Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by northpaw

This touches on the aspect I find most interesting. So... Stinger missiles, bazookas, and tactical nuclear weapons for all? I might push for one of those "cooling off" waiting periods on the nukes, myself.

I'm with you on this one; maybe a background check too.

There have been countless studies which show that gun laws DO NOT lower crimes committed with firearms.

additionally, Semi automatic weapons are no more deadly than any other weapon. The Colorado shooter could just as easily used the bombs he rigged in his apartment to blow up the entire movie theater. These people want to hurt, kill, and terrorize. You can not stop them by limiting access to a few types or firearms.

Originally Posted by Groth

There have been countless studies which show that gun laws DO NOT lower crimes committed with firearms.

Indeed it has.
And then again, others show quite the opposite.

To quote one of the justices, Stephen G. Beyer, at the US supreme court a few yers back:

“The upshot is a set of studies and counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusion.”

That is all true, and I dig ... I am interested in fatal crimes though and i don't think there are any studies that support maintaining them.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Indeed it has.
And then again, others show quite the opposite.

To quote one of the justices, Stephen G. Beyer, at the US supreme court a few yers back:

“The upshot is a set of studies and counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusion.”

Originally Posted by Groth

There have been countless studies which show that gun laws DO NOT lower crimes committed with firearms.

additionally, Semi automatic weapons are no more deadly than any other weapon. The Colorado shooter could just as easily used the bombs he rigged in his apartment to blow up the entire movie theater. These people want to hurt, kill, and terrorize. You can not stop them by limiting access to a few types or firearms.

But surely you can mitigate the *severity* of the carnage? I mean, if guns were not one of the most efficient, useful and easy methods of killing things, why are they still being manufactured? I'd like to have seen this nutjob do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time with a knife, for example. Bombs? Sure, bombs will do the trick, but it is my understanding that you have to have a certain level of knowledge and skill to set up bombs and not kill yourself doing so (probably can google it nowadays, but still...). Seems to me anyone can pull a trigger with little to no prior knowledge.

And before we get too carried away with "studies that show...." I'd like a good look at their funding sources and credentials please, because the argument is illogical. Less guns through gun control has to, by definition, reduce *gun crime* as there are less of them. The fact that it might not is nothing to do with the gun control law, and everything to do with the (lack of, or inept) policing of that law.

James.

Gun control laws in the U.S? That's just a strawman argument folks like to make to "prove" these laws don't work. I grew up in NYC which has a law saying you use a handgun and it's prison automatically. Yet NYC has a huge murder rate and guns can be had on the streets. I don't know now but it used to be you couldn't buy a handgun in NYC except for a couple places near the old Police headquarters that catered to law Enforcement.

All you have to do it take a bus to the City Line in Queens County and walk to one of the biggest gun stores you'll find anywhere and get anything you want and bring it back into the city.

Just look at how many folks are murdered by handguns in the UK or Canada as compared to the U.S for an answer to that question.

I think the question you should ask yourself is this.

If you had the knowledge to use a handgun safely, would you have wanted to have one that night when you were sitting at the theater with your family as a random stranger started shooting at you?

I know I would. I can not say with any certainty it would have changed anything, but i know i would have had a much better chance of surviving it, and possibly saving lives.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I am quite happy that you pointed out all of the gun crime cases in the UK ... I think the character limit would kick in if you did the same for the countries where civilians are allowed to carry weapons. You don't have to believe me, and I don't really care whether you do or not because my character doesn't change that my facts are correct. In general when a debator starts questioning anothers integrity they know they are wrong. I didn't have a "tirade", I wasn't angry nor criticizing anyone/anything. I merely pointed out the facts.

The BBC don't show Coronation street that is ITV. Derrick Bird was licensed to carry weapons, as was Robert Ryan (Hungerford), note that these are the only examples of such a thing happening in a very long time. Proving my point that when people have access to ballistic weapons ... killing many people is much easier.

I don't appreciate personal slurs in a debate between equals.

You seem to have missed my point. Gun laws don't stop gun crime, as I proved wih my example, and that you have backed up in your own quote. As for people having access to ballistic weapons, I may partly answer that in my response to Jimbo.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I don't use guns, well I have used air rifles so that's a lie kind of, but why do you need an AR to hunt with? I don't know much about which guns do what so if it's obvious I apologise for my ignorance. My understanding is that you want one bullet for one animal, to prevent animals scattering?

