[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Giligan

Heh. I've got to be the only person on the planet with a terrible dislike of the M-16. As far as being modular, yes. A lot of NATO rifles, like the L85, have interchangable magazines with the rifle, and the M203 has certainly proved itself over and over again, but as far as a civilian rifle it's just not what I would ever be interested in. Still, to each his own.



Agreed. Firearms are in themselves a science. I'm sure zoologists can't understand why someone would be interested in astrophysics. The biologist can't understand why some people are attracted to computer science, or the geologist equally is stumped as to the fascination with political science. It's just a matter of personal interest in a subject.



No problem.

You aren't alone, I dislike the M16 for quite a few reasons myself. The only thing I like about it is it's cosmetics. I don't like the way magazines are seated into the gun, I don't like the stocks, don't like the way you have to cock the gun (charging handle) and it has quite a bit of parts to worry about if you were to ever be in combat. It's great for plinking at a shooting range but thats about it. I will admit it's very accurate, just not reliable. I can't say I really like the L85, it seems to have a lot of problems. I heard Heckler And Koch was supposed to fix a lot of the issues they were having though.

The only issue with the AK47's that I have are the sights, other than that it's a wonderful rifle. It's hard to find the adapters to use optics though and not so easy to mount a grenade launcher (not like i'd ever use one anyways). I know on the galils you can attach a M203 grenade launcher if you remove the handguard. Still adds a heck of a lot of weight though I have mock m203 grenade launchers which only fire a bunch of co2 gas and bb's. They still look cosmetically pleasing, although the mock ones are made for airsoft guns.

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

Maybe if you took the time to get past emotional feelings and what you see in a picture, you would have taken the time to read that I wrote it is a "semi-automatic" firearm, not a fully automatic machine gun.

Semi-automatic, full automatic. It's all the same to me. What I meant was that that kind of machine gun seems unnecessary for a civilian person.

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Kolzig

Semi-automatic, full automatic. It's all the same to me. What I meant was that that kind of machine gun seems unnecessary for a civilian person.

It's not a machine gun that is what i'm trying to point out. Semi-Automatic means you can only fire one round per pull of a trigger.

Take a look at this video (about 10 minutes long) by a cop who explains it is only a cosmetic difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c

It's no different than taking a honda civic and dressing it up like a ricer, while it may look like a race car, it is only cosmetically different with a change of appearance by adding a fin or new rims, bumper and painting the car. It doesn't change how it functions though.

Maybe it's just me, but based on a few replys on the thread so far, I have a feeling we have a number of people on here who suffer from hoplophobia. The thread was intended to discuss firearms but it appears it has turned slightly political, I fail to understand what causes someone to fear an inanimate object? Surely one would associate guns with murder although more people die in America from carcrashes in automobiles yet there are fewer cars than guns in this country.

[Jeysie]

I would note, just for the record, that I can think of several hobbies that involve a variety of scientific, social, and historical topics... just get my best friend started on barbershop, guitars, or SCUBA diving, for instance. And yes, devoted golfers do talk about the composition of their clubs in relation to how it helps their game, and devoted bowlers do talk about historical changes to ball design and lane dynamics (not so much pins, admittedly).

Having corrected that, I will say I can understand the potential for fascination with guns... but I have no interest in using one, and I never purchase anything I don't use, so I don't give the matter much more than my typical general curiosity.

Originally Posted by PILMAN

Maybe it's just me, but based on a few replys on the thread so far, I have a feeling we have a number of people on here who suffer from hoplophobia. The thread was intended to discuss firearms but it appears it has turned slightly political, I fail to understand what causes someone to fear an inanimate object? Surely one would associate guns with murder although more people die in America from carcrashes in automobiles yet there are fewer cars than guns in this country.

So you consider it irrational to be afraid of something that's sole purpose is to cause damage? Cars only kill people when they're not used properly, after all; they're not designed for that purpose.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I would note, just for the record, that I can think of several hobbies that involve a variety of scientific, social, and historical topics... just get my best friend started on barbershop, guitars, or SCUBA diving, for instance. And yes, devoted golfers do talk about the composition of their clubs in relation to how it helps their game, and devoted bowlers do talk about historical changes to ball design and lane dynamics (not so much pins, admittedly).

Having corrected that, I will say I can understand the potential for fascination with guns... but I have no interest in using one, and I never purchase anything I don't use, so I don't give the matter much more than my typical general curiosity.



