Guns, Why do many countries not trust there citizens with them?

reply to post by Ioseb_Jugashvili

---

We do have higher homicide rates than many other western societies, but realize that the numbers are being skewed by inner cities. There are a great number of areas in the US where the populace is very well armed, yet violent crimes are virtually non-existent. The problem here isn't guns. Its the attitudes of the people using them.

And why all the concentration on 'assault' rifles? I've never understood that. Of the 10,000 or so firearm related murders every year in the US, on average, a little less than 80% are committed with handguns.

reply to post by vor78

---

What's the title of this thread?

"Guns, Why do many countries not trust there citizens with them?"

Let's see what weaponry is legal in most countries:

Bolt Action=Yes
Semi-Auto=Yes
Handguns(Any Calibre)=Yes
High calibre weapons=Yes (If you can put a tank shell in a bolt action rifle, it's legal)
Shotguns=Yes
Automatic weapons=No

Basically the thread is implying that why aren't automatic firearms legal. Yes, it's true that 80% of firearms crimes are commited by handguns, simply because they're so easy to conceal. As I have mentioned COUNTLESS times, there is absolutely no niche for automatic firearms to fill. If you're that bad of a shooter that you need >30 rounds in quick succesion to take a deer down, kudos to you.

At the moment I can't think of any reason why someone would need an automatic firearm. Perhaps you guys could come up with a reason as to why the public would need M60's?

reply to post by hpsfl

---

There are a lot of things that we don't need, but are 'allowed' to own.

Of course, you can't just walk into the local gunshop and buy an M60, either, unless you have a federal firearms license. That's true of all fully automatic weapons in the US. The typical 'assault' rifle in the US is actually a semi-automatic, which can be purchased without an FFL.

Cost is also a prohibitive factor with this particular subset of weapons. Most criminals aren't going to drop $10,000 on an automatic rifle. The people who buy them typically use them for recreational shooting at the local range. I see nothing wrong with that.

reply to post by vor78

---

Thought you could get most kinds of automatic rifles for under 1k bucks?
Gun Prices
Sounds very affordable for drug dealers/petty criminals.
While in the states they are not perhaps the biggest killer, most shootings in Mexico, Central America, and South America that are drug related, involve automatics.

Many of those weapons, are of US or Chinese origin. Ironic...but thats for another thread...

In short: Automatic Rifles are just the icon representing a mindset. Lets not even go NRA...lol

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Ioseb_Jugashvili]

reply to post by hpsfl

---

The use of automatic firearms is a non-issue.

Have you ever seen an AK47 fired at full cyclic rate? The accuracy is pathetic- you cant even hit a barn door from 25 metres!

Automatic firearms are banned because people are scared of them, nothing more.

I would say that an accurate semi-automatic in a large calibre is far more capable of lethal devastation.

If I were a soldier in a firefight, I certainly wouldnt use automatic weapons... theyre a waste of rounds.

reply to post by Ioseb_Jugashvili

---

Those weapons are not automatics. They are semi-automatic. Not only do the weapon descriptions indicate this, but the fact that there is no notice of the need for an FFL should also be a tip-off.

Here are your automatics:

www.impactguns.com...

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

At close range, its a non issue if you can hit a barn at 25 meters or not, considering your target is at less than 10, and you're spreading bullets for maxium coverage.

Automatic weapons are banned because they are an unncessary risk.

Eitherway...the point is soft gun laws...
Coincidence?
I think not

reply to post by vor78

---

Point is... why do countries do not "trust" their citizens with guns.
Automatic Rifles are just the icon of what Gun Culture represents = Soft Gun Laws.

I dont see why you'd buy a 7.62 Dragunov Sniper Rifle, unless you're planning to go Safari on your city block.

Or does recreative shooting involve bullet size? You need a 7.62 bullet to shoot a cardboard target?

reply to post by Ioseb_Jugashvili

---

If an automatic weapon is too dangerous in public hands due to its short range firepower, what does that say about a $300 Wallyworld shotgun? There are what, 96 .30 caliber pellets in six rounds of #1 buckshot? Doesn't take long to unload that even from a pump 12 gauge.

