40 Reasons for Gun Control

[bungrider]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Why do so many of the anti-gun posters keep talking about there being no need for Mac10s and AK47s.

Heads up - those weapons are ALREADY illegal. You can't legally buy one. Continuing to bring them up renders your argument invalid.

If you've got good reasons why people shouldn't be able to own a semi-automatic AR-15 or any other semi-auto that they want, knock yourself out trying to make it. But drop the Mac10 and AK47 references - they're invalid and highlight a lack of understanding of the material factors.

Note that if full auto conversion kits for certain semi-autos are available - the converted weapon are still ILLEGAL. You want to make the conversion kits illegal - great. But the semi-autos themselves aren't the problem.

As far as someone's comment that guns are only good for killing people - have you ever heard of target practice?

And before someone posts the inevitable anti-gun stupidity that the police are there to defend us so no one really needs a gun - get a clue. The cops are there to take the report of your death or beating or robbery or whatever.

There isn't a cop around that's going to stop someone who's breaking into my house from doing something to my daughter or wife. And no, I don't want to be forced to wield or fire a shotgun in close quarters because some pea-brain who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about doesn't think I "need" a handgun - it's a whole lot safer and reliable to use a handgun for close quarters defense.

The problem with both the anti-gunners and the NRA is that they're both at the extremes. The anti-gunners have been so intent on working to incrementally and ultimately impose total gun control that the NRA has been forced into the equally psychotic opposing position of being opposed to almost all measures for fear that the anti-gunners will use Christmas tree extensions to expand beyond the reasonable.

Most gun owners have no problem with rational things like instant criminal checks, waiting periods, testing/certification for carry permits, etc. - it's the overkill measures that make getting reasonable things difficult to get implement.

Good post, man, and I agree with most of your points, esp about the NRA versus the anti-gun extremists.

However, I'm anti-handgun, and I have one issue with this-

"...And no, I don't want to be forced to wield or fire a shotgun in close quarters because some pea-brain who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about doesn't think I "need" a handgun - it's a whole lot safer and reliable to use a handgun for close quarters defense..."

1) Handguns are considerably harder to aim successfully, have more uncontrollable recoil (esp magnum rounds), and are easier to have taken away from you than are rifles.

2) When law enforcement or urban military operations are carried out in close quarters (i.e. storming into a house) those guys almost ALWAYS carry assault rifles, not handguns, and aim from the shoulder. Why? Because it is the most accurate way of shooting a firearm in close quarters.

 

[ElCubano]

Originally posted by rs7



I want Rod Smith back. Give you Chris Carter and a good quarterback...Greise or Vick.

Peace,
rs7

I picked up tommy maddox.....he has been kickin ass....if kurt Warner wouldnt have flopped I would be a contender..should have traded him when I had the chance.....

 

[LongShot]

Originally posted by rs7


??????


You must have me confused with someone else

And ElCubano, you gun toting maniac.....I agree. If the bad guys can have them, then we should be allowed to also. But my contention really was that the world would be a safer place if no one had guns. Obviously, this is never going to be the case.

I want Rod Smith back. Give you Chris Carter and a good quarterback...Greise or Vick.

Peace,
rs7

no, rs7 i mean you. other than lying about your military service i think you are a straight shooter. ooops..

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by LongShot


no, rs7 i mean you. other than lying about your military service i think you are a straight shooter. ooops..

Ok, thanks....and yeah, I DID lie (stretch the truth) about my military service. I PM'd my pal max and explained what was real and what wasn't and why I said what I did. Suffice it to say it was for the sake of simplicity and also to exaggerate a point. But sadly, I was there, and I was shot.

Peace,
rs7

 

[ArchAngel]

bungrider -

1) Handguns are considerably harder to aim successfully, have more uncontrollable recoil (esp magnum rounds), and are easier to have taken away from you than are rifles.

Sorry, that's wrong. In close quarters it is always easier to wield a handgun than a long barreled shotgun or rifle. The reason should be obvious.

While a magnum might be uncontrollable by a lot of people and overkill for use in home defense, handguns in general do NOT have uncontrollable recoil. However, if someone is unable to control a handgun, then clearly they should not use one.

Nor are handguns easier to take away than a rifle (because of the longer barrel, it's a lot easier to step inside a rifle's arc and neutralize it and you than a handgun).

If you're going to get your handgun taken from you - you're going to get a rifle taken from you. Reason - you panicked and didn't shoot when you should have. In that case, you shouldn't have had ANY gun.

