Split423 Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 he wasnt talking about you or sly c's owning of an assault weapon. he was talking about people who buy assault weapons to dso stupid things with like shooting people. guns are the #1 murder weapon and usually its either an assault weapon or a handgun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrusk Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 he wasnt talking about you or sly c's owning of an assault weapon. he was talking about people who buy assault weapons to dso stupid things with like shooting people. guns are the #1 murder weapon and usually its either an assault weapon or a handgun. Weapons that are legally purchased through the proper channels are almost never used in violent crimes. If somebody is going to purchase a gun to harm somebody, they are going to purchase it illegaly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_C Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 he wasnt talking about you or sly c's owning of an assault weapon. he was talking about people who buy assault weapons to dso stupid things with like shooting people. guns are the #1 murder weapon and usually its either an assault weapon or a handgun. weapons don't kill people, people kill people. and i agree andrusk if everyone was forced to own a handgun there would be much less crime. and like i said i never said i needed one i just want one and i can own one so i will. Its a dead link no its not for some reason ie puts a / before the ' in the link. get a real browser. might i recomend a styler aug or a m4a1 eventually, but not right now, they are quite abit out of my price range. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrDogg77 Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 well i hope that u dont plan to target shoot with those, because they are not very accurate weapons, durable yes, but accurate no, not past 300 yards anyways. btw the difference b/n most of those is just cosmetic, but i guess i would get #5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYoKoNA Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 and to go along with that, this is why the Constitution is a living document. outdated laws and amendments are changed over time, just this one hasnt been yet. be thankful that you even have the right to. many countries have bans on guns, such as england. i will admit that i would like to try an assault rifle sometime, i just wouldnt buy one. The CONSTITUTION is not a living document, unless ofcourse you are a liberal. Their are two schools of thought. One is the liberal in which they believe they can change our Constitution over time. The other is the "Conservative" school of thought, who believe the Constitution, outside of Freedom of Equality (Socially, NOT economically), should be left alone, and "Conserved", hence the term Conservative. Justice Antonin Scalia will tell you that the Constitution needs to be left ALONE, and preserved, along with Sandra O'Conner, and Clarince Thomas. BTW I pick #5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_C Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 well i hope that u dont plan to target shoot with those, because they are not very accurate weapons, durable yes, but accurate no, not past 300 yards anyways. btw the difference b/n most of those is just cosmetic, but i guess i would get #5 yes i know they are all the same weapon with just difference stocks attatched but all are chambered in 7.62 and try 300 meters not yards thats 330 yards. and i don't plan on shooting that far anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 if everyone owned a handgun, crime rate would remain the same, but violent-crime and deaths would increase. Think about it. There are several criminals that do not use guns. Now you're giving everyone a gun, so those criminals will now have them. Now you'd probably say that if everyone has a handgun, that's a deterrent, but you're failing to realize that there's several people that 1) would never shoot someone, and/or 2) don't know how to use a gun, and/or 3) can't physically handle a gun (the elderly). Now think about a non-violent crime. A criminal tells you to fork over money. You clumsily pull out a gun, and bam, he shoots you. Or maybe you're actually more adept at shooting than he, and you shoot him first. Either way, you've now created violence in an otherwise non-violent crime. Now, if you were "compassionate" you may just shoot to disable him (shoot his arm, leg...gun?), but in the spur of the moment would you trust aiming at a small target such as an appendage, or would you rather have the large target of his chest? Most people won't be skilled enough to do the former, even with proper training. And before you comment, just realize that I never said anything against handguns in previous posts, this thread was about assault weapons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYoKoNA Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Clay, you really don't know what you are talking about. Crime rates OVERALL have decreased in states that allow more guns. I suggest reading John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime b4 commenting any further, or look it up for that matter. It is the most extensive study that has EVER been published on crime. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrusk Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 if everyone owned a handgun, crime rate would remain the same, but violent-crime and deaths would increase. Think about it. There are several criminals that do not use guns. Now you're giving everyone a gun, so those criminals will now have them. Now you'd probably say that if everyone has a handgun, that's a deterrent, but you're failing to realize that there's several people that 1) would never shoot someone, and/or 2) don't know how to use a gun, and/or 3) can't physically handle a gun (the elderly). Now think about a non-violent crime. A criminal tells you to fork over money. You clumsily pull out a gun, and bam, he shoots you. Or maybe you're actually more adept at shooting than he, and you shoot him first. Either way, you've now created violence in an otherwise non-violent crime. Now, if you were "compassionate" you may just shoot to disable him (shoot his arm, leg...gun?), but in the spur of the moment