Gun Laws in America

gue_barium · December 2006

69charger wrote:

If you hit me on the butt with a .22 I will not die. If I hit you in the butt with my 50 Cal you will be torn apart. Literally.

LOL. You didn't Google it, you shit. I was hoping you did. LOL. Cuz I know I'm right. If my memory serves, a .22 leaves the barrel at around 1800 feet per second. A Colt .45 automatic (which was used through the '80's in our military) leaves the barrel at a sluggish 950 feet per second. The bullets are remarkably different in size, and hence, the damage they can inflict. A .45 would really mess somebody up at close range, and that's what they were designed for.

Scubascott · December 2006

gue_barium wrote:

If the aim is to kill, it can be, simple as that.

Ok, at the risk of sounding like a redneck . . . . I have shot plenty of rabbits and kangaroos with a .22 with the aim to kill them. They often don't die. Trying to kill a wild pig with a .22 is like trying to knock down a brick wall with a pair of slippers.

Some firearms are more dangerous than others. That is a fact. That's why when the gun laws were reformed in Australia certain types of firearms were placed under tighter controls than others.

redrock · December 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

I have yet to hear someone recommend banning all guns in this thread

I think I did it ages ago (but can't be bothered to check!).

69charger · December 2006

gue_barium wrote:

LOL. You didn't Google it, you shit. I was hoping you did. LOL. Cuz I know I'm right. If my memory serves, a .22 leaves the barrel at around 1800 feet per second. A Colt .45 automatic (which was used through the '80's in our military) leaves the barrel at a sluggish 950 feet per second. The bullets are remarkably different in size, and hence, the damage they can inflict. A .45 would really mess somebody up at close range, and that's what they were designed for.

You aren't.

First you are comparing a rifle round (.22) to a pistol round (.45).

Secondly the fastest .22 will leave the barrel around 1800fps, most around 1,300. The .204 Ruger has a muzzle velocity over 4,000fps. The .223 or 5.56 Nato leaves the barrel at 2,700fps.

The .22 has a fairly average muzzle velocity, very low bullet weight, and is, for all intents and purposes, ineffective past 200 yards.

You take your .22 and I'll keep my .50

gue_barium · December 2006

69charger wrote:

You aren't.

First you are comparing a rifle round (.22) to a pistol round (.45).

Secondly the fastest .22 will leave the barrel around 1800fps, most around 1,300. The .204 Ruger has a muzzle velocity over 4,000fps. The .223 or 5.56 Nato leaves the barrel at 2,700fps.

The .22 has a fairly average muzzle velocity, very low bullet weight, and is, for all intents and purposes, ineffective past 200 yards.

You take your .22 and I'll keep my .50

I call time out. LOL.

onelongsong · December 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

personally I hate guns. They are intended for one purpose. To Kill. I would like to see extremely tough gun laws. much tougher then the ones already in place. and an all out ban on assault weapons like machine guns.

the second amendment right is as outdated as catholic priests not being allowed to marry. we shouldnt have the right to bear arms. it should be a privilege to those who qualify.

what a joke. the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. the states with concieled weapon permits have the lowest crime rates. there has not been a crime comitted with a legally registered machine gun since 1934.
did you ever consider that crimes are comitted by those who do not respect the law and therefore wouldn't abide by any gun laws?

onelongsong · December 2006

Scubascott wrote:

Ok, at the risk of sounding like a redneck . . . . I have shot plenty of rabbits and kangaroos with a .22 with the aim to kill them. They often don't die. Trying to kill a wild pig with a .22 is like trying to knock down a brick wall with a pair of slippers.

Some firearms are more dangerous than others. That is a fact. That's why when the gun laws were reformed in Australia certain types of firearms were placed under tighter controls than others.

remember 44 minutes where 2 bank robbers fired thousands of rounds from automatic AK-47's and nobody got killed? what about police shoot-outs you see on the news where let's say 50 shots were fired at close range by highly trained police and nobody gets hit?
those who don't know anything about guns think they are some majical weapon. the truth is; a gun is the least deadliest of all the known weapons.

farfromglorified · December 2006

onelongsong wrote:

a gun is the least deadliest of all the known weapons.

Wow. I'm as anti-gun control as anyone, but how'd you come up with this?

