Whoo FUCKING HOO!

[Knife]

It's not the same because an RPG, unlike a round from an automatic weapon, is a dedicated anti-tank weapon designed to penetrate dense materials. When I say it cannot be safely fired, I mean the round, once launched, won't stop until it hits dense armor, the ground, or runs out of fuel. Plus, there's an exhaust wash from RPGs that can kill a man standing behind the man firing the weapon.

Its called backblast.

[BoredShirtless]

Convince me. WHY do you want full automatic weapons?

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

You didn't prove fully automatic weapons can be legally owned. I did:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 213#681213

But should fully automatic weapons be UNBANNED in some states, and should the laws be relaxed to match other guns. As Shep repeatedly points out, you need to jump through hoops to own a machine gun at the moment.

What does "not be overly dangerous by any extent" mean? As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven jack. I'll show you why in a moment.

And your answer to my question is a cop out. My question is relevent. We're talking about a deadly weapon here, with no defined function in todays society. I want a damn answer please.

What would you use them for? For hunting, it's overkill. For home security, it's overkill.

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

Relevent. A fully automatic weapon fires at a rate far in excess of any civilian application. Why should I support such a deadly weapon when its role can be filled by a less deadly weapon?

For personal protection, it's overkill. All these applications can be filled by current weaponry, so why should I tolerate an even MORE LETHAL weapon?

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

Relevant. I don't have to tolerate the probability, no matter how small, that my family or friends may become victims of automatic fire, through either crime or accident. Farmers need guns to kill vermin or predators. People can have guns to protect their families and themselves. People can have guns to shoot at firing ranges for a bit of fun. Can go hunting with them. Collect them. But people can NOT get their hands on machine guns as easily as other guns. Thank God. And ask yourself: why would the government make it so hard to own a machine gun. Must be a reason. What do you think it could be? Maybe cause they're...more dangerous?

It's like hammering a nail with a sledgehammer. But unlike a sledgehammer, a full auto weapon has the potential to destroy the surronding environment to an extent which makes currently legal weaponry seem like pea shooters.

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

Relevent. Civilians kill innocents using guns through crime or accident every day. Why should I tolerate the entry of ANOTHER, even MORE deadly weapon, which as a whole would make society less safe? And yet has no real reason to be there. Why?

BS, can you even read? Owning fully automatic weapons is no danger to your average citizen.

Depends on who owns them, and how they're used. Unban these weapons, and you'll create a bigger market. Bigger market means more demand. More demand will decrease price [if the market isn't monopolised of course]. End result: more fully automatic weapons in society. Another result: danger to average citizen rises. That isn't acceptable.

You know that one crime I talk about having happened? That was a cop who took his private MAC-10 and wasted a drug dealer. So with the last twenty years and hundreds of thousands of legaly owned pre-ban weaponry (fully automatics included) not one innocent person was killed.

You can use stats to forecast the future. Forecast.

Your entire line of reasoning is irrelevent.

Irrelevent against what?

There is no demonstratable danger and thus there is no rational reason to ban such weapons.

We can THANK the limited ban for such a low stat. I'd bet my left nut that if machine guns were as freely available as other guns, they'd be cheaper, and more criminals would be using them which would have fucked your stat up.

Using your very same base line of reasoning sports cars have no use and therefor should be banned.

Sports cars are not designed to kill things. Please explain how this analogy is relevent.

Fact of the matter is fully automatic weapons are both fun to collect (not shoot but place in secure storage to view)

Great. I'm sure RPGs would be fun to collect too.

and fun to shoot under safe situations.

As would RPGs!

Since you can't actualy come up with a point to support your side, you've already lost the debate.

I've come up with more points then you, and that's without using Ctrl-V.

[Nathan F]

You didn't prove fully automatic weapons can be legally owned. I did:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 213#681213

But should fully automatic weapons be UNBANNED in some states, and should the laws be relaxed to match other guns. As Shep repeatedly points out, you need to jump through hoops to own a machine gun at the moment.

What does "not be overly dangerous by any extent" mean? As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven jack. I'll show you why in a moment.

And your answer to my question is a cop out. My question is relevent. We're talking about a deadly weapon here, with no defined function in todays society. I want a damn answer please.

First off, you have proven nothing. You have given one source on laws from a site that is known to have a heavy anti-gun bias. As to gun laws being unbanned, yes, but with restrictions. And you also still aren't reading the posts. We have answered your questions numerous times.

What would you use them for? For hunting, it's overkill. For home security, it's overkill.

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

Relevent. A fully automatic weapon fires at a rate far in excess of any civilian application. Why should I support such a deadly weapon when its role can be filled by a less deadly weapon?

