AK-47 Type I vs. Colt M16A1

[d-quik]

Classic fight between two of the world's most popular assault rifles.

[andy.muc]

Hmm strange poll.
What's the point?
Which rifle kills better?

[Sweeney921]

yea, why's this on a car forum

[Lagonda]

yea, why's this on a car forum

This is the "Miscellaneous" forum so why not ?

[quattro_20v]

AK=more reliable (compared to early m16s)
M16=more accurate, but early versions tended to jam a lot

[kko]

The ak 47 has too much barrel raise, now the ak 74 and the m16 thats closer

[more-boost1555]

it depends on the situation, just like when comparing any other pair of guns or cars for that matter.

The M-16 is lighter and more accurate, but has less power using the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge.

Ak-47 has incredible ruggedness and reliability, along with great stopping power from the .308/7.62mm round. It comes at the cost of reduced accuracy and increased weight.

Both are marvels really, incredible battle implements. each could out do the other in different situations. But being an american I'll take the M-16.

[Rockefella]

Classic fight between two of the world's most popular assault rifles.
you play a lot of counter-strike don't you d-quik.. ;)

[quattro_20v]

I play battlefield vietnam :P, but I am also a soldier(trucker) in real life, so I get to shoot real guns sometimes. Sofar I have shot with Colt C8 C7 and C7A1 (scope one)

[SPHFerrari]

i said m16 but i think both could stop a person just as good as the other. while i am in support for guns in general, the whole argument over assault rifles is stupid. what other purpos do they serve other than for criminals to attack with? are they acutally for today's modern super-predators? do you really need to unload a dozen buillets when your deer hunting? hmmm...

[UK CARS]

The Ak is so easy to use, trust me.

[taz_rocks_miami]

it depends on the situation, just like when comparing any other pair of guns or cars for that matter.

The M-16 is lighter and more accurate, but has less power using the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge.

Ak-47 has incredible ruggedness and reliability, along with great stopping power from the .308/7.62mm round. It comes at the cost of reduced accuracy and increased weight.

Both are marvels really, incredible battle implements. each could out do the other in different situations. But being an american I'll take the M-16.

You know your weapons more-boost1555. In the battle field I'll take the AK-47 becuase you have the option of single shot or fully auto, the M16 can only shoot in 3 round bursts.

[Matra et Alpine]

hey what about the SA-80 family ?

A bit like the M16, when first introduced they had some reliability issues - now resolved with then SA80A2 series - the most reliable weapons of their type in the world.

The Individual Weapon (IW) versions proved so accurate that the Army marksmanship tests had to be redesigned.

Calibre 5.56 mm
Muzzle Velocity 970 m/s
Effective Range 1000m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 610-775 rounds per minute.

[mechanixfetch]

Aks are wonderfully cheap in the right Black markets like Africa and the Middle East. Where as M16s are too tightly controlled. Not to mention the whole bad assed imafe of an AK. I'll take good old russian engineering thanks :D

[Chinky_boi]

i would take the ak47 over the m16. The ak47 comes will a bigger round.

[jcp123]

AK. It's practically indestructible, cheap, parts are ubiquitous, ammo is probably cheaper than toilet paper in most places, and as a side bonus (for me) it's not made in Connecticut. Long story.

[jcp123]

You know your weapons more-boost1555. In the battle field I'll take the AK-47 becuase you have the option of single shot or fully auto, the M16 can only shoot in 3 round bursts.

I thought that 3-round burst thing was just for the Army? I know they did that for cost cutting reasons, didn't want to waste TOO much ammo. But I have to agree that it's a pretty crappy idea for a standard issue military assault rifle.

[Hell_Unleashed]

How did I 'KNOW' this thread was made by D-Quik by just reading the thread name... ? :)

[CdocZ]

now what about the IMI Tavor 9mm vs. the TAR 21? 2 less popular assault rifles, but mostly because they are more expensive. they are both bullpup configured (meaning rounds are fed into the barrell from the very back) for added barrell length, and to make it easier to control the recoil. both are very accurate, capable of single shot, and full auto, same size vlip (but the tavor has a 9mm ar round, while the tar-21 has i think 5.56.....). both are compact, fire 10 rounds a second (about) and are more accurate then the m16. (i love ghost recon mods+gun mod info forums)

[Rockefella]

The Ak is so easy to use, trust me.
lol, trust you..? Jimbo.. your a pretty mischievious guy :p


hey what about the SA-80 family ?

A bit like the M16, when first introduced they had some reliability issues - now resolved with then SA80A2 series - the most reliable weapons of their type in the world.

The Individual Weapon (IW) versions proved so accurate that the Army marksmanship tests had to be redesigned.

Calibre 5.56 mm
Muzzle Velocity 970 m/s
Effective Range 1000m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 610-775 rounds per minute.

matra, is there any topic that you don't know much about... you're a living encyclopedia?!!??!

[SPHFerrari]

i see matra being like that guy who was on an incredible winning streak on jeapardy in a few years.

btw, what every happened to that?

[kko]

he lost made like 1.5 mill

[Homem de Gelo]

I like to make love, not war.
:)
I have no idea which rifle is better.

[d-quik]

you play a lot of counter-strike don't you d-quik.. ;)I despise CSers and their lack of knowledge about real life.
it depends on the situation, just like when comparing any other pair of guns or cars for that matter.

The M-16 is lighter and more accurate, but has less power using the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge.

Ak-47 has incredible ruggedness and reliability, along with great stopping power from the .308/7.62mm round. It comes at the cost of reduced accuracy and increased weight.

Both are marvels really, incredible battle implements. each could out do the other in different situations. But being an american I'll take the M-16.Ok first of all, 7.62 millimeters is 0.3 inches, not 0.308. Secondly, the accuracy is not really a problem (I will explain later on) and the extra weight is a personal opinion as to whether it is a problem or not. Note that we're talking about the M16A1 with the M193 0.223 remington, not the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and the AK-47 Type I not the AK-74 or the AKM.

Ok, now for the problem of the M192 0.223 Remington vs the 7.62 M43 rounds. While the M16 IS more accurate than the AK-47, it's extra accuracy is useless at distances over 150 meters. Most of it's velocity is lost because of friction to the air and the lightness of the bullet. Tests have shown that muscle tissue shot by the M192 round will still function if the bullet penetrated perpendicularly. The M43 Soviet round however, is not as accurate as the Remington round, but it is still useful over 200 meters and still useful after it's accuracy has been lost. The round tumbles inside the body, and changes direction on impact, causing severe muscle tissue destruction.

AK-47s have an effective range of 200-300 meters, while the M16's effective range is no more than 150 meters due to it's ammunition. Unless you have really good aim and can garuntee headshots with the M16 everytime you shoot, the AK47 is the better choice. While it is not based on a target rifle (like the M16) it does what it was intended to do: kill people. Even though not as accurate, it is accurate enough to do the job against enemies 200-300 meters away.

NOTE: OTHER VERSIONS OF AK-47s HAVE CRAPPY ACCURACY, ONLY THE TYPE I IS DEADLY

[d-quik]

hey what about the SA-80 family ?

A bit like the M16, when first introduced they had some reliability issues - now resolved with then SA80A2 series - the most reliable weapons of their type in the world.

The Individual Weapon (IW) versions proved so accurate that the Army marksmanship tests had to be redesigned.

Calibre 5.56 mm
Muzzle Velocity 970 m/s
Effective Range 1000m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 610-775 rounds per minute.First of all, the effective range is obviously not effective range during combat. The gun is highly accurate as a target/competition rifle (i agree) but on full-auto mode and in combat situations, it does not say much. As for the reliability of this gun, I am still unimpressed considering it is made using a lot of parts from the reliable AR-18 rifle. I have never heard any sources claim it is "the most reliable weapons of their type in the world". Still, after all, it still has the Enfield name on it and thats gotta mean something.

