My problem isn't the gun crime, its the people who use guns irresponsibly. For example, a traveling salesman was killed in Florida when he went up to a guys yard. The man who shot him said "I'll shoot anyone who comes on my property". Those are the people I don't like. And I also hate the people who think just because they have a gun they are a big bad ass and decide to become a vigilante, but end up shooting someone innocent or shoot someone who was trying to defend themselves against the "vigilante" with the gun (See Zimmerman v. Trayvon). Like I said before, its not the gun crimes its the fucking idiots who use guns irresponsibly. And no amount of gun training can make an idiot act less like an idiot
The victim, with traces of THC on his blood, is a non-confrontational law abiding citizen who merely circled the evil vigilante's car, raw away and heroically approached his stalker from behind and initiated an altercation while the big baddie was returning to his car. Our victim then proceeded to beat down the vigilante, whose screams for help were heard in 911 calls, causing him gashes and what seemed to be a broken nose.
Say what you want about Zimmerman's personality, but the media have stained his image forever and he was tried by the public opinion before even having a chance in court. All because the media thought it would be funny to make Zimmerman white and modify images and phone calls.
A note to those who being up the point "guns are only meant to kill".
Since we all know you pretty much ripped your entire argument from a Cracked article, I'd like to ask you what weapon you would recommend replacing a gun with? The article was pointing out that a gun wasn't a "defensive" weapon.
What is a defensive weapon? Preferably, name one that would actually work on any other ranged weapon invented after the 17th century.
I'm not against the idea of people being allowed to own guns, but I think it is too easy to buy a gun in America, particularly ones that are inordinate in what a person would need for home or self defence (what possible reason would you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, or a grenade launcher).
If a person wants to buy any gun they should be trained, tested and have full background checks (yes I know some guns you do need licences and such). Especially since the main amendment that advocates the ownership of guns actually says "A well regulated militia".
Buying a gun requires a clean record. Buying an AK-47 pattern assault rifle requires you to track down one of the rare AK-47s in existence (milled receiver, they were replaced by the AKM with stamped receivers) and pay a huge sum - I am not sure how expensive an AK-47 is because it's a very special piece of memorabilia. However it's probably close to 10,000 bucks or even higher.
You will have to convince the owner to sell it and then pay a $200 tax stamp for the ATF to accept the transference of a machine gun. Their background check is even more thorough an can take some time. They will investigate your life and probably call former employees.
If you want a grenade launcher, you will have to pay a $200 tax stamp for every live grenade you want to own and it will have to be accepted by the ATF since it's a Destructive Device.
TL;DR you have no idea how things work in America so please don't complain about it until you do
The AK-47 one of the most common guns in the world is rare and expensive? (cost i found in ten seconds from google was $649) So that fact that it's so wide spread being attributed to the fact it is cheap, reliable and easy to maintain is irrelevent.
You also completely missed the point of my post. You may need a clean record to buy a gun, but every criminal before they get caught for the first time has a clean record. Plus you can still buy a grenade launcher I never said it wouldn't be expensive but you can still buy it. Why should anyone be allowed to buy an explosive device whose sole purpose is to turn people into mince meat.
For all your parroting of costs to get more high caliber weapons, they're still relatively easy to get ahold of, compared to other countries (note: you can't buy a grenade launcher legally in britain). Plus aside from background checks to show a person is less likely to blow someone elses brains out, the rate of suicide deaths using firearms is more than 18 times higher than in England (total suicide rate by all means being twice as high), rate of homicides with firearms is approximately 20 times higher (total homicide rate being 50% higher).
So yes I may not know the nuances of buying a firearm in America (but you seem not to either), but I can still see the huge logical flaw in making lethal weapons that have no other use than to kill lots of people in a short space of time relatively easy to get ahold of.
If someone wants a gun for home and self defence that fine, but you don't need something much more powerful than a hunting rifle at the absolute most for that, so why should a grenade launcher or an assault rifle be available at all.
Ack, OP too long. Anyway, all I'm going to say is I'm not against guns I just think that one should be required to have a license to own and use one and each firearm should have to be registered. After all you have to have a license to drive a vehicle and your vehicle has to be registered and vehicles aren't even classified as weapons. So how unreasonable is it to require that people have a license to use a gun and to register their guns?
Even for what has been termed the Month of the Gun Control Threads, this is getting ridiculous. Simply put, the US is a very murdery place compared to nigh-on any other western country. It may be due to guns, it may be due to Bush, it may be due to dem commies.
