{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por OaklandPaintbalr:
1/18/2013 8:13:18 AM
27
Some gun education for you.
NOTE: I'm going to refer pro-gun people as "gun nuts", and pro-gun control people as "gun grabbers." Nothing personal, just for simplicity.
---------------------------------
There is so much ignorance flying around with the recent gun debate that I feel inclined to explain a few basic things, particularly things about Rifles.
First, the term "Assault Rifle." What is an assault rifle? it's a rifle with
- a detachable magazine
- Multi fire select, from semi-auto to burst fire to full auto.
- an intermediate round, for example the 5.56x45 NATO round.
Assault Rifles include guns such as the [url=http://www.gunpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/m16-qualifying.jpg]M-16[/url] and [url=http://thespecialistsltd.com/files/AK47_Full_Stock.jpg]AK-47.[/url]
Battle Rifles are its big brother. Battle Rifles share the same characteristics as Assault rifles, except Battle Rifles use a more powerful bullet, such as the larger 7.62x51 NATO round. Weapons such as the [url=http://images.wikia.com/metalgear/images/7/79/FN_FAL.jpg]FN Fal[/url] are "Battle Rifles".
Now, you gun grabbers probably wondering; where do guns like the AR-15 fit?
Well, [u]the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.[/u] The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, it CANNOT fire full-auto. Therefore, it is not an assault rifle.
In fact, any weapon that fires full auto is ALREADY BANNED in the USA. In 1986, a law was passed that banned the ownership of any fully-automatic weapon manufactured after 1986.
Because of this, all technical Assault Rifles (and Battle Rifles) are already banned in the USA, save a handful that were made before 1986. [u]ASSAULT RIFLES ARE ALREADY BANNED.[/u]
So, when people talk about "banning assault rifles," what do they actually mean? They usually mean banning any "military style" rifle. The problem with this is that "military style" is vague, ambiguous, and over-broad. It does nothing to specifically identify the rifle.
Do [url=http://www.bushmaster.com/img/firearms/hunting_main.jpg]these weapons[/url] look "military style" to you? You gun grabbers would probably say yes.
But, these are actually ALL [u]hunting rifles[/u]. See how easily it is to misidentify a weapon based on looks?
Unfortunately, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 classified "Assault Weapons" based on their looks. It banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines [u]with any 2 cosmetic features on it, such as Stocks or Flash Suppressors.[/u]
[url=http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb37/ouch2233/AssaultvsNon-Assault_zpsc1d584f3.jpg]This is what happens when you ban weapons based on cosmetics.[/url] These rifles fire the same bullet at the same velocity at the same rate of fire. THE GUN'S LETHALITY HAS NOT CHANGED. Do you see why banning weapons based on Cosmetic features is useless?
The point is, you can't classify a weapon by its cosmetic features.That's why gun nuts throw a shit-fit when gun grabbers want to ban these misidentified "assault rifles", because [u]they're banning weapons based only on cosmetics, and NOT on the actual killing power of the gun.[/u]
English
-
1 RespuestaGun nuts don't throw "shit-fit" because gun grabbers want to ban weapons based on their looks solely, but also because many gun nuts in this country find any regulation of guns an affront to the second amendment. The fact that there is some confusion about the identification of guns in the debate in this country does not change the [i]substance[/i] of the debate: there needs to be stricter gun sales regulations, and it needs to be specifically defined in terms of lethality. High capacity magazines (i.e., magazines with more than 10 rounds) should be banned as there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to ever need more than 10.
-
26 RespuestasEditado por CrazzySnipe55: 1/19/2013 4:12:48 AMUm... I don't give an actual -blam!- about how a weapon looks. I care about how easily it can kill a person. That's why the "guns don't kill people; people kill people" line pisses me off. It's a clear attempt to shy away from the fact that guns facilitate murder in a manner which is much more effective than a knife, a blunt object (iron pipe, baseball bat, cricket bat, etc.), your bare hands, a car, and most other things people use to kill one another with. It is easier to kill someone when you don't have to reload as often. Limit clip/mag sizes (still don't know the difference; don't care; used both so I don't get yelled at) to 10 rounds. An inexperienced shooter will probably not make lethal contact with all ten and cannot reload as fast as the worlds fastest revolver shooter so spare me that -blam!-ing video of the guy shooting a revolver really fast. I don't care. Now, people will say that "this makes hunting and shooting at a gun range incredibly inconvenient", and I understand that. However, your personal woes don't amount to shit when it comes to something that could limit the harm a rampaging gunman could do. Next, I don't agree with the ability to own a suppressor of any kind. It makes it way too easy for a someone to kill someone else without being detected, and isn't really needed for hunting (if you can't kill the thing before it runs away from the sound of the first shot... tough shit). All the other things listed in the Assault Weapons definition are pretty stupid, as they're just for the preference and, what amounts to basically comfort of any given hunter/owner. Finally, unless you're shooting professionally for sport or a policeman or -woman, I think there should be some sort of bolt-action-type mechanism on the gun where you have to do something in between shots to make the next shot fireable. Something where you could easily take your gun into a local gun store that has this kind of technician working there, drop it off and come back in a few hours and have it done (like taking your car to the auto shop). This would drastically reduce the rate at which someone could fire into a group of people and, with them now having their firing rate probably increased 100-200%, and only having 10 rounds to fire before needing to reload, I think this would definitely help the situation. Almost all guns used in mass murders are legally registered either to the gunman and/or someone close to them that they stole it from, meaning they probably or definitely conformed to the legal criteria of what a gun is allowed to have.
