Question for people Pro-guns....

[Thaluikhain]

Only occupational shooters can have working semi automatic weapons in Australia. As for the automatic weapon restrictions, it all seems to check out but what I can't understand is why a news report in Australia on one of the few reputable channels had video implying that Americans were purchasing modern looking assault rifles at some gunshow somewhere.

Hmmm...my first thought is they might have been semi-auto civilian versions of military assault rifles. Those are common enough, the AR-15 is one, for example. They look almost identical to the military ones, just with a slight modification of the mechanism to remove selective fire capacity.

Alternatively...well, the Steyr AUG or the L85 are both very modern looking, but had been developed in time to be registered before 1986 (though AFAIK, the L85s weren't made privaately available).

 

[itsthesheppy]

I've always assumed we've had more deaths by firearms and gun crime because we (Americans) are just a great deal more violent and stupid than, say, some other places on the planet. It's just our culture. Our dumb, dumb culture.

 

[J Tyran]

Hmmm...my first thought is they might have been semi-auto civilian versions of military assault rifles. Those are common enough, the AR-15 is one, for example. They look almost identical to the military ones, just with a slight modification of the mechanism to remove selective fire capacity.

A question for somebody who knows more about guns. How did the branch Davidians modify the civilian versions of the AR-15 to include fully automatic fire?

Where the rifles different then and it was easier to restore the full functionality or would it take a really skilled gunsmith?

 

[Raesvelg]

A question for somebody who knows more about guns. How did the branch Davidians modify the civilian versions of the AR-15 to include fully automatic fire?

Where the rifles different then and it was easier to restore the full functionality or would it take a really skilled gunsmith?

Technically, it doesn't take a lot of expertise to take most semi-automatic weapons and make them run on full-auto.

However.

The slightest mistake in that process and you typically wind up with a weapon that will fire full-auto... whether you want it to or not. A tiny bit too much off the wrong part, or wrong tension on a given spring, and the gun will run away whenever the trigger is pulled.

So yeah, it'll fire full auto. It'll also dump the magazine ever time you pull the trigger, and if you screwed up badly enough, that can have all kinds of unpleasant secondary effects.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Actually you're terrible at math.

The homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people).

The rate of rape is 24.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 28.6 per 100,000 people for the US.

I always knew that stupid imperial system you had made you bad at math.

That said its too late to ban guns in the USA. You're not an island so regulation is hard and there are guns EVERYWHERE in your society already. A "hand in" wouldn't work. Its safer to leave things how they are. England prevents a lot of criminals from getting guns by regulating our ocean borders, thus guns are fucking expensive EVEN if you have the right connections and EVEN if they can evade border control and guards and such. Our society didnt have to be taken down to remove guns and put back together again. It was a preventative measure. The USA would have to be overhauled, economically as well. As such its far safer to leave guns in american hands.

 

[Raesvelg]

The homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people).

The rate of rape is 24.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 28.6 per 100,000 people for the US.

And while I don't necessarily agree that more guns = less violent crime, it's important to note that the overall violent crime rate in the United States is substantially lower.

The violent crime rate for the US was around 429 per 100,000 people in 2009.
The violent crime rate for the UK was around 1550 per 100,000 people in 2009.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

The homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people).

The rate of rape is 24.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 28.6 per 100,000 people for the US.

And while I don't necessarily agree that more guns = less violent crime, it's important to note that the overall violent crime rate in the United States is substantially lower.

The violent crime rate for the US was around 429 per 100,000 people in 2009.
The violent crime rate for the UK was around 1550 per 100,000 people in 2009.

Cant dispute that. However.

In the US you are FOUR times as likely to be murdered than in the UK.

In the UK you are 3 times as likely to be assaulted than in the US.

Id rather be assaulted than murdered. You're more likely to survive your violent crime in England apparently. Almost 4 times as likely. But the downside is theres more likely to be one.

 

[Moth_Monk]

If you want to ***** about something being dangerous? Blame alcohol.

Lol. I know alcohol is dangerous, I've seen the effects of it first hand. If I had things my way alcohol would be illegal as well.

 

[Raesvelg]

Id rather be assaulted than murdered. You're more likely to survive your violent crime in England apparently. Almost 4 times as likely. But the downside is theres more likely to be one.

Yes well, you Brits just fall into the category we Americans like to refer to as "enthusiastic amateurs".

In all seriousness though, I expect most crime statistics generally reflect more of culture than gun ownership. And we have some extremely violent sub-cultures in the United States, sadly.

The UK homicide rate, for example, has been more-or-less constant for the past few decades, despite an ever-tightening set of regulations on firearm ownership. It's just now getting back down to the level it was at before the most draconian of the regulations began to be implemented, oddly enough.

 

[Ampersand]

Yep this thread had to get posted.



The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

For most of them I think it's a small penis thing =(

 

[CosmicCommander]

As a British person myself, I don't agree with the illegality of guns. All it does is prevent people who care about the law and operate under the law from obtaining a gun; criminals who have contacts and friends will not need to heed the law, and hence the irregularity of a gun means that any criminal means that any encounter with a gun in Britain typically means you'll be at a disadvantage. Thugs resort to carrying knives now; which can be just as deadly, and more painful by several orders of magnitude.

