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.

She deserved to be made to look like an idiot for not knowing what she was trying to ban.

Agreed. Legislating from ignorance is a scourge, regardless of topic.

If a "barrel shroud" is sufficiently evil to warrant felony convictions (With all the life-long perks that come with it.) for having them in combination with other things on a firearm, I want to hear a compelling reason as to why, and I would recommend being able to give me a well thought out answer. This goes double in a situation where a safety feature such as a barrel shroud is the subject.

The above is about on par with seeing a drunk driver in a monster truck getting into a head-on collision and killing someone, and then going about banning any vehicle with a roll cage and throwing anyone who doesn't comply into a cell for a half decade. It is deserving of ridicule.

I think that the barrel shroud things about the fact that most weapons that require them are fully automatic. As far as I can tell barrel shrouds are used to prevent injuring oneself from an overheating weapon, but I guess that government was thinking that people really shouldn't be firing weapons that require them at such a rate that the user should need protection. It may be because the number of weapons with them that have been used to kill people or the like, ie the criminal may not have been quite as effective if their weapon hadn't been prevented from overheating or the like, but I don't really know too much about the subject, just speculating. =P

Melissia wrote:

Evilledz wrote:Quote: Bill Bryson: "In Los Angeles there are more murders on schoolgrounds alone than there are in the whole of London." However it does not mention guns I am assuming that guns are a large proportion of that. Apologies for the first statement by the way I got that slightly wrong =P

What was his source?

Bill Bryson is just a humorist, not a statistician, and that quote does not have any actual source.

Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.

You are likely exactly right. Unfortunately it is completely incorrect.

Keeping ones hands away from moving parts around or near the barrel is an immediate concern where barrel shrouds are involved, and even aimed semiautomatic fire can heat a barrel to 2nd-3rd degree burn level readily. Guns in the real world, unlike call of duty and day of defeat, do not magically cease functioning when they get a bit warm. If you are talking about 800-1000 rounds of sustained full automatic fire in non-stomp belt or magazine dumps, Sure. You can pop gas tubes, rupture barrels that heated to the point where metal plasticized, etc.

TL;DR? Presence or absence of a barrel shroud (Among other things lobbied for in the AWB) makes absolutely zero difference to the dude shooting a bunch of unarmed children and schoolteachers.

So it does nothing to actually impede criminals (Granted, it wouldn't change my opposition, but I could at least give a nod to a logical effort.) and gives out felonies to people who DON'T make it a habit of shooting people. Great job.

The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal. It doesn't matter how relevent this is to how the actual process is acrried out, if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it? Who really needs to be popping off a thousand rounds a minute recreationally anyway? There's no way in hell that you could justify having an assault rifle as a self defence weapon anyway for that matter.

Wyrmalla wrote:The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal.

Well, it was probably more like "They saw an incident which they could turn into a political issue from which they would benefit." but basically, yeah.

Well, it was probably more like "They saw an incident which they could turn into a political issue from which they would benefit." but basically, yeah.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it?

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps PREVENTION of such incidents is impossible, and the RESPONSE to said incidents is where the focus should be?

corpsesarefun wrote:I honestly don't understand the whole "guns are evil" thing, how is it a more valid argument than "knives are evil" or "chainsaws are evil"?

Staggering simple.

If you come at me with a chainsaw, I'll stay on the balls of my feet, leap backwards as you take a swing and then mash my elbow into your temple and kick you all the way to the police station.

If you come at me with a phone booth gun like an Ingram, you will saw me and another 20 people in half with no bother at all.

Knives, swords and flails are more likely to injure a victim in an amateurs hands, but any dumb feth can butcher a crowd with an automatic!

SOFDC wrote:[

if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it?

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps PREVENTION of such incidents is impossible, and the RESPONSE to said incidents is where the focus should be?

I think not having them available in the first place would go a hell of a ways to preventing the problem, thus leading to there not being as much of a problem to deal with (or at least a different problem on a lesser scale). =/

Melissia wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?

Because if they're dead they can't sue me for harming them.

... what? I'm not kidding. Criminals have successfully sued because they broke in to someone's home and then injured themselves in the house. If I zap someone with a tazer they can sue me afterwards. If I cut them with a knife they can sue me afterwards (if they're alive). If I break their leg with martial arts they can sue me afterwards. If I shoot the criminal and they don't die, they can sue me afterwards. If I put three rounds in their chest and they die, they can't sue me for injuring them in self defense.

