Assault Weapon features and what they do.

Craven, ya were going so well until that last dumass statement.
Because you feel that its a post hoc... argument, please supply proof that the increase in GUN cRIME doesnt correlate to UKs ban of GUNS. You merely have to provide your own reason , that has always been a reasonable way to defeat autocorrelation .

Curious in Pa.

Bvamp, another name for an unarmed civilian is "victim"? Are you THAT paranoid?

But your right. I'm going to live as though every day I might be the victim of some heinous crime, so first thing I'm going to do today is purchase a semiautomatic shotgun with light clip, extra round holdier, fleshette and fireball rounds. The works. That way, not only am I protecting myself, but I'm going to completely destroy anything that dares to threaten my health.

By the way, I'm sure the kids who accidentally shoot themselves, and the parents who accidentally shoot their own family members, and those who commit suicide are very happy that this country is flooded with guns as well.

In Japan, guns are illegal, and hardly anyone gets shot. The whole "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" argument doesn't fly.

It was a joke Bvamp, you just seem very tightly wound on the subject, you said you get bent out of shape, and I merely offered a cautionary advice.



You make no sense. The burden of proof is not on me to show what did cause the rise. If people want to assert a causative link between the ban and the rate they need to substantiate it, it's not up to everyone else to offer alternative explanations or accept their conclusion.

But just to be nice a lead: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/

US gun nuts have long used their UK examples without bothering to research it. They should.

Who are you calling a "gun nut"? Simply because I own guns and enjoy hunting and target shooting makes me a "gun nut"?

Indeed, simply owning a gun does not make one a gun nut.

But there are gun nuts you know. Some don't even own guns!

There are an awful lot of "gun nuts" who cannot legally own guns yet possess them anyway. Those are the ones you have to worry about.

Nice job before, Craven.


Pretty much what is all comes down to is the "risks/benefits" type of analysis. There are WAY too many downsides to guns to justify allowing the general populace to have access to them.

A better argument can be made to allow rifles, but there is almost no reason when it comes to handguns.

Nowhere does it state that people have the right to own BULLETS. Let 'em have the guns.



This is one of the funniest things I've read all week. Thank you!

Cycloptichorn

JaO, what about the mere fact that some people like hand guns? I know someone who has a collection of well over 100 handguns. He likes them.

So what if they like it? That's not a good reason for keeping them legal, and is immaterial to this argument. Saddam liked WMD, by your rationale we should have left him alone.

There are few legitimate uses for handguns other than to kill people.

Cycloptichorn

The main legitimate use is for putting holes in things. I think that has been demonstrated previously.

It is already unlawful for Handguns, aside from military and police use, to be used in commission of a crime or killing anyone. Isn't that clear enough?

The purpose is not to kill people, but they are misused to do so. So are knives, cars, swimming pools, baseball bats, forks, hammers, nail guns, etc...

Actually, the purpose of a handgun IS to kill people. A handgun is a terrible tool for putting holes in things besides people. Even from a military standpoint, a handgun is not usefull at taking out any sort of armor, whatever. From a hunting standpoint, handguns are terrible - I took a .32 on a hunting trip once and tried it a few times (did manage to get a nice buck on that same trip with my 30/30 tho ). From a civil defense standpoint, rifles are much much more effective.

The only real high point to a pistol is it's concealability. Which is rarely used for defense.

When a tool only has one logical function, it can be said to be FOR that.



It's unlawful for ANYTHING to be used in a crime or to kill someone. So that's not really a clear statement.

Cycloptichorn

That "putting holes in things" argument makes me want to rip the hair out of my head.

McG, I know your better than that. Come on, man! Actually, if thats the case, then I'm against Americans putting "holes in things". Especially one another, using very fast moving little pieces of metal that are ejected from firearms.

Moving on, than... what is your take on "specialized" ammunition? Will you concede that at least they should be illegal, or are they just different ways of putting different types of "holes in things?" I've seen catalogs that actually hype the killing power of such shells, and its amazing that they are allowed to sell things with such a purpose.

