Murder by guns as compaired to death by impaired drivers

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.

**Jihadin**

Wait a second, Relapse blocked me like a year ago. Why am I even trying?

Shuma your on a roll. Don't stop.

**BolingbrokeIV**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Wait a second, Relapse blocked me like a year ago. Why am I even trying?

That's one hell of a precedent for you to set. See you next blue moon.

**Ensis Ferrae**

The thing is, there are groups out there seemingly hunting for gun violence related incidents in order to point towards a world where ALL fire arms are outlawed, and therefore everyone is safer (regardless of what many, many other studies would show)

If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...

Ohh wait, we already tried that, and it worked ohh so well /sarcasm.

Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.

**ShumaGorath**

(regardless of what many, many other studies would show)

Feel free to show them. It's fun to claim that they exist, but actually proving that they do has always been difficult for gun advocates (primarily because such studies almost never exist or are heavily refuted and dubiously produced).

If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...

If you feel like rolling out of bed and finding a solution in your alphabet cereal than yes. That's probably one you could find.

Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.

Yeah, that's probably attributable to the fact that gun ownership per capita and gun ownership per parent household has fallen to it's lowest percentage in the history of the country. Interestingly, there are more deaths by accidental shootings than by injuries relating to falling down annually in america.

But then "gun control nuts" are the only people with the prescience of mind to actually look up the mathematics behind this issue. Everyone else just wants to compare it to drunk driving and shout.

**Relapse**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing is, there are groups out there seemingly hunting for gun violence related incidents in order to point towards a world where ALL fire arms are outlawed, and therefore everyone is safer (regardless of what many, many other studies would show)

If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...

Ohh wait, we already tried that, and it worked ohh so well /sarcasm.

Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.

Pretty true about prohibition of alcohol not working. The people pushing to abolish guns appear to not have learned that lesson.

**ShumaGorath**

Relapse wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing is, there are groups out there seemingly hunting for gun violence related incidents in order to point towards a world where ALL fire arms are outlawed, and therefore everyone is safer (regardless of what many, many other studies would show)

If the issue in the differences between gun deaths, and drunk driving.. well, we need to outlaw all alcohol...

Ohh wait, we already tried that, and it worked ohh so well /sarcasm.

Actually, accidental gun deaths involving kids over the past 50 years have fallen to nearly 1 per 100,000 firearms in the US, which is about the polar opposite of what the gun control nuts would have you believe.

Pretty true about prohibition of alcohol not working. The people pushing to abolish guns appear to not have learned that lesson.

I wonder if it's lonely for him having blocked everyone who has ever disagreed with him.

**sirlynchmob**

Isn't it odd though that the countries with stricter gun control laws have drastically fewer murders?

US 9,369
Canada 144

But really is 9,369 really that much lower than 10,839? And ok the DD was from all of 2009, but in the gun murders from your page I can't see in what time frame it got its numbers. But it looks like 2002.

in 2009, this site listed gun murders at 11,493. Which is more than from DD.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

So there you go, in 2009 guns killed 654 more people than DD'rs.

**d-usa**

I'm not going to deny that guns are by definition a weapon. That is what they are build for, to deliver a bullet to a target. But that does not make them an offensive weapon, nor does it make them the most dangerous thing we own. Cars are more widespread and kill more people, but it is silly to argue that something that is more deadly is okay because it also does non-lethal things.

People are basically arguing this (using 2007 numbers because they are the ones that I happened to find):

Guns killed 31,224 people, and should be outlawed because that is all they do.

Cars killed 42,642 people, but that is okay because they also can be used to not kill people.

I am all about responsible gun ownership, and I think that there is plenty of room to add some legislation to make things safer. I think the loopholes for buying guns without background checks at gun-shows between two private individuals is one area where we can fix things. I don't belong to the crowd that runs for pitchforks and torches everytime the topic of gun-legislation is raised.