Because I have a family. If anyone feths with them (including the wiener dogs and Rusty the Tiger) I will fight to defend them to my last breath.Nothing, absolutely nothing, not hopes not dreams nor the lives of millions means anything to me. Just them. My father gave everything for his family, and my whole world view is focused on protecting them and lifting them up so they can fly and live the dreams I would have had if I could.

I have told both my kids, plan for the future, but fly. live their dreams and make my parents proud, make me proud. Nothing else matters.
Sorry a l;ittle bit drunk here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?

Because if they're dead they can't sue me for harming them.

... what? I'm not kidding. Criminals have successfully sued because they broke in to someone's home and then injured themselves in the house. If I zap someone with a tazer they can sue me afterwards. If I cut them with a knife they can sue me afterwards (if they're alive). If I break their leg with martial arts they can sue me afterwards. If I shoot the criminal and they don't die, they can sue me afterwards. If I put three rounds in their chest and they die, they can't sue me for injuring them in self defense.

You have a legal system that allows criminals to sue home-owners for being injured in self-defence, but get away scott free for killing them?
Emigrate.

Even Australia would not have Frazzled and Tbone. We're just too mean.

Wyrmalla wrote:The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal. It doesn't matter how relevent this is to how the actual process is acrried out, if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it? Who really needs to be popping off a thousand rounds a minute recreationally anyway? There's no way in hell that you could justify having an assault rifle as a self defence weapon anyway for that matter.

But if the legislation is banning assault rifles then there is no need for the ban on barrel shrouds. In fact all it would do is endanger people firing semi automatic weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Evilledz wrote:Quote: Bill Bryson: "In Los Angeles there are more murders on schoolgrounds alone than there are in the whole of London." However it does not mention guns I am assuming that guns are a large proportion of that. Apologies for the first statement by the way I got that slightly wrong =P

What was his source?

Bill Bryson is just a humorist, not a statistician, and that quote does not have any actual source.

Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.

Nothing wrong with wikipedia if you check the sources of the article.

Wyrmalla wrote:

I think not having them available in the first place would go a hell of a ways to preventing the problem, thus leading to there not being as much of a problem to deal with (or at least a different problem on a lesser scale). =/

The problem with this is, people who are constantly on the wrong side of the law will still acquire the means of perpetrating further acts... Just because you remove a firearm from a law abiding citizen does not mean that the guy who (depending on who you believe) played too much GTA, smoked too much weed, was beat by his father/mother, etc. and turned to a life of crime, does not still have access to firearms.

The problems with many of the laws in regards to gun control, is that they attempt to stifle the ability of law abiding, reasonable people to own reasonable firearms in a reasonable amount (that amount varying depending on the person, and their justification of course), and only add a punishment to someone who has ALREADY broken several laws. They really do nothing to prevent or stop crimes from being committed, only take the ability of people to defend themselves away.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.

Because you live in The Netherlands.

Believe me. It isnt as safe here as you think.

Now I only read the first few posts and then a few random posts along the way but since I work at a gun counter selling firearms this thread is all to familar to me so here is my defult response.

The reasons to own a gun for saftey are the same as wearing a condom to prevent pregnancy. Now with that Im sure you can think of several ways to avoid the latter but you also admit its usefulness and really the logic applied for condoms is the same for firearms.

Would the world be a less lethal (in a murderous way) without guns? Yes but truely without them not lack of access to them. But in a world that fireams do exist and are used for more than petty street crime (no offense to anyone thats been shot at on the streets. I know how terrifing that really is) but in the mass genocidal ways that fireams are used. Sudan, Dubai, These are two great examples where is a puplic were armed than maybe the genocides that do go on wouldnt be what they are now. Libia is another example of a public defending themselves in a way blades and martial arts cannot.

Educated firearm owners are not a threat and ultimately help keep insane tyranical warlords in check, and while in western current culture that is a life we cant fully understand now the idea is that we shouldnt have to later.

You cant compare guns with condoms.

Cleary you havnt had the nervous wait to see if the test was "-" or "+"

thenoobbomb wrote:

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.

Because you live in The Netherlands.

Believe me. It isnt as safe here as you think.

My hoods badder holmes

Libya is an example of lightly armed people being crushed by a better equipped dictator until high-tech air power was used to eliminate that advantage.