As far as accuracy - again sorry but wrong. I can empty a clip into a 1-2" group at "home interior" range. Add in the laser sight and it's even easier. Especially at close range, the pistol is easier to use fast and accurately compared to a rifle or shotgu. So while you stand a real good chance of blowing out part of the wall or hitting a bystander along with that intruder's head using a shotgun, the guy with the handgun causes no collateral damage.

2) When law enforcement or urban military operations are carried out in close quarters (i.e. storming into a house) those guys almost ALWAYS carry assault rifles, not handguns, and aim from the shoulder. Why? Because it is the most accurate way of shooting a firearm in close quarters.

If you're advocating assault rifles for home defense, great - I'll take an MP5-K then (can I have it with a sound suppressor too) - but you'll have to make them legal for civilians to own.

You may be confused by the genericized term assault "rifle". The weapons you refer to are nothing like a normal rifle (nor are they normally of the AK47/M16 variety) - they're submachine guns (or machine carbines if they fire closed breech instead of an open one).

They're small and are really machine pistols, not rifles. They may or may not include a collapsible stock and "aiming from the shoulder" doesn't mean anything different than using the standard handgun combat aiming posture (what? you think using a handgun means you shoot from the hip?).

Why do they use them? The reason they carry that type of weapon as their primary (they also carry handguns) is fire supremacy. It has nothing to do with being more accurate than a firearm in close quarters. It's about them being small, fully automatic, and having larger clips than a handgun.

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
.
If you're advocating assault rifles for home defense, great - I'll take an MP5-K then (can I have it with a sound suppressor too) - but you'll have to make them legal for civilians to own.

I don't think he was trying to advocate that at all. I think it was about him NOT believing in the proliferation of handguns based on an excuse of them being used for home defense. While it is certainly true that a handgun is more convenient to use, really, how many home invasions are foiled because the owner of the house had a ready handgun? I don't believe that armed robbery of a home is a likely occurrence anywhere. Burglaries yes. But who needs a gun if you aren't home? And those few people that are such obvious targets of an organized home robbery are very unlikely not to have more protection than a handgun could possibly give them. So they just don't get robbed. If I had Picassos and Rembrandts hanging on my walls, and a safe full of diamonds, I would afford to have better security than a handgun would provide. The guy living in a trailer? Who is going to rob him? Yet he's the likely guy to have a magnum under his pillow. Unlike a Kennedy (or a Bush....or a Rockefeller...not a political issue....a monetary issue). Even the dreaded crackhead is unlikely to rob the guy with a magnum under his pillow. Now who will he rob? More likely someone on the street. So is the answer for everyone to walk around with a concealed weapon? Easier to stay out of the wrong neighborhoods. Never heard of a crackhead straying far from his or her source. Common sense is the best defense on the streets. Can you get unlucky? Yup. But that's life.

They're small and are really machine pistols, not rifles. .....

Why do they use them? The reason they carry that type of weapon as their primary (they also carry handguns) is fire supremacy. It has nothing to do with being more accurate than a firearm in close quarters. It's about them being small, fully automatic, and having larger clips than a handgun.

All this is exactly right. Plus the fact that you don't NEED to be accurate with a military round from an assault "rifle". You hit a target, they are no longer a threat.

Peace,
rs7

 

[Snake Plisken]

People just can't seem to get past the term "assault rifle". This is media brainwashing. Do most anti-gunners realize that legal semiautomatic rifles fire ammo that is smaller than most hunting rifles. The most common hunting round is the 30-06.(the 06 is for 1906-the year it debuted). The WWII M-1 Garrand used the 30-06. The M-14 and AK-47 fire 7.62mm(.308in), also popular hunting rounds. The M-16 fires the now famous 5.56mm(.223) round, which people keep referring to as a "devastating military round" It's the smallest of the three. The military ammo is a little different, harder tip bullets that spin when they hit bone. I believe the military uses the .223 because it is more accurate at longer ranges, but it doesn't hit as hard. A weaker bullet that hits its target is better than a powerful bullet that misses. The .223 can also tie up enemy resources by causing many nasty non lethal wounds. Although , obviously it can kill. A military sniper would use a standard bolt action rifle in .308 with silencer(quieter than semiautomatic with silencer).

My point is, a rifle is a rifle. A semiautomatic rifle is a semiautomatic rifle. Get past the cosmetic differences.

We're told that we don't need "powerful" military rifles when hunting rifles are actually more powerful. This is about anti-gun groups trying to ban guns one at a time. After they ban the "military look" rifles, THEN we will hear that the hunting rifles are just as "devastating".

