By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bouzane on 14 January 2013
Edit Thread
timmah said:
kain_kusanagi said:
pokoko said:
Shotguns and normal rifles aren't a problem and have never been a problem. They are useful tools with purposes other than killing people. No one is seriously considering taking these weapons away from the public.

 

 

As a long time gun owner, who has never harmed anyone, I can assure you that there is no different between what you call a "normal rifle" and for example an AR-15, which is the semi-automatic version of the military's M16. The serve the same purpose and you can hunt with both. A hunting rifle usually comes with a wood stock, but you can get synthetic black stocks with folding stocks, extended magazines/clips, and any kind of optics you could want. You can make a hunting rifle purchased from Wal-Mart look just like the scary guns from blockbuster movies and COD. You can also buy a Mini-14 which is just the "ranch" version of the AR-15 which like I said is the civilian version of the M16. The Mini-14 fires the same ammo, from the same size magazines, but it comes with a wood stock and looks like a hunting rifle.

But then again maybe you're talking about handguns. Handguns are tools too. Very important tools. If you have a permit you can protect yourself and your family from dangerous people who would kill you for your shoes. Or you could be like me and enjoying target shooting with a 9mm because it's fun and a very practical hobby.

Again as a long time gun owner of both shotguns, rifles, and handguns I have never harmed anyone. My guns are locked up so no visitors or their kids could cause an accident.

If your problem is that guns were designed for "killing people" as you put, I suggest you read up on the history of a great many technologies and their origin. The Military is responsible for the computer you are typing on and the internet you are posting on. The first real computers were designed for calculating long range trajectory so ships could drop shells on other ships fill with people. Computers were designed for killing people. But like guns, computers have other uses too. Some people choose to use computers to do harm just as some people choose to use guns to do others harm. Those people are called criminals and no law has ever stopped a criminal from breaking the law. Criminals commit crimes, that is what makes them criminals. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens cannot stop criminals from committing crimes. Take a look at the international murder rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The USA shows up at 4.8 out of over 100,000 people. The USA is about in the middle to lower half of murder rates. Many countries with higher rates have gun bans.

Scary guns with black stocks aren't causing crime. Scary criminals cause crime.

 

Very well said... I agree with you 100%. What gets me is that the knee-jerk reaction is to ban the so-called assault weapons because they look scary, even though a very small portion of overall gun violence is committed with these weapons. In fact, more murders are committed with bats and other such blunt instruments than with 'assault weapons' each year in the U.S. The irony is, legislation like what is being proposed would have done absolutely nothing to preven the recent mass shootings and will only impact law abiding citizens. Do people really think criminals get their guns through legal channels? In the most recent tragedy, Adam Lanza stole his mother's guns (illegal), killed his mother (illegal), stole her car (illegal), broke into the school (illegal), then proceeded to commit a horrible act (also illegal), as we both know, laws do not prevent criminals from doing illegal things. Adam had multiple handguns on his person, does anybody out there actually think the results would have been different with multiple handguns vs a scary looking rifle? As you said, the problem is the sick individuals. Case in point would be the mass stabbing that took place at a school in China recently.

Also, what's with the term 'assault weapon', anyway? Any gun shoots a deadly projectile and can be used in an assault, so the term is just silly in my opinion. It's not like shotguns shoot happy unicorn love dust or magic jelly beans, LOL. You'd probably have a better chance of surviving the .223 caliber round from an AR-15 than a blast from a 12-guage. An AR-15 is actually great for shooting vermin on a farm, but not great for deer hunting because the round is too small. It's also an excellent choice for target shooting.


The term assault rifle dates back to the STG-44. Being one of the first rifles to allow for fully-automatic fire, the STG-44 was designed to storm (or assault) buildings and fortified locations. Also, you would be far, far more likely to survive being shot by a .223 calibur round than anything fired from a 12 guage. Both buckshot and slugs have vastly superior ballistics in soft tissue and about double the potential energy to impart. Also, consider the fact that buckshot would create multiple channel wounds, up to 10 in the case of 00 buck.