Just watch the repercussions of the Tucson shooting

[87manche]

T
Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle and served to popularize the concept. The translation “assault rifle” gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the name giver StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

A side note

I got to finger an original German MP44 the other day. Presented to a friends grandfather by Eisenhower at the end of the war.

Sadly it had been made non-op before presentation, but it was still a way cool piece of history that I never figured I'd ever see in person. It was heavy. Still had all of it's nazi crests intact.

 

[iwannadie]

Just to play devil's advocate -- if you need an assault rifle to protect your home than might I suggest you're living in the wrong neighborhood. Alternatively, if you need a high capacity magazine to take down a deer than maybe there's something seriously wrong with your aim.

There has been a problem here with native american gangs. The gangs are targeting higher class/retirement communities. They are doing gang initiations making each member rob a house, steal a car and shoot someone in the daylight and then at night. They supposedly show up in large numbers not a single person.

Crime is not isolated to poor areas, criminals tend to want to steal nice things so they go to nice neighborhoods. If 2 or 3 people break into my home with the intent to kill me as part of their initiation I would rather have more ammo than not enough. In a stress situation I am not hoping to get 1 shot kills after all no matter how good of a shot I am with paper. Having 18 rounds in my pistol is not an act of terrorism or anything that should be illegal in my opinion, it is me protecting my family. Having my ar15 with 30 round magazines also boost my confidence. Why should the govt. tell me that I am only allowed 10 rounds to protect my life? Based on what information is less ammo in my gun good for me when my life is in danger? Don't tell me I can have multiple magazines because reloading in a stress situation takes time and could cost my life.

I'm glad in canada you can leave your doors open or have no thought of stuff being stolen if left outside. Canada is nice I've been there but it's not the same here. I've lived in some of the worst crime areas in the country and now live in a rather nice area. I still feel safer having the best means available to defend myself and family. I should not have a limited govt. approved version while criminals have me out armed.

 

[87manche]

well stated Iwanna

I live in a rural community, it's a nice place, violent crime is almost non existent.

there's still a 12Ga pump shotgun that lives behind my nightstand.

Being prepared /= being paranoid or living in fear.

 

[XJEEPER]

LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which
I quote:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same
period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and
killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws
in the U.S., than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

 

[old_man]

LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which
I quote:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same
period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and
killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws
in the U.S., than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

That is priceless.

 

[kastein]

much as I would like to agree with you on that one, that has already been proven false... http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/gun-deaths-joke.htm

 

[Jeepman401]

True, but that article isn't 100% correct either. They use the number of troops in Iraq, however the number is larger, as troops rotate through. I don't think it would work out to be less than DC, but the number would be lower.

 

[Ralph]

The point is that even with restrictive gun control laws, criminals still murder people.

 

[urban yan]

There has been a problem here with native american gangs. The gangs are targeting higher class/retirement communities. They are doing gang initiations making each member rob a house, steal a car and shoot someone in the daylight and then at night. They supposedly show up in large numbers not a single person.

Crime is not isolated to poor areas, criminals tend to want to steal nice things so they go to nice neighborhoods. If 2 or 3 people break into my home with the intent to kill me as part of their initiation I would rather have more ammo than not enough. In a stress situation I am not hoping to get 1 shot kills after all no matter how good of a shot I am with paper. Having 18 rounds in my pistol is not an act of terrorism or anything that should be illegal in my opinion, it is me protecting my family. Having my ar15 with 30 round magazines also boost my confidence. Why should the govt. tell me that I am only allowed 10 rounds to protect my life? Based on what information is less ammo in my gun good for me when my life is in danger? Don't tell me I can have multiple magazines because reloading in a stress situation takes time and could cost my life.

I'm glad in canada you can leave your doors open or have no thought of stuff being stolen if left outside. Canada is nice I've been there but it's not the same here. I've lived in some of the worst crime areas in the country and now live in a rather nice area. I still feel safer having the best means available to defend myself and family. I should not have a limited govt. approved version while criminals have me out armed.

You make excellent points, but I have to be honest with you -- I have a very difficult time accepting the only solution to gun crimes is more guns. It sounds like an ever-escalading arms-race between honest folks and criminals.

I have to believe there must be another option.

 

[Ralph]

You make excellent points, but I have to be honest with you -- I have a very difficult time accepting the only solution to gun crimes is more guns. It sounds like an ever-escalading arms-race between honest folks and criminals.

I have to believe there must be another option.

Disarming the honest folks is not the solution. We would be better served by trying to eliminate the cause of so much crime. I'm talking about the drug trade. By decriminalizing or legalizing drugs you cut a huge source of crime off at the knees. It is also obvious from the drug trade that prohibitions do not work. A prohibition on firearms would be no different.

 

[XJEEPER]

Disarming the honest folks is not the solution. We would be better served by trying to eliminate the cause of so much crime. I'm talking about the drug trade. By decriminalizing or legalizing drugs you cut a huge source of crime off at the knees. It is also obvious from the drug trade that prohibitions do not work. A prohibition on firearms would be no different.

Got any historical proof that legalizing drugs will lead to a "huge" reduction in gun related violent crimes? :dunno:

 

[kastein]

Got any historical proof that legalizing drugs will lead to a "huge" reduction in gun related violent crimes? :dunno:

Take a good look at Prohibition for a solid example.

All banning alcohol got us was the Kennedys, the birth of organized crime in America, and an awful lot of gang shootouts.

All the drug war is getting us is the Mexican mafia, strengthened street gangs and Italian mafia, and a lot more gun crime, as well as destroying patches of national forestland where the criminals (many of them illegals as well) grow the drugs on our own soil.

