Gunman kills 13 in New York siege

[Rob Henderson]

No because criminals by nature choose not to obey published laws. While law biding citizens by nature choose to obey the published laws. Very distinct difference. So that leaves the criminals to be armed and the citizens now are the defenseless prey whether they would choose to be or not.

Even law abiding citizens break the law. No one is perfect... Bearing that in mind, using BritinAfrica's logic, there shouldn't be any laws at all, because they'll still be broken sometimes.

I guess we have offically entered the Utopian zone where everyone sings "One Love" holds hands and the cops and military don't need weapons right? Cause God knows if they were all armed with single shot .22 longs then criminals wouldn't feel threatened our country's enemies wouldn't feel threatened and thus endth crime and conflict right?

That was meant to say that just because you are/were a police officer or in the military shouldn't give you any special privileges when it came to purchasing weapons for private home use... Not to say that the military and police shouldn't use them... Sorry for that confusion.

Do you even understand that select fire military grade small arms are already a restricted item? Do you understand the difference between select fire and semi-auto/self loading weapons? Do you even realize the hoops that one must jump thru to own a military grade select fire or automatic weapon legally?

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge about the intricacies of guns is limited... But my basic knowledge is that select fire weapons are just that... You select the way they fire. Semi-autos I think are acceptable because you can only fire them as fast as you can pull the trigger... The problem I have with select and fully automatic weapons (I know they're already banned, but people advocate that they shouldn't) is that they are so efficient... I can't STAND the thought of 3 bullets that can kill 3 lives being fired that quickly. It's just something that shouldn't be let outside the war zone. I understand that war is necessary, but we don't need any more than the necessary amount.

In truth you are against semi-auto's with detachable magazines, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips etc that are patterned on main battle rifles like the M16 family, the AK family, the FN-FAL family, and the G3 family to name some. Probably because certain elements of society have painted these rifles as evil.

Yes, you're right. And not so much as elements of society as it is my own knowledge... I've been exposed to both sides of the fence, and my overall opinion is that a tool designed for killing shouldn't be allowed to exist outside it's field... Warfare.

I shoot three gun matches. I use an AR15 (M16 to you as we have established you probably can't recognize the difference) in one stage. I can't do that with a single shot shoulder arm.

You're right... I can't tell the difference, but I can tell you that putting one round through a target is (to me) HARDER than putting three rounds through a target... It's a lot easier when you have more rounds per trigger pull. It takes more skill with one shot.

Nice blanket accusation. Would be the same as me saying that all men who don't like guns probably suffer from a lack of testosteron and testicular fortitude. Yet niether your or my accusation is or would be correct. You don't seem to understand that like any hobby firearms appeal to a certain segement. I shoot, I hunt. Some people play dungeons and dragons, some golf, some build models, some knit. It's called personal preference and choice.

None of the above, save shooting and hunting, utilize tools created for killing things. I see absolutely no reason to use tools for killing things for anything other than killing things. It's a personality thing... It's like having a nice car, or nice clothes... They serve no other purpose than to make you look good. You don't have a nice car for the speed, you have it so you can say "I have a Ferrari." You don't wear Gucci stilettos (generic, relax, I'm not calling you a girl) because they're comfortable, you wear them because they're Gucci. You don't own fancy guns because they're so much better than any other gun... You own them because they're fancy.

I shoot pistol matches, I shoot three gun matches, I shoot tactical rifle matches, I shoot percision long range tactical matches. I enjoy mastering my weapon to the point where I can put each round where I want it. I enjoy shooting small groups, I enjoy shooting sub-minute of angle groups. It has nothing to do with your "God -Complex" I've carried a firearm as a tool for most of my adult life. It's a tool used to protect me or others or to accomplish a mission. Nothing more nothing less.

Then why the shouting for less restriction of weapons!? If you use it as a tool to protect yourself, where lies the need for a select fire weapon? You claim to enjoy mastering your weapon, then master it to the point that all you need to defend yourself against anything is a .45 caliber pistol. INSTEAD of an Uzi.

Could that be that a counter opinion that doesn't nicely dove tail into your own doesn't rate your oh so high and mighty agenda? And thus is beneath your worldly consideration?

That would be because anyone can make statistics fit their case. And regardless of how "unbiased" BritinAfrica says it is, I have no doubt that there is plenty of pro-gun bias, and I don't care to read it when I know what it's going to say....

 

[A Can of Man]

Even law abiding citizens break the law. No one is perfect... Bearing that in mind, using BritinAfrica's logic, there shouldn't be any laws at all, because they'll still be broken sometimes.

That's not what he's arguing at all.
He's arguing that by banning guns, you deny the law abiding citizen with the ability to defend him/herself while criminals will ignore this law anyway therefore giving criminals the upper hand.