I own weapons for two purposes:

1) They are fun. I enjoy shooting them, I enjoy target practice with them, I enjoy the historical aspect of them.
2) They protect me and my family. I carry concealed and friends and family know that I am licensed to carry. The few folks that are uncomfortable with a gun being in their house have told me that they are, and I respect them and leave my gun in the car when I visit their homes.

My biggest reason against any sort of gun ban is that I realize that after 200+ years of gun friendly legislation it will never be possible to ban all guns. Countries that started out with a lot fewer guns than the USA have an easier time controling them. But at this point in our history there are so many illegal guns out there that any effort to round up weapons and ban them will only result in loosing the ability to defend ourselves. Drugs are illegal, and they are all around us. Prostitution is illegal, and it is all around us. Child pornography is still very prevalent. We will never be able to get rid of guns without leaving a large group of illegal guns behind, the majority of which will be in the hands of criminals.

I don't want my guns because of some novel "the constitution said so and it is holy" concept.

I want my guns because I know that we will never be able to disarm criminals and I will fight for the ability to protect myself and my family.

**youbedead**

Expect most people aren't arguing to ban guns there arguing for stricter control. Make it harder for crazies to get hold of guns

**d-usa**

youbedead wrote:
Expect most people aren't arguing to ban guns there arguing for stricter control. Make it harder for crazies to get hold of guns

I agree that there is more that could be done for control. I also think that a lot of times gun owners shoot themselves in the foot (get it) when it comes to being good advocates for responsible ownership. Some of us act like the crazies that some people think gun owners are.

**Captain Fantastic**

What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

**dogma**

Captain Fantastic wrote:

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

"Less messy"?

Have you ever seen someone get shot with anything larger than a .22?

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

We need to outlaw beer because people might drive drunk.

Then we need to outlaw guns because people might shoot people.

Then we should make it illegal not to drink every day because that makes it easier to get drunk.

Then we should make it illegal to look at pictures of guns because someone might make one.

**Tiina Brown**

d-usa wrote:
I'm not going to deny that guns are by definition a weapon. That is what they are build for, to deliver a bullet to a target. But that does not make them an offensive weapon, nor does it make them the most dangerous thing we own. Cars are more widespread and kill more people, but it is silly to argue that something that is more deadly is okay because it also does non-lethal things.

People are basically arguing this (using 2007 numbers because they are the ones that I happened to find):

Guns killed 31,224 people, and should be outlawed because that is all they do.

Cars killed 42,642 people, but that is okay because they also can be used to not kill people.

I am all about responsible gun ownership, and I think that there is plenty of room to add some legislation to make things safer. I think the loopholes for buying guns without background checks at gun-shows between two private individuals is one area where we can fix things. I don't belong to the crowd that runs for pitchforks and torches everytime the topic of gun-legislation is raised.

I own weapons for two purposes:

1) They are fun. I enjoy shooting them, I enjoy target practice with them, I enjoy the historical aspect of them.
2) They protect me and my family. I carry concealed and friends and family know that I am licensed to carry. The few folks that are uncomfortable with a gun being in their house have told me that they are, and I respect them and leave my gun in the car when I visit their homes.

My biggest reason against any sort of gun ban is that I realize that after 200+ years of gun friendly legislation it will never be possible to ban all guns. Countries that started out with a lot fewer guns than the USA have an easier time controling them. But at this point in our history there are so many illegal guns out there that any effort to round up weapons and ban them will only result in loosing the ability to defend ourselves. Drugs are illegal, and they are all around us. Prostitution is illegal, and it is all around us. Child pornography is still very prevalent. We will never be able to get rid of guns without leaving a large group of illegal guns behind, the majority of which will be in the hands of criminals.

I don't want my guns because of some novel "the constitution said so and it is holy" concept.

I want my guns because I know that we will never be able to disarm criminals and I will fight for the ability to protect myself and my family.

Hmm ...
"Deliver a bullet" "Not an offensive weapon".
"Gets shot" "catches the bullet" "Oh thank you, a bullet! That was just what i ordered.

