Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

The ONLY ppl that should have automatic weapons are the Military and ETF (also known as Swat). I cant think of any other reason someone should have one.

For some reason these kind of threads get my blood boiling and im sure im not the only one. The funny thing is im a fellow gun owner.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

That's where you're wrong ... There are raids on a monthly basis here in the UK where people who have purchased those things are being arrested. Some say we are watched too much, I like to think it is just enough

wow i remember on youtube i guy dressed up in a alien costume walking around one of those cameras in england the cop saw him and came over to harass him. you guys just dont know how much freedom you have lost under the watchful eye of the government!

Originally Posted by TrilliumLT

The ONLY ppl that should have automatic weapons are the Military and ETF (also known as Swat). I cant think of any other reason someone should have one.

Well those zombies aren't going to kill themselves...they're already dead. 19 pages so far and this is the first mention of zombies in a serious conversation, come on guys we're slipping. Now back to the discussion.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Something needs to be done,have not a clue as to what tho

That pretty much says it all . I don't think there is anything you can do , to guarantee something like this won't happen .

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

First of all, In a country of people where they all have guns, don't you think ammunition would be inherently cheaper? It sure does make sense. Also, the poverty rate is only 6.9 percent. Not that high.

Second, I don't see why the government should control who is getting the guns, because criminals will get guns either way, so the only people you are limiting are the people who want to buy guns legally.

Parker

I'm not seeing your argument here mate. My point was that Switzerland has a low poverty rate and low social issues and that is likely the reason for low gun crime not the availability of weapons or ammo. Also my information on the ownership of militia weapons was to directly refute the point that arming a society makes it safer as people in Swtzerland aren't actually provided any ammo on a holding basis by the militia.

And your second argument holds no real water. If you give anyone weapons without checks then essentially anyone with a criminal intent or who happens to be batshit crazy can go buy a gun. Making sure there are checks in place does two things

1. Makes it more likely those with firearms are sane and trustworthy for want of a better term.
2. Makes it a little bit harder for criminals and those who are batshit crazy to get them.

Geek

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review

That's the document the data came from, the page shows a couple of thousand fewer than the figure above for an earlier year. the number grows year on year with the population.

I read the document you posted, it does have a lot of inaccuracies, along with a lot of truths. It IS true that if you have a gun you are less likely to become the victim of successful crime, but you are also more likely to die in a criminal attempt. There are lots of reasons to allow gun carriage, and lots to deny it. I think that following my life here in the UK, I am a little fearful of moving to the USA with my fiance. My primary reason for this is that people are allowed to carry firearms, and I don't know when I will be able to defend myself. Here if somebody tried to mug me I would most definitely ensure that didn't happen. How do I know if the person has a gun or not when I am in the states?

According to this website, US and UK murder – rate and weapon | Flesh is Grass , the USA has ~ a 5x greater murder rate. A huge part of me wonders if this is because of how vast the country is, or because of gun laws. I am a sensible guy, intelligent, so I am not one to think in a one dimensional manner. I understand the varying influences on a countries crime statistics. I don't know what it is like to own a gun, so I don't know the attachment you can have to it. I do know what these figures tell me, and I can only see a few variables.

I know that there are people here in the UK that own guns, both legally and illegally. There aren't many gun related deaths, in fact if there is one it makes national news. I like to think that by restricting gun ownership, that goes a long way to protecting me. My fate is effectively in my hands, unless someone pulls a gun on me then I'm screwed.

Thank you for the link. AS that data is over 10 years old I have no idea whether the numbers are up or down. I did see this after reading a bit further into the article.

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per yea

I've been to the UK. I enjoyed every second of it. However, I was informed one evening in Dublin, that I was going the "wrong" direction. I was informed that if I continued my journey in the direction I was headed that I would more than likely get robbed and beaten. I took the advice and changed my course. I'm not stupid enough to think that EVERYTHING is rosy anywhere.

In my travels, I've been robbed and beaten. There were also other attempts that were unsuccessful. I've stated elsewhere in this forum that I no longer carry a pistol. Reason being it that along with the hodgepodge of businesses that can legally negate the law and make you a criminal for entering their business armed, carrying a pistol is a pain in the butt. That being said, I am convinced that if I had not been carrying at the time the unsuccessful attempts on my person were made, that I would have successfully robbed, and or stabbed and beaten, or worse. All of my incidents took place long before cell phones were invented and it was pretty much me or "them". I'm here able to relate this and unless they have since met up with somebody less tolerant than I am, they can relate their side of the story about trying out the wrong guy.

I admire your confidence in your abilities. I do not go to places that I think there is a possibility of problems. In a past lifestyle, I had no choice a lot of the times. Just remember, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

You can throw all the documents on the planet supporting your view at me. They will not change my convictions. I would ask that before you confer judgement on me or anyone else with my views, that you walk a few miles in our shoes. Also, bear in mind that at the moment, our firearms are still legal.

I have also not read anywhere (and hope I didn't miss it if it was written) that anyone from the US ranting about the fact that the UK or anywhere else have such restrictive firearms laws and they need to be changed.

I will continue to be a "bitter clinger" to quote the words of the person currently sitting in the white house.