1-i wrote:Cleary you havnt had the nervous wait to see if the test was "-" or "+"

Like watching a really delayed trigger on a bad gun. Is that sucker going to go off and ruin everything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.

Because you live in The Netherlands.

Believe me. It isnt as safe here as you think.

My hoods badder holmes



Mmm. I always like class photos.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.

Because you live in The Netherlands.

Believe me. It isnt as safe here as you think.

My hoods badder holmes

The pictures from my family reunion might look pretty similar, just different ethnicity.

And also nobody would have their fingers on the trigger, that just makes you a dumbass.

thenoobbomb wrote:

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:I live in the province of the Netherlands that has probably the most drugs.
Around 150.000 people in it, and they find a few Canabis plantages every week here
And I dont need a gun to feel safe.
Beat that, creeps.

Because you live in The Netherlands.

Believe me. It isnt as safe here as you think.

Well your homicide rate in one fifth of that of the United States

If I really wanted to kill someone I would do it, it would not matter if guns were outlawed or not, the biggest thing is with modern forensics it is generally easier to solve a gun crime than a knife crime. And actually you can compare condoms to guns. I would rather have one and not need it, rather than need it and not have it, until I can shoot lightning out my ass at will I will keep my guns.


As a note I am a gun owner, and I am just too lazy to sign up with the NRA


Edit:.....I originally said IRA instead of NRA

Wardragoon wrote:If I really wanted to kill someone I would do it, it would not matter if guns were outlawed or not, the biggest thing is with modern forensics it is generally easier to solve a gun crime than a knife crime. And actually you can compare condoms to guns. I would rather have one and not need it, rather than need it and not have it, until I can shoot lightning out my ass at will I will keep my guns.


As a note I am a gun owner, and I am just too lazy to sign up with the NRA


Edit:.....I originally said IRA instead of NRA

As long as you don't say PTA then you're A-OK.

mattyrm wrote: Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.

I don't claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge. As an aside, I didn't pull my sources from wikipedia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thenoobbomb wrote:You cant compare guns with condoms.

You clearly haven't paid attention to anti-birth control arguments...

Wyrmalla wrote:The legislators probably looked at a recent massacre involving a high speed weapon, thought to themselves that it could have been worse if the shooter was firing off a few hundred rounds a minute, which they may have been unable to because of overheating, and decided that it was a good idea to not give the criminals the option to do so in future by making the tools illegal. It doesn't matter how relevent this is to how the actual process is acrried out, if the possibility exist where such an event could happen then shouldn't we be trying to prevent it? Who really needs to be popping off a thousand rounds a minute recreationally anyway? There's no way in hell that you could justify having an assault rifle as a self defence weapon anyway for that matter.

I know I'm coming late to the show, but here goes anyways.

@Wyrmalla:

In the U.S. owning a fully automatic weapon isn't as 'easy' as you make it sound for the citizen on the up-and-up. Doing it the right way requires a legal due process, through ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Department), your Local Police Office. Included, you get a fee to pay $250.00 non-refundable & you get finger printed. You're arse is now in the system, you do anything stupid and they already know who you are & where you live. For any straight-shooting (pun intended) law biding citizen this is enough to keep you honest while having what's called a "Class-3 License/Permit" for your automatic weapon (or silencer, or any other Class 3 stamped item). This fee isn't needed to be re-paid every year either. The same process including a required class is also needed for obtaining a Concealed Carrier Permit, except this is only through the State so the ATF isn't involved.

Now, the 'criminal' isn't going to buy this from a respected weapons dealer at a store, he's going to buy from a Black Market arms dealer under the table and totally illegal. He's not going to pay the $250.00 fee, he's not putting his information in the system, he's not being finger printed, he's not being checked through local police officials and is going to use that weapon to commit a horrible act/crime.

