UnkleRukus wrote:
How did you manage to get that idea out of that statement.
Pandora's box is open, is it not? Even if it's not video games, it's:Ty wrote:
Using fairly simple logic actually. I asked why these weapons kept showing up at mass killings, Jay suggested it's because they feature in games and other media, I asked if the outcome would be different if they didn't feature. Doesn't take a genius to follow that train of thought.
And yet it has worked here.Jay wrote:
What part of the following sentence is difficult to comprehend? 'there is nothing special about an assault rifle' It's been said multiple times by multiple people and yet you continue to jump on the bandwagon of ignorance and push this stupid line of thought. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It is the same premise as that which lies behind the semi-automatic handgun, or the revolver. You pull the trigger one time, one bullet fires. The physics behind a handgun and rifle are differentiated by one difference: the rifle has a longer barrel and thus the muzzle velocity is higher. Hand guns compensate for this in many cases by using a larger caliber bullet. The rate of fire between the weapons is roughly even. The stopping power of the weapons is roughly even. The accuracy at close range (25m) is roughly even.Jaekus wrote:
And this post tells me there is no need to own an assault rifle. Thanks!-Sh1fty- wrote:
@Jeakus: It's not about you asking me why I need one, it's me asking you why I shouldn't have one. Like I mentioned above, less than 0.06% of gun deaths are from assault rifles. Tell me why the fuck it should be restricted and hard to get? That's like restricting a Lamborghini vs. a honda civic when more people die in Honda Civic accidents. fucks sake man
Why do police officers carry handguns instead of rifles? Could it be for the very same reasons that criminals also prefer handguns for over 99% of crimes? Ease of carry, concealment, and the tradeoff in firepower at close ranges is negligible. The ammunition is also smaller and lighter to carry.
Harping on assault rifles is an argument made by stupid people to prey on the ignorant with emotion-based messages that have no real meaning. Frankly, I think so many people on this forum have been taken in by the argument because they've been trained by FPS games to think assault rifles are godlike and handguns are puny things you whip out only when you're out of ammo. It doesn't work that way in real life, sorry.
After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."
As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."
That is just an absolutely awful thing to say.Jay wrote:
In a close range situation like these mass shootings keep occurring in, a handgun, or dual handguns, would actually be a better weapon to use. We should actually be thankful these knockoff military weapons are used instead or else more people might die
You have approximately four million (probably more) unregistered, illegal, firearms in your country. The fact that you haven't had a mass shooting recently probably has more to do with statistical sample size than anything else. We have over 14x your population size so we should have 14x more 'mass shootings' from a statistical standpoint. A ten year sample size is nothing, honestly.Jaekus wrote:
And yet it has worked here.Jay wrote:
What part of the following sentence is difficult to comprehend? 'there is nothing special about an assault rifle' It's been said multiple times by multiple people and yet you continue to jump on the bandwagon of ignorance and push this stupid line of thought. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It is the same premise as that which lies behind the semi-automatic handgun, or the revolver. You pull the trigger one time, one bullet fires. The physics behind a handgun and rifle are differentiated by one difference: the rifle has a longer barrel and thus the muzzle velocity is higher. Hand guns compensate for this in many cases by using a larger caliber bullet. The rate of fire between the weapons is roughly even. The stopping power of the weapons is roughly even. The accuracy at close range (25m) is roughly even.Jaekus wrote:
And this post tells me there is no need to own an assault rifle. Thanks!
Why do police officers carry handguns instead of rifles? Could it be for the very same reasons that criminals also prefer handguns for over 99% of crimes? Ease of carry, concealment, and the tradeoff in firepower at close ranges is negligible. The ammunition is also smaller and lighter to carry.
Harping on assault rifles is an argument made by stupid people to prey on the ignorant with emotion-based messages that have no real meaning. Frankly, I think so many people on this forum have been taken in by the argument because they've been trained by FPS games to think assault rifles are godlike and handguns are puny things you whip out only when you're out of ammo. It doesn't work that way in real life, sorry.
Decline in gun deaths doubled since Australia destroyed 700,000 firearmsAfter 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."
As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."
Why? Because it's the truth and completely undermines your argument? The anti-gun people have made exceedingly stupid arguments over the years that anyone with half a brain could thrash inside of a single paragraph. When people repeat them it just tells me that they buy into what their left-leaning, politically motivated news-source-of-choice says, and makes me question what other stupidity they would also follow if led by the same sources.Ty wrote:
That is just an absolutely awful thing to say.Jay wrote:
In a close range situation like these mass shootings keep occurring in, a handgun, or dual handguns, would actually be a better weapon to use. We should actually be thankful these knockoff military weapons are used instead or else more people might die
everything is an 'aberration' until you legislate to protect against it in advance.Jay wrote:
The North Hollywood Shootout was an aberration, and led directly to the creation of SWAT teams across the country. Something like that would never happen again.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-20 14:07:09)
There were SWAT teams in operation at the time, including LA. The SWAT team was what got at least one of them in the end, but they weren't able to respond for some time. This situation could absolutely happen again.Jay wrote:
The North Hollywood Shootout was an aberration, and led directly to the creation of SWAT teams across the country. Something like that would never happen again.