All in all, it is much like the world war 1 canadian ross rifle, deadly accurate, good marksman rifle, but just can't cut it in combat situations.
I like to make love, not war.
:)
I have no idea which rifle is better.That will change once a foreign power ivades your homeland and kills all your family.

[Rockefella]

I despise CSers and their lack of knowledge about real life.Ok first of all, 7.62 millimeters is 0.3 inches, not 0.308. Secondly, the accuracy is not really a problem (I will explain later on) and the extra weight is a personal opinion as to whether it is a problem or not. Note that we're talking about the M16A1 with the M193 0.223 remington, not the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and the AK-47 Type I not the AK-74 or the AKM.

Ok, now for the problem of the M192 0.223 Remington vs the 7.62 M43 rounds. While the M16 IS more accurate than the AK-47, it's extra accuracy is useless at distances over 150 meters. Most of it's velocity is lost because of friction to the air and the lightness of the bullet. Tests have shown that muscle tissue shot by the M192 round will still function if the bullet penetrated perpendicularly. The M43 Soviet round however, is not as accurate as the Remington round, but it is still useful over 200 meters and still useful after it's accuracy has been lost. The round tumbles inside the body, and changes direction on impact, causing severe muscle tissue destruction.

AK-47s have an effective range of 200-300 meters, while the M16's effective range is no more than 150 meters due to it's ammunition. Unless you have really good aim and can garuntee headshots with the M16 everytime you shoot, the AK47 is the better choice. While it is not based on a target rifle (like the M16) it does what it was intended to do: kill people. Even though not as accurate, it is accurate enough to do the job against enemies 200-300 meters away.

NOTE: OTHER VERSIONS OF AK-47s HAVE CRAPPY ACCURACY, ONLY THE TYPE I IS DEADLY

Ahh, I see now, you have a good knowledge of firearms. I thought you were one of those cs fanboys that always debates the ak and colt. (played cs for 2 yrs or so, stopped playing 2 years ago)

[crisis]

That will change once a foreign power ivades your homeland and kills all your family.
How?????

[NAZCA C2]

the AK won't let you down. if your in a jungle, desert, or whatever the AK is going to fire when you need it to. The M16 is great but you have to clean it all the time to keep it running.

[NAZCA C2]

Hey d-quik, the M16 is definately effective past 150 yards. The US marines use M16's to qualify for marksmanship training. They shoot the M16 accuratly past 300 yards. You ever hear of Camp Perry??? Every year at Camp Perry (located in Ohio) there is a military shooting competition. The only guns allowed are the M14, M16, and the M1 Garand. Most people use the M16 due to its low recoil and accuracy. The targets are at 600 yards!!! I'm sure your not going to be shooting a M16 600 yards in combat but you can if needed.

[crisis]

I just finished reading Black Hawk Down. One of the Delta operators persisted in using a Vietnam vintage M15 when all the rest were using the newer versions with some special teflon coated or something bullets. They thought he was just being a pain in the arse until the brown stuff hit the ventilation device. Apparently close up the newer bullets passed cleanly through the target (charming I know) and they had to be hit repeatedly or in an artery or vital organ to be stopped. Whereas the older bullets obliginly removed part of the target surrounding the exit point (most pleasant Im sure) and needed only one hit.

[quattro_20v]

Hmm, The Colt C7, modiefied version of m16, at 100m it easily goes tru a 2mm metal and even after that u see the sand coming up in the hills behind the targets on the shootingrange

[Matra et Alpine]

My info on the SA-80 is from mate - currently in Iraq and I've not heard if he's moving North to "save the US' butt".

j/k :) You have to find humour in that situation :)

Anyway, he was involved in the first foray with the SA-80 and he called it a POS. It was REALLY unreliable and the slightest knock on the mag and you couldn't reload under fire. It was a disaster !! He reckons the 02 version is so much better and is ideal in close combat and urban ( he has NI experience of what being a sqaddie on streets is like :( ) They've got the new mods for the firing pic impremevment too. They're not yomping but it was one of the BIG things he hated the gun for. On a full pack yomp he said the gun had bits that stuck in your ribs and were annoying :)

British Army run 4 man squads with different variants of the gun for each man. Same core ammo, but diffrennt muzzle length/velocities, stocks and fire rates to provide suppression AND accuracy from the squad when necessary.

IIRC the SA-80 is due for retirement in 5 years and it was the H-K G35 that theye were hearing was being considered.

[Matra et Alpine]

Hmm, The Colt C7, modiefied version of m16, at 100m it easily goes tru a 2mm metal and even after that u see the sand coming up in the hills behind the targets on the shootingrange
That is the point made earlier.

in reality you want a bullet capable of dissipating ALL of its energy INSIDE a body if possible. So punching 2mm metal and still hitting a small area behind is likely to produce a clean hole through a softer flesh target. That requires an accurate hit on a major organ to put an opponent down.

On a battlefield it used to be considered better to damage and disable an opponent rather than perfect clean hit. A disabled soldier will require the enemy to call up resources to recover and provide medical support. All resources taking active soldiers out of the action. With modern 'terrorist' actions I wonder if that thinking is appropriate :(

[more-boost1555]

i said m16 but i think both could stop a person just as good as the other. while i am in support for guns in general, the whole argument over assault rifles is stupid. what other purpos do they serve other than for criminals to attack with? are they acutally for today's modern super-predators? do you really need to unload a dozen buillets when your deer hunting? hmmm...

obviously they were designed to kill human beings, but why is it that you immediately put them into the hands of criminals as opposed to a law abiding citizen defending them selves? Guns are tools, and they were not made merely for hunting. Guns are the great equalizer, they give weaker individuals a way to defend them selves from those who would do them harm. To say they are only used for right or wrong is ignorant. They are merely tools in the hands of their operators.

Assault rifles are no different, to say noone needs them because they are designed to kill is moronic. The very fact they they are available to people is a deterrent to tyrants and oppressive government, along with your run of the mill violent criminals. Obviously they can also be used for evil, that is the cost of freedom. I am willing to accept that cost, you may not be. Just try and consider all the facts, that's all.

Sorry if this post came off as angry or confrontational. Just trying to state my opinion, and I respect yours as well even if I don't agree with it.

[more-boost1555]

now what about the IMI Tavor 9mm vs. the TAR 21? 2 less popular assault rifles, but mostly because they are more expensive. they are both bullpup configured (meaning rounds are fed into the barrell from the very back) for added barrell length, and to make it easier to control the recoil. both are very accurate, capable of single shot, and full auto, same size vlip (but the tavor has a 9mm ar round, while the tar-21 has i think 5.56.....). both are compact, fire 10 rounds a second (about) and are more accurate then the m16. (i love ghost recon mods+gun mod info forums)

both made by IMI, both bullpup, both based off the same design. The 9mm was designed as a cqb weapon for special forces, and really should not even be classified as an assault rifle because it fires pistol caliber ammo.

Both ae great guns for their respective purposes, I love IMI my self, a lot of great weapons have come from them. These are just the latest additions.

[more-boost1555]

I despise CSers and their lack of knowledge about real life.Ok first of all, 7.62 millimeters is 0.3 inches, not 0.308. Secondly, the accuracy is not really a problem (I will explain later on) and the extra weight is a personal opinion as to whether it is a problem or not. Note that we're talking about the M16A1 with the M193 0.223 remington, not the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and the AK-47 Type I not the AK-74 or the AKM.

Ok, now for the problem of the M192 0.223 Remington vs the 7.62 M43 rounds. While the M16 IS more accurate than the AK-47, it's extra accuracy is useless at distances over 150 meters. Most of it's velocity is lost because of friction to the air and the lightness of the bullet. Tests have shown that muscle tissue shot by the M192 round will still function if the bullet penetrated perpendicularly. The M43 Soviet round however, is not as accurate as the Remington round, but it is still useful over 200 meters and still useful after it's accuracy has been lost. The round tumbles inside the body, and changes direction on impact, causing severe muscle tissue destruction.