would you trust aiming at a small target such as an appendage, or would you rather have the large target of his chest? Most people won't be skilled enough to do the former, even with proper training. And before you comment, just realize that I never said anything against handguns in previous posts, this thread was about assault weapons. its a statistical fact that when a robber is confronted with a weapon they usually back down. I have seen studies on this, i dont have the links cause im in school but it is a fact. There are several towns in the u.s. where citizens are required by law to own a handgun, and the crime rate in these cities is about as close to zero as you can get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 if everyone owned a handgun, crime rate would remain the same, but violent-crime and deaths would increase. Think about it. There are several criminals that do not use guns. Now you're giving everyone a gun, so those criminals will now have them. Now you'd probably say that if everyone has a handgun, that's a deterrent, but you're failing to realize that there's several people that 1) would never shoot someone, and/or 2) don't know how to use a gun, and/or 3) can't physically handle a gun (the elderly). Now think about a non-violent crime. A criminal tells you to fork over money. You clumsily pull out a gun, and bam, he shoots you. Or maybe you're actually more adept at shooting than he, and you shoot him first. Either way, you've now created violence in an otherwise non-violent crime. Now, if you were "compassionate" you may just shoot to disable him (shoot his arm, leg...gun?), but in the spur of the moment would you trust aiming at a small target such as an appendage, or would you rather have the large target of his chest? Most people won't be skilled enough to do the former, even with proper training. And before you comment, just realize that I never said anything against handguns in previous posts, this thread was about assault weapons. its a statistical fact that when a robber is confronted with a weapon they usually back down. I have seen studies on this, i dont have the links cause im in school but it is a fact. There are several towns in the u.s. where citizens are required by law to own a handgun, and the crime rate in these cities is about as close to zero as you can get. those studies are based on the current situation of things. You're talking about every citizen in the U.S. owning a handgun. A small town isn't close to relative when talking about big cities such as NYC, LA, or Chicago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrusk Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 if everyone owned a handgun, crime rate would remain the same, but violent-crime and deaths would increase. Think about it. There are several criminals that do not use guns. Now you're giving everyone a gun, so those criminals will now have them. Now you'd probably say that if everyone has a handgun, that's a deterrent, but you're failing to realize that there's several people that 1) would never shoot someone, and/or 2) don't know how to use a gun, and/or 3) can't physically handle a gun (the elderly). Now think about a non-violent crime. A criminal tells you to fork over money. You clumsily pull out a gun, and bam, he shoots you. Or maybe you're actually more adept at shooting than he, and you shoot him first. Either way, you've now created violence in an otherwise non-violent crime. Now, if you were "compassionate" you may just shoot to disable him (shoot his arm, leg...gun?), but in the spur of the moment would you trust aiming at a small target such as an appendage, or would you rather have the large target of his chest? Most people won't be skilled enough to do the former, even with proper training. And before you comment, just realize that I never said anything against handguns in previous posts, this thread was about assault weapons. its a statistical fact that when a robber is confronted with a weapon they usually back down. I have seen studies on this, i dont have the links cause im in school but it is a fact. There are several towns in the u.s. where citizens are required by law to own a handgun, and the crime rate in these cities is about as close to zero as you can get. those studies are based on the current situation of things. You're talking about every citizen in the U.S. owning a handgun. A small town isn't close to relative when talking about big cities such as NYC, LA, or Chicago. the same rule would apply, merely on a larger scale. And these are towns of around 100,000 people. Not neccesarily small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly_C Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 if everyone owned a handgun, crime rate would remain the same, but violent-crime and deaths would increase. Think about it. There are several criminals that do not use guns. Now you're giving everyone a gun, so those criminals will now have them. Now you'd probably say that if everyone has a handgun, that's a deterrent, but you're failing to realize that there's several people that 1) would never shoot someone, and/or 2) don't know how to use a gun, and/or 3) can't physically handle a gun (the elderly). Now think about a non-violent crime. A criminal tells you to fork over money. You clumsily pull out a gun, and bam, he shoots you. Or maybe you're actually more adept at shooting than he, and you shoot him first. Either way, you've now created violence in an otherwise non-violent crime. Now, if you were "compassionate" you may just shoot to disable him (shoot his arm, leg...gun?), but in the spur of the moment would you trust aiming at a small target such as an appendage, or would you rather have the large target of his chest? Most people won't be skilled enough to do the former, even with proper training. And before you comment, just realize that I never said anything against handguns in previous posts, this thread was about assault weapons. how is u shooting someone who is robbing u a crime? i call that self defense. and who is to say he wasn't going to shoot u anyway? and how can u be so blind as not to see that if someone for example knew that everyone within a bank had a gun with them that they would think twice before robbing that bank? or breaking into that house? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts