The Big Gun Control Rant

The first thing a despot does is disarm the citizens and turn them into sheep.

 

Rather sheep than animals who shoot randomly, because they are too stupid to know when and how to use guns normally... Actually, people are turned to non-thinking sheep with other methods (and this applies to countries such as USA too, so gun policy is the last thing that influences how autonomous citizens can be ).

 

I'm still glad that I live in a country where hardly anyone has a gun. I'm still not sure if I have ever actually seen a gun in real life (except for the time I saw a policeman with a gun in California once).

But we do have plenty of sheep, Baronius!

 

Happy national ammo day

 

Which reminds me of something. Guns aren't the problem in our country. The problem is bullets.

 

Actually, the problem is idiots that get a hold of a gun, and no law will stop them from getting the guns. I would bet that over 90 % of people with guns handle them properly and safely and do not use them for crime. It's that smaller portion that got the guns illegally that give the rest of us a bad name.

I propose that there are stiffer, less forgiving penalties on gun crime. That way, the people that legally have need for them can keep their guns while the criminal element is locked away in some cage like the animals they insist on being.

 

I would argue that the penalties are already pretty strict. In the US for example, the use of a gun while committing a penalty carries a mandatory five year prison sentence. This is in addition to whatever you would typically get for the commission of the felony in the first place. Robbing a convenience store with a knife may get you locked up for a year. Robbing that store with a gun will get you six years.

 

I'm not sure who is ranting about what here As far as I know, Obama has confirmed that he intends to renew the assault weapons ban, and I definitely don't think that is going too far - imo automatics and the like are not necessary for home defense or hunting, and belong with the law enforcement agencies and the military. Perhaps there could be a caveat that current/former law enforcement/military personnel can apply for a permit for such weapons? It might be good for recruitment

 

And people still want to take guns away from law abiding citizens? I've got news for you, it's not the law abiding citizens you have to fear, and there are illegal means to put guns in the hands of criminals...

 

And citizens - law abiding or otherwise - need an AK-47, an UZI, or an M249 SAW because...? Seriously, Gnarff, you have a problem with banning assault weapons?

 

Actually Gnarff, most injuries to children are from law abiding citizens (or at least they were law abiding until they pulled the trigger).

 

Well, everybody was a law-abiding citizen at some point... You can't be born a felon, can you?

 

People in England don't generally have guns (apart from farmers and the 'landed gentry') and look at the figures on things like school shootings. America seems to have so many, they are now relagated to the 3rd page in the newspapers while England hasn't had one for so long I can't remember!

Although, we do prefer to knife people or hit them with furniture.

 

ARRRGGHHH

This is what I hate about the gun control lobby and its supporters. They have successfully changed the definition of an assault rifle and people are too blind to realize it.

The military considers an assault rifle to be a weapon that has selective fire. That means single shot, semi-automatic, and automatic.

Taken from the Wiki

As a summary, the gun control lobby has turned the definition of an assault weapon into a normal semi-automatic rifle that looks scary. Machine guns have been illegal since 1934. Arguments have been made that the paint scheme on a rifle can turn it into an assault rifle. The part that I bolded is the part that drives me crazy. People are trying to ban things because of the emotional response. That is bullshit as people who are afraid of guns, don't know one gun from another and will be just as afraid of a BB gun (which in honor of the X-Mas season has the potential to shoot your eye out (bonus points for people who get this reference)).

 

Snook, that more than just fully automatic weapons are banned under the assault weapons ban is hardly news. To qualify under the ban, a rifle must have a detachable magazine and a folding or telescoping stock and a pistol grip, or it could have a detachable magazine and a barrel shroud and a flash suppressor, or it could have a detachable magazine and a telescoping stock and a Bayonet mount. On their own, most of those attributes will not disqualify a weapon under the assault weapons ban. All that aside, the assault weapons ban did ban fully automatic weapons like the UZI, AK-47, or M249 SAW. Fortunately, individual states had the good sense to ban weapons like that on their own, so the lifting of the ban wasn't nearly as harmful as it could have been.

 

And as I posted all of those things that made a rifle illegal under the expired ban and continue to weaken the bowels of the gun control lobby do nothing but change the appearance of the rifle. They do not and never have made the rifle any more dangerous then any other rifle.

 

TGS, if the changes were only cosmetic, then they are sure being fought a whole lot over. Mind you, I'm not sure about the practical impact of a telescopic grip but I would think that a bayonet mount, flash surpressor or grenade launcher are not just there to make a weapon scarier-looking.

Seriously, is there anything wrong with just having 1-2 ordinary rifles and calling it a night?

 

Flash suppressors don't enable shooters to continuously fire under night-time conditions without having their vision mildly impaired after each shot? A bayonet doesn't make a rifle more dangerous when fighting at close range? Collapsible stocks don't make it easier to hide a rifle from prying eyes? Grenade launchers don't make assault rifles more dangerous? Barrel shrouds don't enable shooters to fire rapidly and continuously without having to worry about the barrel overheating?

With the exception of pistol grips (and I agree that a pistol grip is a silly reason to ban a weapon), each and every single one of those features makes a firearm more dangerous. A rifle with a collapsible stock, a flash suppressor, and a barrel shroud can be unobtrusively transported to a high location that provides substantial cover. From there, a shooter can fire rapidly and continuously with no need to worry about his barrel overheating and warping (which would stop him from being able to shoot). Whether such weapons should be banned may be debatable, but features like that undeniably make a weapon more dangerous.

 

To answer your question, no they do not.

Flash suppressors are used far more frequently and legally by hunters for night hunting. I am not aware of a single situation where someone was sniping at civilians at night and using a flash suppressor to avoid capture.

The bayonet example is ridiculous. It is purely cosmetic. There aren't people roaming the streets getting into "close range fighting" where they are using bayonets. I wasn't aware that you have "trench warfare" in Iowa City.

Collapsible stocks have more to do with storage then anything else. Besides if someone wanted to hide a weapon a pistol or a sawed off shotgun is far easier. You have to remember what is called an assault rifle is a rifle.

Grenade launchers- you have got to be kidding me. I maybe wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that grenades are illegal. I did a quick google on grenades and from what I can tell the only things that these grenade launchers can fire is BBs or multiple .22s. While I have to admit, they don't exactly seem the most practicle of things to have on your rifle, they do seem like they could be fun to fire.

Barrell shrouds- overheating isn't an issue with a semi-automatic weapon. The gun only fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. Once again, purely cosmetic.

I am deadset against banning something out of the fear of what a crazy person might do with it. If that was the case we should ban small airplanes and automobiles as they could be far more deadly.

I guess, I compare this to the pro-life/pro-choice arguments. The pro-lifers don't abortions legal at all. Therefore they are constantly trying to come up with situations that would make a type of abortion illegal. The pro-choice people are forced to defend even the most reprehensible abortions, because they want to make sure we don't start heading down a slippery slope. It is the same thing with the two sides of gun control. The gun control advocates don't care about banning certain types of guns, they want to ban all guns. The second amendment defenders realize this and therefore have to fight all gun bans no matter how strange (or practicle) they may be.