YOU are the irrellevent one. By simply saying 'they are mean deadly weapons, I don't like them' you prove nothing. Give us facts like we have given you. By our facts, the one about only one crime being committed with a legal automatic weapon, proves that the criminals who might get their hands on an automatic weapon don't give jack shit about the laws in place as it is. By banning these from the public, you just deny the peaceful law abiding citizenry the usage of these firearms.

For personal protection, it's overkill. All these applications can be filled by current weaponry, so why should I tolerate an even MORE LETHAL weapon?

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

Relevant. I don't have to tolerate the probability, no matter how small, that my family or friends may become victims of automatic fire, through either crime or accident. Farmers need guns to kill vermin or predators. People can have guns to protect their families and themselves. People can have guns to shoot at firing ranges for a bit of fun. Can go hunting with them. Collect them. But people can NOT get their hands on machine guns as easily as other guns. Thank God. And ask yourself: why would the government make it so hard to own a machine gun. Must be a reason. What do you think it could be? Maybe cause they're...more dangerous?

Tell me, does it get tiresome backpedalling like that? We have been saying that automatic weaponry and 'mean guns' shoudn't be banned all along! Yet we have said nothing about takign away all restrictions. Sure, I think it should be easier for the average law abiding citizen to be able to fire one of these, but I don't think they should be uncontrolled all the way.

It's like hammering a nail with a sledgehammer. But unlike a sledgehammer, a full auto weapon has the potential to destroy the surronding environment to an extent which makes currently legal weaponry seem like pea shooters.

Again, you proove your ineptness and stupidity. A fully automatic weapon does no more damage to a firing range backstop than a single shot .45-70.

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

Relevent. Civilians kill innocents using guns through crime or accident every day. Why should I tolerate the entry of ANOTHER, even MORE deadly weapon, which as a whole would make society less safe? And yet has no real reason to be there. Why?

Have you not read the entire freaking thread? We have given you evidence supporting the statement that making these firearms less restricted (less, not completely unrestricted) will not have a significant impact on violent crime. With the draconian laws in place right now, only one crime has been committed with a legally owned weapon, while the rest of crimes committed with automatic firearms were already illegal. This just goes to proove that if a criminal wants one, he will get it.

BS, can you even read? Owning fully automatic weapons is no danger to your average citizen.

Depends on who owns them, and how they're used. Unban these weapons, and you'll create a bigger market. Bigger market means more demand. More demand will decrease price [if the market isn't monopolised of course]. End result: more fully automatic weapons in society. Another result: danger to average citizen rises. That isn't acceptable.

Are you really this dim witted, or are you pretending? More demand INCREASES prices, not decreases. Go take a high school economics course and then come back talking about supply and demand, moron.

You know that one crime I talk about having happened? That was a cop who took his private MAC-10 and wasted a drug dealer. So with the last twenty years and hundreds of thousands of legaly owned pre-ban weaponry (fully automatics included) not one innocent person was killed.

You can use stats to forecast the future. Forecast.

Yeah, at least we have supporting facts and statistics, as opposed to your mindless ranting because of your irrational fear of 'mean guns'.

Your entire line of reasoning is irrelevent.

Irrelevent against what?

Not only irrelevent, but insulting to the collective intelligence of mankind.

There is no demonstratable danger and thus there is no rational reason to ban such weapons.

We can THANK the limited ban for such a low stat. I'd bet my left nut that if machine guns were as freely available as other guns, they'd be cheaper, and more criminals would be using them which would have fucked your stat up.

It is already illegal for known criminals to buy ANY gun. We aren't saying take that down.

Using your very same base line of reasoning sports cars have no use and therefor should be banned.

Sports cars are not designed to kill things. Please explain how this analogy is relevent.

Nor are guns. Firearms are a tool, to be used however the user decides. I use the old analogy 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' While cars aren't designed to kill things, they still kill more people than guns every year.

Fact of the matter is fully automatic weapons are both fun to collect (not shoot but place in secure storage to view)

Great. I'm sure RPGs would be fun to collect too.

and fun to shoot under safe situations.

As would RPGs!

Just shut the hell up about RPGs.

Since you can't actualy come up with a point to support your side, you've already lost the debate.

I've come up with more points then you, and that's without using Ctrl-V.

[/quote] Yeah, and 70% of those points have been struck down with the remaining 30% involving your obsession with RPGs. As much as you talk about them, I am beginning to think that you have fantasies about RPGs, don't you?

[BoredShirtless]

Prove they're red herrings. Do you know what a red herring is? Please post the definition, then use it to point mine out.