Here are some of the lovely goodies I could have bought when I was at that gun show: (for the shotgun)

Flechette rounds- excellent for "taking out hidden snipers" (umm... like I'll ever be in the position of being hunted by a sniper), these shells are packed with small metal darts that twist and bend once they enter their "target", requiring a major operation for their removal

Bolo rounds- Shells that contain metal chains with hooks attached to either end. When fired, they spin at the same time, increasing damage.

Magnum(?) rounds- I forget if that was the name of these shells, but they boasted something to the effect of a 97% fatality rate. This meant supposedly that 97% of all living things would be killed by such shells

Flame rounds- Shells that release a massive fireball when shot (Useful when frankenstein comes after you, I suppose).

"specialty bullets"- For handguns, the teflon coated bullets designed to pierce bulletproof vests and the like.


I think you get my point. Although, in the interest of fairness, they also had some "less lethal" ammunition (which I am a great supporter of), like shells that shoot sandbags, plastic pellets, mace, smoke, and even loud blanks.

I have been reading this topic, and I promised myself I would never post another reply on this board, but, you are right, the purpose of my handgun is to kill some one. I don't carry it with the intent that today I am going to kill some one, I carry it because there are people out there that might want to do me harm. I also carry a cell phone for similar reasons. The difference between the two items is, I know I will get help from my gun, I don't know that I will get help from the phone. I can have a mugger/attacker put a gun in my face and tell me to hand him my wallet or he will kill me. If I pull out my cell phone and call the cops, I will assure you that I will be killed. If I reach in to the place where I keep my pistol and pull it out and use it, I might get killed, but there is also a chance that the person that is assailing me will get shot themselves. I have a better chance of survival if I have a way to protect myself.

This country was founded by individuals who took up their arms in defiance of a tyranical government. A government that taxes with out representation. The battle of Athens, TN http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm was fought using personally owned guns and some that were "borrowed" from the local armory to oust a bad government. If it came down to it, and our government became more of a tyranical beast then it is now, private citizens and members of the military would take up arms against them to secure our own freedom. Call me a conspiracy theorist, or a nut job, but it is not the government that is going to save me (or my family) from some one that is out there to do me harm. I am going to save myself or die trying.

Craven can use all of the latin phrases that he wants to to prove a point (real nice debating tactics there. IF you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS and all that) but that doesn't change the fact that I have a better chance of saving my own neck, then I do waiting on the police to save me. I have taken the time to purchase my weapons legally, go to class to learn the laws in my state about when I can use my weapon to protect myself, and where I can carry my weapon. That should be all there is to it. There should be no other need for the government to step in and tell me that I cannot have my hand gun.

As a matter of point, the best form of home defense is a shotgun. The penetration through 2 layers of sheet rock, insulation, and wooden studs should not be enough to hurt anyone on the other side but would definitely make its presence felt in the flesh of an intruder.

One person mentioned the suicide rate of people with firearms. There were 30,000+ in 2001 and yes half of them were the result of using a firearm, but that means that half of them were from other means. That means that people will commit suicide regardless of whether they have access to a firearm or not. I have posted the link to the CDC's site to get this information for yourself before but I know most people don't bother to look at it.

Just so you know, according to a survey of prison inmates in 1997 guns were purchased or procured through:
# a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
# a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
# family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Less than 2% of criminals used Military Styled weapons. (The so called Assault weapons that this thread is about)

So tell me. With that information, what does the assault weapon ban or getting rid of them all together really stop? Maybe 2% of the crimes that are commited with guns. Does making 2% of the crimes "go away" spell out a reason that a law obiding citizen cannot own one of these guns?

Some one mentioned that if my gun is stolen, I should be accountable for and arrested if it is used in a crime. If some one steals your car and kills some one with it, should you go to jail for the same crime? I don't think so. As long as I report my gun stolen as soon as I notice that it is no longer in my possession, then I should no longer be held accountable for what some criminal does with it. As an aside, I always know where my guns are.

Call me a gun nut, I don't care. I like guns, they serve many great purposes, one of which is to keep me and my family safe, and if you need it, I will help you out too just as long as you don't take away my right to keep and bear arms.

