Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do you honestly need someone to explain to you how equating firearms to knives and cars is slowed?


Gun - I point it at you, I pull the trigger. You are shot. When I fired a gun for the first time, what I came away from it with was the thought of just how EASY it was. Given, I play a lot of FPS games...but if I wanted someone dead and had a firearm, no problem. Pull the trigger, see them fall, maybe pop a few more shots in them, walk away. I don't see the mess, the aftermath, or anything. Very easy, very clean (for me).


Knife - you're in someone's face. You're more in danger of retaliation if the person knows how to fight. You can disarm someone with a knife at close range if you know what you're doing. If someone holds a gun on you at 10 feet with the intent to shoot you I sincerely hope you are extremely quick, they are an extremely bad shot, and you have some effective cover very close to you.

The person doing the knife-fighting is going to get your blood all over them. They're going to have to look in your eyes as they finish the job, or at least get a nice, up-close view of the gore. It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.


Car - First of all, wear your seat belt, purchase a safe vehicle, follow the rules of the road and even if you do get into an accident, you are likely to be okay. Much more likely than not. Crash-resistant modern designs, crumpling, air bags...

A gun or a knife in the sorts of situations we're describing are being specifically-wielded to injure or kill. I don't remember the last time I heard about someone with murderous intent getting behind the wheel of their Honda and attempting to go Grand Theft Auto on the sidewalk...

I'm sure it happens somewhere, or has happened, but it's a severe aberration. Cars are accidental instruments of homicide/injury, not intentional ones. They're not designed for it.



Also, Frazz's statement isn't well thought-out on a whole 'nuther plane...what would be wrong with keeping machetes out of felon's hands? Nothing. And we DO prevent certain kinds of criminals from driving cars. Get enough DUI's on your record and you're not driving legally for a very long time, if ever again.

Cairnius wrote:Do you honestly need someone to explain to you how equating firearms to knives and cars is slowed?


Gun - I point it at you, I pull the trigger. You are shot. When I fired a gun for the first time, what I came away from it was the thought of just how EASY it was. Given, I play a lot of FPS games...but if I wanted someone dead and had a firearm, no problem. Pull the trigger, see them fall, maybe pop a few more shots in them, walk away. I don't see the mess, the aftermath, or anything. Very easy, very clean (for me).


Knife - you're in someone's face. You're more in danger of retaliation if the person knows how to fight. You can disarm someone with a knife at close range if you know what you're doing. If someone holds a gun on you at 10 feet with the intent to shoot you I sincerely hope you are extremely quick, they are an extremely bad shot, and you have some effective cover very close to you.

The person doing the knife-fighting is going to get your blood all over them. They're going to have to look in your eyes as they finish the job, or at least get a nice, up-close view of the gore. It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.


Car - First of all, wear your seat belt, purchase a safe vehicle, follow the rules of the road and even if you do get into an accident, you are likely to be okay. Much more likely than not. Crash-resistant modern designs, crumpling, air bags...

A gun or a knife in the sorts of situations we're describing are being specifically-wielded to injure or kill. I don't remember the last time I heard about someone with murderous intent getting behind the wheel of their Honda and attempting to go Grand Theft Auto on the sidewalk...

I'm sure it happens somewhere, or has happened, but it's a severe aberration. Cars are accidental instruments of homicide/injury, not intentional ones. They're not designed for it.



Also, Frazz's statement isn't well thought-out on a whole 'nuther plane...what would be wrong with keeping machetes out of felon's hands? Nothing. And we DO prevent certain kinds of criminals from driving cars. Get enough DUI's on your record and you're not driving legally for a very long time, if ever again.

No, I didn't feel anything approximating what you felt when I first fired a weapon. I felt like I was having a good time shooting at the range.

Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?

Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.

Cairnius wrote:
We had this conversation a while ago. There is no modern definition of "militia" which we could come up with here.

Read: there is no modern definition of militia which favors my argument.