And then there's the angle that America's second amendment is based on. If the people of a nation do not believe the Government is not doing it's job properly and abusing it's powers then they should revolt. Unfortunately, the Government having a legal monopoly on weapons would mean that any sort of revolt will be imposable.

I believe in people being free to do whatever they want; and yes, some people abuse their freedom. Perhaps there may be an increase in harm (note there is yet to be found any empirical evidence that shows that there is a link between gun ownership and violent crime rates), but the freedom to choose, defend oneself, and do whatever the hell one likes as long as they harm no other is something I think is a crucial thing any person should have.

 

[MagmaMan]

I'll use the same reason my brother has. If guns are made illegal, the good, law-abiding citizens will have to get rid of them. But the bad, non-law-abiding citizens that will be committing the crimes won't. It can't be stopped and I think they are good for self-defense. Plus, they are really fun to go out and target shoot.

 

[Johnson McGee]

Fun experiment:

replace the word 'guns' with 'drugs'
watch everyone's opinion on the merits of control suddenly reverse.

 

[snake4769]

snip

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

Source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]

The problem with these statistics, is that it can also be cultural difference. America is very different country with different problems and stress.


OT: I love guns as an american, and if they were illegal, well as other said, im sure criminals would find a way to get them. And if not, knives can never be illegal, and knives hurt too.... a lot actually...

 

[DANEgerous]

Yes making guns again the law will mean no one has a gun just like making pot illegal will mean no one has pot... and yet it is illegal and ever one i know that wants it has it.

I know what you are thinking "but gun are different for (inset magical reason here)" well no to be honest they are not, many more people are killed with guns that are illegal owned than one that are legally owned, clearly this suggest that the illegality of guns does not make a determined criminal less likely to have one.

But forget that lets pretend that it did. You are a killer you want someone dead you can not use a gun, so you give up... wait of course not you still kill the people that is you sole intent the fact that you do not have a gun is absolutely irrelevant. Franky if i wanted a target dead poison is the way I would go. Basic homemade equipment can with even simple knowledge of chemistry make poisons from items that will raise no red flags. I could with not all to much effort find a huge amount of hemlock or another poisonous plant and feed it to just about any victim I want if i had any kind of food outlet and this is just one of the more unlikely ways to kill people. Millions more exist that are even simpler and easier.

 

[Kevin7557]

Here in the states where we broke away from your corrupt Monarchy that bowed to the bankers and allowed Parliament to tax the crap out of the states we reserve the right to use force to defend ourselves against any aggressor both foreign and domestic.

For others though guns are a tool used on a farm to protect their animals on their ranches and without these rifles they would be unable to ensure the safety of the family or animals from wolves, coyotes, Raccoons, Bears, Mountain Lions, and various other dangerous beasts that inhabit these lands.


If you take away guns from regular people criminals will not disarm and it will be chaos. Plus have you see what our government is doing. They're just two steps away from declaring the UNITED STATES a police state.

 

[DjinnFor]

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US.

You also import a lot more of your guns than you manufacture, and have an easier time with border control efforts to keep guns out. Both of these factors make bans on guns more plausible.

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

The U.S. is not the UK, geographically or socially.

Comparing the outcomes of a policy between the two is logically impossible with a single data point.

 

[Hazy992]

snip

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

Source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]

The problem with these statistics, is that it can also be cultural difference. America is very different country with different problems and stress.

I'm not saying why this difference has occurred I'm just pointing out that there is a difference.

 

[Xanadu84]

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony.

I'm not a huge gun advocate or anything, but I do need to point out something. I live in Vermont, a state with some of the most archaic gun control laws in the nation. I grew up target shooting with my BB gun, and then moved on to a .22 and an old 32 special. Gun Cabinets are probably more common then dishwashers, and I hear gunshots every year around deer season. But I have never heard a gun that was shot in anger. I can't name the last example of a shooting death in my state. Statistically, hunting and shooting are probably safer then high school athletics. Also, target shooting is an enjoyable, enriching, FUN hobby that I have many friends who dedicate massive amounts of time to. Also, Venison is delicious.

You know how irritating it is when people assume a causal link between video games and violence? A similar complaint can be made linking legal gun ownership and the actions of criminals. Now I am for reasonable gun control laws, but if you look at the statistics of what influence harsher or more lenient gun control laws have on crime, you come up with extraordinarily little on either side. You don't hear this very often because neither side likes to admit it. Also the idea that if everyone has a gun, this would provide a strong disincentive to crime is a valid point that is at least worth arguing. Risk of death makes a number of minor crimes seems less profitable. The point is that Gun Control may or may not be a good idea in some certain quantity, but having a belief on either side of the issue can be perfectly reasonable. The correct policy decision will be meeting half way on a variety of balanced, nuanced discussions of a wide variety of facets of a very complicated issue. That discussion may or may not be happening in the background behind all the screaming.

 

[swani24]

Yeah banning guns will work just as well as banning drugs... oh wait that didn't work did it lol