You really are one stupid mother fucker aren't you?
Nizkor.org definition of Red Herring.

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

1. We are arquing about automatic weapons.

Be specific. We are arguing whether automatic weapons should be more or less unbanned.

2. You introduced RPGs under the guise of being relevant to the arqument about automatic weapons (when they infact have nothing to do with matter at hand).

They were relevent to the points I was making. At no time did I abandon "fully automatic weapons" [Topic A].

3. Your attempt at sidetracking the debate is unfortunately somewhat succesfull.

In what way?

Text book example of Red Herring.

You should have read that text book before slapping off to imaginary red herrings.

When you define "so dangerous that they should be banned", i'll try and meet your definition.

Demonstrating that legaly owned automatic weapons pose threat to public safety and that banning automatic weapons will eliminate that threat would be quite sufficent.

See my most recent post to Aleyska.

BTW, I don't have to prove shit. I'm perfectly happy with the current laws, and couldn't give two shits whether the laws were made because the government thinks they're too dangerous, or a race of elves told them too.

Concession Accepted.

What did I just conceed?

For me, rate of fire makes them totally unacceptable.

Yes, we all know that you are a hoplophobe. What is your point?

You just ignored it. But here it is again. Rate of fire makes machine guns irrelevent and society less safe. Get it?

Hey BullShit, Laws should not be passed based on the irrational fears of pathetic hoplophobes such as you.

Fuck off you little shit. You think the current laws were pushed on the back of irrational fears? Prove it.

Oh, I see, you are illiterate as well as stupid. I am not surprised. Where have I ever said anything about "current laws being pushed on the back of irrational fears"? Oh, I haven't...

So what are the current laws based on then? I eagerly await your answer to this question.

Provided that you are firing said automatic weapon in a proper firing range the bullets will hit the rampart. That is very easy to predict.

No fucking shit sherlock... <Red herring snipped> ...ANY weapon can be used as designed in a controlled environment like a firing range.

Since you agree that using automatic weapons can be used safely where they are supposed to be used, I would like to know what is exactly is your problem with them?

Misuse of a very deadly weapon. THAT'S my problem buddy boy.

[MKSheppard]

Depends on who owns them, and how they're used. Unban these weapons, and you'll create a bigger market. Bigger market means more demand. More demand will decrease price [if the market isn't monopolised of course]. End result: more fully automatic weapons in society. Another result: danger to average citizen rises. That isn't acceptable.

GAH! Don't post huge lines of text!

Seriously, being able to sell new class IIIs to the public again, wouldn't
cause crime. Why? because in order to get your Class III license, you have
to be anal probed by the ATF, and they have been known to deny C3
licenses on account of you living in a "bad neighborhood" a few years
back.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hey Sheppard, your fucking hahaha bit has succeeded in making the thread unreadable

[MKSheppard]

Hey Sheppard, your fucking hahaha bit has succeeded in making the thread unreadable

Oops....Damn lack of an edit button

[Sir Sirius]

Be specific. We are arguing whether automatic weapons should be more or less unbanned.

What is this, nitpick of ultimate irrelevance? The topic of discussion is automatic weapons is it not?

They were relevent to the points I was making. At no time did I abandon "fully automatic weapons" [Topic A].

Eh, it is those very points that are red herrings.

In what way?

Some actualy wasted time and effort by (succesfully) addressing your red herrings, instead of simply dismissing them as such.

You should have read that text book before slapping off to imaginary red herrings.

Ah, I see, you have aquired your Wall of Ignorance from Darkstar Incorporated.

See my most recent post to Aleyska.

All you did was repeat that automatic weapons are "deadly" and that they are dangerous. At no point did you present any evidence to back up your oppinion born out of irrational fear.

What did I just conceed?

By stating that you will not even attempt to prove that automatic weapons are so dangerous that they should be banned, you conceded this debate.

You just ignored it. But here it is again. Rate of fire makes machine guns irrelevent and society less safe. Get it?

Slothful assertion or are you actualy going to present some form of an arqument to back up that conclusion? Oh, I forgot, not even a single rational though will fit in to your peanut sized skull since it is filled to brim with BullShit.

So what are the current laws based on then? I eagerly await your answer to this question.

If you belief that the reason current laws were passed are a valid arqument for banning automatic weapons you should present those reason here, I will not make your research for you.

Misuse of a very deadly weapon. THAT'S my problem buddy boy.

Slothful assertion, yet again.

[Alyeska]

You didn't prove fully automatic weapons can be legally owned. I did:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 213#681213

Red Herring. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The topic is: Are fully automatic weapons dangerous to society and should they be completely banned. I have already proven they are not grossly dangerous and that the statistic show them to be quite safe under the current system.