My point is the features on the weapons don't matter. A semi-automatic hunting rifle would be equally, if not more, effective compared to the weapons everyone is demonizing. Or, in close quarters, any handgun. There's nothing special about 'assault weapons' except for the fact they look scarier because we've seen photos of military personel carrying them. A ban on them would do nothing except give a false sense of security.M.O.A.B wrote:
There were SWAT teams in operation at the time, including LA. The SWAT team was what got at least one of them in the end, but they weren't able to respond for some time. This situation could absolutely happen again.Jay wrote:
The North Hollywood Shootout was an aberration, and led directly to the creation of SWAT teams across the country. Something like that would never happen again.
In Mumbai you had a bunch of attackers without any form of body armour walking around with rifles fighting police and army SF for days. All someone with one of these weapons needs is a window of a few minutes to kill dozens of people. Look at Aurora and Sandy Hook. Calls went out and units responded in minutes, but it was still too late.
The first AWB came about in 94. The LA bank shoot out was in 97 during the AWB.aynrandroolz wrote:
& didn't the hollywood shoutout lead to legislation on the size of gun magazines? seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Sandy Hook may or may not be BS so I'm not counting that one. There's footage of the cops pulling the AR out of the guy's trunk and he never left the building, also the med examiner was drunk.Dilbert_X wrote:
Sandy Hook, the Batman film, those firefighters shot just lately - for example.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Less than 0.06% of all gun deaths are from those semi-automatic rifles with unlimited ammo. Where's the mass shootings and people dying left and right because it's an "assault weapon"manDilbert_X wrote:
From my perspective it beyond stupid that an 18/21yr old can buy a semi-auto rifle as their first firearm, unlimiited ammunition and magazines no questions asked and without having to demonstrate some maturity and suitability, or undergo any training to possess a highly lethal weapon.
That the overall level of gun crime is sky-high doesn't negate the existence of these mass shootings.
That you want to "make yourself cool" is not a reason to have free and easy access to such things.
You can't buy C4 or Claymores and there's no whining that your "coolness" is affected, that you can buy an AR15 no questions asked is retarded.
As for vehicles, you can buy pretty much whatever car you want, but when it comes to more dangerous vehicles like trucks and aircraft you need to be specially trained and licensed for reasons of public safety do you not?
Plenty of pants-shittingly retarded ideas on your side of the fence too Jay lets not forget those - or do I have to post that video of that redneck idiot yelling at that British idiot. Stop pretending you're the island of sanity in a sea of headless chickens who wet themselves at the sight of a synthetic rifle stock.Jay wrote:
Why? Because it's the truth and completely undermines your argument? The anti-gun people have made exceedingly stupid arguments over the years that anyone with half a brain could thrash inside of a single paragraph. When people repeat them it just tells me that they buy into what their left-leaning, politically motivated news-source-of-choice says, and makes me question what other stupidity they would also follow if led by the same sources.Ty wrote:
That is just an absolutely awful thing to say.Jay wrote:
In a close range situation like these mass shootings keep occurring in, a handgun, or dual handguns, would actually be a better weapon to use. We should actually be thankful these knockoff military weapons are used instead or else more people might die
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate-Sh1fty- wrote:
It isn't sky high. Who are you to say it's sky high? The US is "low" on the gun murder scale when you consider per capita which is the only proper way to judge this stuff when comparing stats with other countries.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-20 15:24:38)
In the karma I gave shifty I'll just say it again here. Going by that same link the US gun homicide rate per capita is more than six times that of any other first world country.aynrandroolz wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I was being partially serious. The serious part is that a lot of the killings are gang-related.-Whiteroom- wrote:
America is the only country with gangs then...
Get some proof to back that up. There is a lot of violent crime that is not gang related too.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I was being partially serious. The serious part is that a lot of the killings are gang-related.-Whiteroom- wrote:
America is the only country with gangs then...
58% of gun homicide in LA is gang related. The rate is 4.82 per 100k, higher than the national average. This means that 2.8 per 100k is not gang related - more than 4.5 times any other developed country, which is including those counties gang related homicide rates.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I was being partially serious. The serious part is that a lot of the killings are gang-related.-Whiteroom- wrote:
America is the only country with gangs then...
Last edited by Jaekus (2013-01-20 16:29:22)