Legalize drugs, legalize guns... and hold those who abuse them responsible for their actions.

I should note that I have no interest in drugs, even legally prescribed ones (I hate painkillers, didn't even take them when I was given a massive prescription for oxycodone/oxycontin after my wisdom tooth removal), and will continue to not do drugs even if they are legalized. That doesn't change my belief that making drugs illegal is a terrible decision and doesn't stop anyone from doing anything.

 

[XJEEPER]

And the USA would be much better off if folks could buy pot, coke, crack, heroin and meth at the local 7-11......legally?

NO SALE.

 

[kastein]

I'm still on the fence about the hard drugs, to be honest, so I won't argue your point there.

As for pot, some of the smartest most balanced individuals I know smoke it. Some of the dumbest, most exasperating idiots I know also smoke it. They were all smart (or dumb) before they started, too.

Either way, no number of laws is going to keep someone from doing drugs if they intend to. The only difference is who gets the money and how well it's controlled, hell, legalize it and tax the crap out of it for all I care.

 

[iwannadie]

You make excellent points, but I have to be honest with you -- I have a very difficult time accepting the only solution to gun crimes is more guns. It sounds like an ever-escalading arms-race between honest folks and criminals.

I have to believe there must be another option.

I don't see it as an arms race. I think criminals will always have guns there's no changing that so it's not a race. There will never be a time when honest people have better guns or more capable guns. Any gun I can get there will be someone who wants to break the law and have it too. It's not a situation of gun crimes just means more guns to solve it.

It's a case of allowing people to defend themselves against violent crimes be it guns, knives, bats or whatever else. Allow the normal law abiding citizen the means to best defend themselves plain and simple.

If there is a better option we certainly don't have it as much as people want to believe it exists. We should not make law abiding normal citizens incapable of defending themselves now with the hope that a better solution will come later on. Removing the guns from normal citizens now is doing nothing to help them that much should be clear.

Save the hope of everyone holding hands for the future, I'm worried about my safety today.

/opinions

 

[iwannadie]

I'm still on the fence about the hard drugs, to be honest, so I won't argue your point there.

As for pot, some of the smartest most balanced individuals I know smoke it. Some of the dumbest, most exasperating idiots I know also smoke it. They were all smart (or dumb) before they started, too.

Either way, no number of laws is going to keep someone from doing drugs if they intend to. The only difference is who gets the money and how well it's controlled, hell, legalize it and tax the crap out of it for all I care.

I'll start off with, I don't smoke marijuana because it is illegal(although I did when I was younger). I do think it should be legal though. It's illegal because it's a cash cow for the govt. Marijuana and alcohol are no different no matter what people want to argue, they are both mind altering drugs. People want to believe that one is some how worse than the other. They each have people who can function just fine using them and people that abuse them. It is also something that no matter how illegal will always exist and have a user base.

If marijuana were made legal a huge number of petty criminals who's only crime is marijuana possession would not be in jail. Police would not be spending resources on stopping it's use. The smuggling from mexico and funding foreign criminals would stop. Violent drug smugglers and dealers would be cut down.

Treat it like alcohol with age limits, even require a license for it, make money off the license, punish the abusers and everyone would be happy.

 

[87manche]

I don't see it as an arms race. I think criminals will always have guns there's no changing that so it's not a race. There will never be a time when honest people have better guns or more capable guns. Any gun I can get there will be someone who wants to break the law and have it too. It's not a situation of gun crimes just means more guns to solve it.

It's a case of allowing people to defend themselves against violent crimes be it guns, knives, bats or whatever else. Allow the normal law abiding citizen the means to best defend themselves plain and simple.

If there is a better option we certainly don't have it as much as people want to believe it exists. We should not make law abiding normal citizens incapable of defending themselves now with the hope that a better solution will come later on. Removing the guns from normal citizens now is doing nothing to help them that much should be clear.

Save the hope of everyone holding hands for the future, I'm worried about my safety today.

/opinions

"like"

 

[old_man]

I have to believe there must be another option.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy also?

Nobody has yet come up with a reasonable and workable answer.

 

[XJEEPER]

Let me get this straight.....legalizing all harmful, addictive, mind-altering, behavior-modifying, brain-damaging substances will reduce crime?

Perfect solution, however our DUI rates would then skyrocket, but we could simply hold the auto manufacturers liable because they built the assault weapons.

While we're at it, let's legalize rape and murder too, this will dramatically reduce our violent crime statistics.

 

[kastein]

I never said legalize driving under the influence of them.

Want to compare DUI rates with and without prohibition? I'd bet they will be statistically equivalent.

I can't quite figure out how you are logical enough to agree that guns should be legal and those who abuse them are the problem and should be held responsible for their actions, and will continue to own guns whether they are legal or not, but somehow can't understand that making drugs legal and driving while under the influence of them illegal somehow is the same thing. We know prohibition simply does not work, it's been tried and failed on alcohol and they're currently trying it and failing with guns, why are drugs any different?

Also, as long as people on drugs don't harm others, it's simply not your business if they want to do them. The second they cause harm to someone else, they lose those rights. Live and let live, stop trying to legislate the behavior of others unless it causes harm to another. This is my viewpoint on guns, alcohol, drugs other than alcohol, health insurance, and marriage... if people left each other the hell alone and stopped getting in their business we'd get along an awful lot better.

Sadly the Democrats are all about messing with my guns and health insurance, the Republicans are all about getting in my business concerning alcohol, drugs, and marriage... and they both love to get their grubby mitts in my wallet.