Firepower

[Doc]

And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.

Fine. Perhaps. I agree. Most of the time. I keep a S&W .357 on or near my person at all times. It's my baby. It's a five shot revolver. In defense situations, it's far better then an assault rifle. It is a frightning looking weapon. Psychological factor alone will no doubt settle most situations.

While this is a local problem, I am sure other events of similar nature happen in other places. Hell Night. It's a local night of anarchy, murder, and rape. Good Ol Boys in white hoods ride around in pick up trucks, killing, raping, looting, and doing pretty much as they please. They burn crosses on lawns. They lynch uppity folks that deserve to get it. And it's not one or two men, it's a small lynch mob. This, I feel, is one valid and true situation where assault weapons are key. A man with a revolver firing into the mob has to worry about return fire, as most of these men are armed themselves. Automatic weapons are key to personal defense in these situations. And they do happen. Every frigging year. And I honestly feel if more people who were targets in these hate crimes had high powered autofire weapons for home defense, we would see less of this behavour. It would not be an easy target, and, a chickensnot yellow livered coward wants an easy target. If you see a couple of spooks in your front yard with wooden planks and kerosine, and open fire over their heads with an Uzi or something, they don't come back to your home next year in most cases. Nope, they go home that night and get to change their drawers, crawl into bed, and suck their thumb whimpering all night long.

Guns are empowerment. They turn the helpless into capable citizens. They DO deter crime. Right where I live, in the city, where most apartment dwellers and suburb folks don't own guns, crime is high. Out in the outer areas, out on the farms, where men keep lots of guns, shotguns, rifles, etc, crime is nearly non issue. Criminals know, a gun lives there. Everybody around me knows I have firearms of all shapes and sizes. I fire thousands of rounds of ammo a year. I shoot several times a week for recreation. From the crisp popping report of a .22 rifle to the stuttering chatter of a 10mm Uzi, to the deafining thundering ear shattering roar of my new S&W .500, there is no mistaking that I live in what is considered a very safe area. And I am not alone. All around me, my neighbors, also farmers and woodsy types, you can hear them "clearing the air" around them.

[gekko]

Well, I guess I must concede. Everyone agrees that assault rifles are overkill for 99% of any possible situations, but people still need them to tip the scales in their favour for those crazy, unbelievable, improbable, PCP-junkie alien squirel invaders.

I find it interesting that no one seems to care that assault rifles are among the most dangerous *cough cough* "tools" available to humans. I also find it interesting that no one seems to care how much damage these weapons can and will do in the hands of just about civillian. No, all that seems to matter is that americans have their "god given right" to own one, and so by god they need it.

gekko

[Sir_Die_alot]

a chickensnot yellow livered coward wants an easy target

The truth of this is what it all comes down to.

When it is your person at stake; I choose overkill 100% of the time. Feel free to check those figures. B)

[gekko]

Two points.

First, this yearly night of hate crimes, rapes and killings. That type of behaviour is a huge problem that goes far beyond who has guns and who doesn't. Personally, I would suggest two things: first, get in contact with someone, anyone, in government, in law enforcement, somewhere, and MAKE it a big issue. Make it a big deal. Second, I'd go up on my roof with a rifle and a video camera, after planting a nice big "tresspassers will be shot" sign on my lawn. See, I'm not adverse to using guns as a means of self defence or empowerment. First shot would be a warning shot. Second would be to wound, particularly if I were as good a shot as you, Doc. And the whole thing would be captured on video, which would also be sent to the TV networks. Make it news.

Second, the solution you suggest would be so effective -- arming the victims with automatic weapons. What happens when the hoodlums bring assault rifles next year? It's the *same* argument as giving cops bigger guns. It runs into the *same* brick wall. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE BAD GUYS RESPOND WITH EVEN BIGGER GUNS?

See, this kind of arms build up has been tried before. They called it the Cold War.

gekko

[jahcs]

Some of the posts in this thread got hung up on the word need. I don't need a gun most of the time. I may want a gun sometimes but I don't need one. Certain situations in this thread do signify a need, which opens that "what if" can of worms.

What we want and what we need are two different things. Whether its a nice Sony Wega with surround sound, a Corvette ZO6 with the Lingenfelter package, a double burger with cheese and bacon and fries and a milkshake, or an AR-15 with a starlight scope and a 30 round magazine. If I miss-use any of those items, hurting myself or those around me, then I am responsible for those actions. Before anyone uses those items they should think before they act and be prepared to accept the consequences and understand the effect those actions will have on those around them.