AK-47s have an effective range of 200-300 meters, while the M16's effective range is no more than 150 meters due to it's ammunition. Unless you have really good aim and can garuntee headshots with the M16 everytime you shoot, the AK47 is the better choice. While it is not based on a target rifle (like the M16) it does what it was intended to do: kill people. Even though not as accurate, it is accurate enough to do the job against enemies 200-300 meters away.

NOTE: OTHER VERSIONS OF AK-47s HAVE CRAPPY ACCURACY, ONLY THE TYPE I IS DEADLY

I was off by .008 of an inch, really I was just giving calibers so people could see comparible rounds. The only round I'm aware of that measures out to .300 is winchester magnum, and that is more of a specialty/hunting round.

Accuracy is not really a problem (with profficient shooters) I agree, the diffrences I'm sure are minimal. The 7.62mm round does offer greater range and tissue damage as well. However you can not deny the fact that the smaller 5.56mm round is much easier to learn to shoot with, and accurately at that. It's recoil is miniscule, and also allows for more control in full auto.

One thing I definately dissagree with is how you try to make weight into a non isssue. It is a major issue when you are talking about a weapon being standard infantry issue. You can carry a hell of a lot more ammo in 5.56 than 7.62 if you give them equal weight. For example, lets say ten pounds of ammo, obviously you are going to have more of the smaller 5.56 than the 7.62. Lighter rounds allow a soldier, who is allready burdened by a crap load of tools/equipment, to carry more ammo. This is a significant advantage.

In the end it all depends on the situation like I said. In urban combat or on open plains I'll take the M-16 cause of it's light weight and accuracy/low recoil. If we're talking desert, jungle or some other corrosive hostile environment I'd prefer the simplicity/reliability of the AK.

Really if you asked me to choose from any rifle in the world, neither of these would be my first choice. Both are great weapons though, with there own strengths and weaknesses.

[more-boost1555]

That is the point made earlier.

in reality you want a bullet capable of dissipating ALL of its energy INSIDE a body if possible. So punching 2mm metal and still hitting a small area behind is likely to produce a clean hole through a softer flesh target. That requires an accurate hit on a major organ to put an opponent down.

On a battlefield it used to be considered better to damage and disable an opponent rather than perfect clean hit. A disabled soldier will require the enemy to call up resources to recover and provide medical support. All resources taking active soldiers out of the action. With modern 'terrorist' actions I wonder if that thinking is appropriate :(

or fortunately depending on how you look at it. The geneva convention prevents the use of hollowpoints/dum dums, which splatter on impact and create massive tissue damage. Too inhumane I suppose. So regular old "ball" ammo, or armor piercing rounds are used. So of course they will not allways have the desired effect. On the same point neither would hollowpoints allways be the best choice. Sometimes you need a round to punch through armor, like the teflon coated rounds crisis was talking about.

[UK CARS]

Ive held an Ak before, very light, and the trigger is easy to find.

[DasModell]

blah . i don't care wich guns are better i look for design. my favorite . belgian Fn-Fal ..

[d-quik]

^^^^^now THAT is a heavy rifle, with heavy bullets
Hmm, The Colt C7, modiefied version of m16, at 100m it easily goes tru a 2mm metal and even after that u see the sand coming up in the hills behind the targets on the shootingrangeYeah, like Matra said this isn't really a good point, you want the bullet to stay inside the body not go through it.
One thing I definately dissagree with is how you try to make weight into a non isssue. It is a major issue when you are talking about a weapon being standard infantry issue. You can carry a hell of a lot more ammo in 5.56 than 7.62 if you give them equal weight. For example, lets say ten pounds of ammo, obviously you are going to have more of the smaller 5.56 than the 7.62. Lighter rounds allow a soldier, who is allready burdened by a crap load of tools/equipment, to carry more ammo. This is a significant advantage.Well I guess that is your opinion, but when it comes to be I guns that are heavier and more durable. In fact, my favourite gun right now is the all-steel version of the CZ-75. Though heavy, it is durable. The extra weight is not really a problem. As for carrying more 5.56mm rounds, I have to disagree. One of the main reasons the M43 soviet round is so popular is because people can carry a lot of it. Sure you can't carry as much as 5.56mm rounds, but it is still a lot. This is why weight is not that big of a deal in my opinion.

[NAZCA C2]

If you want a rifle that will get the job done then just get a M14. The M14 was the standard issue weapon for US forces before the M16.

[jcp123]

Well since we're on the subject of other guns in general, all I really want is a .357 Mag, 3" barrel, full barrel underlug, unfluted cylinder, with stainless finish and black combat grips.

Then I'd take a Remington 700 with black poly furniture/stainless barrel and action, chambered for .30-06 (or I wish I could get .300 Weatherby Mag. Maybe you can, I don't remember).

For hard combat, I'll still take an AK, or perhaps an HK53 if it's more close-quarters.

[henk4]

disgusting thread, if I had the power I would have removed it. :mad:

[jcp123]

Relax, they're just guns. Great stress relievers at the range. I don't think any of us here would just go around and start murdering everyone in sight.

[Matra et Alpine]

Relax, they're just guns. Great stress relievers at the range. I don't think any of us here would just go around and start murdering everyone in sight.
oh I don't know .....


I've got my ranked list of UCP members handy

:)

[The Tuner]

^^ lol!

remington 700 anyday, with dum-dums. (btw, explosive bullets [mercury or lead filled tip] and dum-dums are the same thing?)

1 problem i heard in the ak was that its too easy for the mag to get jammed, and thus slow down or totally stop the reloadin process...tru?

[jcp123]

Never heard that, I know that the original M16's had chambers that often jammed because they would get corroded ridiculously easily, maybe that's what you were thinking of...AK's are practically indestructible, you could probably drag it through the ocean and put it away for months, then when you get it back out you just slap a mag in there, kick open the bolt, and fire away.

[NAZCA C2]

disgusting thread, if I had the power I would have removed it. :mad:

There ain't nothin wrong with guns man! I go shooting all the time. I never killed anyone or anything crazy like that. Guns in the hands of responsible adults are good not bad. I don't know if guns are legal in your country or not but if you get a chance to go shooting you should definately do it.

[QuattroMan]

Ak For Meeeee!!!

[crisis]

obviously they were designed to kill human beings, but why is it that you immediately put them into the hands of criminals as opposed to a law abiding citizen defending them selves? Guns are tools, and they were not made merely for hunting. Guns are the great equalizer, they give weaker individuals a way to defend them selves from those who would do them harm. To say they are only used for right or wrong is ignorant. They are merely tools in the hands of their operators.

And a large amount of Americans seem to be very comfortable with thousand of their countrymen owning lethal weapons. I know you have to register and sit for licences and all thet crap but that has never stopped mentally unstable people getting their hands on these weapons when they want to. Its not only criminals with illegal weapons who cause trouble. Its sometimes normal people who snap and have the guns easily available. Im glad that we are not allowed the proliferation of high powered eapons in Australia. The less there are, thes less chance of people getting them.



Assault rifles are no different, to say noone needs them because they are designed to kill is moronic. The very fact they they are available to people is a deterrent to tyrants and oppressive government, along with your run of the mill violent criminals. Obviously they can also be used for evil, that is the cost of freedom. I am willing to accept that cost, you may not be. Just try and consider all the facts, that's all.

Sorry if this post came off as angry or confrontational. Just trying to state my opinion, and I respect yours as well even if I don't agree with it.