There's a reason the police and the military no longer carry boards with nails in them.

sonicreducer · December 2006

if i had a gun and someone robbed me, i might use it. if there were no guns and someone robbed me, i could potentially defend myself with brutal but not lethal force. there would be a lot less robberies too. that would be cool, but guns are here to stay. what is the point in not having one? is it wrong to feel insecure without one?

if someone is denied the ability to have a gun legally, they will get one illegally. it is pretty much a lost cause.

jlew24asu · December 2006

onelongsong wrote:

what a joke. the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. the states with concieled weapon permits have the lowest crime rates.

would love to see some stats.

onelongsong wrote:

there has not been a crime comitted with a legally registered machine gun since 1934.

good news

onelongsong wrote:

did you ever consider that crimes are comitted by those who do not respect the law and therefore wouldn't abide by any gun laws?

such a vague statement. crimes are very often committed by people who have always respected the law.

how about the guy who went on a rampage in the Amish school? he had a very clean record.

jlew24asu · December 2006

onelongsong wrote:

remember 44 minutes where 2 bank robbers fired thousands of rounds from automatic AK-47's and nobody got killed?

but many people got hurt.

onelongsong wrote:

what about police shoot-outs you see on the news where let's say 50 shots were fired at close range by highly trained police and nobody gets hit?

you arent talking about the recent NYC shooting right? someone was killed. you rae very good at making up stories

onelongsong wrote:

those who don't know anything about guns think they are some majical weapon. the truth is; a gun is the least deadliest of all the known weapons.

are you insane? or you just like to hear yourself talk?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

Kann · December 2006

I don't live in the usa so I won't get in the argument, I would just like to hear what are your answers (particularly the threadstarter) to this :
In my country (France) firearm detention is illegal (with very strict exceptions for hunters). Same goes for most european countries and the crime rate here is lower than in the usa. Do you believe it has nothing to do with gun control laws?

jlew24asu · December 2006

Kann wrote:

I don't live in the usa so I won't get in the argument, I would just like to hear what are your answers (particularly the threadstarter) to this :
In my country (France) firearm detention is illegal (with very strict exceptions for hunters). Same goes for most european countries and the crime rate here is lower than in the usa. Do you believe it has nothing to do with gun control laws?

not sure I understand the wording of your question.

firearm detention is illegal? so most guns are illegal?

and the crime rate is lower then usa.

do I believe it has nothing to do with gun control? I think it does have something to do with gun control laws. I'm no expert, but common sense tells me they are correlated.

Scratchin a Letter · December 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

the second amendment right is as outdated as catholic priests not being allowed to marry. we shouldnt have the right to bear arms. it should be a privilege to those who qualify.

Nice one.

Whilst I'm no American (I'm sure everyone knows that by now), to suggest owning a gun is 'constitutional' is garbage. Does one really need a gun to survive? And the 'protection' issue is bollocks too. Protect form what? Bears?

Banning guns wouldn't solve anything though. It would enrage 'sportsmen', cripple the US economy and destroy parts of their heritage like having the Bloods, the Crips and the NRA. Even if guns were outlawed, they would still exist and still be a prominent prop of the all-American home. It's a shitty situation. Yes, cars, hammers and alcohol are dangerous too, but when a country has the highest rate of gun crime/gun violence/school shootings/armed robberies in the world whilst priding itself on the fact that guns are necessary, it's a bit of a concern.

onelongsong · December 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Wow. I'm as anti-gun control as anyone, but how'd you come up with this?

There's a reason the police and the military no longer carry boards with nails in them.

look at the facts. how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?
the british 3 sided bayonet was banned from warfare because it was too deadly. doctors could not repair the wounds and the victim usually bled to death before medical attention.
a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot. the ket word is vital organ. a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal. that's the difference. compare the number of gunshot wounds compared to gunshot deaths.
police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly. my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.

Collin · December 2006

onelongsong wrote:

look at the facts. how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?
the british 3 sided bayonet was banned from warfare because it was too deadly. doctors could not repair the wounds and the victim usually bled to death before medical attention.
a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot. the ket word is vital organ. a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal. that's the difference. compare the number of gunshot wounds compared to gunshot deaths.
police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly. my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.

Show me proof that a gun is the least deadliest weapon, not stories.

Guns are made for killing, if they don't do that, they just fuck you up real bad.

I'd take someone attacking me with a knife over someone with a gun anyday.

onelongsong · December 2006

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

Nice one.

Whilst I'm no American (I'm sure everyone knows that by now), to suggest owning a gun is 'constitutional' is garbage. Does one really need a gun to survive? And the 'protection' issue is bollocks too. Protect form what? Bears?