But should fully automatic weapons be UNBANNED in some states, and should the laws be relaxed to match other guns. As Shep repeatedly points out, you need to jump through hoops to own a machine gun at the moment.

Red Herring. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The topic is: Are fully automatic weapons dangerous to society and should they be completely banned. I have already proven they are not grossly dangerous and that the statistic show them to be quite safe under the current system.

What does "not be overly dangerous by any extent" mean? As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven jack. I'll show you why in a moment.

Wrong BS. I have proven that only a single crime has been comitted with legaly owned fully automatic weapons. Thus it has been proven that bans on said weapons have no standing.

And your answer to my question is a cop out. My question is relevent. We're talking about a deadly weapon here, with no defined function in todays society. I want a damn answer please.

Irrelevent. An item need not have any "use" by your definition. According to your very own definition sports cars should be banned. As long as the item itself has been proven to not be dangerous under a system of safties, said bans serve no point. Your entire line of reasoning has no basis because you ignore other reasons for these weapons existance.

Relevent. A fully automatic weapon fires at a rate far in excess of any civilian application. Why should I support such a deadly weapon when its role can be filled by a less deadly weapon?

Incorrect. If I want a fully automatic M4 carbine as a recreational weapon to use in safe settings, a semi-automatic weapon can not fill the role. If a civilian has the money and deems their required ROF to be 66-100 rounds per second, then that is their required ROF and they need to buy a M134 GE minigun.

Relevant. I don't have to tolerate the probability, no matter how small, that my family or friends may become victims of automatic fire, through either crime or accident.

BS, you are wrong. Under your rules freedoms need to be sacraficed for personal saftey. Furthermore your reasoning falls flat on its face. You call a 1 in 250 million chance over a period of 20 years a risk worthy of note? You have a better chance of being struck by lightning three times before being killed by a legaly owned fully automatic weapon.

Farmers need guns to kill vermin or predators.

Correct.

People can have guns to protect their families and themselves.

Correct.

People can have guns to shoot at firing ranges for a bit of fun.

Correct.

Can go hunting with them. Collect them.

Correct.

But people can NOT get their hands on machine guns as easily as other guns. Thank God.

Correct. You are under the false impression that I want to make owning high level weapons extremely easy. That is incorrect. What I am doing is proving your line of reasoning that all these weapons should be permanently banned. I am all for restricting said weapons, but the actual bans on new weapons needs to be lifted. Don't make an ass out of yourself by assuming I want to buy a M60 at the corner gas station.

And ask yourself: why would the government make it so hard to own a machine gun. Must be a reason. What do you think it could be? Maybe cause they're...more dangerous?

Less so then you are willing to believe. Said weapons are a major monetary investment and the owners of them do not want to risk loosing or damaging those items. With an MP5 selling for eight grand and M134s selling for 15 grand or higher, your not going to see people using them for crime. Even if new models were allowed for ownership the prices would still remain very high because of the actual restrictions of the weapons. Ease of sales determine prices. The entire current system (ignoring the outright ban of new weapons) is relatively well designed with some flaws. It creates a system were those who wish to get a weapon for legal purposes may do so while creating a system that heavily discourages people from using the weapons illegaly.

Relevent. Civilians kill innocents using guns through crime or accident every day. Why should I tolerate the entry of ANOTHER, even MORE deadly weapon, which as a whole would make society less safe? And yet has no real reason to be there. Why?

On the order of 1 death per 500,000 weapons per 20 years. You have a better chance of being killed by a doctor in the middle of elective surgery, twice. The relative danger to society isn't even worth a side note.

Depends on who owns them, and how they're used. Unban these weapons, and you'll create a bigger market. Bigger market means more demand. More demand will decrease price [if the market isn't monopolised of course]. End result: more fully automatic weapons in society. Another result: danger to average citizen rises. That isn't acceptable.

On the contrary. The way the system is set up even if new weapons enter the market the prices will drop by a small amount. The level of difficulty getting the weapons or reaching the required regulation to attain the weapons ensures the weapons stay out of the wrong hands.

You can use stats to forecast the future. Forecast.

Indeed, and I forecast no danger in lifting bans on fully automatic weapons.

We can THANK the limited ban for such a low stat. I'd bet my left nut that if machine guns were as freely available as other guns, they'd be cheaper, and more criminals would be using them which would have fucked your stat up.

Actualy we can not. 15 of those years were before the fully automatic ban.

Sports cars are not designed to kill things. Please explain how this analogy is relevent.

