So in the news today (Assault Weapons Ban)

[Retlaw83]

I know you and Airsoft guy make very valid points but being from a country where the guns aren't even registered and we have shitloads less violence, I just don't see how people justify anything more than handguns.
But I guess you gotta be American to see it.

I'd imagine it has to do with the reasons our nations were founded. America was founded on the principle of armed rebellion against a system that the Canadians really didn't dislike enough to break free from.

[Burnov]

Shit Walt I know its possible. But so is the fact that you could walk outside and get hit by a stray bullet, fired from an assault rifle by someone who was hunting with it.

I know you and Airsoft guy make very valid points but being from a country where the guns aren't even registered and we have shitloads less violence, I just don't see how people justify anything more than handguns.
But I guess you gotta be American to see it.

1: Are you forgetting our wonderful failure of a gun registry?

2: Don't turn this into a Canada vs the 'States issue. I'm from Canada and I think assault weapons kick a whole lotta' aess... if used responsibly.

Also, lets not turn this into an issue of splitting hairs either. There's just as much risk of being hit by a stray bullet from a semi auto hunting rifle as there is a full auto one. Half of that hypothetical situation must include the burden of responsibility to be borne partially by the person dumb enough to be traipsing around in an area known for game hunting.

It's a ridiculous assumption to make about people who want to use automatics that they're wholly irresponsible and people will start dying left and right as a result. I also heard on the Daily Show today, Jon Stewart making some lame joke about going to rob a bank now that the ban has been lifted.

You can rob a bank with a revolver. How many bullets it can fire isn't the issue. Furthermore don't use the Hollywood bank robbery as an example. The reason they had so much trouble in that incident had less to do with their weaponry and more to do with the fact that they were wearing ridiculous amounts of body armor.

Furthermore about your mention of a pistol. I'm actually more for security measures toward pistols than I am rifles of any sort. For the simple reason is that it is in fact easier to conceal a pistol. Thereby making it easier to commit crimes, such as murder and bank robbery or anything else some demented son of a bitch can conceive.

[Wolfman Walt]

They were also high on drugs which didn't help. Also didn't help that they were built like tanks to begin with. But the Northwest Hollywood shoot out did do something interesting if its used in an anti-gun argument. No one aside from the criminals died.

[Nicolai]

Didn't they kill two coppers and wound quite a few?

[airsoft guy]

No, they just injured some people, no one but the robbers were killed.

Now some of you must have some wierd assed warped views of how things work in this country. It is a crime to hunt ANY animal with a FULLY-AUTOMATIC FIREARM. You CANNOT go out into the woods with a FULLY-AUTOMATIC FIREARM and hose Bambi down. Doing so will result in a fine, something in the neighborhood of $10,000 and losing the privilage to hunt for up to ten years.

You CAN, on the other hand, hunt with a SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearm. It seems some of you don't know what the goddamn difference is. FULLY-AUTOMATIC is where you pull the trigger and hold it, causing multiple rounds to be fired. SEMI-AUTOMATIC means that you can squeeze that trigger as long and as hard as you like but only one bullet will come out per pull.

If you're going shit in your pants and make a big deal about something then learn the material. Do not enter into an argument unless you know something besides what everyone else has spoon fed you. If you're not sure ask someone, ask multiple people. Call up the NRA and ask them and then call the Brady Campaign, call the Gun Owners of America, the Million Mom March, go to the local gun clup or sportsmans club, go to a range and ask them. Just don't come in here and tell us you think the AWB was good because it banned fully-automatic-baby-killing-heat-seeker-30-round-death-buckets-from-HELL-cannons. Makes you look and sound like an uneducated fuckknob. Get it right. Get it right. GET IT RIGHT. The key to winning a debate is to KNOW THE FACTS. If you don't and still wish to argue then fine, but you'll get eaten up by those who know what it did and didn't do.

You people have this weird idea that EVERYONE in America owns a fully-automatic weapon that they're just itching to use on the first Girl Scout that comes to their door, or on someone that cut us off on the freeway. You think that gang members are ROAMING the countryside armed with AK-47's, Uzi's, rocket launchers and shit liek that, well they're not. You have a higher chance of being struck by lighting multiple times before you get involved in a shooting of somekind. You're fearing something that doesn't need to be feared. You should be worrying about getting hit by a bus or catching the Herpes more than getting shot.

[xbow]

I don't believe in bow hunting, it's cool if someone elkse wants to do it but I wont because when I shoot an animal I want to to die as soon as possible.

Plenty of animals are maimed by modern rifles, shotgun slugs, black powder weapons, archers, and crossbow users. Actually the weapon of choice is secondary to the hunters ability to place his shot. I have killed game with both Rifle and Bow and I can tell you that shot placement is everything. A solid hit in the heart lung area be it from an arrow or bullet drops the animal quickly. With the bow however you have to be close 40-50 yards or less, at longer ranges the arrow just isn't packing the energy to penetrate deeply enough to cause massive bleeding.