I suggest you get a hunter/ target shooters point of view then and become a hunter/shooter for a while. However others have made the point for the use of these firearms. I agree it is very much need specific, but I can tell you right now, a semi auto would be very much the firearm of choice for professional shooters culling animals in large numbers. My uncle is a 'roo shooter. He's taken visiting foriegners out with him on occassion. Some of these people have come from countries where gun violence is known as rife. His skill level with a bolt action rifle has given them a sense of respect for what a skilled shooter can do with basic equipment. Evfen coming from a gun voilence culture they have come to realise that most people with guns are inept in the actual use of them. Many people would never hope to achieve that level of skill of course. Just imagine then how much better he would be, financially (remember this is a job for him), if he had access to a semi automatic.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Oh I know it's not about hunting, that's kind of what I disagree with, may be biased being a Brit lol

I agree

Originally Posted by Jimbo

But surely you can mitigate the *severity* of the carnage? I mean, if guns were not one of the most efficient, useful and easy methods of killing things, why are they still being manufactured? I'd like to have seen this nutjob do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time with a knife, for example. Bombs? Sure, bombs will do the trick, but it is my understanding that you have to have a certain level of knowledge and skill to set up bombs and not kill yourself doing so (probably can google it nowadays, but still...). Seems to me anyone can pull a trigger with little to no prior knowledge.

And before we get too carried away with "studies that show...." I'd like a good look at their funding sources and credentials please, because the argument is illogical. Less guns through gun control has to, by definition, reduce *gun crime* as there are less of them. The fact that it might not is nothing to do with the gun control law, and everything to do with the (lack of, or inept) policing of that law.

James.

James, you would think so wouldn't you. I would have thought so too. However gun control needs to come in another form. In Australia illegal firearm inports are rife. Where do they come from?! Well many come in from Pakistan. Who has access to these firearms?! Criminals of course. These firearms are brilliantly made copies of the original manufactuers firearms.
Gun control needs to start with Border Security and keeping the illegally imported firearms out of the criminals hands. Another country where illegal firearm imports are rife is the UK, and the same can be said of the US.
Have laws ever prevented the im[port, manufacture, sale and use of illegal drugs?! No, barely a dent is made in this trade regardless of laws. Do you or I use drugs?! Well I doubt you do, knowing you as much as I do. You might, but I strongly doubt it. Do I?! No I don't, and never will. It is more a case of attitude towards the subject. Would I use a firearm in a criminal way?! No! The mere thoguht of going into a Gaol filled full of blokes built like you scares the bejeezus outta me! That of itself is enough to keep honest people like me on the straight and narrow.


Mick

Let's set the record straight here ok...

He did set up bombs, and a fairly inticate detonation system, so yes that would have been a viable option for this particular wack job...

It took City, State, and the Feds 2 days to take his contraptions apart, so let's put that back on the table...


Also it sounds as if the media even Fox is playing the "Armor Piercing Rounds" card, I am calling BS on that statement, I very very very seriously doubt that he was shooting Teflon Coated bullets, or Tungsten Core Black Tips... I could be wrong and this guy had deep pockets...

Originally Posted by Jimbo

But surely you can mitigate the *severity* of the carnage? I mean, if guns were not one of the most efficient, useful and easy methods of killing things, why are they still being manufactured? I'd like to have seen this nutjob do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time with a knife, for example. Bombs? Sure, bombs will do the trick, but it is my understanding that you have to have a certain level of knowledge and skill to set up bombs and not kill yourself doing so (probably can google it nowadays, but still...). Seems to me anyone can pull a trigger with little to no prior knowledge.

And before we get too carried away with "studies that show...." I'd like a good look at their funding sources and credentials please, because the argument is illogical. Less guns through gun control has to, by definition, reduce *gun crime* as there are less of them. The fact that it might not is nothing to do with the gun control law, and everything to do with the (lack of, or inept) policing of that law.

James.

You can get all the knowledge to make quite efficient bombs with about 1 hour of searching the internet. It's all out there. Primers, boosters, timers, and formulas. The only problem is not blowing yourself up brewing the mixtures.