Red herring. You bring up the inherrent danger and intent that the device only serves a purpose that is illegal. Sports cars also fit this bill. Greater possibilities of accidents, their souped up capabilities may not be used anywhere but closed race circuts (aka firing range). Further ignores fact that guns can and have been used quite succesfully as a recreational tool without the killing people.

Great. I'm sure RPGs would be fun to collect too.

Red herring. Also ignores the facts that non-functioning RPGs can still be collected.

As would RPGs![\quote]

Red herring.

I've come up with more points then you, and that's without using Ctrl-V.

You might have come up with more points, but my use of Ctrl-V produced more valid points than any you thought up.

[Alyeska]

Might as well post this again.

First and foremost, I have to say that I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. That said, that does not mean every person should be able to walk into a grocery store and buy a M-16. There is a difference between the right to own a weapon and owning a weapon.

As far as I am concerned, people have the right to own cars within the US. Just because they have that right does not mean they can use that car. You have to fill out ownership forms, titles, and even have to get licensed to use the thing. The United Kingdom even goes a step further where if you get a license on an Automatic transmission, that’s all you can drive. If you get a license on a stick shift, you can also drive automatics.

I am sure you can see where I am going with this. I think that people who want to own a gun have to follow some pre-conditions to own a gun. They have to take gun safety classes, they have to pass tests, have to have a safe place to store the weapons, they have to have a free record (no felonies in the record), etc… It might take some time, but once you have the license, that allows you to buy guns. There would be a variety of licenses, pistol (semi-auto or revolver), shotgun, rifle (bolt and lever or semi-auto), etc… You would have to get licensed for each thing you want to get. But once you have the license, you are free to buy weapons from registered dealers without problem. They can take your license and run it through a database instantly to see if you are qualified. Registering the weapon is a snap, and you can take it home. In other words you jump through all the hoops well before hand, then it gives you a free reign later on. If you can’t pass all the requirements, no license, no guns.

Now, people who invest a fair amount of money into a license, or guns, do not want their investment wasted. Money is valuable. People who want a gun to commit a crime want something fast and easy, and already have a record. They wouldn’t be able to use this system to get weapons. Those with the license will be relatively well off and don’t want to loose what they have. To help encourage them, each license would also be taxed to a small degree.

Now, what about Assault Rifles, high-powered rifles, sub machineguns, and other military grade weaponry? Before 1996 the US allowed people to buy new military grade weaponry or fully automatic weaponry. I have seen pictures of people with their collections with the likes of a Steyr Aug, CAR-15, MP5-SD, and AK-47. Even today you can still buy pre-ban weapons. It requires something called a Class-III license. I think something along these lines should continue. An expensive collectors license for those who want something other then normal weapons. A Collectors license would be very expensive. If someone wants a M16 or P90, they have to save a bloody fortune. The weapons themselves sell for several THOUSAND dollars. The license itself would also have to be several thousand dollars. People would have to make a major investment to get such licenses, but if they can afford it, they certainly don’t want to loose it.

Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.

[BoredShirtless]

First off, you have proven nothing.

What should I be proving?

You have given one source on laws from a site that is known to have a heavy anti-gun bias.

is the content WRONG?

As to gun laws being unbanned, yes, but with restrictions. And you also still aren't reading the posts. We have answered your questions numerous times.

Vague hand waving noted and ignored.

YOU are the irrellevent one.

Wrong. I'm part of society. My voice is small, but it WILL be heard whether you like it or not.

By simply saying 'they are mean deadly weapons, I don't like them' you prove nothing.

Again. What am I meant to prove exactly?

And thank Heston I've been basing my stance on an actual RL attribute all fully automatic guns share! "continous rate of fire".

Give us facts like we have given you.

Continous rate of fire. Deadly weapon. No RL application.

By our facts, the one about only one crime being committed with a legal automatic weapon, proves that the criminals who might get their hands on an automatic weapon don't give jack shit about the laws in place as it is.

Show me how this proves your assertion.

By banning these from the public, you just deny the peaceful law abiding citizenry the usage of these firearms.

In all honesty, I couldn't give two shits. Where's the line Nathan? Where do you stop and say "ok, I think so and so is going a little too far". And when you place this line, show me how you drew it.

Tell me, does it get tiresome backpedalling like that? We have been saying that automatic weaponry and 'mean guns' shoudn't be banned all along! Yet we have said nothing about takign away all restrictions. Sure, I think it should be easier for the average law abiding citizen to be able to fire one of these, but I don't think they should be uncontrolled all the way.

I'm arguing the laws should remain AS IS. We should NOT make it easier. It's YOU who is calling for the relaxation of current law.