Maybe we need to ban shotguns, too.

I don't know why kids the world over play soccer or why adults spend thousands on golf clubs. Do I need a $3,000 TV to watch the nightly news?

There's absolutely no evidence that owners of fully automatic weapons are committing crimes with them. If they want to go blow holes in a paper target at the local range with an M60, why should I care? Its their money. If they're not hurting anyone, what exactly is the problem?

reply to post by Ioseb_Jugashvili

---

No, but if I want one and am a law abiding citizen:

1. how does it matter? I will not be murdering anyone since there is a small section in law which prohibits murder (as far as i know...)

2. who is anyone else to tell me what I can and cannot do?

3. how is legislation blanket banning guns going to affect a moose hunter in rural alaska as opposed to a drug addled maniac in the inner city? Blanket bans are stupid because they assume guilt on the part of all people, the majority of whom will never commit a crime in their life.

An astronomical number of people die from tobacco and alcohol related disease every year- how about blanket banning those things before you try taking away guns on a false premise?

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

I've SHOT a AK-47 on full-auto at the local army base (Some soldiers owed my dad a favour) It's horribly innacurate becuase of the floating barrel, which flies all over the place.

Which brings us back to the question...

Why do civilians need Automatic firearms?

its all about disarmament.

what is the common man going to fight back with when you take away his freedom and rights?

any other excuse is simply total BS.

reply to post by hpsfl

---

The matter of need is dependent upon the equipment the opposition has at hand. You never take a knife to a gun fight,or a single shot shotgun to an automatic weapons fight.

reply to post by Herbal Oli

---

Who ever said anything about taking away freedom and rights?

If you define being free as having the ability to own massive amounts of automatic firearms, that would make Sudan, Iraq, and Rwanda the most free countries in the world!

hahaha what do you think is happening in the USA man? open your eyes!
your rights are slowly becoming non existant... they are going to squeeze you until there is nothing left

reply to post by Herbal Oli

---

Haha suckers!

It's fine up here in Canada. And by rights being "squeezed out", what are you refering to? The right to vote? The right to a doctor?

What's the Bush administration taking away from you? Yes, they lie to you, but it's not like they're commiting genocide and throwing you all into ovens.

Please clarify.

are you serious? clarify? how about you read some posts in here with how Bush and his minions are taking the US straight to hell then come back to me.

hell i live in Australia and i know more about whats happening to your neighbours than you do!, like i said man. Please be wise and do yourself a favour and educate yourself

reply to post by Herbal Oli

---

hmm...

I can either choose to base my opinions off a conspiracy site which anyone can edit (even all the crazies), or "nazi propaganda" media.

How about I just not comment on it?

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

I didnt say a blanket ban, but stronger restrictions as to whom can get a gun would be much better than kids buying guys over the internet and using them in schools.

My point being, tougher gun rules work, and the proof of it are the Europpean countries that enforce them and do NOT have the Homicide/Gun related crimes the US, Sudan, etc etc have.

I dont suggest a complete ban, merely keeping guns to responsible people...and not teenagers who watched a Marylin Manson video too many.

And yes, an astronomical amount of people die to Tobacco and Booze. There are ways to inhale nicotine now though without completely destroying your lungs (N-Joy is the name of the thingy...if I recall right.)

As for booze, governments are a bit hipocrital with their policies with it. Marihuana is a lot less dangerous, and yet its banned...but hey, I dont make drug policies.

reply to post by Herbal Oli

---

A gun is not really going to help much the "common man".
Education, and pacific resistance is going to serve him better, at least in a democratic country, and I believe you live in one.

People in Iraq had guns during Saddam....did it change anything? Without external help, I dont think there's much a civilian population can do if they indeed have an "Evil" leader.

reply to post by daddyroo45

---

Is the "opposition" the police or the army? Because in that case you'll need tanks and airplanes to defend your civil liberties. Specially considering the army will not back up the general population....as its now the case.

Having guns as an excuse to defend one's "rights" is pretty moot, considering americans are accepting them being reduced...all in the name of the War on Terror. Where is the insurgency fighting the evil government?