@Anti-gun sentiments:

Most people don't like getting shot. So why on earth would anyone with a brain and a well deserved phobia of being injured take revenge/act-of-violence at some location they might get shot at? Which is why most 'shootings' these days are happening at locations where carrying a firearm is illegal. They have a higher probability of not being shot until the Police respond and if they're really smart and planned well, they'll have an exit strategy that emphasizes the same rational at minimizing their receiving gun fire as they flee (if they do in fact flee of course). Others, just don't care, they don't think past the rational of "what do I do after I've shot him/her?" they don't think past that part and thats why you see most people turn the guns on themselves in these actions. They've done what they set out to do, and now reflect and realize, this wasn't as good an idea as first intended. Typically ending in either a suicidal shot to the brain or death-by-cop (which is a real thing) because they don't feel like going to jail and being arse pounded for the next 25-to-life. Although some do give up and go to jail and now I have to pay for their incarceration for the next 5-25+ years. (Go hard earned tax dollars to stupid fething idiots who never learned to deal with life, woo! )

In our society (the U.S.) guns are here, they're not going anywhere anytime soon. I moved from a gun free state to a gun control freak state...what a bummer for me. >_< But I have to work and this is where the work is so I moved. I like my pistol and rifle, I refuse to give them up, I live in an apartment and have no problem with it. The rifle is more for recreational shooting, which is hard as hell to do here but is possible, while the pistol is for personal protection, should the need arise. I've done my fair share of shooting with my pistol, I know how to handle it and being ex-military I know how to respect the power that comes with gun ownership. I am by no means the norm for most gun owners, I know this and accept this. However, my CCW isn't valid in this state and to get one in this state as a civilian is laughable by anyone who would have to approve it. A shame really, I don't mind guns, I don't mind people carrying them. I mind being ill prepared for a situation that I could plausibly be prepared for. I'm not saying I want to shoot someone, because I don't. But if it's life or death I want something more then my fists/knife when going up against someone who has a gun; facing down the barrel of a gun from another person (drugged out or not) is a scarey thing for anyone. I don't see the harm in being prepared. Not to mention those that are carrying, shouldn't even be known to be carrying. (If they're doing it right of course) You or I should have no idea if that person is carrying a gun or not, kind of the whole concept of 'concealed' carry. Which means, the general public (you anti-gun people included) would be none the wiser until a situation occurred that needed that response. Otherwise, you go about your daily lives completely oblivious and happy.

Crimes will happen, with or without guns. I just prefer to have a resource that helps keep me on the upper scale of things. Yes I know not every situation would I be able to pull and (hopefully) out-shoot my criminal opponent. However, why is it assumed that just because I have the gun that if I got into an altercation that I would immediately jump to whipping it out and shooting at the perp until I hear the metallic clicking of my hammer against the firing pin with an now empty clip in the mag well? Having the gun and carrying it doesn't mean I'm going to solve my daily problems with it, quite the opposite, it should only used in the most dire of situations where lives are on the line and time isn't a luxury easily afforded at the current moment.

Yes, if guns never existed then I would have no need for one, probably true, but they are here, might as well accept that fact and move past it. Like it's been said controlling the guns isn't the bigger problem, it's controlling the people that are using them in negative ways. Fix the person, you fix the need to kill.

Anywho, good day.

I really wish they'd push through a national concealed carry law for revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. Just have it only cover public places such as streets, sidewalks, public parking lots (IE non-gated ones), alleyways, etc-- and then the states can regulate where these things apply in other locations like schools, businesses, parks, etc.

It's kinda weird being both pro gun and not giving a gak about state rights. Most people who are against the more extreme anti-gun laws are also extreme for state rights...

Melissia wrote:I really wish they'd push through a national concealed carry law for revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. Just have it only cover public places such as streets, sidewalks, public parking lots (IE non-gated ones), alleyways, etc-- and then the states can regulate where these things apply in other locations like schools, businesses, parks, etc.

It's kinda weird being both pro gun and not giving a gak about state rights. Most people who are against the more extreme anti-gun laws are also extreme for state rights...

On one hand I agree and then on the other I don't. Not everyone is socially capable of handling that, which is why I think the CCW permit should be more regulated and harder (but not impossible, like my current State ) to obtain, but I do like the idea of a national CCW permit being recognized in all States and not just individual State by State basis like they are now.

Oh, I never denied that it should take time to get. The right to concealed carry should be based off of your knowledge of gun safety, your criminal history, and mental problems that you have been diagnosed with. I just wish it was consistent!

mattyrm wrote: Just have to mention, despite him being incorrect I have far more respect for a bloke actually remembering something he read in a book than the Google intellectuals on here who pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything when it's painfully obvious they are sitting reading wikipedia for ten minutes before staggering us with their prodigious intellects.

The wikipedia blackout should prove an interesting day then.

SOFDC wrote:

Well, it was probably more like "They saw an incident which they could turn into a political issue from which they would benefit." but basically, yeah.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Sound advice in many fields.