Again, you proove your ineptness and stupidity. A fully automatic weapon does no more damage to a firing range backstop than a single shot .45-70.

Are you fucking retarded? When used as designed, a fully auto weapon will cause MORE DAMAGE then a single shot .45-70 over the same duration. Not only that, but a fully automatic gun will not be as accurate either.

Have you not read the entire freaking thread?

I for sure know you haven't.

We have given you evidence supporting the statement that making these firearms less restricted (less, not completely unrestricted) will not have a significant impact on violent crime.

Bull and fucking shit. You've pulled a stat from an era with certain gun restrictions. Using THAT STAT as evidence to prove we can now RELAX those laws, and expect that trend to remain the same, is a pipe dream. If you don't see this can I suggest you pay attention to what you're typing, I promise your rifle ain't going anywhere.

With the draconian laws in place right now, only one crime has been committed with a legally owned weapon, while the rest of crimes committed with automatic firearms were already illegal. This just goes to proove that if a criminal wants one, he will get it.

So? What's your point?

Are you really this dim witted, or are you pretending? More demand INCREASES prices, not decreases. Go take a high school economics course and then come back talking about supply and demand, moron.

Yesh. More demand will most likely increase supply which in turn will decrease prices IF, like I said, THERE ISN'T A MONOPOLY.

Yeah, at least we have supporting facts and statistics, as opposed to your mindless ranting because of your irrational fear of 'mean guns'.

Your damn RIGHT I fear machine guns. Don't you?

Not only irrelevent, but insulting to the collective intelligence of mankind.

Yeah, clearly machine gun laws should be relaxed to satisfy the wants of a small percentage of society. Even though by doing so, you will make said society less safe.

We can THANK the limited ban for such a low stat. I'd bet my left nut that if machine guns were as freely available as other guns, they'd be cheaper, and more criminals would be using them which would have fucked your stat up.

It is already illegal for known criminals to buy ANY gun. We aren't saying take that down.

But you ARE saying they should be relaxed. In what way?

Sports cars are not designed to kill things. Please explain how this analogy is relevent.

Nor are guns.

Oh please fuck off. A machine gun has only one application: to kill military personnel. I've been asking repeatedly for alternate civilian applications and have said I'd reconsider my stance if one can be found.

Firearms are a tool, to be used however the user decides. I use the old analogy 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' While cars aren't designed to kill things, they still kill more people than guns every year.

Very true. But cars have a role in society: they transport us from point A to point B. We NEED them. Because it's a NEED, not a WANT, we can tolerate [but never ignore] deaths caused by cars.

So what's a machine guns role?

Just shut the hell up about RPGs.

Why?

Yeah, and 70% of those points have been struck down with the remaining 30% involving your obsession with RPGs. As much as you talk about them, I am beginning to think that you have fantasies about RPGs, don't you?

Yeah I wack off to images in US weapons brouchers. Don't you?

[BoredShirtless]

Don't be a smart arse Shep. We both know that full auto weapons are completely BANNED in some states.

New Jersey for one...but then again, New Jersey counts for Jack Squat

Uzi's are ABSOLUTELY BANNED IN ALL STATES according to your second post in this very thread.

You're dumber than shit. Have they been banned? No. You just can't
import any new ones at all, leading to prices going higher and higher due
to a limited supply of Uzis that were imported before the Import ban.

I stand corrected.

[BoredShirtless]

Ok that's it for me, time to go for a feed. I guess RedImeprator drew the line at RPGs; I'm drawing it at machine guns. Your arugments are like water on a fucks back. I do not accept such lethal weapons. I don't give a rats arse if the probability of getting hit 10 times by lightinging on a clear sunnay day are higher. You only live once, and this type of shit does happen [school massacres, going postal at work, etc etc]. Removing the limited bans on machine guns WILL increase the number of these weapons, and this WILL increase the probability of some nut going apeshit or whatever. Adios, have a good w/e.

[MKSheppard]

I'm drawing it at machine guns. Your arugments are like water on a fucks back. I do not accept such lethal weapons.

Every gang banger should be issued a MAC-10 and subsonic rounds by
the fucking police

[Nathan F]

BS, there is no point in arguing against you. We give you proof in numbers, yet you are too thick headed to even recognize it because of your phobia of guns. You, my friend, are an imbecile.

[Nathan F]

OH, BTW, you have let your voice known, and, us living in a democratic society, you have lost. While you have a right to your opinion, this is one of those cases where majority rules, and you have lost your battle. You can continue to make yourself look thick headed and stupid by continuing on with your banter, or, you can accept the facts and try again another day.