-
http://www.bungie.net/en-US/View/community/Forum/Post?id=40511819&path=1 seriously, facts > ignorance.
-
and to add to OP, what people commonly see are not infact M16s and AK47s, but AR(malite)-15s and AKM/AK74 pattern semi-auto only clones.
-
3 RespuestasOK, I'm from Britain, and obviously, we don't have any where near as many guns. I think what baffles us most over here is when we see Americans on the news with in excess of five guns saying they are to defend their family. That seems ludicrous; after all, you can only shoot one gun at a time! In Britain you can get guns but you need a license and you have to keep them in a gun safe. I can't understand why that wouldn't work in America?
-
3 RespuestasAnswer this for me. It seems like everyone is making the excuse that most have fire arms because of self defense. Why do you need a gun to protect your self? Why not use something to stun the attacker, like a tazer? Why is bad injuries or death needed? And let's be honest, I don't think guns are vital in your lives, are they? In most cases people probably never use their guns in self defense because there is no one to defend yourself against. And people mentioning knifes are also being idiotic. A gun has one function: Kill. A knife can be made for use in cooking or, indeed harm or murder. But banning one knife means banning the other. Even a butter knife could be banned. But I agree, an attempt on banning guns would be utterly pointless and would just cause more harm then good. Sorry about going a bit off topic by the way.
-
1 RespuestaI hope this helps
-
29 RespuestasEditado por BravoAlpha: 1/19/2013 7:57:41 PMSerious question here, but why do Americans feel the need to have a gun so much when the rest of the civilised world doesn't? [edit: typo]
-
29 RespuestasOkay. But you don't [u]need[/u] a gun that shoots dozens of bullets in seconds. You just don't.
-
7 RespuestasI think you can own an Assault Rifle in certain states. Not sure about Battle Rifles but some states, like mine, require you to either be Police or Military or require a Class III Firearms license to use an Automatic weapon.
-
7 RespuestasI guess I'd be on the side you call a "gun grabber".. except I think gun owners have every right to keep their guns. I wonder how insuring guns would work. By buying a gun, you would insure it, saying that if anything/anyone was harmed or damaged by your firearm, you would be responsible. Most likely the gun nuts would rage over that, but it might motivate them to keep their guns safer.
-
10/10 post, i'd save this thread if i could. But i liked it. Very good.
-
2 RespuestasI agree with what you said in the last part. It should totally be based on the actual power. I also feel as if I am the only pro-gun person who doesn't believe a 30 round mag is needed.
-
Well said. *Likes*
-
1 RespuestaYour last picture just illustrates that there needs to be more meaningful distinctions, not that bans or restrictions should be given up altogether. And in response to your thesis, it doesn't really matter that weapons like AR-15s aren't full auto...they can still kill many people quickly. That's the problem. I'm not sure how it compares to a handgun with extended mags, but the main problem is how fast these weapons can kill people, and the firing mode doesn't change things much (slower might be better, waste less ammunition).
-
10 RespuestasI'm pro-gun in the United States, because banning something that is such a part of society will not work. People are just going to hide them, or whatever. I'm anti-gun in places like the UK, where they are uncommon, as they are not a part of society and I do not think guns should be in the hands of civilians (except for at a firing range, or on a farm). This is because at the end of the day, a gun is a killing machine.
-
4 RespuestasI'm pro-gun, even if people think I'm anti-gun. However, other than the 30 round magazine, people are also complaining about armor piercing bullets being taken out. Honestly, you don't need armor piercing bullets and 30 rounds if you're shooting for recreation or hunting game.
-
10 RespuestasEditado por halo: 1/18/2013 11:32:38 PM- Criminals will always have access to weapons no matter what, I can create a bomb from materials bought from Walmart -"To conquer a nation you must first disarm it's citizens" - Adolf Hitler, basically us citizens would never be able to defend ourselves. - I would rather have some criminals with guns and some law abiders with guns than only criminals with illegally obtained weapons and defend-less law abiders. (law abiders would have no weapons because it would be illegal, criminals would still have them)
-
Editado por OaklandPaintbalr: 1/19/2013 12:02:50 AMBanning armor piercing rounds depends entirely on how you classify "Armor Piercing" rounds. There are many, MANY different kinds of bullet-proof vests. The vests used by most law enforcement, level IIA, will only stop smaller, less powerful rounds, and your average hunting rifle might go through these kinds of vests; does that make the hunting rifle's ammunition "armor piercing" and therefore bannable? Of course not. You need to very careful and very specific in how you word what "armor piercing" is and is not.
-
5 RespuestasEditado por OaklandPaintbalr: 1/18/2013 8:21:26 AMThe problem with banning high capacity magazines is that, well, it won't do anything. Adam Lanza fired as estimated 150 rounds. Using 30 round magazines, that's approximately 5 magazines total. If he had used 10 round magazines, that's an extra 10 magazines for 15 total. It takes what, 2-3 seconds to reload a magazine? That's...20-30 extra seconds total in the shooting spree if he hadn't been using high capacity magazines. 20-30 more seconds would have made absolutely no difference.
-
22 RespuestasHeres a simple one. The function of a gun, primarily - is to kill. WHY DO YOU NEED LETHAL WEAPONS IN YOUR HOMES. IT MAKES NO SENSE. Seriously, it boggles my mind.
-
Thank you for explaining this to the ignorant.
-
4 RespuestasTHANK YOU
-
well thought out thread yorkie
-
Seems like i will never understand some aspects about america.
-
You know, no one here is even talking about assault rifles save for that one thread specifically about them, your post is a wall of straw.