Good. Because speaking of moronic, the premise that public ownership of high powered weapons empowers them to deter tyrants and oppressive governments comes under that heading. The romantic notion that Billy Bob and his back wood militia can rise up and overthrow any governemtn these days is stupid. Make a list of oppressive govenments who have been overthrown by the public in the last twenty years maybe fifty. And to think that it could happen in the US is even worse. Have you seen an M1A1, Apache, AC130? Good luck. You know whole nations havent been able to defend themselves from your miltary so a bunch of poorly trained civillians against Rangers, Seals and throw in the rest of your army for back up would be the worlds quickest revolution.

[Coventrysucks]

The round tumbles inside the body, and changes direction on impact, causing severe muscle tissue destruction.


Such a nice topic to discuss.
Glad to know that you fill your time with such happy thoughts.


That will change once a foreign power ivades your homeland and kills all your family.

When is that happening then?

I suppose the M16 is ok if you are in the US military, but for your average user the AK is easier to aquire, maintain, and keep supplied with ammo.

[CdocZ]

The round tumbles inside the body, and changes direction on impact, causing severe muscle tissue destruction.

hollow points also do something a bit like that. except instead of flying around all over the inside of the body, the bullet shatters and rips apart everything in its path, and if it hits a bone, thatll shatter too, adding to the fragments (nice to think about that actually happening huh?)

[more-boost1555]

^^^^^now THAT is a heavy rifle, with heavy bulletsYeah, like Matra said this isn't really a good point, you want the bullet to stay inside the body not go through it.Well I guess that is your opinion, but when it comes to be I guns that are heavier and more durable. In fact, my favourite gun right now is the all-steel version of the CZ-75. Though heavy, it is durable. The extra weight is not really a problem. As for carrying more 5.56mm rounds, I have to disagree. One of the main reasons the M43 soviet round is so popular is because people can carry a lot of it. Sure you can't carry as much as 5.56mm rounds, but it is still a lot. This is why weight is not that big of a deal in my opinion.

I see your point, we agree to disagree :)

[more-boost1555]

oh I don't know .....


I've got my ranked list of UCP members handy

:)

I wouldn't happen to be on that list would I? *gulp*

[byronleehk]

Never had an M16 so I can't comment on that...

Have 3 Ak-47s, all made in different countries - Romania, China and E. Germany. The Romanian one james often and it has the Norico receiver, maybe it's just my bad luck :(

[more-boost1555]

And a large amount of Americans seem to be very comfortable with thousand of their countrymen owning lethal weapons. I know you have to register and sit for licences and all thet crap but that has never stopped mentally unstable people getting their hands on these weapons when they want to. Its not only criminals with illegal weapons who cause trouble. Its sometimes normal people who snap and have the guns easily available. Im glad that we are not allowed the proliferation of high powered eapons in Australia. The less there are, thes less chance of people getting them.



Good. Because speaking of moronic, the premise that public ownership of high powered weapons empowers them to deter tyrants and oppressive governments comes under that heading. The romantic notion that Billy Bob and his back wood militia can rise up and overthrow any governemtn these days is stupid. Make a list of oppressive govenments who have been overthrown by the public in the last twenty years maybe fifty. And to think that it could happen in the US is even worse. Have you seen an M1A1, Apache, AC130? Good luck. You know whole nations havent been able to defend themselves from your miltary so a bunch of poorly trained civillians against Rangers, Seals and throw in the rest of your army for back up would be the worlds quickest revolution.

Lol, geeze Crisis, your comments are so socialist it's ridiculous. Do you really trust the government to know better than your self what is good and bad for you? Yes please take away my freedoms in the name of safety, that is what you are saying you know. Do you really feel safer now that guns are illegal to own in your country? Do you think someone who "snaps", is going to rethink things and calm down simply because there are no guns? You say waiting periods/back round checks have never stopped guns from getting into the wrong hands. Do you really think that if someone in your country wanted to gain access to a firearm, your laws would stop them? If someone is intent on using a gun to commit crime, they will not be deterred by the fact that it is illegal to gain access to said gun. It may be marginally more difficult to illegally aquire a firearm in a country in which guns are illegal. However, in my opinion, that is a terrible price to pay for the denial of the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms. The people willing to break laws and commit crimes will still find a way to gain access to weapons of one sort or another. Whilst the good citizen, loses his freedom and use of the guns for recreation as well as self defense.

Really I thought you were more intelligent than this Crisis. I'm no genius (I'm sure you will agree with me on that, lol) but even I have enough common sense to know that guns DO give people the power to overthrow governments. Just ask your self one question, if you are a dictator of one sort or another and wish to exploit the nation under you what is the first thing you do? Take away their weapons obviously. That is the first step towards oppression. Countless governments in third world countries have been overthrown in the last century. Have you ever heard of the American Civil war? People with guns from the south rising up against the union, obviously they did not win. That is not the point though. It is the cold hard fact, that citizens with guns have a means of protection from oppression in any form. To be so naive as to say that our government will never move away from democracy and that we can allways trust in them is what I would call moronic. Now of course I'm not building a bomb shelter and gearing up for combat. But I will never, ever, allow my right to be infringed upon.

Regardless of whether you see my previous points, just answer this one question. Why should a law abiding, mentally stable, citizen of the U.S. with no previous criminal record not be allowed to keep and bear arms?

[jcp123]

If you make guns illegal, criminals will find a way to get them anyway. When there's a will, there's a way. Why take away a healthy hobby for millions because some nutjobs can't control themselves?

[crisis]

Lol, geeze Crisis, your comments are so socialist it's ridiculous. Do you really trust the government to know better than your self what is good and bad for you?
No, but we , and you elect them witht that in mind.

Yes please take away my freedoms in the name of safety, that is what you are saying you know.
Like the freedom to drive a car wherever I want at whatever speed I want, the freedom to act however I want regardless of how it might affect or endanger others. The freedom to take drugs. The freedom to settle my differences with anybody however I see fit. Get real. Our and your freedom is limited. Why? Because there are some people who cant make sensible decisions by themself. Some Americans seem to default to single word generalisations like socialist, liberal (if you dont like them), communist etc to rubbish contraditing points of view. Whatever heading you consider my thoughts to come under your country is socialist to a degree. And thats how this argument has to be debated. By degrees. There is no wrong and right in absolute terms.


Do you really feel safer now that guns are illegal to own in your country?
Guns arent illegal, but yes, I suppose I feel a little safer that there are less guns. Less for people to get hold of accidentally, illegally or otherwise. It is tempered by the fact that far fewer Australians have a love affair with guns so they were never really prevelant.


Do you think someone who "snaps", is going to rethink things and calm down simply because there are no guns?
Thats a rather strange statement but if there were no guns it wouldnt matter as much what he thought if he intended to attack other people.


You say waiting periods/back round checks have never stopped guns from getting into the wrong hands. Do you really think that if someone in your country wanted to gain access to a firearm, your laws would stop them? If someone is intent on using a gun to commit crime, they will not be deterred by the fact that it is illegal to gain access to said gun.
No. If criminals want guns they will get them. Just that most gun related murders are crimes of passion or fits of peak. A spouse looses it and wipes out his family or a student looses it and wipes out his school mates. Give them acess to a fire arm and off they go. Give them 12 hours to think about it or sober up and maybe it dosent seem such a good idea anymore. Most murders within the criminal world are perpertrated on each other. No great loss there.


It may be marginally more difficult to illegally aquire a firearm in a country in which guns are illegal. However, in my opinion, that is a terrible price to pay for the denial of the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms.
I think some innocent life is a terrible price to pay for others desire to own an uneccessary toy.


The people willing to break laws and commit crimes will still find a way to gain access to weapons of one sort or another. Whilst the good citizen, loses his freedom and use of the guns for recreation as well as self defense.
Guns for recreation or safety? Recreation goes in my opinion. There are plenty of other outlets for your spare time. Only live once though. Self defence? IT is debateable whether the fact that all parties are armed escalates the danger or subdues it. In the end if someone is robbing you you can let them take it. In most cases they will be caught by the authorities. Or you can pitch your own gunfighting skills against your opponent. My guess many people consider themselves better than they really are.