Banning guns wouldn't solve anything though. It would enrage 'sportsmen', cripple the US economy and destroy parts of their heritage like having the Bloods, the Crips and the NRA. Even if guns were outlawed, they would still exist and still be a prominent prop of the all-American home. It's a shitty situation. Yes, cars, hammers and alcohol are dangerous too, but when a country has the highest rate of gun crime/gun violence/school shootings/armed robberies in the world whilst priding itself on the fact that guns are necessary, it's a bit of a concern.

to date; my gun has saved 7 lives by killing rattlesnakes. at night i carry a gun to the barn because of the high population of mountain lions. why are there still gun crimes in countries that have banned guns? why is alcohol legal when it kills many more people than guns? since police arrive at a crime scene for clean-up and not stop or deter the crime; why shouldn't a person be able to defend themselves? why should a law abiding citizen have to defend themself against an armed criminal with their bare hands? i could go on; but why? frankly; i'd fear a government that was afraid of my gun.

jlew24asu · December 2006

this is just too easy.

onelongsong wrote:

look at the facts.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

onelongsong wrote:

how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?

and 50,000+ Americans died. well over 3.5 million people died from 1946-1975

onelongsong wrote:

a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot.

now we are comparing bullets to pencils? any idea how hard it is to stab someone in the heart with a pencil. this is funny.

onelongsong wrote:

a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal.

you cant get hit by a knife from 6 ft away. and a bullet doesnt have to hit a organ to kill you, you can bleed to death or be paralyzed.

onelongsong wrote:

police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly.

quote of the year.

onelongsong wrote:

my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.

he was lucky

farfromglorified · December 2006

onelongsong wrote:

look at the facts. how many gunshots are non-lethal? somewhere i heard that there were 100,000 injured in the vietnam war. if guns are so lethal; why so many survivors?

Because guns aren't perfectly lethal. They remain a skill weapon. That, however, does not make guns "the least deadliest of all the known weapons".

the british 3 sided bayonet was banned from warfare because it was too deadly. doctors could not repair the wounds and the victim usually bled to death before medical attention.

If you can bayonet someone from 500 yards away, let me know.

a bullet hitting the heart is as deadly as a pencil hitting the same spot. the ket word is vital organ. a knife wound anywhere can be fatal but a bullet must hit a vital organ or artery to be fatal. that's the difference. compare the number of gunshot wounds compared to gunshot deaths.
police carry guns for stopping power. not because they're deadly. my best friend was injured in the vietnam war. shot several times he has 2 metal knees; one metal elbow; one metal shoulder; and a bullet lodged at the base of his skull. the psycological effects did much more damage than the bullets.

This is specious logic. You're fixating on the attributes of bullet wounds without examining the overall power of the gun itself. I can't hit your vital organs with a pencil from a long distance. Hell, being able to outrun me pretty much invalidates any close-combat weaponry as being more deadly than a gun.

As weapons go, guns aren't terribly gruesome, yes. A mace, correctly wielded, is a terribly lethal and gruesome weapon. But a mace held by one man cannot level an army of thousands. A gun, however, allows a small minority to completely destroy a vast majority. One need only to look at the clash of cultures armed with guns against those without to understand the lethal force of guns.

None of this matters in the context of gun control, IMO. A tool of death has no ethical consequence -- it is the death itself and the actions and choices of the murderer that matter. But claiming that guns are "the least deadliest of all the known weapons" is completely silly, and seems motivated by a logic that simply wants to somehow demonstrate that since guns are largely precision weapons they should be welcomed over others. In some contexts, particularly the execution of war, that logic can fly. But when simply debating the overall lethality of weaponry, it is a cop-out.

Collin · December 2006

onelongsong wrote:

to date; my gun has saved 7 lives by killing rattlesnakes. at night i carry a gun to the barn because of the high population of mountain lions. why are there still gun crimes in countries that have banned guns? why is alcohol legal when it kills many more people than guns? since police arrive at a crime scene for clean-up and not stop or deter the crime; why shouldn't a person be able to defend themselves? why should a law abiding citizen have to defend themself against an armed criminal with their bare hands? i could go on; but why? frankly; i'd fear a government that was afraid of my gun.

Are you against stricter laws? Because in my opinion "law abiding citizen" doesn't mean anything. And by the way aren't you the one who faked your own death or something is that really law abiding?

Gun Laws in America

Comments

Categories