Cairnius wrote:
Sure you did...and comparing knives and cars to firearms is so immensely slowed that it makes me question your intelligence more than anything you've ever said.

Says the Hitchens imitator.

Grignard wrote:

Cairnius wrote:Do you honestly need someone to explain to you how equating firearms to knives and cars is slowed?


Gun - I point it at you, I pull the trigger. You are shot. When I fired a gun for the first time, what I came away from it was the thought of just how EASY it was. Given, I play a lot of FPS games...but if I wanted someone dead and had a firearm, no problem. Pull the trigger, see them fall, maybe pop a few more shots in them, walk away. I don't see the mess, the aftermath, or anything. Very easy, very clean (for me).


Knife - you're in someone's face. You're more in danger of retaliation if the person knows how to fight. You can disarm someone with a knife at close range if you know what you're doing. If someone holds a gun on you at 10 feet with the intent to shoot you I sincerely hope you are extremely quick, they are an extremely bad shot, and you have some effective cover very close to you.

The person doing the knife-fighting is going to get your blood all over them. They're going to have to look in your eyes as they finish the job, or at least get a nice, up-close view of the gore. It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.


Car - First of all, wear your seat belt, purchase a safe vehicle, follow the rules of the road and even if you do get into an accident, you are likely to be okay. Much more likely than not. Crash-resistant modern designs, crumpling, air bags...

A gun or a knife in the sorts of situations we're describing are being specifically-wielded to injure or kill. I don't remember the last time I heard about someone with murderous intent getting behind the wheel of their Honda and attempting to go Grand Theft Auto on the sidewalk...

I'm sure it happens somewhere, or has happened, but it's a severe aberration. Cars are accidental instruments of homicide/injury, not intentional ones. They're not designed for it.



Also, Frazz's statement isn't well thought-out on a whole 'nuther plane...what would be wrong with keeping machetes out of felon's hands? Nothing. And we DO prevent certain kinds of criminals from driving cars. Get enough DUI's on your record and you're not driving legally for a very long time, if ever again.

No, I didn't feel anything approximating what you felt when I first fired a weapon. I felt like I was having a good time shooting at the range.

Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?

Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.

You don't need personal experience.

You only need to read some military histories, particularly the seminal work done in WW2 and afterwards regarding the behaviour of soldiers in combat, to realise that shooting people does not come easily and naturally, and stabbing them is even more difficult.

Cairnius wrote:Do you honestly need someone to explain to you how equating firearms to knives and cars is slowed?

Equating is not comparing.

You should know better.

Don't take my dakka. >_>

Polonius wrote:I could see a requirement to register long arms, for hunting and sport, possibly being struck down. Handguns get trickier. Even the 1st amendment doesn't allow speech to hurt or restrict another, and you famously can't yell fire in a theater. There are governmental interests that can outweigh personal rights.

See, I never liked this line of thinking. The biggest reason guns are supposedly so bad isn't that they motivate people to attack each other more, but that they increase the lethality of conflict. Which makes sense, certainly.

However, a shot from a rifle is more lethal than a shot from most handguns are, and a shot from a shotgun is even worse. Furthermore, handguns are the easiest type of weapon to smuggle illegally; a career criminal is likely going to end up owning one regardless, and they're going to be getting the most use out of it.

Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.

I get what you're saying with the original intent of the amendment thing, though.

Cairnius wrote:It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.

While a knife isn't going to be as easy to kill someone with as a gun (and might be more psychologically difficult to use, but we're already talking about a murderer), a knife is actually a better murder weapon a lot of the time. It's a lot more difficult to trace a knife wound back to the killer than it is to trace a shot back to him. What makes the gun "sanitized" also helps to make it predictable.

Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.

Grignard wrote:Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?

Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.