Really I thought you were more intelligent than this Crisis. I'm no genius (I'm sure you will agree with me on that, lol) but even I have enough common sense to know that guns DO give people the power to overthrow governments.
Thats not common sense, it is romantic idealism. A tired old line run out by the gun lobby to try and justify their cause. You could never, ever overthrow your govenrnment.


Just ask your self one question, if you are a dictator of one sort or another and wish to exploit the nation under you what is the first thing you do? Take away their weapons obviously. That is the first step towards oppression. Countless governments in third world countries have been overthrown in the last century.
Feel free to list them and the circumstances they were overthrown. Bare in mind third world citizens generally dont have enough money for food let alone weapons. And the governemts do not have the military strength of yours.


Have you ever heard of the American Civil war? People with guns from the south rising up against the union, obviously they did not win. That is not the point though.
No it aint. I dont remember the Civil war but Ive heard it happened. Apparently the airforce werent needed in that one, nor the armour or high tech weapons. Dont talk to me about who is intelligent.


It is the cold hard fact, that citizens with guns have a means of protection from oppression in any form.
No , its a another sweeping generalisation.

To be so naive as to say that our government will never move away from democracy and that we can allways trust in them is what I would call moronic. Now of course I'm not building a bomb shelter and gearing up for combat. But I will never, ever, allow my right to be infringed upon.
So you are keeping your gun to stop the government moving away from democracy? If they do you will not be doing anything with your gun except getting buried with it, if they let you.



Regardless of whether you see my previous points, just answer this one question. Why should a law abiding, mentally stable, citizen of the U.S. with no previous criminal record not be allowed to keep and bear arms?
Other than so there guns dont fall into the hands of those who arent, none. Of course you should come up with a way of ensuring only law abiding, mentally stable citizens get them. Check the label maybe.

[The Tuner]

not biased either way, but i seem to be leanin to crisis's point of view...we dont have guns here in uae, it illegal to own em, and i think thats a good thing. but personally, i wud really like to have a few guns, n use em for practice or hunting.

can the person who started this thread add a poll? shud b interestin to see how many ppl think guns shud/shudnt b outlawed.

[cls12vg30]

In the end if someone is robbing you you can let them take it. In most cases they will be caught by the authorities.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL..This is me laughing my tail end off. Tell that to the drugged-up guy that robbed my brother and me at gunpoint and hit me with the gun unprovoked just to even the odds, breaking my jaw in two places, and never got caught. If I had been armed and properly trained at that time, as I am now, it never would have happened. As in most crimes, I had plenty of signs that something was about to go wrong if I knew what to look for, and plenty of time to beat that scumbag to the draw, and make darn sure he understood that I was armed and prepared to defend myself. At which time there is a 97% probability he would have turned tail and run, and found some "softer" target.

Just bending over and taking it when criminals want to victimize you, is not only a personally offensive concept, it's pretty damn dangerous. In a disarmed society, you've gone back to medeival days. The biggest and the strongest rule. Anybody with a kitchen knife can rob, rape, and pillage to their heart's content, until the "authorities catch them", which is AFTER the crime or crimes have already occurred, and innocent people may be injured or dead.

A gun is the great equalizer, it allows a 90-pound woman to effectively defend herself against a 300-pound attacker, something that would otherwise be impossible.

You lament innocent life, but you're not doing the math. In the US guns are used to prevent crimes between 500,000 and 2 million times each year. How many innocent lives saved does that represent? No one can say for sure, but I am quite confident it is greater than the number of innocent lives lost to accidents with legal firearms, which are in actuality quite rare.



And a large amount of Americans seem to be very comfortable with thousand of their countrymen owning lethal weapons.

Yes, we are. I trust my fellow law-abiding American citizens to own lethal weapons, as I expect them to trust me. I live in an aparment complex, and I am comfortable that several of my neighbors are as well-armed as I am. Helps me sleep better at night. How this mutual trust can be seen as a bad thing is beyond me. I trust my fellow citizens much more than I trust the government. The idea of a government saying that only the government is allowed to have firearms, you little citizens are not allowed, you might get hurt.........my God that is so offensive it makes me choke.

[crisis]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL..This is me laughing my tail end off. Tell that to the drugged-up guy that robbed my brother and me at gunpoint and hit me with the gun unprovoked just to even the odds, breaking my jaw in two places, and never got caught. If I had been armed and properly trained at that time, as I am now, it never would have happened. As in most crimes, I had plenty of signs that something was about to go wrong if I knew what to look for, and plenty of time to beat that scumbag to the draw, and make darn sure he understood that I was armed and prepared to defend myself. At which time there is a 97% probability he would have turned tail and run, and found some "softer" target.
Glad I could cheer you up.
So your the quickest draw in the West then eh? How many gunfights has it been then?


Just bending over and taking it when criminals want to victimize you, is not only a personally offensive concept, it's pretty damn dangerous. In a disarmed society, you've gone back to medeival days. The biggest and the strongest rule. Anybody with a kitchen knife can rob, rape, and pillage to their heart's content, until the "authorities catch them", which is AFTER the crime or crimes have already occurred, and innocent people may be injured or dead.
Have you ever heard of the job called Police negotiator? Even those guys try to work out a non violent resolution at first. For as many times as you think someone has saved themselves by drawing a gun you will find as many accidents , suicides, crimes with guns stolen by these legal gun owners etc etc. Your the one living in the past but its the wild west. In the end if your assialant is hel bent on giving you a hiding your chances of surviving a beating are better than surviving a shooting.



A gun is the great equalizer, it allows a 90-pound woman to effectively defend herself against a 300-pound attacker, something that would otherwise be impossible.
Little Annie Oakley would probably do better to have some self defense training than be packin.


You lament innocent life, but you're not doing the math. In the US guns are used to prevent crimes between 500,000 and 2 million times each year. How many innocent lives saved does that represent? No one can say for sure, but I am quite confident it is greater than the number of innocent lives lost to accidents with legal firearms, which are in actuality quite rare.

Between 500000 and 2000000? Thats what I call a statistic! Its the kind gun lobbyists like the most. The loose one. Theres a bit of leeway there, like 1.5 million but whos counting. Yes no one can say for sure but your confident assumption is as predictable as it is baseless.


Yes, we are. I trust my fellow law-abiding American citizens to own lethal weapons, as I expect them to trust me. I live in an aparment complex, and I am comfortable that several of my neighbors are as well-armed as I am. Helps me sleep better at night. How this mutual trust can be seen as a bad thing is beyond me. I trust my fellow citizens much more than I trust the government. The idea of a government saying that only the government is allowed to have firearms, you little citizens are not allowed, you might get hurt.........my God that is so offensive it makes me choke.
I dont trust anyone I dont know. Have you seen what some of your fellow citizens get up to? I dont trust any government blindly but they genreally can be trusted not to shoot at you, rob you (?), or assault you, so I'll let them have their guns. Course they probably wouldnt need so many if there wasnt people shooting at them.

[more-boost1555]

No, but we , and you elect them witht that in mind.

I do not elect my government representatives with the thought that they will know what is best for me. I, and I alone make that decision. I try and elect officials who's beliefs coincide with mine. I think that's what most people do. I dunno maybe things are different in your country.


Like the freedom to drive a car wherever I want at whatever speed I want, the freedom to act however I want regardless of how it might affect or endanger others. The freedom to take drugs. The freedom to settle my differences with anybody however I see fit. Get real. Our and your freedom is limited. Why? Because there are some people who cant make sensible decisions by themself. Some Americans seem to default to single word generalisations like socialist, liberal (if you dont like them), communist etc to rubbish contraditing points of view. Whatever heading you consider my thoughts to come under your country is socialist to a degree. And thats how this argument has to be debated. By degrees. There is no wrong and right in absolute terms.

