AK-47 Type I vs. Colt M16A1

[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...

[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...

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...

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.