Thank Christ I have no experience shooting anyone. All I can do is visualize the results, and it's not that difficult to do. Killing from range versus killing up close. Blood and guts versus not sticking around to see it. If you have an argument that a killing with a knife is less sanitized than killing with a gun at range, by all means present it. Otherwise, you have no argument with me.

And thank Christ again that no, I have no experience shooting a living thing. I do not have to hunt for my food because I live in a major metropolis and I have no need to defend my home.

Kilkrazy wrote:shooting people does not come easily and naturally, and stabbing them is even more difficult.

You're validating my point, then. Stabbing is more difficult, as well as much more messy...therefore I fail to see how equating the two makes any sense and isn't slowed.

@Polonius:
Well, I can see why that would happen.

I guess I just don't think it's a particularly good idea.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Polonius wrote:I could see a requirement to register long arms, for hunting and sport, possibly being struck down. Handguns get trickier. Even the 1st amendment doesn't allow speech to hurt or restrict another, and you famously can't yell fire in a theater. There are governmental interests that can outweigh personal rights.

See, I never liked this line of thinking. The biggest reason guns are supposedly so bad isn't that they motivate people to attack each other more, but that they increase the lethality of conflict. Which makes sense, certainly.

However, a shot from a rifle is more lethal than a shot from most handguns are, and a shot from a shotgun is even worse. Furthermore, handguns are the easiest type of weapon to smuggle illegally; a career criminal is likely going to end up owning one regardless, and they're going to be getting the most use out of it.

Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.

I get what you're saying with the original intent of the amendment thing, though.

Cairnius wrote:It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.

While a knife isn't going to be as easy to kill someone with as a gun (and might be more psychologically difficult to use, but we're already talking about a murderer), a knife is actually a better murder weapon a lot of the time. It's a lot more difficult to trace a knife wound back to the killer than it is to trace a shot back to him. What makes the gun "sanitized" also helps to make it predictable.

Depending on what you mean by easier, it could be argued that it is already easier to get a long arm as opposed to a handgun. For instance, the age requirement for purchasing a rifle is 18, while handguns are 21.

That's sort of what I meant by "far easier".

Actually, for that matter, registering for handguns might not do that much to the ability for criminals to get them, in which case I suppose it wouldn't make much of a difference.

It's a large gap between the two that seems like a bad idea; and you do get a lot of groups that want to ban handguns completely and the like, while theoretically not opposing long guns nearly as much.

I actually think that rifles and shotguns are what I am least concerned about. Handguns are #1 because they're easy to conceal and explicitly designed for use against human beings. Assault rifles would be #2 because they are designed explicitly to kill human beings.

Rifles and shotguns have extremely legitimate uses for hunting. I still think that criminal records should be clean and psych evals should be clean as well (not that I would conduct them on people who want firearms but perhaps that could be part of the check, to see if said evals already exist) for anyone who wants to own any sort of firearm, but restrictions for rifles and shotguns should never be as stringent as for handguns and assault rifles.

Cairnius wrote:

Grignard wrote:Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?

Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.

Thank Christ I have no experience shooting anyone. All I can do is visualize the results, and it's not that difficult to do. Killing from range versus killing up close. Blood and guts versus not sticking around to see it. If you have an argument that a killing with a knife is less sanitized than killing with a gun at range, by all means present it. Otherwise, you have no argument with me.

And thank Christ again that no, I have no experience shooting a living thing. I do not have to hunt for my food because I live in a major metropolis and I have no need to defend my home.

Yes, thank God you live in a sophisticated city and don't have to do something as terrible and unnatural as hunt. I'm also glad you feel that you don't need to defend your home. Perhaps everyone doesn't feel as secure as you do.

Cairnius wrote: I live in a major metropolis

This is your problem in understanding right here.

Kilkrazy wrote:shooting people does not come easily and naturally, and stabbing them is even more difficult.

You're validating my point, then. Stabbing is more difficult, as well as much more messy...therefore I fail to see how equating the two makes any sense and isn't slowed.

Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.

Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.