It is interesting how we are influenced by media, movies and politicians. Many more people are kill every year by drunk drivers and no one calls for banning cars or alcohol. In fact, we put even faster cars in the hands of untrained children drivers and call to legalize more intoxicants. So unskilled driving, rich kid singers can endanger more lives with their 4 wheeled rocket ships at over 100 miles per hour and get off with a speeding ticket. Why is there no uproar? Studies have shown 95% of all crime is alcohol related, ask any cop it is probably higher. Ban alcohol… nope, we tried that once.

Full auto weapons are not the danger movies would have you believe. After the first round, the rest will go over the target unless the shooter is exceptionally well trained. That someone with a fully automatic weapon could mow down hundreds of people is pure movie fiction.

Recently a few years ago here in Southern California we had a major wildfire. Our neighborhood was evacuated. My neighbor and I were the only ones that remained. The fire did burn to the bottom of the hill that backs up to our property. In 4 days we did not see a police car or officer. We did see people that did not live in our neighborhood driving trucks and vans cruising the streets, having somehow breaching the police roadblocks a mile away. They left quickly, perhaps the AK on a 3 point sling may have had something to do with it. None of our neighbor’s homes were broken into during the event.

Having investigated hundreds of homicides in one of America’s most violent cities, I never investigated a death caused by a fully automatic weapon… all… all were alcohol related though. Yea, banning guns will fix the problem.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

The true shame in this fiasco is that Colorado is a right to carry state, so why did no one stop this madman, because the theater had a no guns allowed policy. They insured that their patrons would be victims, one armed citizen could have put quick end to the "Massacre" but instead of "an armed society being a polite society", many in our society insist on disarmament of the lawful citizen in favor of them being prey for the ruthless and insane. How many dead and how many wounded for the sake of someone elses whimsical view of a perfect world?

The theatre had a no guns policy. Also, the guy dumped a canister of tear gas and it took a while for people to realize what was really happening. The only possibility would have been an attack from behind assuming guns were allowed in the theatre.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

"The government will get their lives before their freedom."

I think this kind of says it all. Is taking away their guns really taking away their freedom. Think of the masses that won't go out at night for fear of being killed in the inner cities. Surely those people have had their freedom taken away by the government already. Freedom is a term I see banded around a lot by Americans. From an outsiders perspective, there are greater things to fight over than the "freedom" to carry weapons.

Americans overthrew tyranny and formed their own society. I am not a big fan of that society as I see it as a different kind of tyranny but at least regular citizens had the ability to take action and throw off the yoke. They are still better able to do the same than most countries in the world. Even in my lifetime, I have seen people with hunting rifles and service sidearms protecting the polls from corrupt cops and other goons in ridings not covered by foreign observers. Why do you think the dictatorship in question won the "fair and impartial" elections in all rural ridings other than those where the citizens banded together and protected the polls? (by the way, the dictatorship lost most of the urban ridings too as they were swarmed by foreign observers, but they Gerrymandered their way into making 80% of the popular vote irrelevant)

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Let's face facts, bombs are difficult to make, require prior knowledge or training and take a heck of a lot of effort.

Buddy, Uncle Sam's Terrorist and Fascist Guerilla Training Manual (Improvised Munitions Handbook) is in public domain and easily accessible for download. It teaches you all about making explosives from common household items and you can even use stuff like chickpeas in water as a timing device. It's not that difficult. The difference is, that law abiding citizens won't make any of that stuff where illegal to do so and will only find safe and productive uses for it, where it's legal (blowing tree stumps or excavating or even just for entertainment, as long as they do it safely).

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Yeah, it makes sense to monitor these sorts of purchases, and fertiliser, etc. We have all suffered too much with terrorist bombings, etc.

Yeah, listening in on our phone conversations, routine reading of our e-mails, social media crawlers, vans xraying our houses are not enough.. We need more government surveillance Where there is a will, there is a way and a security theater won't prevent it. Law abiding citizens will keep obeying the laws and criminals/wackoids will keep trying to hurt other people.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Yeah? Do you get searched?

Why would you get searched? A law-abiding gun owner will respect the property rights of the theater owner. A criminal will find a way to get a gun in there regardless of the search policy.

Edit: Just a note on my political leanings.. I'm a socialist in a true sense (meaning that I consider the initiative that private enterprise brings to the society indispensable - I just don't think they should be allowed to run the country and/or replace key public institutions) and a liberal. I just believe that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves, go hunting or get involved in shooting sports. Criminals willing to commit armed robbery, rape and murder don't care if there are gun laws in place.

While this discussion pertains to the incident in Colorado, I feel that I must mention the incident that took place in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

ALL of the regulations in place will not stop a determined individual.

I've also lost count of the rising death toll in the "drug wars" along our Southern border. In case you're unaware, Mexico has very restrictive firearms laws, yet there are a LOT of full auto weapons in play down there.

Everyone worries about the criminals getting guns. Make stiffer laws that address this. If a guy commits a crime with an ilegeal weapon than he rides the bus straight to the gas chamber... Desperate measures during desperate times.. When there is a cancer, the doctor must cut it out for the body to survive... People need to convey that to their politicians. .. If not, the cancer will continue to infect the rest of the body... It's not rocket gynocology....Sorry for the mispellings i am on the ipad..