Speed limits and drug laws have nothing to do with this argument. They are different issues, and should be handled differently. Cars kill more people every year than guns do, why are people allowed to drive? Because denying freedom to many, just to stop a few from abusing it is ridiculous. Freedom allways comes at a cost, of responsibility. You have to either accept it. Or in your case, not. Besides, I am not trying to say that guns of all shapes and sizes should be distributed freely amongst anyone with a drivers license and the required cash. I am in favor of the existing gun laws, I believe they should be enforced vigorously.

Lol, ok so people only end up murdering each other if they have guns around. Otherwise, even if they reach a boiling point, they will eventually calm down and realize the error of their ways. You're joking right? When someone reaches a peak as you say and cross the point of no return into pyscho killer territory, they kill just because of the convenience a firearm presents. Lol, that's just funny.

MOST gun crimes occur because people who have no right gaining access to the firearms they intend to use somehow do. Look at colombine, that was a tragedy. Those kids didn't go down to the corner store and buy those weapons. They stole them from their parents. They neglected their responsibility, and people died. The instance with the shootout in LA...the perps had illegal weaponry and killed a bunch of cops. In either case, the weapons were obtained because of a lack of responsibility. By parents, police, gun vendors etc. Increased education and strict enforcement of existing laws are the answer to most gun crimes. Not the flat denial of our right to bear arms.


I think some innocent life is a terrible price to pay for others desire to own an uneccessary toy.

that is where we fundamentally disagree, maybe it's because I was born and raised in a country whose independence was won by citizens with firearms. I will allways see guns as a neccesary implement of freedom, and deterrent of oppression.


Guns for recreation or safety? Recreation goes in my opinion. There are plenty of other outlets for your spare time. Only live once though. Self defence? IT is debateable whether the fact that all parties are armed escalates the danger or subdues it. In the end if someone is robbing you you can let them take it. In most cases they will be caught by the authorities. Or you can pitch your own gunfighting skills against your opponent. My guess many people consider themselves better than they really are.

Guns are used for recreation. Whether you see that as stupid or unneccesary is your opinion. Target shooting and hunting are very big in the U.S., and hunting is still a survival skill albeit one not needed by most people. Who's to say you are being robbed? Maybe this person is insane and dead set on murdering you or your family/friends. You can't pidgeon hole every scenario into a robbery. Someties it is better to just give in to a crminals demands in order to avoid violence. Sometimes it can not be avoided. Just so you know, it is a well known fact that Washington D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the U.S. Also, it is illegal to own a firearm in the district, draw your own conclusion.

What makes you think the people of this country could not overthrow this government? There are quite a bit more civillians than military personnel. Also do you think every single man in uniform would fight and kill his own countrymen just because a commander tells him to? Obviously our military has many high tech bits and pieces they could use to massacre a militia. But you don't take any circumstances into account. Guerilla warfare has found ways of defeating superior technology and forces in the past. Why would it be any different this time? Regardless of whether it's possible or not, would you really rather have everyone turn in their guns and be subject to the will of their goverment? Would you really give them that much more power over you? I know I would not.

Forget the third world countries point. I am not going to take the time to back it up, so just throw it out all together. Just a few comments. In some countries guns are cheaper than water. With the collapse of the soviet union came a flood of cheap weaponry. Also, it is not unheard of for children in some countries to be named Kalashnikov in tribute to the gun that gave them freedom. (heard that one on the history channel ;) )

Ok, I am sorry I insulted your intelligence Crisis, and labled you a socialist. That was out of line.

How is it that saying armed people have a means of protection from oppression/harm is a "sweeping generalization"? That is just a fact. A gun is a tool, it can be used for self defence. That is not arguable.


So you are keeping your gun to stop the government moving away from democracy? If they do you will not be doing anything with your gun except getting buried with it, if they let you.

I do not own a firearm as of yet, but I do plan to one day. I am keeping it because it is my right as an american. And yes, if god forbid our government ever tries to take that right or others away from me I will fight them. I do not forsee that happening, but I will not just disregard it as an impossibility. The second amendment was included in the constitution for that purpose and that purpose alone. Our forefathers knew that weapons gave them the means to overthrow oppression, and wanted to make sure that future generations had the same power should their little experiment in independence go awry.


Other than so there guns dont fall into the hands of those who arent, none. Of course you should come up with a way of ensuring only law abiding, mentally stable citizens get them. Check the label maybe.

Well lets see, there are waiting periods, background checks, and countless other common sense laws. Obviously they do not allways get the job done. That is just an unfortunate fact of life. Like I said, do you think guns are kept out of all the wrong hands in your country? Criminals will find a way. Even if all guns the world over were somehow magically made to dissapear, do you think the world would live in peace? People would still murder people, one way or another.

[crisis]

Freedom allways comes at a cost, of responsibility. You have to either accept it. Or in your case, not.
And the cost should be worth the benefit. I think peoples lives are worth more than someone elses hobby or past time.


Lol, ok so people only end up murdering each other if they have guns around.
No , who said that?


Otherwise, even if they reach a boiling point, they will eventually calm down and realize the error of their ways. You're joking right? When someone reaches a peak as you say and cross the point of no return into pyscho killer territory, they kill just because of the convenience a firearm presents. Lol, that's just funny.
I would doubt that your prized statistics would inlcude a large percentage of "pysco killers". A large percentage of murders take place in a domestic situation. A depressed father who cant win a custody battle or feels poorly done by by a family court ruling shoots his children , wife and himself. That happens over and over again. Banning guns wont stop it. When he has hit a level of depression and snaps, he goes and gets a gun. An efficient killing tool. The job is done in minutes or hours. The alternative would invariably be more difficult and more time consuming. How many times have you reacted instantly to something and later regretted it?
Really trying to make light of a different opinion gos no way to strengthening your argument.


MOST gun crimes occur because people who have no right gaining access to the firearms they intend to use somehow do. Look at colombine, that was a tragedy. Those kids didn't go down to the corner store and buy those weapons. They stole them from their parents. They neglected their responsibility, and people died.
And if their parents hobby was stamp collecting they would have had to do it another way. Without access to guns the body count would have been lower if at all. That is a perfect example of why legal guns should not exist in an domestic environment.


The instance with the shootout in LA...the perps had illegal weaponry and killed a bunch of cops. In either case, the weapons were obtained because of a lack of responsibility. By parents, police, gun vendors etc. Increased education and strict enforcement of existing laws are the answer to most gun crimes. Not the flat denial of our right to bear arms.
And its exactly my point. The lack of responsibility of the general population. The impossibility of knowing when and where someone is going to be irresponsible , dangerous or unpredictable. If they cant lay their hands on a weapon legally or otherwise it doesnt happen. Enforcement is impossible and the laws can never account for persons changing circumstances etc.




that is where we fundamentally disagree, maybe it's because I was born and raised in a country whose independence was won by citizens with firearms. I will allways see guns as a neccesary implement of freedom, and deterrent of oppression.
You will never be able to secure your freedom and deter oppression with your gun. Its a romantic concotion of the gun lobby.



Target shooting and hunting are very big in the U.S., and hunting is still a survival skill albeit one not needed by most people.
Agreed.




Someties it is better to just give in to a crminals demands in order to avoid violence. Sometimes it can not be avoided. Just so you know, it is a well known fact that Washington D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the U.S. Also, it is illegal to own a firearm in the district, draw your own conclusion.
Or jump to one. What other differences exist in Washington. Social, historic, socio economic? What other laws may have an effect. What mix of population? How and why are these people killed? Is it per capita? Has it changed since gun laws changed? What else changed at the time?


What makes you think the people of this country could not overthrow this government? There are quite a bit more civillians than military personnel. Also do you think every single man in uniform would fight and kill his own countrymen just because a commander tells him to? Obviously our military has many high tech bits and pieces they could use to massacre a militia. But you don't take any circumstances into account.
Trained well armed soldiers would account for many times their number in civillians armed or otherwise. Tactical, logistical and planning issues are just some of the circumstances you need to take into account. No one can envisage what scenario we are talking about and it is futile as the possibility of this is miniscule in relation to the use of such a scenario being a justifiable argument for public gun ownership.


