against Assault Rifles because of their ability to go full auto. Best companion you could have would be a WW2 M1 Carbine, my personal favorite semi-auto rifle. That and a few side arms, but you wouldn't want to rely on them exclusively.

 

WWIII

W3 will probably be fought more with nukes, but by then the general populous can no longer be called civilians!

 

Graboids

Small machine gun for up close, sawn-off shotgun with a variety of different shells (HE, scatter, plug, etc), and an elephant gun. Barret .50 cal if I could get my hands on one. Or, just rely on the dynamite/remote car trick.

 

I'd be tempted to get an assault for Shriekers only because of the numbers, but I'd be afraid of the temptation to go full auto. Probably a pump/auto shotgun, small machine gun, and a backup Sar-21 bullpup.

 

And for ***blasters, back to the good ol M1 Carbine. Hell, keep one around for all 3 stages. The thing is up there with the AK-47 as one of the best guns to have ever been made for all around action.

 

unforeseen reasons.

I think Graboids and Zombies are about as unforeseen as it gets

[EnderWiggin]

However, seeing as they no longer have full auto capability they should not be called "Assault Rifles" any longer as they do not fit the definition.

 

Ehh, I'll concede that, but don't forget what Q said - it really doesn't take a lot of modification in order to get the AK you buy at a gun store to be fullauto. And thus, we have our problem. Criminals are more than willing do do a few illegal mods on their guns in order to have a full auto AK47.

 

Ever go fishing on a stream in bear country? Which would you rather have if you saw a bear comin at you. Single shot rifle, or an AK-47 with enough ammo to take him down.

 

Why the hell would you need an AK to take him down? All you need is a handgun - empty a clip into a bear and he's going to be dead.

I live in AZ. recently there have been a few home invasions. Multiple armed men. They kill the homeowners regardless of if they cooperate.

So? You figure if you had an AK47 full auto you could protect yourself? Guess what, if you had one, then they'd also be able to get one. And now, you're still ****ed because you have an AK and each one of the "Multiple armed men" have one too. You still lose

 

_EW_

[Tommycat]

Welll the AK-47 would be my bet for Z day. Sturdy, easy to use, and good for the up close and personal encounters. Though I usually use a bolt action 30-06 with a scope. But the "Rock and roll" temptation makes a bit of sense. Since the AK is classified as an assault weapon, I'd say the average person should be able to have that. even if Z-day never happens, it would be a good idea to be trained to use such a weapon before that day... I like the Zombie survival guide, but I disagree with a few of their assessments. I'm shocked that in the H2H weapons, they neglected the weapon that even the Army issued. The Tomahawk. You can get the military version at a surplus store. at 24 oz it makes a better all around tool to have than even the crowbar. hehe there's even video on this site.

http://www.knifecenter.com/kc_new/store_detail.html?s=CS90VT

Tell me you wouldn't rather have that for Z day than a big bulky crow bar.

Assault rifles are better in the respect that they can carry more ammo. Regardless of the full auto, I'd rather have the fullload of ammo.

 

I like the M1, but... that whole *PING!!!* Dinner's ready! would be a drawback for me.

 

back to being (mostly) serious...

Keep in mind that the laws in some areas are very wierd when it comes to defining an assault rifle(lawmakers do not use the actual definition for such things). In many cases legitimate "mean looking" rifles are classified as assault rifles. That's my main objection to their banning. Lawmakers can be morons. BOLT ACTION RIFLES were included in assault rifle bans.

 

In home invasions, every little bit helps. I'd rather be armed to the teeth when it happens. Besides, you could be very ready when it happens. The better armed the better. though I will admit that for home defense, a good 12 gauge pump will do ya better. It also has the added advantage of the sound of the racking. But this isn't about what I think, it's what the person would feel more comfortable with. There was recently a guy who while leaving his house was set apon by several armed men. He shot two and killed the last in the car. In this state it's almost becoming a war zone in some areas. Mexican gangs are crossing the borders and attacking the innocent. It's darn near a war situation. at least in the southern towns.

 

 

OOOooo forgot about Bug invasion lol

[jrrtoken]

Keep in mind that the laws in some areas are very wierd when it comes to defining an assault rifle(lawmakers do not use the actual definition for such things). In many cases legitimate "mean looking" rifles are classified as assault rifles. That's my main objection to their banning. Lawmakers can be morons. BOLT ACTION RIFLES were included in assault rifle bans.

If it uses .50 caliber rounds, then yeah, I can see banning those.

In home invasions, every little bit helps. I'd rather be armed to the teeth when it happens. Besides, you could be very ready when it happens. The better armed the better. though I will admit that for home defense, a good 12 gauge pump will do ya better.

That's pretty much overkill. If it's an invasion of a flock of ducks, then a shotgun would be great, but unless if you want to be charged with manslaughter with that blood splatter on your wall, then I'd rather use something of deterrence, like a 9 mm.

[Achilles]

That's pretty much overkill. If it's an invasion of a flock of ducks, then a shotgun would be great, but unless if you want to be charged with manslaughter with that blood splatter on your wall, then I'd rather use something of deterrence, like a 9 mm.

Buckshot won't go through walls and accidentally kill your children sleeping in the other room.

 

Hence why a shotgun is actually the perfect home defense weapon