Like this:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/604206072795.html

impact guns wrote:


The Bushmaster Carbon 15 Type 21S pistol has top of the line features of the popular Type 97S rifle in a package that weighs less than three and a half pounds. The upper and lower receivers are molded of state of the art Carbon Fiber 15 material that offers incredible durability, strength and ultra-light weight. The pistol’s 7 1/4" stainless steel, match grade barrel is chambered for the 5.56 NATO cartridge and readily accepts the .223 Remington cartridge as well.
The P21S Upper Receiver features a full length anodized aluminum Picatinny rail that includes integral front and rear iron sights. The windage adjustable rear sight is a combination ghost ring and precision aperture flip-up. The square post front sights offers elevation adjustments for fine zeroing. The Picatinny rail allows the option of mounting a wide variety of auxiliary sighting systems such as long eye relief and standard scopes, red dot, holographic, or laser sights. The front and rear sling swivel studs allow for the secure attachment of slings and other accessories. Function controls on the Type 21S are in the familiar AR15 layout, and for additional safety, the safety selector lever markings are color coded on both sides of the lower receiver to quickly determine the firing status of the pistol.
Completely designed and manufactured in the U.S.A., the Bushmaster C15 Type 21S Pistol is shipped with Operator’s Manual, Warranty Card and 30 Round Magazine.

Well, I'm basing my assumption on my understanding of con law and the current make up of the court. With Kennedy as the swing man, I'm sure we'll want to write a nice juicy opinion, and create some layered rules.

Look at the 1st amendment. There are things that are almost impossible to regulate, like political speech that's not disruptive (pamplets and the like). There are things that almost nobody thinks should count as protected speech (child porn, libel). There are also things that can be regulated, but only within reason (advertisements).

It's most likely that arms will develop the same hierarchy. You'll have stuff that is core and is most protected (hunting/militia long arms). You have stuff that nobody would include (artillery, grenade launchers, etc). And then a big gooey middle (hand guns, assault rifles). That gooey middle might be simply divided between the two piles (handguns are core, uzis and assault rifles are not), or they might create a new way of treating them. Allowing regulation, but not bans.

Most likely, the court will simply not take another 2nd amendment case for a while.

I can't understand why things just aren't left alone as they are.

This seems to be the policy of the current presidential administration, which I'm glad to see.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.

Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.

I've read compelling arguments for both. Some of the factors for shotguns is that they can blow through walls, don't need to be accurate, and scare the living hell out of intruders more than any pistol, both by sight and by sound.

There are advantages for pistols, no doubt. They're easier to maneuver, they can be hid and stored a lot easier, they have a higher rate of fire, etc.

The rule of thumb I'd read was that unless you're skilled with a pistol, and don't need glasses/contacts that not be available at night, the shotgun is the better bet most of the time.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.

Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.

I've read compelling arguments for both. Some of the factors for shotguns is that they can blow through walls, don't need to be accurate, and scare the living hell out of intruders more than any pistol, both by sight and by sound.

There are advantages for pistols, no doubt. They're easier to maneuver, they can be hid and stored a lot easier, they have a higher rate of fire, etc.

The rule of thumb I'd read was that unless you're skilled with a pistol, and don't need glasses/contacts that not be available at night, the shotgun is the better bet most of the time.

I'm not sure I buy the argument about shotguns blowing through walls. It depends on what kind of ammunition you're using, in the case of both pistols and shotguns. I think that is something you definitely don't want in that sort of situation anyway. You don't want something penetrating a wall and striking someone you don't intend to hit on the other side. In fact, they manufacture frangible ammunition to reduce the chances of penetrating a wall.

Polonius wrote:Well, I'm basing my assumption on my understanding of con law and the current make up of the court. With Kennedy as the swing man, I'm sure we'll want to write a nice juicy opinion, and create some layered rules.