[Wedge]

Wait a minute.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you the ones who want to change the current law? So why has BoredShirtless have to prove anything? If you want to change the law, you must give arguments.
What I read till now was, it would be fun, it would look nice. And I think BoredShirtless did have a point by saying that RPG would be fun and would look nice in someone's collections too. So the "would be fun" and "would look nice" "arguments" (if we can call it argument) are stupid. Ok, then someone gave the argument that it has been only commited one crime with a full automatic weapon in the last 20 years. Yeah, sure that's right, but why always take the worst scenario? I bet more people whould die by accidents, for example when hunting with full-auto, and btw how many crimes where commited with RPG's in the last 20 years? Of course like RI said, a RPG is far more dangerous than a fullautomatic weapon.
But well, that wasn't my point at all, my question was, that if you want to change the current law, you should give arguments in favor of unbanning them, like for example telling which purpose those weapons have in RL, and please don't come with bull-shit like "it's cool", "it looks nice", "it's fun".
[OT]sorry for the bad writing and typos it's 3 am[/OT]

[Alyeska]

Ok that's it for me, time to go for a feed. I guess RedImeprator drew the line at RPGs; I'm drawing it at machine guns. Your arugments are like water on a fucks back. I do not accept such lethal weapons. I don't give a rats arse if the probability of getting hit 10 times by lightinging on a clear sunnay day are higher. You only live once, and this type of shit does happen [school massacres, going postal at work, etc etc]. Removing the limited bans on machine guns WILL increase the number of these weapons, and this WILL increase the probability of some nut going apeshit or whatever. Adios, have a good w/e.

Irrelevent. Irrational fears with no grounding in reality have no place as enforced laws.

[Nathan F]

Wait a minute.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you the ones who want to change the current law? So why has BoredShirtless have to prove anything? If you want to change the law, you must give arguments.
What I read till now was, it would be fun, it would look nice. And I think BoredShirtless did have a point by saying that RPG would be fun and would look nice in someone's collections too. So the "would be fun" and "would look nice" "arguments" (if we can call it argument) are stupid. Ok, then someone gave the argument that it has been only commited one crime with a full automatic weapon in the last 20 years. Yeah, sure that's right, but why always take the worst scenario? I bet more people whould die by accidents, for example when hunting with full-auto, and btw how many crimes where commited with RPG's in the last 20 years? Of course like RI said, a RPG is far more dangerous than a fullautomatic weapon.
But well, that wasn't my point at all, my question was, that if you want to change the current law, you should give arguments in favor of unbanning them, like for example telling which purpose those weapons have in RL, and please don't come with bull-shit like "it's cool", "it looks nice", "it's fun".
[OT]sorry for the bad writing and typos it's 3 am[/OT]

What is the reason for anything? I take the aforementioned sports cars. They are unneccessary to the common person, yet are fun to drive, even though the present a hazard when used improperly. Your train of thought leads to no where.

[RedImperator]

Wait a minute.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you the ones who want to change the current law? So why has BoredShirtless have to prove anything? If you want to change the law, you must give arguments.
What I read till now was, it would be fun, it would look nice. And I think BoredShirtless did have a point by saying that RPG would be fun and would look nice in someone's collections too. So the "would be fun" and "would look nice" "arguments" (if we can call it argument) are stupid. Ok, then someone gave the argument that it has been only commited one crime with a full automatic weapon in the last 20 years. Yeah, sure that's right, but why always take the worst scenario? I bet more people whould die by accidents, for example when hunting with full-auto, and btw how many crimes where commited with RPG's in the last 20 years? Of course like RI said, a RPG is far more dangerous than a fullautomatic weapon.
But well, that wasn't my point at all, my question was, that if you want to change the current law, you should give arguments in favor of unbanning them, like for example telling which purpose those weapons have in RL, and please don't come with bull-shit like "it's cool", "it looks nice", "it's fun".
[OT]sorry for the bad writing and typos it's 3 am[/OT]

This argument initially started because the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration is about to expire, and there's a good chance it will not be renewed, re-legalizing weapons that have been illegal for the last ten years. The argument in favor of allowing the ban to lapse boils down to, "There was no logical reason to ban those weapons. They did not represent a significant threat to public safety, and worse, the criteria used to select the weapons placed on the banned list was pointless and stupid." In case you didn't know, "assault weapons" is just a term for semiautomatic rifles that either look like military weapons or actually are military weapons with the full auto feature disabled. There is no practical difference between these weapons and any number of semiautomatic hunting rifles that were not banned.

