7
   

Does gun control help?

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2012 08:44 pm
@Argyll01,
Argyll01 wrote:
Could someone update me as to what're the general issue for the US Military?


I think it is the M16A4, selectable between single shots and three-shot bursts, but no continuous full-auto.

But it's been awhile since I've heard, so that might have changed.
Argyll01
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2012 09:03 pm
@oralloy,
A required purpose. I get what you mean there . But should you have one,as this would could make gun control much easier to regulate.i know you Americans are quite rightly passionate about your constatuitional rights as we Scottish are with the English .all I can think of right now "is the tool right for the purpose"I understand that firearms are inbuilt into your society but I really think That it needs to be updated.when your constitution was written, it was with mind of barrell loaded gunpowder weapons. Advances in technology has proved,much to the cost of millions,to be more effective in reducing the enemy treat .that should be restricted to the military.untrained civillians having that kind of firepower can only lead to one thing. Mutiny or subversion of governance .democracy between our country's is the example we give to the rest of the world on how it should be done.controlling it should be the highest priority.
Argyll01
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2012 09:15 pm
@oralloy,
UK is single shot and fully automatic ,much improved since2001 .



0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2012 09:27 pm
@Argyll01,
Argyll01 wrote:
A required purpose. I get what you mean there . But should you have one,as this would could make gun control much easier to regulate.


Never. That would mean giving up our freedom.

Besides, if the government can come up with a good reason for banning something, they are allowed to ban it.

For instance, if they only tried to ban high capacity magazines (assuming they have the votes to get the law passed), the courts may well decide that they have a good reason for doing so.

Where they are getting in trouble is with harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip on a rifle. They can't come up with a good reason for banning pistol grips, so by trying to ban those, they are endangering their proposed law.
Argyll01
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2012 11:06 pm
@oralloy,
High capacity mags is one thing but an assault rifle is an assault rifle .it can go through the less amount of rounds at the same speed. It's designed by its very name to assault enemy positions.not for hunting or home protection.but saying that what if an intruder brings an assault rifle do I (bearing in mind the NFA wants you to keep the right to own one) I answer it with a general purpose machine gun mounted on a tripod. Bit ridicules but wouldn't a shotgun serve the same purpose .force for force I thought. Could that apply for schools?would the public accept gun positions at the school entrance just in case a disturbed member of the public attacked with an assault rifle.remember you have to keep an alert state when guarding a complex. That can only be done for a limited time depending on manpower/funding etcThen you have to think of the enemy .how is he going to subvert your efforts to protect yourself.whole different complex question t there. How does all this work in a free diplomatic western society at home.it not enough to say ARM EVERYONE.isn't that how that guy got hold of those weapons.teenager with his parents guns???
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2012 08:14 am
@Argyll01,
Argyll01 wrote:
High capacity mags is one thing but an assault rifle is an assault rifle .it can go through the less amount of rounds at the same speed.


A semi-auto assault rifle fires one round per trigger pull.

A semi-auto NON assault rifle fires one round per trigger pull.

Assuming the same size magazines, the rate of fire should be the same.

The military versions that have the option of a three-round burst could fire at a faster rate, but civilian versions will be semi-auto-only.



Argyll01 wrote:
It's designed by its very name to assault enemy positions.not for hunting or home protection.


The only difference is it has things like a pistol grip and flash suppressor. Those don't make it unsuitable for civilian use.

In any case, the Democrats are already backing away from an assault weapons ban, and are going to try only for a large capacity magazine ban.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2012 08:54 pm
@briansol,
briansol wrote:

criminals don't follow laws....

thus, gun laws keep guns out of good citizens' hands
Gun control laws disarm future victims,
protecting violent predators from their victims on-the-job.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2012 08:58 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Argyll01 wrote:
A required purpose. I get what you mean there . But should you have one,as this would could make gun control much easier to regulate.


Never. That would mean giving up our freedom.

Besides, if the government can come up with a good reason for banning something, they are allowed to ban it.
NOT without applicable jurisdiction.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them - Discussion by RexRed
NRA: Arm the Blind! - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Thoughts on gun control..? - Discussion by komr98
The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons? - Question by Lustig Andrei
Gun control... - Question by Cyracuz
Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun - Discussion by cjhsa
Congress Acts to Defend Gun Rights - Discussion by oralloy
Texas follows NY Newspaper's lead - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 09:06:46