Look at the 1st amendment. There are things that are almost impossible to regulate, like political speech that's not disruptive (pamplets and the like). There are things that almost nobody thinks should count as protected speech (child porn, libel). There are also things that can be regulated, but only within reason (advertisements).

It's most likely that arms will develop the same hierarchy. You'll have stuff that is core and is most protected (hunting/militia long arms). You have stuff that nobody would include (artillery, grenade launchers, etc). And then a big gooey middle (hand guns, assault rifles). That gooey middle might be simply divided between the two piles (handguns are core, uzis and assault rifles are not), or they might create a new way of treating them. Allowing regulation, but not bans.

Most likely, the court will simply not take another 2nd amendment case for a while.

Are your referring to the case the Supremes took this week Polonius?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.

Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.

I've read compelling arguments for both. Some of the factors for shotguns is that they can blow through walls, don't need to be accurate, and scare the living hell out of intruders more than any pistol, both by sight and by sound.

There are advantages for pistols, no doubt. They're easier to maneuver, they can be hid and stored a lot easier, they have a higher rate of fire, etc.

The rule of thumb I'd read was that unless you're skilled with a pistol, and don't need glasses/contacts that not be available at night, the shotgun is the better bet most of the time.

In a house context the the shotgun spread is only about 2-3 inches. You still have to aim it.

I'm not sure I buy the argument about shotguns blowing through walls. It depends on what kind of ammunition you're using, in the case of both pistols and shotguns. I think that is something you definitely don't want in that sort of situation anyway. You don't want something penetrating a wall and striking someone you don't intend to hit on the other side. In fact, they manufacture frangible ammunition to reduce the chances of penetrating a wall.

Lordhat wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.

Like this:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/604206072795.html

impact guns wrote:


The Bushmaster Carbon 15 Type 21S pistol has top of the line features of the popular Type 97S rifle in a package that weighs less than three and a half pounds. The upper and lower receivers are molded of state of the art Carbon Fiber 15 material that offers incredible durability, strength and ultra-light weight. The pistol’s 7 1/4" stainless steel, match grade barrel is chambered for the 5.56 NATO cartridge and readily accepts the .223 Remington cartridge as well.
The P21S Upper Receiver features a full length anodized aluminum Picatinny rail that includes integral front and rear iron sights. The windage adjustable rear sight is a combination ghost ring and precision aperture flip-up. The square post front sights offers elevation adjustments for fine zeroing. The Picatinny rail allows the option of mounting a wide variety of auxiliary sighting systems such as long eye relief and standard scopes, red dot, holographic, or laser sights. The front and rear sling swivel studs allow for the secure attachment of slings and other accessories. Function controls on the Type 21S are in the familiar AR15 layout, and for additional safety, the safety selector lever markings are color coded on both sides of the lower receiver to quickly determine the firing status of the pistol.
Completely designed and manufactured in the U.S.A., the Bushmaster C15 Type 21S Pistol is shipped with Operator’s Manual, Warranty Card and 30 Round Magazine.

I'd use this for home defense. A lot safer than a guy that sprays out lots of bullets in a short time.



Shoot anyone with this and they won't get back up, EVER.

Fateweaver wrote:
I'd use this for home defense. A lot safer than a guy that sprays out lots of bullets in a short time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_Model_500

Shoot anyone with this and they won't get back up, EVER.

I'm not sure about that. The question is going to be whether you can find a round for that .223 that won't over penetrate and kill someone on the other side of your target or a wall.

EDIT: That goes double for that .500 smith. Thats a pistol hunting gun there.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Most likely, the court will simply not take another 2nd amendment case for a while.

Are your referring to the case the Supremes took this week Polonius?

I hadn't heard about it, so it shows how useful my insight is.

Nearest house to mine and my bros is 200yds through the woods. The odds of the round going through someone, out the wall and making it 200yds at a lethal enough velocity to hurt someone else is nearly non-existent.