The full automatic weapon argument developed out of, I believe, some confusion as to what assault weapons actually are. In any case, most of the people arguing for letting the AWB lapse are also in favor of overturning a 1986 ban on the sale of new full automatic weapons to civilians (prior to that, civilians could buy them after a lot of red tape, liscense fees, and whatnot). Again, the pro-gun argument boils down to the fact that despite the capabilities of these weapons, they do not represent a significant danger to public health and safety. Since that is the case, there is no reason for them to be illegal.

The burden of proof in any argument over whether or not the rights of individual citizens should be restricted ALWAYS lies with those who would restrict those rights. Sometimes the argument is clear cut--the government has a right to outlaw driving at 100 miles per hour through residential neighborhoods because even though it's POSSIBLE to do it safely, there's too much of a risk to the lives and property of that neighborhood's residents. Other times the issue is not so clear cut--does the government have the right to ban the use of cocaine, a dangerous activity but one that harms nobody directly but the user? At no point can those in favor of a restriction say, "Well, what USE does it have?" Free men do not have to justify their actions to the state--the state must justify IT'S actions to its citizens. The whole debate over what use a citizen might have for a weapon is a giant red herring. If you're for a ban, prove the weapon (or anything else, for that matter) is so dangerous that even though it could potentially be used safely and responsibly, the risk is too great that it will be used otherwise.

[Alyeska]

With the AWB most likely being removed, does that mean I can buy a civilian M4 that is exactly like the military model except that it is semi-auto? Or are their still magazine size restrictions and barrel length requirements?

[MKSheppard]

With the AWB most likely being removed, does that mean I can buy a civilian M4 that is exactly like the military model except that it is semi-auto? Or are their still magazine size restrictions and barrel length requirements?

Barrel length requirements. You'd have to register a semi auto as a
"Short Barrelled Rifle" with the ATF - I think it's just a $5 fee

[Alyeska]

With the AWB most likely being removed, does that mean I can buy a civilian M4 that is exactly like the military model except that it is semi-auto? Or are their still magazine size restrictions and barrel length requirements?

Barrel length requirements. You'd have to register a semi auto as a
"Short Barrelled Rifle" with the ATF - I think it's just a $5 fee

Does that mean I could buy a 14.5" barrel M4 rather than be required to get a 16.5" one like current requirements dictate?

[Knife]

I would like to interject with a comment about the argument of 'automatic weapons are deadlier than single shot.'

Tis true and not true at the same time. The automatic weapon relies on volume of fire, which is derived from rate of fire, to increase the effectiveness of the weapon over single shot weapons. Basicly, the amount of rounds going down range in a small amount of time.

Volume of fire and by association automatic weapons, are only effective against a dense target, meaning that a bunch of people closely packed together. This is because of the cone of fire. A cone of fire is the combined trajectory of the multiple shots from the weapon. Every individual trajectory from an automatic weapon is slightly different due to various factors to include the instability of the weapon on its mount or firing position of the person from the multiple recoils of the weapon when firing.

These slightly different trajectories form the cone as they are going down range and when they hit, they are called the beaten zone. Most automatic weapons operate withing a certain specification, for example the M60's beaten zone is aways 2mils wide at any given point.

What does all this mean? Well in essence, in a densely packed target, the beaten zone can incorporate the entire target (for best results) or a significant portion of it. On a less dense target, the volume of fire is worthless because the beaten zone can not envelope the target and a majority of the rounds in the cone of fire hit nothing but the ground.

Lets take the hypothetical yet based on history, senario of some phyco on a bell tower. Now in senario A he has a hunting rifle with 100 rounds. In senario B he has a automatic weapon with 100 rounds.

In senario A, he can fire 100 individual rounds at 100 individual targets weather they are densely packed or walking around by themselves. End results, a possibility of 100 dead, though probably half that.

In senario B, he can fire at densely packed groups and use volume of fire to mow down the group. If the group is dense enough, he might get a one round to one target ratio but more likely it will be at least 2 to 1. If he fires at individual targets, the ratio goes way up. Depending on how long a burst he fires at a person, is what the round to target ratio will be. Say he fires a 6 to 8 round burst (only because that is the size of burst you use on a light to medium machinegun in the USMC). Thats on average of 7 rounds to 1 target.

Where am I going with this? Just this, generally saying that an automatic weapon is more dangerous than a single shot weapon is wrong. It depends on the weapon, shooter, and the target. When it all comes down to it, a guy with a gun's ability to kill people will depend on how many bullets he has.

The only time that an automatic weapon is more dangerous than a single shot is when the target is big and dense. Using a automatic in this instance just makes it more effective.

[MKSheppard]

Does that mean I could buy a 14.5" barrel M4 rather than be required to get a 16.5" one like current requirements dictate?

I'm not too up to date on the SBR requirements and regulations.