Guerilla warfare has found ways of defeating superior technology and forces in the past.
Precisely. RPGs, mines, car bombs and AK47s. All of which I dont think fit under your current ubrella of "legal " firearms.


Why would it be any different this time?
Perhaps the Russians would be less inclined to help the US population defend itself against the type of government that would be likely to usurp the current style you have.


Regardless of whether it's possible or not, would you really rather have everyone turn in their guns and be subject to the will of their goverment? Would you really give them that much more power over you? I know I would not.
As I have stated your ownership of firearms will not help one bit if the governemtn chooses to go rougue on you. I also dont understand why you think your government is waiting for the opportunity to do oppress you the minute they get your precious rifles. Ours hasnt.


Forget the third world countries point. I am not going to take the time to back it up, so just throw it out all together.
Cant sum it up in a word then?


Just a few comments. In some countries guns are cheaper than water. With the collapse of the soviet union came a flood of cheap weaponry. Also, it is not unheard of for children in some countries to be named Kalashnikov in tribute to the gun that gave them freedom. (heard that one on the history channel ;) )
Huh!


Ok, I am sorry I insulted your intelligence Crisis, and labled you a socialist. That was out of line.
I enjoy the debate, I must , Ive type a thousand words, but I dont have much respect for people who revert to abuse or dismiss others comments out of hand. I know you have a different opinion and you are not alone. I am trying to put forward my case for my opinion succinctly and rationally. I have no problem being labelled a socialist or anything by people who want to argue with single word genralisations. I try to refrain from that level of conversation because it show ignorance and inability to frame an argument effectively.
Apology accepted.


How is it that saying armed people have a means of protection from oppression/harm is a "sweeping generalization"? That is just a fact. A gun is a tool, it can be used for self defence. That is not arguable.
Yes it is and I have previously. The notion is broadly reasonable but the reality of putting it into practice is , as I thought I have outlined, impossible.




I do not own a firearm as of yet, but I do plan to one day. I am keeping it because it is my right as an american.
that is the worst reason yet.


And yes, if god forbid our government ever tries to take that right or others away from me I will fight them. I do not forsee that happening, but I will not just disregard it as an impossibility. The second amendment was included in the constitution for that purpose and that purpose alone. Our forefathers knew that weapons gave them the means to overthrow oppression, and wanted to make sure that future generations had the same power should their little experiment in independence go awry.
I dont forsee that happening and as I said, unfortunately you wont suffer long. Did you see what your government did to Iraq? That was a whole country with an army.
your forefathers wrote that when smart bombs, and high tech weapons didnt exist. It was gun against gun. And it would want to be a whole heap of oppression to. Even back then your country lost a lot of people fighting for their freedom.



Well lets see, there are waiting periods, background checks, and countless other common sense laws.
Common sense of course is not as common as it should be. Another reason everyone shouldnt have the right to guns. Maybe devise a test for common sense.

Obviously they do not allways get the job done. That is just an unfortunate fact of life.
Or death.

Like I said, do you think guns are kept out of all the wrong hands in your country?
No becasue we still have guns.


Criminals will find a way. Even if all guns the world over were somehow magically made to dissapear, do you think the world would live in peace? People would still murder people, one way or another.
Just make it harder. Its all about degrees. Less guns less chance for people to use them. No guns ( which I think we all agree is impossible) no chance to use them. It wont eradicate murder entirely but that is not the point.

[Luciferous]

The fact that anyone can try and defend guns to this point is totally bewildering. A tool? That is one of the biggest understatements someone can make. I've noticed some people saying that a gun is a tool. A gun is designed to kill. How is that constructive in any way? All these views are centered around a cowboy mentality that means that they jump at the chance to dish out their own unique brand of justice. Its a joke. If you wanna shoot people go over to Iraq, I hear your Army needs the help.

[cls12vg30]

A gun is designed to kill. How is that constructive in any way?

Because there are circumstances where, in order to protect an innocent life or lives, a non-innocent one must end.

And the reason that the number of instances of self-defense with firearm is grossly estimated at between 500,000 and 2 million per year is because in over 90% of such cases, no shots are fired. A prospective victim makes it known that they are armed, the perpetrator aborts, and the situation is defused. More often than not such an incident is never reported to the authorities, hence the difficulty in nailing down firm numbers.

[Luciferous]

So your saying that having a firearm helps decrease the amount of crime. Well it sounds like there's enough crime as it is, and I'd say the guns would be a cause of it.

[crisis]

Because there are circumstances where, in order to protect an innocent life or lives, a non-innocent one must end.

And the reason that the number of instances of self-defense with firearm is grossly estimated at between 500,000 and 2 million per year is because in over 90% of such cases, no shots are fired. A prospective victim makes it known that they are armed, the perpetrator aborts, and the situation is defused. More often than not such an incident is never reported to the authorities, hence the difficulty in nailing down firm numbers.
Therefore the statistics are meaningless.

[megotmea7]

all very good points on both sides... but didnt me and crisis get into this a few months back already... :rolleyes:

[Luciferous]

I like the way you word things cls12vg30, did you fail the application for the Army or for the Police force?

[Luciferous]

all very good points on both sides... but didnt me and crisis get into this a few months back already... :rolleyes:

You can probably thank me for that I didn't know about the other argument and started the 'Pro-gun Lobbyists...' thread for fun. I see people feel quite passionate about the subject.

[crisis]

all very good points on both sides... but didnt me and crisis get into this a few months back already... :rolleyes:
I thought it was done to death but the same arguments come up and it was either go looking for the old thread or write it again. Come to think of it I might copy those (or these) links for future use. Im sure the topic is not dead.

[Luciferous]

Its always messy when die hard fans meet logic.

[more-boost1555]

I was trying not to respond to this but it's just too tempting.


I would doubt that your prized statistics would inlcude a large percentage of "pysco killers". A large percentage of murders take place in a domestic situation. A depressed father who cant win a custody battle or feels poorly done by by a family court ruling shoots his children , wife and himself. That happens over and over again. Banning guns wont stop it. When he has hit a level of depression and snaps, he goes and gets a gun. An efficient killing tool. The job is done in minutes or hours. The alternative would invariably be more difficult and more time consuming. How many times have you reacted instantly to something and later regretted it?

For the record, I never provided any numerical statistics of any sort in this argument so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Just listen to what you say here Crisis. Banning guns won't stop this situation, yet you think it should be done anyway simply because the guns is the most efficient killing tool. Therefore we should eliminate them because maybe if he doesen't pick up a gun, he won't be crazy enough to pick up a knife etc. That is just heresay, like anyone knows what a madman will really do. Is it really that much more difficult for a grown man to throttle his wife and children than shoot them? Really the latter situation is more likely to happen if for no other reason than not everyone owns a gun.


And if their parents hobby was stamp collecting they would have had to do it another way. Without access to guns the body count would have been lower if at all. That is a perfect example of why legal guns should not exist in an domestic environment.

Yet again, we resort to heresay. Lets say their parents don't own guns. They were obviously dead set on killing as many people as possible, with utter disregard for the consequences. Any fool can build a bomb from home made materials, any fool with access to the internet. This same situation could happen in your country today. Kid makes a bomb, blows up classroom. Or maybe he just grabs a knife/sword and starts slashing away. It's all possible. Yet people like you refuse to see that and blame it all on the tool in the culprits hands. Oh it must be the guns fault, it's the most efficient killing machine so it's to blame.


And its exactly my point. The lack of responsibility of the general population. The impossibility of knowing when and where someone is going to be irresponsible , dangerous or unpredictable. If they cant lay their hands on a weapon legally or otherwise it doesnt happen. Enforcement is impossible and the laws can never account for persons changing circumstances etc.