Fateweaver wrote:Nearest house to mine and my bros is 200yds through the woods. The odds of the round going through someone, out the wall and making it 200yds at a lethal enough velocity to hurt someone else is nearly non-existent.

I'll hand it to you it is unlikely, even with a jacketed round, but within the realm of possibility. To me the question is do you want to gamble your freedom or someone else's life on it. Me, if I was going to keep a weapon loaded for defense, I'd go for a lot less penetration. THats my opinion though, and I do seriously doubt it would be a problem.

Fateweaver wrote:Nearest house to mine and my bros is 200yds through the woods. The odds of the round going through someone, out the wall and making it 200yds at a lethal enough velocity to hurt someone else is nearly non-existent.

Then you need a bigger gun.

Grignard wrote:Yes, thank God you live in a sophisticated city and don't have to do something as terrible and unnatural as hunt. I'm also glad you feel that you don't need to defend your home. Perhaps everyone doesn't feel as secure as you do.

Hey, I have no problem with hunting. I just said that...and aren't shotguns the best home defense weapon, anyway? I have no problem with shotgun ownership, either.

Just because I live in a city now doesn't mean I always did.

Kilkrazy wrote:Probably because he was not arguing with you. Just because you can support your argument doesn't mean the other opinion is inherently "slowed".

No, Frazz was doing the equating, saying that we should take knives and cars away from people because they kill people just like guns do. That's what was slowed.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know what you're calling an assault rifle, so I can't help you there.

I should probably say "assault rifles and submachine guns," to be precise, in terms of what needs heavy regulation.

Assault rifles...M16s, AKs, Steyr Augs...you know. Assault rifles.

Submachine guns...Uzis, MP5s come to mind first.

See, gun-nuts would say "Oh, we need these weapons so we can fight the gov'ment!" But that's ridiculous. If it ever came down to a bunch of yahoos with commercially-available firearms versus the United States military, the civilians would get slaughtered. You don't actually have "the ability to resist an oppressive government" through firearm ownership anymore. Those days are long, long past us.


Really the only firearms I know are WW II firearms from historical interest, and the most popularized modern weaponry from movies and video games. I'm not "into guns," but I'm aware of the basic categorizations and what they're designed to do. I don't think any American who is into action movies and FPS games doesn't.

Unlike some of my FPS counterparts, however, I hold precisely zero illusions about having any sort of expertise. I did know how to load and fire WW II weapons, however, when I went to a shooting range in Vegas. A .45 is a hand cannon, a Thompson has good kick and sounds awesome, a Sten felt like it would break if you dropped it in a pile of dirt, and an MP40 reminded me how stupid it is when movies have the Germans holding them by the magazine and it purred like a Porsche.

If I ever go back to said shooting range, I'm just buying like 10 magazines' worth of MP40 ammo and going to town. No BAR at the place, though. I was very disappointed.


One thing I have come to realize over the years of having these conversations in many places...gun ownership is academic to me. I don't own them, failing the rise of a zombie apocalypse don't care to own one, and could really care less unless, when and if, some criminal comes after me with one, in which I would only feel more solidified in my basic thinking that guns should be strictly regulated.

In that case, I'd probably change from my current position to thinking that handguns and assault rifles should not only be utterly banned from civilian ownership, but that illegal possession of them should be a capital offense. If I got shot by one of them, that is. Only if.

But other people get all emo about the subject. It kind of cracks me up...do any of the gun people honestly feel anyone is ever going to take their guns away when the NRA spends HOW much money lobbying against any legislation that even has two words that might hint at the government even looking into possibly looking into gun control?

Don't you know how Washington works? You're all perfectly safe. Relax.

This one could potentially be a big case.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58T44S20090930?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

I'd imagine they'll strike that one down too. The court is not going to allow bans, or de facto bans, now that they've started ruling on this issue.

I'm really not a big gun control guy. I'm not. I think there are useful regulations that might help, at least in solving, if not preventing, crime, but sweeping bans just hurt the wrong people.