Long bellied drunks stumbling through the woods with a weapon of choice in one hand, a beer in the other, and buck fever on the brain do most of the maiming. Game animals shot in the gut or ass with a 30-06 or an arrow tend to run until they bleed out and die a miserable, painful death.

Still it is true that the slow death (sometimes days) experienced by a Deer shot in the gut with a bow is truly far worse than the death experienced by a deer shot in the gut with a high power rifle that dies within minutes.

I once got a glimpse of a Deer that had two arrows stuck in his ass, I had to wonder just how dumb the bow hunter in question was to fire at a retreating buck from that aspect.

No doubt the deer in question died of its injuries and the result more than likley was that in dying that deer made it possible for a pack of coyotes to raise up lots of little coyotes that will grow up to be big and strong and have lots of little baby coyotes of their own. Then the whole pack can go out together and chew off the faces of calfs and sheep or pick off you cat or dog for a snack.

[Kashluk]

To keep this discussion clean, I'll try to keep my flaming to the minimum.

And yes, people do need guns for home defense. You have yet to prove otherwise. Infact, I believe as it is, the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders, not mine. You have to prove why I shouldn't own a firearm, not the other way around.

Well, that's debatable. No Finn I know carries a gun for self-defence. Not even home, because guns are required to be kept in a gun locker (which is locked, duh) when not used, so you can't really keep one in a drawer next to your bed or anything. And handguns in general are pretty god damn difficult to get in the first place, so it's very unlikely you could have a full-sized shotgun or hunting rifle inside a nighttable.

And no, it's not just Finland. My uncle has lived for the last 25 years in the central Moscow (yes, RUSSIA), surrounded by 11 million more or less decent inhabitants and he has *never* had a gun. None of his friends have guns either. So.

--------

On the hunting subject - I disagree with Mandalorian on the ".22 is enough for all game" part. I agree with having small magazines - a single shot should do, or otherwise you shouldn't be allowed to be hunting in the first place. But big animals require bigger caliber. IIRC .308 is the *minimum* requirement for hunting moose/elk around here, otherwise the forest guard will write you a big-ass fine.

But then again, I disagree with you airsoft guy on hunting with bows and cross bows. Those things can be damn efficient for hunting. Especially cross bows. A 350 lbs xbow is silent, accurate, very powerful and fires a much larger projectile than any hunting rifle I know of. And because you'll be hunting at close range anyways (sniping /= hunting), the silence is literally golden for you. Bows are great hunting weapons, if that's what you need.

-------------

Just about all nations say that they support the citizens ‘Basic Right to life’ but in many of these nations the citizens are denied the tools to protect themselves. This denial of the Basic Right of self defense is nothing less than a relic of the feudal system.

And just about all nations say that they support the citizens 'Basic Right to life' but in many of these nations the citizens are denied to get free education, health care and dental care. This denial of the Basic Right of FUCKING LIFE ITSELF is nothing less than a relic of the feudal system.

Touché.

Just for the record: For the most part the Scandinavian countries and Finland never seemed to fall in lock step with their southern neighbors and have generally not deprived their citizens of the right to defend themselves.

I think it's just the opposite. Scandinavia / Fennoscandia has one of the tightest gun laws and regulations in the world. Our citizens don't complain, though, because we don't fear that our government'll go psycho on us - we actually have faith in democracy. And we have compulsory military service (so does Sweden & Norway? I can't remember), so we'll get tons of guns in our hands in the army anyways. You can always become a pro-soldier if you wanna bang-bang all the time. Or a porn-star, lol, I'm so funny.

----------

In my honest opinion, I don't believe civilians need full-auto firearms. Semi-auto should be enough even for the crappiest hunter and for the guy living in the worst of all neighborhoods (and both of these arguments *for* guns are debatable - both can be done without, as said earlier).

The US model of only allowing a small number of people have firearms (basically the filthy and/or rich) is acceptable, because it doesn't bring locked & loaded M60s to every average Joe. But I think the way Finland has banned all full-auto firearms outside military use hasn't brought anything negative on our asses. Even the crooks are having a hard time getting their hands on full-auto weapons, because they need to go get them abroad. And since it basically means Russia (-> Sweden and Norway are as tight on this issue as Finland), it can be controlled on the border. Just for the record: Finland's long East Border is the most tight-assed border of European Union, with relatively huge resources spent on carrying out the guarding duty.

Thanks for bothering to read my rant.

[Wolfman Walt]

I was more refering to it more like this, if you want to defend yourself against someone who invades your home with firearms, you'll need a firearm yourself or atleast SOME sort of manor to defend yourself. Not everyone NEEDS a firearm for home defense, criminals for one definetly don't need one for "Home defense". Infact, statistically speaking, not many people do. But for the few who did need it and had it, I'm sure they were glad they had it.

