Can a Brit explain this to me please?

[Troll King]

You need to look up maturity in the dictionary.

[genocidal]

And the idiot Brit-trash start to come out of the woodwork into this thread.

[Doc Flabby]

to be fair this thread was flamebait when it started :P

[genocidal]

No it wasn't. It was an actual, intellectual discussion about right to bear weapons until you and others brought your garbage canned insults into it. Nobody takes you seriously and your "arguments" lose weight by the sheer fact that you're making them.

[Izor]

guns in the uk is fine...its only for rich twits who go out shooting wildlife...and all have a jolly good laugh.

guns in america is scary....Most people are fat or retarded or both. Only the retards seem to be allowed to own guns. Maybe thats why all the other people all so fat, protection from bullets its all starting to make sence....

america still has the death penatly.

This reflects the cheapness america values human life reflects the immaturity of your society. Thats why guns in america are a bad thing, you dont understand the damage they can do.

you will not trash talk the death penalty in my presence son. If someone makes the decision to take another persons life in a situation other than self defense/extreme circumstances they dont have the right to live. Period. Tax payers do not deserve to be paying for these people to watch cable tv and eating 3 meals a day until they die of natural causes. Is that really such an 'old school' way of looking at it? Supposedly I hear that nobody has the right to make the decision to take someone's life no matter what that person has done, but how about them?

[404 Not Found]

Not to change the subject on firearms legailities in the UK or other countries, but in the U.S. each state has its own laws.

Heres a link to see just what individual states laws are in regards to firearms.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/

Pick a state and see how the law varies across the country.

Assault weapons should be what is in question, in regards to firearms and the legality of obtaining one.

[Sarien]

I just know most people aren't going to listen to me, but I'm going to try anyway.



That picture is of a Remington Model 750 Woodsmaster semi automatic rifle. It holds 5 rounds in a tube magazine and is available in most hunting ammo types, including .308 Winchester, and .30-06 Springfield.



That picture is of an indeterminate origin SKS. It is a semi automatic rifle. It holds 10 rounds in a built in magazine in the bottom. It loads through the top. It uses 7.62x39 ammo.



That picture is of an indeterminate origin AK-47. It is a semi automatic rifle. It appears to have a 10 round detachable magazine in place. This also uses 7.62x39 ammo


What's the point of all this? None of those weapons fits the federal legal definition of "assault weapon" in their pictured form. The AK-47 was banned by name amongst others in that assault weapon ban however. The reason they aren't considered assault weapons is because they have to have two or more of the following features:

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher (this is NOT what you think)

Notice the AK has a pistol grip, but no bayonet lug. The SKS has a bayonet mount but no pistol grip. If either of them had two or more, it would've been deemed an assault weapon and be illegal to sell during that ban.

Note: Nothing about making the guns shoot faster, or bigger bullets, or anything of the like.

Here's the kicker. That woodsmaster model 750 could kill a person from way further away, and way faster than either of the bottom two. It DOES use bigger bullets than either of the bottom two. In fact, another weapon that was specifically banned from being made/sold during the "assault weapon" ban was the AR-15.

http://www.nnin.net/images/ar-15.jpg

Scary M-16 clone! The AR-15 fires .223 ammo. Which happens to be so small that it is illegal for deer hunting as it is more likely to just wound the animal and make it run than kill it.

The whole idea of these scary military looking "assault weapons" was yelled and yelled about how they were going to be killing every child across America soon. It just isn't so. It was used as a platform for re-election (and still is) as well as manipulating and scaring people that don't know what it actually means.

[404 Not Found]

I have no problem with the legalities of rifles in the States. My problem stems to auto & semi-auto handguns that litter the communities within the urban setting.

I know quite a few families/people that are owners of hunting rifles and travel to PA & KY yearly for Turkey & Deer hunting. They are all responsible people too when it comes to their rifles and safety! They have had many of these hunting rifles in their families for generations. All legal and licensed!

The point of having the assault rifles and pistols as legal weapons is a bit odd, especially for urban use. If the argument is that it is for protection, then fine....I can see a snub nose pistol for that use. It is perfect in defense for home invasion or owning of a retail establishment for safety. The range will not travel several city blocks to end up in some childs head that was walking to school! This is the biggest problem in Philly, stray bullets flying around the streets...wouldn't happen if it was a short range pistol.

The solutions as well as problems I see with guns, are that the people as a majority whom own them, do so in a legal way and are not the criminals on the street. The criminals are the ones that have the illegal weapons that have found there way into the hands of these people by means of a black market for firearms. That is the biggest danger in itself & is also why I see so many people legally obtaining firearms through the appropraite channels.

The balance will never work its way out it would seem, yet the everyday violence from gun crimes that I am exposed to in Philadelphia's news programs, are either gang related or just stray bullets being shot haphazardly & unfortunately as I mentioned are a daily event.

[winipcfg]

Well said.

[ZeUs!!]

None of those weapons fits the federal legal definition of "assault weapon" in their pictured form.

If you throw them at people they are

[DoTheFandango]

I bet they could be Sexual Assault Weapons.

[Epinephrine]

Sarien:

To be sure I never make arguments like this personal unless the other party makes it personal. I don't think you have, so I've tried to keep it civil and just about the ideas, and thus I resisted the urge to use any personal insults.

As far as the ideas ago, I guess neither of us will ever change the mind of the other. As far as my personal thoughts, I sorta like guns and gun history. Although I never have, I think it would be pretty fun to go to the range and fire off some automatic rifles and such. I enjoy playing paintball and I played lasertag as a kid all the time. Not to mention my hours of Counterstrike...

Still I don't see the utility of guns in society more than 'it's pretty fun to have'. I don't think the average person owning a gun is a 'check and balance' anymore than people in the past owning swords or whatever in the home against their repressive armies. Even if everyone had a gun, I don't think that would be a real factor at all in any realistic scenario where the government actively decides to take away freedoms and become a dictatorship or something. (Remember most of these things have at least the tacit support of most of the population in order to succeed, and if everyone had a gun, then the minority which is abused would lose regardless).

As for the freedom to own something just because freedom is absolute or whatever, I've shown that many things are widely accepted in society as having a limitation of freedom. I don't think blind people and kids should drive, nor do I think everyone should be able to own a gun (some groups excepted).

I fully accept that you personally can be responsible enough to own a gun. I also accept that the majority of gun owners are responsible as well. But I don't like the fact that because there is no real way to determine who really is responsible and who is not (especially if it involves domestic issues, accidents, robberies where people spray bullets at robbers, etc) the many irresponsible people who own such deadly devices will never be weeded out, and while they might not be criminals (i.e. people that we could never realistically weed out), they are certainly dangerous and their ownership of guns adds nothing to society and takes away so much.

But since we'll never change eachother's minds on this, I'll stop here.

[Zerzera]

On a population of 16 933 700. In 2004 there have been 191 murders of which 52 with firearms. 23 of the 191 are put in the records as liquidations amongst criminals, of 68 of the murders the motive is unknown.
The total murderrate in 2004 comes down to 1,2 per 100 000 people. In the US this number is 5.5.

In 2004 there've been 881 traffic accident casualties, most of these accidents happen during rush hours and weekend nights. Most of these weekend casualties are young people. In around 50% of these young casualty cases there's alcohol involved.
There's a new law passed in the Netherlands that allows drivers to drink no more than one beer. The BOB (Conscious Non-Drunk Driver) is hyped by the goverment, I think that now every driver in the Netherlands knows what a BOB is.
The effect of these changes have yet to be seen, but overall there has been a clear downward trend in traffic casualties in general
Traffic casualties in the Netherlands per 100 000 people comes down to 5.2.

I think it's safe to say that even the entire number of traffic casualties (index), even including the 'normal' rush hour casualties, is still under the murder rate of the US.
But I understand that pretty soon you will be able to tell who is fit for owning a gun and who is not, and all will be well.

PS: sorry for this childish abuse of figures, but since you did I think we are on the same level again.

[Superted]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but I think it's important to note that a 'normal' gun-hoarding do-gooder civilian can still have a breakdown.

I don't believe in hunting for fun, so I don't personally see any need to own a gun unless you eat what you kill.

[ZeUs!!]

I used to work with an older guy called Keith. He was the epitome of a middle-class fuddy duddy. Not likely to own a gun granted, but still viewed as a role model for modern law-abiding society. To cut a long story short; his wife left him, he had a nervous breakdown, went at her with a hammer and spent the rest of the evening throwing socks out of an upstairs window screaming "THEY'RE HAND GRENADES!!!" until the riot police turned up. If previously nice and calm Keith had possessed a gun there would a lot of empty houses up for sale on his road now