First off, like I said, cars kill more people every year world wide than guns. Yet no one pisses and moans about them. Is every driver responsible? Hell no. Should some people not be allowed to drive? Absolutely. Same thing with guns. Why should everyone have to make a scarafice because of a few nuts? Call me dumb, ignorant, a stupid hick american, whatever (not that you have Crisis) but I refuse to compromise damnit! Why should I have to give up my freedom, given to me by the men who fought and died for it? Just because some people have no respect for the law/human life, I should have to sacrafice my rights? Pardon my language, but f**k that. A car is a lethal weapon, like I said it kills more people every year than guns do. How would you feel if people started telling you you couldn't be trusted to drive anymore because you might kill someone? It's ridiculous.

Ok, I said my piece. You can rebut if you want. I promise I'm done this time :)

[crisis]

I was trying not to respond to this but it's just too tempting.



For the record, I never provided any numerical statistics of any sort in this argument so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Sorry, they werent your statistics.


Just listen to what you say here Crisis. Banning guns won't stop this situation, yet you think it should be done anyway simply because the guns is the most efficient killing tool. Therefore we should eliminate them because maybe if he doesen't pick up a gun, he won't be crazy enough to pick up a knife etc. That is just heresay, like anyone knows what a madman will really do. Is it really that much more difficult for a grown man to throttle his wife and children than shoot them? Really the latter situation is more likely to happen if for no other reason than not everyone owns a gun.
The avalailability of the gun has no baring on the persons psycological state, agreed. Why doesnt the US (and the rest of the world) not want North Korea (or anyone else ) to have nuclear weapons. Its not because they think it will make them want to use them. Its because you/we would rather not have the proliferation of weapons that could enable countires to cause massive destruction should circumstances turn bad. It is the same logic I use for guns. I dont expect them ever to be banned. That idealistic. I am arguing purely from a philosophical point. A deranged person with a knife has to get within arms distance of each intended victim. It is rediculous to propose that any other device than a gun could carry out the same damage in the same situation.
Naturally the man would resort to other means without a gun. Thats positive. He can only "throttle" one person at a time.




Yet again, we resort to heresay. Lets say their parents don't own guns. They were obviously dead set on killing as many people as possible, with utter disregard for the consequences. Any fool can build a bomb from home made materials, any fool with access to the internet. This same situation could happen in your country today. Kid makes a bomb, blows up classroom. Or maybe he just grabs a knife/sword and starts slashing away. It's all possible. Yet people like you refuse to see that and blame it all on the tool in the culprits hands. Oh it must be the guns fault, it's the most efficient killing machine so it's to blame.
What heresay. Compare the resultant body counts of mass murders involving kids with bombs/knives/swords to those involving guns. Thats nonsense. Yes they "could " do these things but you dont see these things happen. Why? Because it is not convenient. If the people are intent on killing, those with long term problems you wont stop them. But those who act on the spur of the moment won tsit down and build a bomb. They will gram what is nearest to hand and use it. Sure this is anecdotal but th esupposition is based on a logical process. It is irrelevant whther "people like me" blame the tool or not. To be honest I find weapons fascinating like all sorts of technology. I used to play with soldiers, toy guns and militaria when I was a kid. THe gun is an inanimate object, like a nuclear bomb. But it enables the user the ability for various levels of destruction. All I say is to reduce the availablity to those who dont really need them.


First off, like I said, cars kill more people every year world wide than guns. Yet no one pisses and moans about them. Is every driver responsible? Hell no. Should some people not be allowed to drive? Absolutely.
This is the most irritating, rediculous and unfortunately common comment that gun lobbyists bring up. It has been answered a million times. Either you guys are having your first debate on this issue or you say it to p*ss people off.
Cars dont kill , drivers do. Seriously cosider the consequences of ceasing the usage of cars, busses, trucks etc. Economically as far as their manufacture would put a quarter of the Western wordls population out of work (probably more if you went through the effect entirely). Secondly it would be a quantum change in how our civilisations worked on every level. Sad but true. Would dissallowing the genreal public to own guns do this. Get real.
Also consider the percentage of the worlds population that own or use cars to those who own or use guns.

[more-boost1555]

Cars dont kill , drivers do.

funny I could say the same thing about guns. Your point about the relevance of cars vs. that of guns in society is obvious and inarguable. Yet still are cars and roads as safe as they could be? Are license tests as relevant and effective as they could be? I don't think so, and yet no one makes a stink about it despite the fact that yes there are more cars than guns in this world, and more automobile related fatalities than gun realted. This is all the more reason that it should be a bigger issue, yet it isn't. Because liberal politicians and activists view the gun as some sort of evil killing machine with a mind of it's own, and will crusade to no end to take them away from honest citizens.

Maybe some of their hearts are in the right place, and I think yours is, but I doubt that of some of these socialist beaurocrats. They just want to further villify guns and scare people into handing over their constitutional right to bear arms. Thus furthering their socialist agenda and increasing government control over it's citizens.

Maybe I'm paranoid, or just too conservative, but in most instances I think it is best to keep the government as small as possible and it's power within reasonable limits.

Anyway, good points, nice debating with you Crisis. I know I lied about not responding, but damnit I just couldn't help my self, sorry.

[Matra et Alpine]

Maybe some of their hearts are in the right place, and I think yours is, but I doubt that of some of these socialist beaurocrats. They just want to further villify guns and scare people into handing over their constitutional right to bear arms. Thus furthering their socialist agenda and increasing government control over it's citizens.
wow, a right wing view of socialism for sure :)

Anyway, on removing guns.
What do you think of the kids carryign weapons after Arafat's death ?
Do THEY have athe "right", should 'conservative' governments apply pressure to make them "hand over" their "right to bear arms".

Can't have cake and eat it !!

( Though what's the point of having a fecking cake if you DONT eat it :) )

[crisis]

funny I could say the same thing about guns. .
Plenty of gun lobbyists do. Thats why I said it. ;)



Your point about the relevance of cars vs. that of guns in society is obvious and inarguable. Yet still are cars and roads as safe as they could be? Are license tests as relevant and effective as they could be? I don't think so, and yet no one makes a stink about it despite the fact that yes there are more cars than guns in this world, and more automobile related fatalities than gun realted. This is all the more reason that it should be a bigger issue, yet it isn't. Because liberal politicians and activists view the gun as some sort of evil killing machine with a mind of it's own, and will crusade to no end to take them away from honest citizens.
Nothing is entirely safe. We make a judgement as a society as to what are reasonable costs. Are the the amount of lives lost on the road acceptable? I dont think so. But all govenrments spend/make a lot of money on trying to reduce it. Some laws are questionable but there is a constant drive to reduce the road toll. Compare this with the point of view you have on gun laws. No change.


Maybe some of their hearts are in the right place, and I think yours is, but I doubt that of some of these socialist beaurocrats. They just want to further villify guns and scare people into handing over their constitutional right to bear arms. Thus furthering their socialist agenda and increasing government control over it's citizens.

But how will that control manifest itself? We have less accesability to some guns and the government has not reacted in any opressive manner that is different than if we all had Uzis.


Maybe I'm paranoid, or just too conservative, but in most instances I think it is best to keep the government as small as possible and it's power within reasonable limits.
You voice a typical party line that most gun lobbyists use. It is one that has been fed to you and everyone by those who feel passionately about their gun ownership. What better way to garner support than to generate fear of the alternative. The argument that gun ownership ensures you safety from rougue govenrment or the very notion that they are waiting with baited breath to wreak havoc the minute they disarm you is ridiculous.


Anyway, good points, nice debating with you Crisis. I know I lied about not responding, but damnit I just couldn't help my self, sorry.
Likewise. If you dont respond it just means I havent pushed the right buttons. :)