As for the specialty bullets that were mentioned. The Teflon coated bullets could pierce a bullet proof vest. They are not "Armor peircing bullets" like the leftist extremists would have you beleive, and since you may not have seen it, don't you think that the cops would have liked to have had some of these bullets in the LA Shoot out?

There are rounds called frangibles. They go inside and make minced meat of the tissue that is found in there. I personally like this round as there is little chance of it coming out the other side and going in to another person. Hollow points are another good round for personal defense. They go in, expand, and hopefully don't come back out.

Did you know that a 22LR (that's long rifle) can defeat some bullet proof vests? Did you know that just about all of your deer rifle rounds can penetrate a vest? That's because they aren't designed to stop this type of bullet. They are designed to stop the hand gun bullets.

No system is perfect, but me having the ability to protect and defend myself is lot better than me having to rely on some one else. The police will not always be there.

You're a gun nut.

Just kidding.



Instead of calling it BS, you could, I dunno, look up the term and see what it means. But as that would require work, and not only that, work that would chip away at your premise, you choose not to.

I have no problems with rifles at all. Handguns are a different story.

Cycloptichorn

Saints, you forgot to say how having a gun in the home increases the chances of one family member accidentally shooting another. Or a child finding a gun and accidentally using it. Or how pulling a gun during a robbery might escalate the situation considerably. (I remember finding the key to my dad's "gun safe" when I was younger. Fortunately for me I understood enough to make sure the guns were empty when I played with them).


My point:

One or more people tries to rob you. You have a gun. What are your options?

A) Give them the money and hope they don't hurt you further.
or
B) Pull out your gun and either kill them or scare them enough to make them give up the attempt. Well, as long as:
*They don't have a gun already on you and just pull their trigger first
*You don't miss, giving them a chance to pull a gun (if they're carrying)
*You don't accidentally shoot yourself or an innocent bystander (I doubt the people who get hit by missed shots appreciate your right to carry)
*The robber doesn't lunge for the gun and wrestle it away from you


Try a stun gun or learn how to work a knife instead. You get plenty of safety from those.

If you think my mention of the logical fallacy is BS then feel free to make the case, see it's easy to just say so. You can't, however, make an argument that it was BS.

I can, however, make the argument for the fallacy it was, I simply chose instead to post the term so it could be looked up.

But if you need an explanation here it is:

post hoc ergo propter hoc simply means "after this therefore because of this". It's a common fallacy.

Here an implication was made that the banning of guns in the UK resulted in more gun crime merely on the basis of subsequence. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Now feel free to try to substantiate your claim that this is "BS". You will not be able to do so.

Lastly, you may think that your posession of firearms make you safer, but upon what do you base the claim? The mere comfort you find in posessing the firearm? If not, substantiate it.

Again, you will not be able to do so statistically and will have to simply rely on the general notion of your preference wherein you simply feel safer by carrying a gun.

Look, arguing against gun control is not rocket science, it can easily be done without the shoddy arguments and logical fallacies. If you want to reject my position on gun control I can accept that. Reasonable people can disagree. But that does not mean you should reject all the arguments on the way to the position.

Liking the position is no excuse for defending the flawed arguments that some use to support it. Simply use the sound ones because they are there.

If you'd like I can argue your position for you and show you what I mean.

There's no need to resort to the junk debate that so much of this gun debate tends toward, the case can be made in favor of guns without it.

Lets see, if some one wants to debate, why not provide all of the relevant links? There is another thing about debating, you don't talk over the head of the person you are talking to. I work in computer support, there are many things that I cannot say to my users because they wouldn't understand them. Do I tell them to look it up? No!!!

You have no problems with rifles, that's great, neither do I. What is your problem with hand guns?

Is it so hard to understand that some of us don't think that the cops will be there in time to protect us? That we take the time to get trained and licensed to carry a gun legally is a right gauranteed by the second amendment to the constitution? That criminals are going to do what ever they want and that we should be able to protect ourselves is a basic right. Not something that the government can take away.

I have seen it many times, people on this board using their SAT words to make themselves feel and look important.

I like when you do that.

Heh, SAT words. You're sure not doing yourself any debating favors there.

But, as to why I don't like handguns, I just think that they are of limited use when it comes to self defense. JustanObserver said it best:



Cycloptichorn