A 30-06 round is almost 3 times as powerful as a .223. The .223 is almost the smallest rifle ammo you can buy. The .223 is considered a varmint rifle, for rabbits and squirrels.

There's nothing wrong with using a legal semiautomatic AK-47 for hunting. It fires a popular hunting round anyway. It's a rifle. Of course you wouldn't hunt with the big 30 shot banana clip(but it's handy on the target range). A 5 shot clip would be fine. Without the big banana clip, most people wouldn't recognize the AK-47 anyway. People have been hunting with old military rifles for years before this talk of banning assault rifles. The real problem is criminals with handguns, but the media/anti-gun groups know that handguns would be more difficult to ban because more people own them. Very few rifles are ever used in crimes, although there is a glaring recent exception, of course.


Snake

.

 

[ArchAngel]

rs7 - a couple of points:

1. The urban raid weapons that were being discussed aren't assault rifles nor do most of them use "military rounds". The most popular SMGs used by SWAT, SAS, special forces, etc. use standard 9mm bullets. Same as any 9mm pistol uses. They use them not for their "devastating" military ammo, but because they're small, light, fully automatic, and can carry large clips - i.e., they afford fire supremacy.

They're accurate because the guns are inherently accurate, the people using them know what they're doing, and they usually are equipped with laser sights to make aiming during combat a fast point and shoot (i.e., bullet hits where the red dot is) activity.

2. As far as home break ins - last year there were several break ins in my neighborhood. I live in an upscale (read expensive) suburb of Chicago. It turned out that a couple of guys were picking homes where they thought they could make a quick haul and where they didn't think anyone was home. They'd throw something heavy through the back patio sliding glass door, run in, grab a bunch of stuff, and beat feet out of there before the cops arrived. In several of the cases, the family was at home in bed. Cops weren't having any luck finding them. Their little crime spree ended though when they broke into the home of some mob connected guy and got wasted.

Usually there's no crime in the neighborhood because everyone knows there are a lot of fat cat mob types living here (makes it pretty safe and secure for the rest of us). Turned out these two guys were from out of the area and didn't know about the mobsters.

Generally, you're right about the probability of a break in being low - but they happen, kids are kidnapped, women raped, people killed, etc. So as long as the probability is greater than zero that some scum bag might try to kidnap my daughter or commit any other kind of violence - I want more than a baseball bat handy.

As far as everyone walking around with concealed weapons - it's not high on my list unless there's a rigid testing and certification system (hopefully implemented better than drivers license testing) for those who want to and can pass the testing and assume the liability of doing so.

 

[RebateMan]

Originally posted by WCOMtrader
Picture two houses next to each other. Picture a thief. Its night, the people are inside, maybe asleep. One house owner own a gun, a machinegun, a machette, an axe and two rifles. The other sings kumbaya. Who's he robbing?

what about the guy with the Kitana, the Medieval sword, daggers and a flail?? lol

what will happen to him!? AHH?? AHHH???

(lol)

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by Snake Plisken
The .223 is almost the smallest rifle ammo you can buy. The .223 is considered a varmint rifle, for rabbits and squirrels.

Size? It's about cartidge power, velocity and fragmentation. I don't hunt, and maybe there is hunting ammo in that caliber. I have no idea about that.

An M-16 is designed to kill people in combat. Not for hunting. It's got no recoil, is very light weight, and actually designed to be inaccurate. The ballistic characteristics are meant to tumble the bullet, not spin it.

So if .223 is used for varmints, it ain't the same thing the army uses. Not in an M-16. Of course that doesn't mean you can't shoot a rabbit with an M-16. You could. But there would be nothing left of the rabbit but a very large furry wet spot. Assuming you could hit the rabbit. Be a hell of a shot if the rabbit was moving! In any event, doesn't sound like fun to me. I'd much rather hit a paper target with a .22

Peace,
rs7

PS: I agree with you guys about the rifles anyway. I think it's fine to own a hunting rifle. If you hunt. Any bore you want.

And I did not know that the police assault weapons were really 9mm. Live and learn. But for sure, the M-16 was NOT designed to be accurate at long range. That is completely opposite of what it was designed for. Lot's of misunderstandings about the M-16. You hear how it will penetrate trees and kill the enemy. Not true. A 270-70 Winchester will do that. Of course it wouldn't be very handy in a firefight if you had to get off more than one round And sure as hell you couldn't fire it without bracing yourself REALLY well for each shot.