[airsoft guy]

It is illegal to hunt with crossbows here in Washington state.

[Kashluk]

@ Wolfman Walt

But even in that case, a shotgun or similar should do just fine. No need for full-auto assault rifles or such. Not even a handgun, propably. The intimidating "kla-chunk" of a pump-action makes crooks fall in love with your floor.

[Doc Hill]

This is just e, but I hav a eight inch pocket knife. That knife is all the home defense I need. It's all in what you're able to put up with. I'm not particualrly scared of being shot, I know pain, danced with it too long. Bullet wound probably won't be fatal, and the idiot who does it will pay pretty dearly. It's a horrible thing to hamstring someone, but I would do it all the same. And as for auot and sem-auto for defense, I've seen certain pistols blow a hole the size of your head in their targets, you just need the right one. I believe deeply in everyone's right to life, even the sick evil bastards....their life should just be made into hell on earth is all. You come into my house, you'll probably leave alive...doesn't mean you'll leave under your own power. Like I said before, it's easy to wound with a gun, but knife wounds...they're always going to be just as mean as the guy holding the knife.

On another note, their are provisions in the constitution(look it up) for the peaceful change of government if this one goes belly up. The Founding fathers didn't like war anymore than anyone else, and the provided for it's avoidance later on.

[MurPHy]

Let's see here.....

It is illegal to hunt with crossbows here in Washington state.

That's...wierd. I've heard of dumber laws though.

I just don't see how people justify anything more than handguns.

Because you cannot hit anything with a handgun. Try it sometime.

I went to a range about 2 years ago, and my uncle (who is a cop) let me fire his .40 S&W pistol. Guess what? I couldn't hit shit. I tried to hit a paper target's head from less than 10 feet away, and I couldn't do it.

Why is that, you ask?
Is it because I have absolutely zero training with firearms? Yes.
Is it because I had never shot a pistol before in my life? Yes.
Is it because I am a bad shot? Maybe.

The point is, unless you have had plenty of training and practice time, you will not be able to hit a goddamn thing. So, if such a person wants something to defend themselves in their home against bugulars, what will be a good firearm for them? A shotgun.

[Kashluk]

Yes. AND THE SHOTGUN DOES -NOT- NEED TO BE FULL-AUTO.

I hope the point has been well taken.

I've been thinking of getting a shotgun myself, not for self-defence, but for target practice and shooting down those annoying birds that are eating our cats' food. I'm thinking of getting a 250 € Churchill pump action. Cheap and shit, I know, but money doesn't grow in trees around here.

But ey, isn't this kinda the same stuff that goes in the Guns & Ammo thread?

[MurPHy]

Yes. AND THE SHOTGUN DOES -NOT- NEED TO BE FULL-AUTO.

What? There are only 3 or 4 automatic shotguns in existence that I know of. None of them are good for anything but close quarters combat. The South Koreans made a nice shotgun that I would like to get, though.

Hey check this out:

http://www.clintongunban.com/FactSheets ... ct%20Sheet

I hate Clinton.

[Mismatch]

Hey check this out:

http://www.clintongunban.com/FactSheets ... ct%20Sheet

I hate Clinton.

quite the unbiased site you've found there.
reminds me of them research reports funded by tobacco companies.

Because you cannot hit anything with a handgun. Try it sometime.

Isn't that, in fact a good thing?
That way ppl can shoot all the like, somone will call them coppers, and they'll get there ard get them burglars.
and noone gets hurt.

[S4ur0n27]

omg

Guns are useless except for the police forces and the army.

What's so fun about holding a fucking piece of metal?

[MurPHy]

Isn't that, in fact a good thing?
That way ppl can shoot all the like, somone will call them coppers, and they'll get there ard get them burglars.
and noone gets hurt.

Har har har. Very funny.

When I made that statement, I meant at any decent range. Obviously you can shoot someone if they are standing right next to you. But not from 30 yards away.

EDIT:

Here's some "unbiased" news on the ban's repeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm

It's obvious bullshit.

The ban was passed by President Clinton in 1994 after a series of shootings in US schools and fast food restaurants.

And none of those shootings involved assault "weapons".



This is also bullshit. Look at the "maximum effective range" for the AK. 1500 metres? Har har har! Lay off the crack pipe there. More like 250-300 meters.

[airsoft guy]

Well 250-300 meters is the maximum accurate range, but the bullet still goes pretty far after that.

[MurPHy]

Well 250-300 meters is the maximum accurate range, but the bullet still goes pretty far after that.

That is true. But why would you call that range "effective"? It is not effective in any sense of the word. A more appropriate term would be "lethal".

[airsoft guy]

Because they're asshats and don't know the difference between the two.