I live in America and would like to think this land is generally based on the formula of work for what you want and then buy/build it, within reason of course (see the nuclear warhead comments above ;) ). Unfortunately this is America and there are also those that have the formula "you have it, I want it, I'll take it." The Esquire magazine article in the "What is it Like in Iraq?" shows this premise from a different side with the gas station raids (I presume they paid for the fuel, but the article never states that). I do understand that in Iraq westerners are targets and waiting all day in a gas line is a bad risk. "Might makes right" is common in this world.

edit: clarified the gas station scenario.

[Doc]

My two bits.

SC is the last great bastion of the KKK. They are deeply entrenched in power here. If only it were as simple as you said. But no.

As for the cowards, most of the Good Ol Boys wont go as far as actually getting the BFGs. Most of them are under the 17k a year poverty line, driving pickups older then they are. They have families, live in trailers, and survive on government peanut butter and cheap macaroni and cheese. They lash out and behave this way because they are to poor to ever get ahead in life. They are lazy, afraid of hard work, stupid, uneducated, and, rather then take the blame on their own shoulders, would rather blame minorities. It's the black folks stealing all the jobs. It's the this and the that. And the KKK knows this. Powerful old white men with lots of money and to much free time organizes rallies, fills these poor soul's minds full of hateful propoganda, and then unleashes them on society at large. It's the perfect crime. Rich powerful men stay rich and powerful, and the poor folks suffer, used as pawns by their own so called loyal royal race. They take the fall. And their lives become even more miserable. And their hate and misery is focused even more by the puppet masters pulling the strings. Hell Night is a ZIT. It's the painful logical conlusion to that much social contamination. If only these poor souls would turn their ire on the true enemy... I have tried to explain but few will listen.

No, these common hoodlums don't have the cash or the resources to afford the expensive high powered guns. All they have is the pocket cash to buy the beer or Mad Dog they need for their alcohol fueled mayhem.

But what do I know. I am merely a kookie old hermit living through my twilight years and observing society around me.

[Bone]

gekko,

Guns can be used for the three purposes you outlined, as well as many others. They can be collected, they can be used as an investment, a hobby, for recreational target practice, or any number of other uses that only the owner need justify to himself.

If you take an assault rifle hunting, well... that's both illegal and stupid.  There'd be so little left of anything you actually HIT, it's clearly pointless far past the level of stupidity.

What statute makes using an assault rifle for hunting illegal? And which state? I'm curious, but are you asserting this as a fact, or are you guessing?

A single shot from a weapon classified as an assault rifle could function just as well as a typical hunting rifle. The AK-47 delivers accurately at approximately 300 yards, IIRC. A single shot can kill a deer at range, and there would be plenty left, about as much as would be left after using a typical hunting rifle I'd gather. Stupidity?

And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.

There were riots in LA in the early 90's after the Rodney King verdict. Store owners sat on the roofs of their buildings with assault rifles defending their property from looters. An assault rifle clearly has more stopping power, and a faster rate of delivery than a typical rifle and far exceeds the ability of a handgun. You may say it, even flat out so to speak, but that does not make it so.

There is no need for assault rifles in the hands of civilians. I consider it a self-evident truth, but there's my reasoning.

I actually consider this begging the question, or circular logic, take your pick.

[Freepaperclips]

There have been a lot of good arguments on this issue, but, I think that this is the single most relevant post.

Part of the reason the second amendment exists is so that the civilians are not unarmed if they should ever decide that injustices of government necessitate a secession.

This is it. Right there. I do not carry a gun. I am licensed to do so, however, and I will die before I give up that right.

In a world filled with more and more unjust regulations and unenforced and unenforceable laws I refuse to give up my rights to defend the lives of myself or my family any more then I will give up my right to vote, because they are the same.

An indefensible argument is useless.

An indefensible vote is less so.

Gekko:  First, this yearly night of hate crimes, rapes and killings. That type of behaviour is a huge problem that goes far beyond who has guns and who doesn't.

I live in Seattle, and if you want times that the right to carry is justified then I can list some:
Fat Tuesday every year
The Rodney King Riots
ever hear of the Watts Riots?
Hell Night
Halloween itself
and those are starters. I play cards for a living (and to answer the yet unspoken question: no, I don’t cheat), this means that I have to carry cash and on any one of those nights I will carry a weapon. D*** straight.

During the Watts Riots (in LA) my father had to carry a loaded shotgun to his work at a jewelry firm and my mother had to keep a rifle by the door.

During the Rodney King riots there were snipers on every major building downtown to keep out looters.

It took the police 45 minutes to answer my burglary call, in the middle of the city. Now ask me to trust the government to keep me safe. I guarantee it doesn’t.

Oh and Gekko,

Second, I'd go up on my roof with a rifle and a video camera, after planting a nice big "tresspassers will be shot" sign on my lawn. See, I'm not adverse to using guns as a means of self defence or empowerment.

How do you do that if you can’t get a gun?

[gekko]

Oh and Gekko,

How do you do that if you can’t get a gun?

Well, as I've already said, I'm not against owning or using guns for self defence. My point is that gun laws should be more strict, and that certain types of firearms are too great of a danger to be owned or stockpiled by civillians. My argument was that keeping these types of weapons is a "first step," if you will, towards getting the guns off the streets entirely.

Oh, and as to hunting with an assault rifle: I don't have the quote available to me here, but I'll dig it up when I get home (To be honest, I will admit I can't state that it's a law all throughout the states). As for it being stupid,

Bone said "A single shot from a weapon classified as an assault rifle could function just as well as a typical hunting rifle. The AK-47 delivers accurately at approximately 300 yards, IIRC. A single shot can kill a deer at range, and there would be plenty left, about as much as would be left after using a typical hunting rifle I'd gather. Stupidity?"

So... you're using the assault rifle as a single shot rifle... so, not as an automatic assault rifle... so, why would you take an assault rifle in this situation, rather than a hunting rifle?

The only situations people have given where an assault rifle is any more usefel than say a handgun or rifle are situations that would be dangerous no matter what weapons you have access to. The real problem is what happens when those crazed crowds get ahold of the same assault rifles people say are so neccessary for their own defence?

gekko

[Bone]

gekko wrote:
My point is that gun laws should be more strict, and that certain types of firearms are too great of a danger to be owned or stockpiled by civillians

I'm curious as to what criteria you would use to determine which firearms are "too great of a danger" and who decides upon those criteria for the rest of us.

gekko wrote:
So... you're using the assault rifle as a single shot rifle... so, not as an automatic assault rifle... so, why would you take an assault rifle in this situation, rather than a hunting rifle?

Because I can. You said doing so would be "stupid". Why? Seems like a matter of personal preference. I hesitate to call others stupid, who prefer to do things differently than myself. Normally that's called bigotry.

In my state, CA, full auto firearms are illegal. The popular AK-47 was legal as a semi-automatic assault rifle up until about 1990 or so (*I think*), the sister version, the SKS was legal as a semi-automatic assault rifle for a few years after that.

[gekko]

Because I can.  You said doing so would be "stupid".  Why?  Seems like a matter of personal preference.

Ahh, of course, it was only a matter of time before someone said this. The question, in this case, "why would you use an assault rifle to hunt using a single round at a time?" Your answer, "because I can."

The usual question? "Why do you own so many guns/Why do you have an assault rifle?" (Or anything thereabouts). "Because you can" is not a reason. That would be your right, yes, but it's not a reason. I say assault rifles are dangerous (your question as to what exactly decides what is dangerous and what is acceptable, btw, is an excellent point. I don't have an exact criteria; I do maintain that assault rifles are far beyond the line, however). The danger posed by assault rifles is a reason to NOT allow people to own them. The fact that, currently, you CAN own an assault rifle is NOT a reason to own one.

It's interesting that I was accused of using circular logic. Your logic is that we can't change the gun laws because the law allows you to own an assault rifle.

Oh, and as for my saying it's stupid making me a bigot. Well, let's see:

"4 entries found for stupid.
stu·pid    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job."

Why would you use an assault rifle for hunting when all you use is a single shot? Particularly considering the danger posed by these weapons (a gun accident with a fully automatic assault rifle is likely to be much greater than an accident with a rifle). It's careless, it's foolish, and it's pointless. So I wasn't being a bigot, I was being factual. If you prefer, just substitue careless, foolish
or pointless where I used stupid.

gekko

[Bone]

Ahh, of course, it was only a matter of time before someone said this.  The question, in this case, "why would you use an assault rifle to hunt using a single round at a time?"  Your answer, "because I can."

Since the status quo is that certain assualt type weapons are permissable, the burden is on you to demonstrate why they should not be. If you reason is that they exceed the "need" of a person, it has already been demonstrated that the "need" rationale falls short. If your reason is because other firearms serve the same purpose, then I submit that by that reasoning, automobiles that exceed 65 mph (autos which injur and kill more people than guns) fall into the same category. Should a cap on speed in automobiles also be imposed?

'Because I can' translates into, 'show me why I shouldn't, and how that reasoning applies to guns, and not every other activity'. How about, 'because I want them'.

It's interesting that I was accused of using circular logic.  Your logic is that we can't change the gun laws because the law allows you to own an assault rifle.

Please point to where I said that "we can't change the gun laws because the law allows you to own an assualt rifle." I'll assume it's an honest mistake, but I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth. If you cant point to where I said that, a retraction would be in order.

[gekko]

I'll work backwards here.

First of all, you used the status quo to defend the status quo when you said "because I can." Even if you put all the burden of proof on myself, you still can't use the fact that you are allowed to own assault rifles as a reason why the law shouldn't be changed.

As for automobiles: vehicles that exceed 65 mph can be used for legal purposes (it is legal, for example, drive over the speed limit while attempting to merge on the highway). An assault rifle used as a fully automatic weapon can be used for only one purpose: to injure or kill someone or something. That's why guns don't follow the same logic as other 'tools:' because guns can be used only to kill. I do not refute the usefulness of guns in many situations, as a means of self defence or for hunting.

The main reason I think assault rifles should be banned leads right back to where this thread began: the more available those weapons are, the more they will be seen in the public. If everyone owns an assault rifle, soon enough bank robbers and other 'bad guys' will be using rocket launchers and grenades regularly. That's the real danger. If you take aggressive steps to limit the availability of assault rifles and crack down hard whenever they are found, instances of their use against law enforcement agents will be almost nonexistant.

I'm curious to know if you agree that a line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to self defence and owning guns. Should Bill Gates (or anyone else who can afford it) be allowed to arm a few hundred guards with assault rifles? How ammount tanks and anti aircraft weapons? Jets and helicopters? Small nuclear warheads?

gekko

[Freepaperclips]

Gekko

My argument was that keeping these types of weapons is a "first step," if you will, towards getting the guns off the streets entirely.

There are four major flaws to this argument:
1) Banning guns (or types of guns) outright doesn’t get them off the street. The only people that would give them up are the fiercely law abiding citizens that aren’t a danger to society. Criminals would keep their guns and people who were previously good law abiding citizens would be alienated.
2) Do you presume that, even if automatic weapons were not made in this country, they would not be imported? Do you think that they would all be stopped at the border? Also, in the laws of this country, there is something called “Grandfathering:” this means that all such weapons extant today would remain legal to own and believe me there are enough around to stay in circulation for the next seventy five years or so.
3) Almost none of the weapons used in violent crimes are legally obtained. So what is the good in taking the guns of responsible people and making sure that the only people that have them are criminals?
4) You seem to think that a person is more dead if killed with an assualt rifle then if killed with a steak knife. Anyone with combat experience will tell you that a man comfortable with his weapon is infinitely more dangerous then the man who is not.

If you take aggressive steps to limit the availability of assault rifles and crack down hard whenever they are found, instances of their use against law enforcement agents will be almost nonexistant.

Did the 1920’s teach us nothing? Tell it to Prohibition.

An assault rifle used as a fully automatic weapon can be used for only one purpose: to injure or kill someone or something.

If a person in the middle of nowhere, on his own property, with no danger to anyone, wants to have some fun and blow away a stump with his grease gun then why not let him?

[Doc]

Bah humbug.

I for one, have used machine guns for other uses other then killing people or critters.

I make machine gun art. I draw crude pictures on planks of plywood with simi auto or full auto. It's a great means for gaining control and accuracy. It's artistic. I make smiley faces. Stick figures. I once drew a doggy. It's a great emotional release, relieving stress and tension, and, something my medical doctor encouraged me to keep doing. The fine amount of careful muscle control has a benificial effect on my health as well. It boosts my self esteem (God forbid I get a bigger head) because I am PROUD of what I can do. I can already draw crude outlines. I would like to make machine gun ice sculptures like I saw on PBS. Someday I might, but, for now, my technique and control still needs work. That weirdo made crude rough looking yet very beautiful ice sculptures using various machine guns. Large bore for breaking down ice blocks, and, small arms for detail work. Seeing him on tv was a life changing experience for me. He stood, guns blazing, in a cloud of blue smoke, with chips of ice flying off in every which direction. Such raw destructive power. I covet his abilities. I hope some day to try it. Chainsaw ice sculpture looks like a lot of fun too.

I collect weapons of all kinds. Spears and axes of my ancestors. Halbreds. Crossbows. Bows. Swords of all shapes and sizes. Daggers. Slings. Blowguns. Katars. Warfists. And guns. Lots of guns. And all of them are beautiful to me. Whether he meant to or not, man has made a beautiful legacy of artwork in his implements of impalement and destruction. Even in a machine gun. The details do not lie on the outside. Strip one down some time and examine every piece, every section, every spring and bolt. Man spent a lot of time making a thing of sheer mechanical beauty.