 

[03USMC]

Even law abiding citizens break the law. No one is perfect... Bearing that in mind, using BritinAfrica's logic, there shouldn't be any laws at all, because they'll still be broken sometimes.

I don't believe he is advocating an anarchic society at all. I believe he's cautioning about severe restrictions and/or total abolition.


That was meant to say that just because you are/were a police officer or in the military shouldn't give you any special privileges when it came to purchasing weapons for private home use... Not to say that the military and police shouldn't use them... Sorry for that confusion.

Fair Enough. But even as an LEO I can't purchase an automatic or select fire weapon. My Department can. I as an individual cannot.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge about the intricacies of guns is limited... But my basic knowledge is that select fire weapons are just that... You select the way they fire. Semi-autos I think are acceptable because you can only fire them as fast as you can pull the trigger... The problem I have with select and fully automatic weapons (I know they're already banned, but people advocate that they shouldn't) is that they are so efficient... I can't STAND the thought of 3 bullets that can kill 3 lives being fired that quickly. It's just something that shouldn't be let outside the war zone. I understand that war is necessary, but we don't need any more than the necessary amount.


Yes, you're right. And not so much as elements of society as it is my own knowledge... I've been exposed to both sides of the fence, and my overall opinion is that a tool designed for killing shouldn't be allowed to exist outside it's field... Warfare.

You realize that I was referring to the semi-auto verisons of those weapons?

You're right... I can't tell the difference, but I can tell you that putting one round through a target is (to me) HARDER than putting three rounds through a target... It's a lot easier when you have more rounds per trigger pull. It takes more skill with one shot.

It is much harder to keep rounds in a small group consistantly than to 1 round in a certain place. A shooter that can group sub minute of angle consistantly can place one round any where he wants, pretty much any time he wants. It's a skill set that needs honing.

None of the above, save shooting and hunting, utilize tools created for killing things. I see absolutely no reason to use tools for killing things for anything other than killing things. It's a personality thing... It's like having a nice car, or nice clothes... They serve no other purpose than to make you look good. You don't have a nice car for the speed, you have it so you can say "I have a Ferrari." You don't wear Gucci stilettos (generic, relax, I'm not calling you a girl) because they're comfortable, you wear them because they're Gucci. You don't own fancy guns because they're so much better than any other gun... You own them because they're fancy.
Then why the shouting for less restriction of weapons!? If you use it as a tool to protect yourself, where lies the need for a select fire weapon? You claim to enjoy mastering your weapon, then master it to the point that all you need to defend yourself against anything is a .45 caliber pistol. INSTEAD of an Uzi.

I can defend myself with a .45. I don't own an Uzi. I don't own fancy guns, I own functional weapons designed for specific purposes. From semi-auto to bolt action and lever action. Pistols and revolvers. I'm not even that big on optics I have some scoped rifles and one with eotech optics but I'm mainly an iron sights kind of guy.

I'm not nor do I see anyone saying less restriction. They are saying no more restriction than what we have.



That would be because anyone can make statistics fit their case. And regardless of how "unbiased" BritinAfrica says it is, I have no doubt that there is plenty of pro-gun bias, and I don't care to read it when I know what it's going to say....

And yet both sides of the argument skew their stats for their purposes. Which in reality makes yours just as questionable.

Responses embedded.............

 

[BritinBritain]

03USMC Fair Enough. But even as an LEO I can't purchase an automatic or select fire weapon. My Department can. I as an individual cannot.

Funny you mentioned that, I had two cops come into my shop yesterday enquiring about purchasing ammunition for their state issued 9mm Para Z88 sidearms. I told them that under the law I cannot supply ammunition to them without a firearm licence. I told them that legally if they were involved in a firefight outside my shop and ran dry, I was not allowed to pass them spare rounds as I could be arrested for supplying ammunition illegally.

Arent restrictive guns laws wonderful?

As an aside I inspected the ammunition they were issued, one cop has rounds manufactured in 1993, the other had rounds manufactured in 2004.

I was on the local range a few years ago when a cop asked if he could fire his service weapon, to cut a long story short, out of 15 rounds in the mag, 13 misfired.

Even law abiding citizens break the law. No one is perfect... Bearing that in mind, using BritinAfrica's logic, there shouldn't be any laws at all, because they'll still be broken sometimes.

I never said or suggested any such thing, you should read whats posted instead of making assumptions.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge about the intricacies of guns is limited... But my basic knowledge is that select fire weapons are just that... You select the way they fire.

Absolute rubbish, until I put you straight, you didn't have a clue regarding selective fire firearms.

