On Owning Evil Black Guns, A Primer

[reggie 00]

Also there are treaties in place to prohibit the use of chem bio and nuclear weapons.

No matter what your belief all weapons, single shots, semi autos, what ever if you put a ban in place the only people that will be effected are the law abiding ones.

Does anyone really think a criminal gives a rats butt if it is legal for him to have a M4, or a shotgun while he is robbing your house and killing your family?

If you don't like them fine don't have one. I don't like onions, you don't see me and the million others that see onions as I do looking to ban the sale and production of the onion do you?

Pistols, rifles, knives these are all tools. Used by people to accomplish things both good and bad.
It is the person behind it that needs regulated not the tool.

Sorry if the spelling is off on iPhone and got to go back to work

[oly884]

Let's take a different look at gun bans.

Let's say that banning all semi-auto rifles went into effect, and there was not a single semi-auto rifle in the hands of any civilian and none could be smuggled it. Would there still be killings? Would there still be home invasions?

Let's take it to the extreme and say that not a single person, except military and police, had guns, what would change? Would there be no killings? Would there be no home invasions?

Hopefully you're starting to see what banning guns accomplishes. As I said earlier, you're never going to change the intent of a bad person. You can limit the tools they can use, but you will NEVER stop bad people from doing bad things.

[Cheese]

The US and UN have told other countries, not even US civilians that they are not allowed to have chemical and nuclear weapons. Those arms, I think, are beyond this argument.

I understand the part that if more people attack me than I have rounds in my weapon, that is bad news. I assume there is a stat about how many rounds the average home invasion or rape involves.

As a tangent, the bit about how gun legislation is supposed to keep weapons away from criminals makes me laugh. If people want to get guns and kill people, they are obviously not interested in playing by the rules so more rules won't stop them.

[oly884]

I understand the part that if more people attack me than I have rounds in my weapon, that is bad news. I assume there is a stat about how many rounds the average home invasion or rape involves.

Well, while I was using the example of 6 rounds vs 30 (typical for an AR-15) the point I was trying to get at was a bit deeper. It's not just the amount of ammo that you can carry, but the gun itself. A big ol' 454 wheel gun is intimidating, but for a home defense situation, an AR would be far more versatile for a number of reasons. So, my point isn't focused on one needing 10, 20, 50 rounds, but rather a firearm designed for defense. An AR-15 shooting a 5.56 NATO round is easier to aim, 30 rounds in a magazine, negligible recoil, no muzzle flash, and semi-automatic and the effects of the 5.56 bullet traveling at those velocities makes for an excellent round to stop someone from doing you or those you love harm. Does one need all these things? Not completely, however, go back to the hammer vs nail gun comparison both a hammer and a nail gun accomplish the same task, but one is far more effective.

As a tangent, the bit about how gun legislation is supposed to keep weapons away from criminals makes me laugh. If people want to get guns and kill people, they are obviously not interested in playing by the rules so more rules won't stop them.

Spot on.

[DHC6twinotter]

If I ever get abducted by ninjas, I would rather shoot a ninja than have my neck broke in hand-to-hand combat.

[Robinhood4x4]

6 rounds. Rarely do criminals act alone, just look at Chris's examples. Most of the time there's at least 2 if not more. I won't even pretend to be a mall ninja but I've had some training in defensive handgun use. What was clearly evident from that experience is that 6 round might stop an attack, but the option of having more is much better. Murphy and all. Even in non-grandiose scenarios one will go through more rounds than one thinks. You're assuming every bullet will hit.

Mostly, I fear the slippery slope. People say there must be a compromise between the two sides, but the anti gunners aren't going to give up. They'll just keep picking away until they're all gone. What people don't realize is that in the last generation we've already compromised by giving up easily available full automatic weapons.

What are we going to give up in this generation?

[Robinhood4x4]

I don't like onions, you don't see me and the million others that see onions as I do looking to ban the sale and production of the onion do you?

Right on brotha! We onion haters gotta stick together!

[reggie 00]

I understand the part that if more people attack me than I have rounds in my weapon, that is bad news. I assume there is a stat about how many rounds the average home invasion or rape involves.

Well, while I was using the example of 6 rounds vs 30 (typical for an AR-15) the point I was trying to get at was a bit deeper. It's not just the amount of ammo that you can carry, but the gun itself. A big ol' 454 wheel gun is intimidating, but for a home defense situation, an AR would be far more versatile for a number of reasons. So, my point isn't focused on one needing 10, 20, 50 rounds, but rather a firearm designed for defense. An AR-15 shooting a 5.56 NATO round is easier to aim, 30 rounds in a magazine, negligible recoil, no muzzle flash, and semi-automatic and the effects of the 5.56 bullet traveling at those velocities makes for an excellent round to stop someone from doing you or those you love harm. Does one need all these things? Not completely, however, go back to the hammer vs nail gun comparison both a hammer and a nail gun accomplish the same task, but one is far more effective.

As a tangent, the bit about how gun legislation is supposed to keep weapons away from criminals makes me laugh. If people want to get guns and kill people, they are obviously not interested in playing by the rules so more rules won't stop them.

Spot on.

Just a comment on what you wrote above.

An Ar is an effective tool. And it has its place in HD for some.

Me i have a 18.5" 12g with #6 bird shot, very effective in a house, and wont really penetrate drywall like a .223 round will.

Also there was an article i read the other day about a class at one of the training places, they asked a guy to come in with his lever action rifle to do the class.
Out of 15-20 people he was the only one that did not have a semi auto AR type rifle.
They said he scored better than all the others. And no he wasn't up against beginners it was a law enforcement class.

Not whats shooting at you but whos behind it.

[Bighead]

I'm curious...why would you want to defend a semi-auto, high capacity rifle like the AR15 if you consider them an "Evil Black Gun"? Was this a result of your conversation with the crazy or did you already feel that way?

[fustercluck]

Well do ya, punk?