So you consider it irrational to be afraid of something that's sole purpose is to cause damage? Cars only kill people when they're not used properly, after all; they're not designed for that purpose.

Peace & Luv, Liz

Actually guns are made to shoot a projectile in an accurate and repeatable fashion, now what the PERSON holding the gun decides to do with that capability is up to them.

However mine could be defective, it hasn't seemed to kill anyone.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

Actually guns are made to shoot a projectile in an accurate and repeatable fashion, now what the PERSON holding the gun decides to do with that capability is up to them.

However mine could be defective, it hasn't seemed to kill anyone.

I did note "cause damage"... my second response was in regards to your comment about more people dying in automobile accidents. But no matter how you dress it, if the purpose of a gun is to shoot a projectile at something... with that lies the possibility of having said projectile shot at your fleshy bits. Not an unreasonable thing to wary of, IMHO.

Peace & Luv, Liz

P.S. I would note that I am also afraid of driving, and vastly prefer walking to being a passenger... I only ride in vehicles because it's pretty much impossible not to and still do all the stuff you need to survive.

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I did note "cause damage"... my second response was in regards to your comment about more people dying in automobile accidents. But no matter how you dress it, if the purpose of a gun is to shoot a projectile at something... with that lies the possibility of having said projectile shot at your fleshy bits. Not an unreasonable thing to wary of, IMHO.

Peace & Luv, Liz

P.S. I would note that I am also afraid of driving, and vastly prefer walking to being a passenger... I only ride in vehicles because it's pretty much impossible not to and still do all the stuff you need to survive.

Yes however the concept of actually being shot with a gun requires an operator. If a gun is left on a table, it isn't going to do anything. I've heard the excuse countless times that "the gun went off" or "the gun accidently went off". I dislike the concept of "accidental discharges" as they are very very rare, the majority of firearms today have been tested to be dropped from a certain height or fired with a bullet lodged in a barrel as well as enhanced safety to the point accidental discharge is practically non-existant. The more appropriate term would probably be "Negligent Discharge" when someones finger is on the trigger and causes the gun to fire. I wouldn't fear the tool being used, I would fear the person. That being said, I don't think I would feel comfortable with anyone robbing my home with or without a firearm, I would treat them as much as a threat as someone holding a hammer, a baseball bat or with their fists.

I've taken countless people to the range who have never fired a gun and they are the ones operating it, very nervous and shaky. I try to explain to them that they are on the opposite side of the barrel and the gun isn't going to shoot them, they would physically have to point the gun at themselves and pull the trigger.

[SSH]

"You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen.

Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns.

Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one.

There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.

(Angry American tourist voice) You call this a sandwich? BANG! BANG! You don't boil pizza! BANG! BANG!
(Scared English voice) That's the way we eat here, that's the way we eat here! BANG!
(Tourist voice) This food sucks! BANG!"

- Bill Hicks

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by SSH

"You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen.

Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns.

Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one.

There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.

(Angry American tourist voice) You call this a sandwich? BANG! BANG! You don't boil pizza! BANG! BANG!
(Scared English voice) That's the way we eat here, that's the way we eat here! BANG!
(Tourist voice) This food sucks! BANG!"

- Bill Hicks

Actually Englands gun crime has been rising despite the fact handguns have been banned.







As for 22,000 deaths by guns in the US, please provide a source that there are "22,000" deaths.

What I find even more funny is that you are comparing a country like America with 302,000,000 people to a small nation with 60 million people.

Evidence to the statistics points that firearms were not the problem in the UK as the crime rate was lower before guns were virtually banned from the country.

By the way, our murder rate with firearms is 8,259 a year.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms

Nice way to inflate the statistics though.

I really advise you to read this about Europe and gun control which was done by a harvard student.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

What's a cop going to do when they encounter a criminal who's armed since all your cops are "unarmed".

"Stop!! I said STOP or i'll blow my whistle!"

[Lucien21]

Is that article taken from the NRA website?

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Is that article taken from the NRA website?

Not at all, you can see the sources listed at the bottom. I wouldn't join a redneck organization like the NRA anyways.

[Jatsie]

Who better to tell you about guns than Moses?

[Giligan]

Oh, God. This is turning into another "Let's make the world a happy and peaceful place by banning guns and ignoring human nature!" bleeding-heart liberal vs. "Guns, guns! Everyone should own them!" NRA-types thread.

Let's go back to gun talk.

So, it's ridiculous how many countries have produced copies of the Colt M1911.

