Reply With Quote
dmc going HAM in here
Qualified on M-16 several times when I was in the military. Never qualified as "expert". Never cared, really.
We were taught they removed full auto from M-16 during Vietnam and switched to three round burst.
I never even fired it in "three round burst" mode. Only in semi-automatic mode.
Didnt even bother reading rest of your stuff since your first sentence was incorrect.
dmc going HAM in here
Still waiting on answer (or non answer) to this one.
Ergo you've have no idea what you are talking about even though your military superiors did (which is why they had you qualify in semi).
Paper commandos
And I'd be right, since this is indeed a state issue whether you'd like it to be or not, tbh.....
I'm not saying it's causation, but I think it definitely is an influence. I'm not even entirely sure of exactly where I stand in this issue, but I lean towards the side that there are certain firearms we should not be legally allowed to buy or own. I'm not looking for a scapegoat either, that goes against my thought process.
Dude bought everything legally.
Didn't work last time.
Banning the sale of them just means the current ones become more expensive, it doesn't mean they go away. Even years after the previous ban, it was easy to get high capacity magazines.
With shotguns, you just remove the plug and you have an up to 8 round weapon, and riot guns have long tubes and they are easily accessible.
Not surprised a sleazy politician would use this event to get his name in the paper trying to "stop it from happening again". If he was serious, he would go for a gun ban, but he likes his job too much so he's offering a feel good placebo to get votes.
Context: you were talking about fully automatic weapons. Keep it in line, stop floundering.Dude bought everything legally.
firearms as a deterent:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...obbery-victims
Crime Statistics > Robbery victims (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version
Bar Graph Map Correlations
Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Poland: 1.8%
# 2 Italy: 1.3%
= 3 Australia: 1.2%
= 3 United Kingdom: 1.2%
= 5 France: 1.1%
= 5 Portugal: 1.1%
= 5 Slovenia: 1.1%
# 8 Belgium: 1%
= 9 Sweden: 0.9%
= 9 Canada: 0.9%
# 11 Netherlands: 0.8%
= 12 New Zealand: 0.7%
= 12 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 0.7%
Crime in Saint Kitts and Nevis
= 12 Denmark: 0.7%
= 12 Switzerland: 0.7%
= 16 Finland: 0.6%
= 16 United States: 0.6%
# 18 Malta: 0.4%
# 19 Austria: 0.2%
# 20 Japan: 0.1%
In the US, you are much less likely to get robbed thanks to civilian gun ownership. Criminals like to pick easy targets. If crime rates are so high here, why is robbery so low? It seems that we are a violent population full of people who would rather find an easy victim looking at those numbers.
You just said that it would only be more expensive if he bought a fully automatic legally.
I just said he bought all his guns legally, thus if he wanted to buy one, it probably would have cost him more money.
Seriously, bro?
At the bottom of that list I found this interesting:
DEFINITION: People victimized by robbery (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.
And that is true. He could construct a fully automatic rifle for about the same price he paid for some of the things he had. He wasn't trying to be legal, in case you didn't notice.
He bought his car legally too.I just said he bought all his guns legally, thus if he wanted to buy one, it probably would have cost him more money.
We've come full circle. Do you think it should be illegal to have access to anything you can use to kill other people? Answer that without floundering.Seriously, bro?
The argument was that fully automatic weapons are not desired by people planning on killing as many as they can. As you saw in Norway, one man with a sniper rifle can do a lot of damage. As you saw in VA Tech, handguns can take a load as well if the shooter isn't scared to die and the victims are afraid or unable to defend themselves. Whether the guns are legal or not, the act of killing people is not.
Being pussy sure is working out well for the Brits
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html
Also from the article..it seems that when you look at ALL violent crimes not just murders but burglaries, assaults, and robberies, pacifist britain has it even worse than we do.The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By JAMES SLACK
UPDATED: 18:14 EST, 2 July 2009
Comments (0)
Share
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.
Britain has an even worse violence rate than South Africa (file picture)
The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.