ElPatron - you have NO idea what you're talking about.
I legally purchased my very own AK47 for $300 from a co-worker with absolutely no paper work involved at all. (and before anybody wets their pants, I bought it as a collectors item.)
The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the USSR by Mikhail Kalashnikov.
(...)
There were many difficulties during the initial phase of production. The first production models had stamped sheet metal receivers. Difficulties were encountered in welding the guide and ejector rails, causing high rejection rates.[30] Instead of halting production, a heavy machined receiver was substituted for the sheet metal receiver. This was a more costly process, but the use of machined receivers accelerated production as tooling and labor for the earlier Mosin-Nagant rifle's machined receiver were easily adapted. Partly because of these problems, the Soviets were not able to distribute large numbers of the new rifle to soldiers until 1956. During this time, production of the interim SKS rifle continued.[31]
Once manufacturing difficulties had been overcome, a redesigned version designated the AKM (M for "modernized" or "upgraded"?in Russian: (Автомат Калашникова Модернизированный [Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovanniy]) was introduced in 1959.
Anders Breivik is American. In fact, every gun homicide in the world is perpetrated by an American.
canadamus_prime said:
Ack, OP too long. Anyway, all I'm going to say is I'm not against guns I just think that one should be required to have a license to own and use one and each firearm should have to be registered. After all you have to have a license to drive a vehicle and your vehicle has to be registered and vehicles aren't even classified as weapons. So how unreasonable is it to require that people have a license to use a gun and to register their guns?
Because licenses and registration prevent car crashes.
Gun registrations are worthless. They do not prevent deaths, and if a a body shows up with a bullet hole there is no way the registry is ever going to help. They are only good for governments, not for saving human lives.
Anders Breivik is American. In fact, every gun homicide in the world is perpetrated by an American.
canadamus_prime said:
Ack, OP too long. Anyway, all I'm going to say is I'm not against guns I just think that one should be required to have a license to own and use one and each firearm should have to be registered. After all you have to have a license to drive a vehicle and your vehicle has to be registered and vehicles aren't even classified as weapons. So how unreasonable is it to require that people have a license to use a gun and to register their guns?
Because licenses and registration prevent car crashes.
Gun registrations are worthless. They do not prevent deaths, and if a a body shows up with a bullet hole there is no way the registry is ever going to help. They are only good for governments, not for saving human lives.
You have a poor understanding of forensics then. Gun registries are important and useful in tracking down criminals. You can often Identify what kind of gun has been used by shell casings and other methods. If you have a list of everyone who owns that model of gun, you have narrowed your suspects.
And before you bring it up, most people who commit murder or poaching are not hardened criminals, and have often registered their guns. It has helped the police greatly.
First, it's an AKM pattern rifle unless it has a milled receiver and the other subtle differences in the gas block, barrel profile etc.
Built in Romania in 2003. Therefore not part of the exclusive machineguns, which have to be registered before 1986.
I did not specify the type of AK47? It's an AK47, there is only a handful of different kinds of AK47 rifles and they are all AK47s. Yours is a WASR - and I don't even know the caliber.
So if you think I was wrong, just say it instead of dragging this further. But the fact is that I quoted a person saying this:
I think it is too easy to buy a gun in America, particularly ones that are inordinate in what a person would need for home or self defence (what possible reason would you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, or a grenade launcher).
Unless you think that fully automatic assault rifles are easy to buy, or that semi-automatic rifles are not suitable for home defense, then don't try to play games.
Anders Breivik is American. In fact, every gun homicide in the world is perpetrated by an American.
canadamus_prime said:
Ack, OP too long. Anyway, all I'm going to say is I'm not against guns I just think that one should be required to have a license to own and use one and each firearm should have to be registered. After all you have to have a license to drive a vehicle and your vehicle has to be registered and vehicles aren't even classified as weapons. So how unreasonable is it to require that people have a license to use a gun and to register their guns?
Because licenses and registration prevent car crashes.
Gun registrations are worthless. They do not prevent deaths, and if a a body shows up with a bullet hole there is no way the registry is ever going to help. They are only good for governments, not for saving human lives.
Umm... no they don't. There are many many (I don't know the actual numbers) car crashes every year, licenses and registrations be damned.
Besides can't a bullet be traced back to the gun that fired it? I assumed that part of CSI was based on real life forensics and not something the creators pulled out of their ass.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