"
A gun is all about being offensive, because you can't claim that the gun is mainly defensive .. now, can you?
Ok, you may claim that the gun is for your defense, but if the threat of using it offensive didn't exist, then the gun would not work defensive at all. It is the "the best defense is a good offense", but without the inherent offense in the gun, there is no defense either.

Guns killed 31,224 people.
Cars killed 42,642 people.
This got me thinking about percentages .....
How many people owns guns?
How many people owns cars?
Or rather, how many did that 2007, where those above numbers came from?

Liking them for target practice? You can target practice with anything.
Liking them for history? Ok, but then they don't have to be useable.
They protect your family? Do they, really? Or will it just lead to that any possible robbers will get machinguns, or at least guns themselves?

**sirlynchmob**

Captain Fantastic wrote:
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.

**Relapse**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.

If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

**d-usa**

If you want to make the argument that owning a gun for defense will make robbers get bigger guns, then you might as well make the argument that you should no defend yourself at all.

If you have pepper spray at home, they will bring a bat. If you have a bat, they will bring a tazer. If you have a tazer, they will bring a gun. If you have a gun, they will bring a machine gun.

So it seems like you are saying that the best defense would be to not defend ourselves at all.

Do you honestly think that it would be feasible to disarm the entire US population, legal and illegal guns, and leave no weapons in the hands of criminals?

**sirlynchmob**

Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.

If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.

**Relapse**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.

If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.

This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.

By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.

**sirlynchmob**

Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.

If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.

This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.

By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.

You totally missed the point. We address and can talk about laws for all the other issues. we're doing a campaign against smoking and the number of smokers has decreased, We're doing a campaign against drunk driving and the number of drunk drivers has decreased. We should be able to talk about gun control laws without people going all chicken little. The argument against gun control goes, well it doesn't kill that many people, so why address it at all. Where we could talk about the issue and save up to 10,000 lives a year.

**Relapse**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.

If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.

This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.

By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.

You totally missed the point. We address and can talk about laws for all the other issues. we're doing a campaign against smoking and the number of smokers has decreased, We're doing a campaign against drunk driving and the number of drunk drivers has decreased. We should be able to talk about gun control laws without people going all chicken little. The argument against gun control goes, well it doesn't kill that many people, so why address it at all. Where we could talk about the issue and save up to 10,000 lives a year.

Yet, the news is quicker to report a gun death than someone killed by drunk drivers. They will report on someone that shot themselves, but not someone who drank themselves to death or died from tobbacco caused cancer.

**sirlynchmob**

Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Relapse wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:
What's more troubling with that statistic is that drunk driving accidents only make up about a third of all vehicular homicides. That means about 30,000 people die every year from car crashes, and only around 9,500 die from gun violence every year.

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

well if you want to look at all the numbers, then lets add in people wounded by guns, who commit suicide with guns, and guns used for other crimes.

If we look at all the numbers for alcohol and for guns, alcohol is the cause of death and messed up lives by a far wider margin:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and Cardiovasular diseases kills the most people in america, so maybe we should stop with the campaign against drunk driving and just focus on getting everyone to exercise. I mean why address all the preventable issues we should just focus on one right? Guns only kill 10,000 people a year, no need to address that at all. I mean its not like some proper gun control laws could decrease that number to under 200, like it has in every country that has them.

This is what usually happens when someone who argues for gun control or abolition finds out that alcohol is far worse than guns for people's health and well being. Without fail they start to bring in other health risks.
This only underscores the fact that for some reason, guns are made into a Bogeyman when there are other things that cause far more damage.

By all means, create a thread showing the effects of obesity and the damage it does to people as compared to guns. It will put the "evil" that is gun ownership more into proper perspective.

You totally missed the point. We address and can talk about laws for all the other issues. we're doing a campaign against smoking and the number of smokers has decreased, We're doing a campaign against drunk driving and the number of drunk drivers has decreased. We should be able to talk about gun control laws without people going all chicken little. The argument against gun control goes, well it doesn't kill that many people, so why address it at all. Where we could talk about the issue and save up to 10,000 lives a year.