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Giligan

Oh, God. This is turning into another "Let's make the world a happy and peaceful place by banning guns and ignoring human nature!" bleedin-heart liberal vs. "Guns, guns! Everyone should own them!" NRA-types thread.

Let's go back to gun talk.

So, it's ridiculous how many third-world countries have produced the Colt M1911 without a license.

There are a number of liberals who own guns just like there are a number of blacks, asians, christians, jews, atheists, democrats, republicans, and liberterians that own guns. The issue is that one stereotypes the gun owner as being a Christian redneck from the south who's a member of the NRA and doesn't know the location of Canada on a map in bold print.

There are some pretty crappy 1911's out there but I have seen inexpensive ones made out of China by Norinco, they are amazingly cheap and built very well. They are about 300 dollars.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

Why do you say that? Do you think your penis is a weapon?

You know, he's sort of got a point there...

Originally Posted by Giligan

Oh, God. This is turning into another "Let's make the world a happy and peaceful place by banning guns and ignoring human nature!" bleeding-heart liberal vs. "Guns, guns! Everyone should own them!" NRA-types thread.

Human nature?! WTF?! Here we go with biological determinism again... *sigh*

[Giligan]

@PILMAN: All too true.

Originally Posted by Squinky

Human nature?! WTF?! Here we go with biological determinism again... *sigh*

The truth is that humans have a short temper, on average, and a tendency to turn to force when all other options are expended. Just how far they go is determined by the person. But let's not get into that, please.

[Lucien21]

Banning guns doesn't have anything to do with inoring human nature.

If your human nature was to commit a crime you would still commit it with a rock if need be. The point is that if guns are readily available and everyone else had one then that is what you are going to use.

It's a miniture version of the cold war. Russia has nukes so we need more or better nukes to defend ourself.

Next door only has a handgun so you need a bigger penis extension to prove something but i'm not sure what.

Not being American and growing up in a gun culture or the Wild West i've never seen the point of owning a gun. I just leads to things like Waco, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and anyone pissed off who decides to shoot someone.

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Banning guns doesn't have anything to do with inoring human nature.

If your human nature was to commit a crime you would still commit it with a rock if need be. The point is that if guns are readily available and everyone else had one then that is what you are going to use.

It's a miniture version of the cold war. Russia has nukes so we need more or better nukes to defend ourself.

Next door only has a handgun so you need a bigger penis extension to prove something but i'm not sure what.

Not being American and growing up in a gun culture or the Wild West i've never seen the point of owning a gun. I just leads to things like Waco, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and anyone pissed off who decides to shoot someone.

Interestingly, the cities with the strictest gun control have the greatest gun crime problems. Why? Because regular citizens are unarmed and the criminals know it.

Take in account Washington DC and Chicago, handguns are completely banned yet they have some of the highest murder rates in the country.

Wild west? No sir, the bad guys only had 6 shooters back then.

I guess you haven't heard of a city called Kennesaw, Georgia which requires a citizen by law to own a firearm. The city has 27,000 people yet there hasn't been a murder there in 25 years. I guess it isn't the guns then?

People don't need guns?
I have 5 words for you "Katrina, Los Angeles and Auschwitz."

Look how well banning things worked for prohibition and the war on drugs.

Oh before guns there was no murder?

But sure because Genghis Kahn was so peaceable before guns were invented.

[Lucien21]

There are a lot more crimes than murder committed with guns.

Beside try reading my post where I stated

"If your human nature was to commit a crime you would still commit it with a rock if need be."

Guns just make it easier. Would 30 people have dies in Virginia if he had a knife, or a rock?

[Giligan]

You've got a point. But again, following that logic, you could just as easily ban cars for the danger they pose, ban aerosols so idiots wouldn't use them to get high, ban video games so people wouldn't learn violence, and ban computers so online stalking would be ended. If you're against one, you have that logic and are against all.

Where do you start? More importantly, where do you stop? When we all live in caves again and kill one another by hitting each other over the head with clubs? It isn't a perfect world. Something needs to be done. But "big brother" government isn't going to help. Not in the long run.

Humans like to place blame. Hell, after the VT tragedy, people were trying to place the fault of the matter on whoever they could. The guy who sold the gun must be responsible for the deaths, right? How about the legislators? Perhaps the media? Why not the police? Maybe the psycologists who diagnosed Cho? Forget placing the blame on a mental ilness, we need to sack somebody. It was disgusting.