While I use many of the weapons I collect, I adore them much as a curator in a museum. They can be used to educate, inspire, defend, and as a simple symbol of ideals and beliefs. The gun has it's own mystique. A lot of popular art and many great novels are all about The Gun. Roland, the protagonist in the Dark Tower by Stephen King... Is it he that is famous and well loved or is it his guns? Did man make the guns, giving them life, making them breathe fire and become God, with the power to preserve or take life, or, did the guns make the man, giving him the means to face the world and make an impression the only way he knew how? The same could be asked for any real life historical figure that lived or died by his or her gun. I have learned the artform that is shooting from the hip from when I was but a small boy. I am older now. I don't see as well as I would like. But I can still blow the heads off of matches or nails at one hundred paces. I actually can't see the nails or the matches to well any more. If I squint and strain, I can occasionally make them out. Even with my good glasses on. How do I hit? Who knows? Who cares. Call it Gun Fu if you wish. The gun is one of the greater human achievements, and, all you need to do is sit down with any circus performer or trick shooter to prove it. There is a certain mind clearing zen in marksmanship. A clear focused state of mind where the world fades away and a greater human experience awaits, where some sort of power rides the bullet driving it home to it's target.

There is more to firearms then killing. There are more targets then flesh. While many people will never rise above the common uses of a typical practical firearm, there are those who seek more and will seek to find the mysteries of life in the spent shell casings of a thousand silver rounds. They will find inspiration. There is a focus point beyond the deafing roar and chatter of gunfire. There is control. Calm.

The pen or the sword? Neither. Give me a gun. Inspiration or blood letting, a gun is the perfect evolution of both.

[Assur]

Hi

A gun, and I am not talking about a Saturday Night Special, is just a piece of meta! Anything you feel is your feeling, it is not intrinsic to the weaponl

I worked in a museum lots of years ago, summer job, and I handled genuine katanas, basically it is just what you feel, even though my imagination really gave me a rush.

[Freepaperclips]

That's like saying that any piece of art is just oil on canvas, or some random notes from a box. Human effort and human inspiration are two of the most beautiful things that exist in this universe. If you look at the Mona Lisa or hear the opening notes of the Ode to Joy there is a feeling that nothing else matters because they exist.

Physics can be the same way. The views from the Hubble Space Telescope for instance. If you spend any time on cars, you know that the designs driving them can be exquisitely complex and beautiful. So can weapons. Feeling a Randall Made stiletto or M1 “Grand” can show all the attention to detail and beauty of line of any Jag or Silver Six.

[Professor Frink]

The main reason I think assault rifles should be banned

Please describe for me the difference between assault rifles and other firearms, or, if you like, the difference between those firearms you think should be outlawed and other firearms.

-- frink

edit: grammar

[--Pete]

Hi,

But I tell you what: you take a flintlock smooth bore pistol, I'll take an M-60. We'll stand a half a mile apart and I'll *show* you the difference. :)

--Pete

[jahcs]

The term assault rifle is tossed around frequently. I don't know if there is an official definition but here is my point of view on certain criteria I have seen used to define it:

Removeable magazines, of varying sizes? Whether it's a 6 round reloader for a revolver or a 30 round magazine a user familiar with his weapon will not take long to reload. (Belt fed weapons and 50 round or hundred round drums do go a bit overboard from my point of view. Anyone ever fired a Calico?)

Some people base it on the look of the weapon. I don't feel that is a valid criteria. Weapons with a military look to them don't make them assault rifles.

A weapon that is semi automatic (where pulling the trigger fires one round and then the weapon cycles a new round into the chamber) does not make it an assault weapon. Many pistols, shotguns, and rifles operate this way.

Fully automatic weapons (the weapon continues to fire rounds as long as there are rounds in the magazine and the trigger is held down) I feel do not need to be in the hands of private citizens. For the average user it tends to create the spray and pray philosophy of marksmanship. But they tend to be the most fun to shoot, don't they B) .

Like it was pointed out earlier, banning guns, for the most part, will only affect law abiding citizens. The post with the link to circular (il)logic can be used here: you are a law abiding citizen until you break the law <_< .

But if we apply that logic then we need to impound your car (you might drive recklessly), take away your lighter (you might turn to arson), remove all household cleaners from your home (you may poison someone), take away your knives (stabbing), baseball bats (bludgeoning). After that please take our shoelaces so we don't hang ourselves.