Yet, the news is quicker to report a gun death than someone killed by drunk drivers. They will report on someone that shot themselves, but not someone who drank themselves to death or died from tobbacco caused cancer.

So because of that we can't talk about any gun control laws that could save lives?

**Jihadin**

Hey. Lets make it more interesting. Why should I...me/myself and I....not own certain types of weapons? I've an M4, M1, and a 9mm...

**Melissia**

If you're trained and licensed to use them, have no violent criminal record, and are considered mentally stable enough, I say go for it.

The training and licensing process is more to get rid of those who are too incompetent, criminal, or unstable to own the weapons, not the average, law-abiding citizen.

**Captain Fantastic**

dogma wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

"Less messy"?

Have you ever seen someone get shot with anything larger than a .22?

I've seen lots of car crash photographs, and they seem messier. Things like jaws torn off, arms twisted off and crushed, skulls smashed, torsos torn in half. It's not pretty. Plus, people constantly get burned up, which is almost equally terrifying.

If you take a .45 straight to the temple, a huge chunk of your skull and brain will be thrown all over the place, and there will be plenty of blood, but it's localized to your head, so at least in my opinion, it's less messy.

**ShumaGorath**

Jihadin wrote:
Hey. Lets make it more interesting. Why should I...me/myself and I....not own certain types of weapons? I've an M4, M1, and a 9mm...

Why shouldn't I own land mines and sarin gas?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Fantastic wrote:
dogma wrote:
Captain Fantastic wrote:

That's horrifying. That could be me. Or one of you. Or anyone. Basically, anyone who drives a car could be killed at any moment. It might be me, but I'd rather take a bullet in the head and die instantly than be horribly maimed in a car accident and be permanently scarred. Less messy, and more of my body is left to put in the coffin.

"Less messy"?

Have you ever seen someone get shot with anything larger than a .22?

I've seen lots of car crash photographs, and they seem messier. Things like jaws torn off, arms twisted off and crushed, skulls smashed, torsos torn in half. It's not pretty. Plus, people constantly get burned up, which is almost equally terrifying.

If you take a .45 straight to the temple, a huge chunk of your skull and brain will be thrown all over the place, and there will be plenty of blood, but it's localized to your head, so at least in my opinion, it's less messy.

A car is usually a ton or more. Find me a gun that size and compare how they leave the victims. This conversation is silly. This thread is awful.

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
Hey. Lets make it more interesting. Why should I...me/myself and I....not own certain types of weapons? I've an M4, M1, and a 9mm...

How'd you pull off private ownership of an M4?

**Captain Fantastic**

ShumaGorath wrote:

A car is usually a ton or more. Find me a gun that size and compare how they leave the victims. This conversation is silly. This thread is awful.

Okay Shuma, thanks for your input. We appreciate it.

@seaward- He probably just means a carbine length AR-15. You can legally own a select fire M4, although more than likely, if you wanted one, you would buy an M16A2, swap out the stock and throw a carbine length upper on it, because there are no registered 'M4's in the registry.

**Seaward**

Captain Fantastic wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

A car is usually a ton or more. Find me a gun that size and compare how they leave the victims. This conversation is silly. This thread is awful.

Okay Shuma, thanks for your input. We appreciate it.

@seaward- He probably just means a carbine length AR-15. You can legally own a select fire M4, although more than likely, if you wanted one, you would buy an M16A2, swap out the stock and throw a carbine length upper on it, because there are no registered 'M4's in the registry.

I assumed he meant an AR-15 M4gery, yeah, but I wanted to be sure.

I actually don't think you can own a select fire M4 thanks to FOPA, but I'd have to go dig up Class III rules again. I know a dealer near me owns one, but it's the shop that owns it rather than any one guy, under the dealer sample exception. I guess you could drop in a (legal) M16 sear, but we're still in M4gery territory.

**Jihadin**

Yep its a AR. I just know it by the M4 since its what I'm really use to. Mines not tricked all out. Its tricked out enough to what I'm use to. Its has two modes. Safe and semi. I've never used "burst" with my assigned weapon when in the "box"