Semi-autos I think are acceptable because you can only fire them as fast as you can pull the trigger... The problem I have with select and fully automatic weapons (I know they're already banned, but people advocate that they shouldn't) is that they are so efficient... I can't STAND the thought of 3 bullets that can kill 3 lives being fired that quickly. It's just something that shouldn't be let outside the war zone. I understand that war is necessary, but we don't need any more than the necessary amount.

Again, absolute rubbish and clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about. I was a section machine gunner with a GPMG, which by the way wasn't selective fire it was fully automatic only. My job as the section gunner depended on the situation, lay down suppressing fire, engaging soft skinned vehicles to name just two. There are others.

Yes, you're right. And not so much as elements of society as it is my own knowledge... I've been exposed to both sides of the fence, and my overall opinion is that a tool designed for killing shouldn't be allowed to exist outside it's field... Warfare..

So by your reasoning, in times of peace troops should have their “machine guns” taken away, and only given back in time of war?

You're right... I can't tell the difference, but I can tell you that putting one round through a target is (to me) HARDER than putting three rounds through a target... It's a lot easier when you have more rounds per trigger pull. It takes more skill with one shot.
.

LOL you reckon. Why the hell do you make statements about a subject that you clearly know nothing about. Haven't you heard of grouping where the firer puts numerous shots in the smallest group possible? I've watched shooters at Bisley in UK putting rounds down range into groups at 1200 yards, do you think thats easy?

That would be because anyone can make statistics fit their case. And regardless of how "unbiased" BritinAfrica says it is, I have no doubt that there is plenty of pro-gun bias, and I don't care to read it when I know what it's going to say....

You are so blinkered its unbelievable. John Lott had no bias either way, for or against the legal possession of firearms, the results of his research even surprised him. The only one who is biased here is you. Why is it, that when unbiased evidence is presented to you, that you dismiss it out of hand as pro gun biased? As I said, until you carry out in depth research I suggest you refrain from commenting, because you are only making yourself look foolish as this is clearly a subject that you have no INFORMED opinion.

This video was taken on CCTV by one of our group a few days ago, during a home invasion. The video was edited to exclude the tactics he and his wife used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J9HLFLNxpM

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Can we please clear up the vernacular here?

Single shot: Fires one round. The breech must be opened, the spent case extracted, and a new one inserted without the use of a magazine or clip.

Magazine: A device that feeds ammunition into a firearm by working the action, either by automatic (gas-operated) or manual (typically bolt action) extraction. A Garand and bolt action rifles typically have an INTERNAL (non-removable) magazine - semi-automatic pistols and some rifles and shotguns have DETACHABLE magazines. There are variances across the board, of course. Provided are examples only.

Clip: A device that holds ammunition to feed it into a magazine or a cylinder and otherwise has no function on a firearm. The Garand uses a clip to feed ammunition into its internal magazine. A revolver may have a speed loader/speed extractor, both of which are clips.

Single action: Where pulling the trigger operates the cylinder and hammer in tandem, releasing the hammer in one movement.

Double action: The hammer operates the cylinder rotation and cocks the hammer. The trigger is then used to release the trigger in a separate movement.

Semi-Automatic (often shortened simply to "auto"): A firearm with a magazine that uses inertia to self-extract and self-load rounds. Only one round is released per full movement of the trigger (pull and reset).

Select Fire: Same as above, but may be selected to fire more than one round per full movement of the trigger, typically a 3-round burst.

Automatic or Machine Gun: Same as above, but will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held to the rear. Fed by a magazine or a belt.

Assault Rifle: A rifle built on a military platform, eg: AR-15, with a detachable magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds; today, we genericize these with flash hiders, pistol and forearm hand grips and bayonet lugs.

Class II: The authorized level to possess/sell firearms and destructive devices that do not fall into Category I and Catagory III parameters, such as silencers, short-barreled rifles, and explosives. Carries a $200 tax stamp per item.

Class III: Automatic weapons and destructive devices not covered by a Class II license. Dealers only (no private sales).



If you're going to have a discussion on something, at least know the terminology, eh? BATFE defines an "assault rifle" as a TITLE I firearm - no different than a pistol or a single-shot rifle. It is accepted by the SCOTUS as a Second Amendment RIGHT.

The SCOTUS ruling defines things like silencers as an exception to a standard, Title I right - Title II is a PRIVILEGE. Title III is restricted only to dealers and law enforcement.

It is the liberal agenda to make new definitions. But it is nothing more than the stripping of the Constitutional rights we have defined by SCOTUS by driving the wedge of fear to the people and making them think that no one has a right to own an assault rifle.

It is a chicken-crap definition, no different than defining a Porshe as a race car and not allowing it to be street legal.