More...
Hindley on the Moors, a chilling snapshot that closes the book on 45-year search for young victim
Biggs WILL die in jail: Straw overturns parole board's decision to free train robber - because he's never shown remorse
'We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction.'
The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.
But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.
New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.
There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.
Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.
But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.
'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'
The timing of the Europe-wide violence figures is a blow for Mr Johnson, who will today seek to reassert Labour's law and order credentials.
In his first major speech on crime since becoming Home Secretary, Mr Johnson is expected to promise a concerted crack down on antisocial behaviour.
He wants to set up a website to allow the public to see what is taking place in their neighbourhood, such as the number of louts who have been served with Asbos.
Mr Johnson is also known to support early intervention to stop children going off the rails.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz21VSHv82e
I've been there. I wouldn't die to protect that Ikea ty furniture either, and if one got their teeth knocked out, they just saved a bundle on orthodontics, plus if their hairy ass women get raped, they often have to chase the perp to pay him.Being pussy sure is working out well for the Brits
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html
Also from the article..it seems that when you look at ALL violent crimes not just murders but burglaries, assaults, and robberies, pacifist britain has it even worse than we do.
They only report it for bragging rights.
They are legal dip with the proper permit/tax stamp
If you think the results of the Aurora shootings were bad, wait til you see what happens when uncle sames tries to ram a gun ban down our throat. There will be blood.
There would be a few isolated incidents but all in all, no one would do anything because fat sheep don't rebel.
There are plenty of former military who would step to the plate myself included.
WTF would you do other than get yourself killed?
DMC has actually revealed something tonight. Want to beat a gun advocate in this argument? Its easy and I will show you how. Gun advocates have a major, major weakness.
Their whole argument is based on the idea that "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Their kryptonite, however, is the fully-automatic weapons ban enacted in 1986. They are scared to death to discuss whether or not the FULLY automatic weapons "ban" should be lifted.The reason being any SANE person would be against allowing manufacturers to create and sell state-of-the art, fully automatics to the general public, right? Too dangerous for public use, right?
But if they admit that fully automatics are "too dangerous", then they have to admit that they understand the CONCEPT that "some weapons are inherently more dangerous than others".
Why would they be against admitting this? Because if they agree with the statement "all weapons are not created equal", then they cant "play dumb".
They cant pretend that a person with knives, swords, swimming pools etc is just as dangerous as a person with semi-automatics and assault rifles. You make them admit that theyre not as dumb as they pretend to be, and their whole argument falls apart.
This is why DMC ran for the hills when I pressed him and pressed him on the fully automatic weapons ban. His dodging of the question was epic. Instead of answering the question, he made fun of Walmart guns, my shooting experience, THE SUNS (seriously), denied that ban even existed etc.
Basically, he would talk about ANYTHING except whether or not they Hyde amendment should be lifted.
It gets better: When he FINALLY decided that I'd embarrassed him enough, he replied "I hope not (ban get lifted), it would devalue the fully automatics I currently own (since regulation has made fully automatics extremely rare)".
Thus, he reveals that what he actually cares about is his current gun collection. All that other stuff...the swimming pools and cars being dangerous...its all bull . The only thing gun advocates care about is their guns. They just dont have the guts to actually SAY IT because they know it makes them sound like assholes.
So they "play dumb" and tell themselves nonsense about how regulations dont work and people are just as dangerous with swords, swimming pools as they are with assault rifles.
So thats it. Get them to admit that fully automatics or bombs or missile launchers are too dangerous for public use and their whole argument falls apart.
Yo Heath, do you think that the 1986 Ban/Restriction on fully automatics should be lifted?
Bump. Dont want people to miss out.
Yo Heath, do you think that the 1986 Ban/Restriction on fully automatics should be lifted?
Sure why not. With a thorough background check, psych eval, and proper training with the weapon.
You people talking all of this about guns are ridiculous. You have a better chance of being eaten alive by a shark than being injured or killed in shooting like the one in Aurora.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions