Jump to content

M16 vs AK47


Sgt-Greco

Recommended Posts

@mcl. Your post had me following link after link after link on Google. I actually ended up on a pretty good porn site at one point ;) . The simple notion of 'gun control' and, 'what it should be', soon becomes anything but when one cares to dig a little deeper.

 

I do understand the main focus of your post, really, I do. And I appreciate the information you supplied. I can't help but feel laying blame on 'people' is just far too easy. Everything wrong with the planet can be blamed on people if you care to make an argument for it.

 

My understanding of Gun Free Zones are they exist around schools, and places of high crime, or an area where drugs are a serious problem. Gun Free Zones are used as a deterrent. If caught with a firearm in a GFZ, you're either very stupid, very dangerous, or both. Either way you're going to feel the force of the law with sentences being doubled or tripled, and no leniency to be expected for a first offence. The deterrent essentially becomes a tool for authorities to remove you from society for a longer period of time.

 

No doubt mass shootings grab at international headlines, especially when children are involved. From what I've read, mass shootings in GFZ's contribute only a tiny percentage to the overall numbers of gun related deaths in America. I would agree, if a lunatic in the midst of psychotic break is determined to go on a murderous rampage, no law or amount of signage is going to prevent it. But, just because people won't abide by a law it isn't necessarily an argument not have a law.

 

Do you believe gun free zones are a failure, or should be abolished?

 

I was aware of the water pollution issues you mentioned, but not the extent, or scale of the issue. We had something similar in the UK, concerning the amount of Estrogen women were adding to the water supply when taking certain birth control pills. A defence I use often whenever the size of my man-boobs are called into question.

 

The spate of stabbings in China, where guns are illegal is interesting, and I take your wider point. More pertinent to the discussion is something of this nature It suggests the homicide rate is some 6 times lower in China; where guns are illegal.

 

Mental health issues and gun ownership does appear to be a serious problem. Best I can figure, at least 38 States include some sort of Mental Health check as part of background checks. The problem appears to be the failure, for whatever reason, of those individual States to share information with one and other. An example of apathy, or constitutional restriction to gun control, I know not.

 

@ Dillinger, I'm pleased we can agree using the argument - a gun is an inanimate object blah blah blah - is both preposterous, and an exercise in futility. A gun safely stowed in a lock box has little chance of causing harm - yep, agreed. Guns don't kill people! Mmmmkay, but they sure as hell contribute to the number of gun related deaths in the world.

 

And, what's with the heart disease stats? Maybe you should start a thread petitioning the U.S. Government for a 'cutlery control bill'? The use of spoons is obviously making some people fat, and skewing those heart disease factoids?! :P . LOL..

 

I guess anyone can trawl the net, and pick a stat to support a particular point of view. It's not difficult, It's easy. Like this one for example Which names each of the 12043 (or more) people who have died as a result of gun violence in the U.S. for the single year following the Newtown tragedy. Many of which you'll notice are women and children.

 

I really don't know if stat grabbing, or a link-fest helps or hinders a discussion. So, with that in mind, I agree with you, buddy. Facts. They are bitch to argue with :)

 

My take on gun-free zones, and any similar such signage/legislation:  Signs, rules, and laws only exist to deter those so inclined to follow them.  Therefore, "gun-free zones" prevent law-abiding citizens from being armed, while doing nothing to deter those intent on violating them.  For crying out loud, WE KILL PEOPLE FOR BREAKING CERTAIN LAWS.  It's been shown not to be a deterrent.  So "stiffer penalties" certainly won't be, either.  All it does is unduly penalize people who are otherwise law-abiding citzens.  For example:  Say you walked or drove to school one afternoon to pick up your child.  Suppose also that you were carrying concealed.  You did not intend to violate the law, yet you are in violation if you are on school property.  Such zero-tolerance laws ignore intent entirely, while creating the equivalent of a home with a huge "We are completely unprotected; please rob us!" sign in the front yard.

 

Criminals count on people obeying the law; it's one reason criminals are effective.  In the case of those wishing harm on others, a "gun-free zone" sign may as well read, "shooting gallery".

 

As for the stats, one must be VERY careful when reading them, as they are often presented in a manner to sway public opinion.  For example, most gun violence statistics reported for the US include suicides, accidental discharges, authorized use of lethal force by law enforcement officers, etc.  They do this to intentionally inflate the numbers and promote panic. 

Two stats that often don't get reported:  1) Gun violence is drastically down in the US, and has been declining for years.  2) Legal gun ownership is at its highest, and has been increasing for years.  In fact, violent crimes of all types involving firearms has been steadily decreasing.

 

What is up, and increasing, is the firearm suicide rate.  Which just illustrates my earlier point about mental illness.  I'm all for stricter checks on mental illness, but at the same time, it can very easily be used as a weapon (no pun intended) to disarm those who should not be, and that is a problem for which I have no solution.  Nor do I have a solution to the issue of medical record sharing, since I'm a fervent believer in privacy, particularly regarding medical records.

 

The crux of the issue is that the US has a tendency to have knee-jerk reactions to events, prompting calls for stricter gun-control laws that would do absolutely nothing to have prevented the event they're reacting to, nor would it reduce the risk of future such incidents.  They only place further burden on those who already struggle to obey the existing laws.  If you ever want a taste of Byzantine legalisms, try figuring out all the laws pertaining to carry, stowage, destination, intent, and reporting when driving across one or more state lines with a firearm.  It's so bad people have to buy,  and study, books on the matter -- which are often out-of-date, as the laws change frequently -- just to adhere to the federal, state, and local laws in each juristiction through which they may pass.

 

I've yet to see anyone sanely react to such incidents by answering the following questions:

1) Was the firearm legally acquired?

2) Was the firearm legally posessed?

3) Was the firearm legally carried?

 

Those three questions will, in almost every case -- and I hedge only because I'm not going to go do the research right this second to verify the claim -- never be answered in the affirmative.  And if they're already breaking the law (or, more typically, laws), what makes anyone think additional laws would have prevented the event?

 

If you need further example of our symptom-based, reactionary rulemaking, look no further than the aftermath of the recent Charleston, SC church shooting.  Are we addressing the shooter's mental illness?  His use of prescription drugs?  His racism?  No.  Instead, Amazon and eBay are yanking all products with a Confederate flag.  Warner Brothers is yanking the license to manufacture "Dukes of Hazzard" toys and models with the flag on them (the iconic car from the 1980's TV show featured a rebel flag on the roof of the car).  Apple just removed all games with a confederate flag from the Apple Store (including Ultimate General: Gettysburg, which is an accurate historical simulation/recreation of a pivotal battle in the US Civil War).  For whatever reason, the people of the US feel that removing a symbol removes the problem.  Just as they believe further restricting access to firearms will miraculously remove certain people's inclination towards and propensity for violence.

 

Personally, I view my guns the same way I view my insurance, or my fire extinguishers:  I hope I never need them, but if I ever do, I'm damn glad I've got them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

@ Dillinger, I'm pleased we can agree using the argument - a gun is an inanimate object blah blah blah - is both preposterous, and an exercise in futility. A gun safely stowed in a lock box has little chance of causing harm - yep, agreed. Guns don't kill people! Mmmmkay, but they sure as hell contribute to the number of gun related deaths in the world.

 

And, what's with the heart disease stats? Maybe you should start a thread petitioning the U.S. Government for a 'cutlery control bill'? The use of spoons is obviously making some people fat, and skewing those heart disease factoids?! :P . LOL..

 

I guess anyone can trawl the net, and pick a stat to support a particular point of view. It's not difficult, It's easy. Like this one for example Which names each of the 12043 (or more) people who have died as a result of gun violence in the U.S. for the single year following the Newtown tragedy. Many of which you'll notice are women and children.

 

I really don't know if stat grabbing, or a link-fest helps or hinders a discussion. So, with that in mind, I agree with you, buddy. Facts. They are bitch to argue with :)

 

LOL - I threw out the heart disease because it catches a lot of gun haters off balance.  They want to rally against the God given right to defend oneself by use of a scary "advanced tool", but the same would be true if rocks and clubs were controlled purchase items.  There are those that don't have them, and would like others to not have them either, because they don't agree with them.

 

You have touched on my view of stats.  The link you provided is to a website that was debunked awhile ago because there were no controls as to WHAT got classified a gun murder.  Click the links of all the symbols and you will see a highlighted part of the map with an "incident" but then you can see where "readers" classified the account as a murder or suicide or "other".  Well, who the hell are the ones deciding?

 

You have to go with "national" versus "country wide" crime stats to be able to compare like numbers from the US to around the world.  That is the only way I have been able to make real sense of the issue because I have questioned whether gun culture was a problem.  

 

After an extensive review of REAL facts, I don't think guns are the problem.  Guns don't kill people.  They are a tool that can make the job easier, no argument from me there and I agree with you.  However, a locked and secured gun, in the ownership of a legal, law abiding citizen is safer to Joe Civilian than a personal vehicle.  

 

You seem like a dude who likes to understand facts and have a good discussion.  There is a book I would recommend, it is a little dry, but it will give you chapter and verse of gun violence, not only in the US, but in the world.  The guy who wrote, John Lott, it actually has a PhD in economics and was considered to be somewhat of a "genius, wizkid" on the subject before turning his considerable brain power to the issue of gun violence.  His book More Guns, Less Crime is about as clear cut as the subject can get.

 

When someone can show me work of equal value, that has also been scrutinized to the level his book has that refutes the evidence, I will gladly give it a read.  But it would need to be something pretty damning to get me to change my view of personal, RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

 

JD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your post. It is always nice to hear from someone with a clear and concise point. I assume you know what it was? Keep up the good fight.

 

Regards, Dogs.

 

(Dangerous ones, dirty ones, and cute little fluffy ones you can't help pickup and cuddle) :P

 

ha, an analogy... people dont like something that doesnt have the NRA behind it and it got banned... the ban doesnt work [of course they ban them for false reasons and fear]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I have the utmost respect for your views on the subject. The language I used was inflammatory and unnecessary for the discussion.

 

My apologies if I came across as an asshole. It genuinely wasn't my intention.

 

@pro. I got your point, and I don't know why I wrote what I did - other than me trying to be a smart-arse.

 

Sorry, bud..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I have the utmost respect for your views on the subject. The language I used was inflammatory and unnecessary for the discussion.

 

My apologies if I came across as an asshole. It genuinely wasn't my intention.

 

 

This is a touchy subject and one that inevitably gets heated.  I thought you handled the situation with equal amounts of comedy and smart ass, so we are good brother.  No worries from this side.   :P

 

Some folks want to own a bunch of expensive art that hangs on the wall to have people over and admire their taste.  My tastes are just a bit more practical and blue collar.  I worked hard to get where I am at, given this time point in my life, and I would prefer to be able to keep and protect what little I have amassed.

 

As we have now officially entered Ramadan, I suspect you will see a few waves of violence directed at the unsuspecting.

 

All I am saying is, not all of us are mere sheep nervously awaiting their slaughter.   ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeesh! Trying to play Devils advocate after a couple of bottles of red is not to be recommended.

 

@Dillinger, LOL - Thanks. You're a top fella, and I meant no disrespect :) what was meant to be tongue in cheek yesterday, tastes a lot like a foot in the mouth today.

 

@mcl Your post makes for interesting and informative reading. I hadn't considered many of the issues from such a diplomatically put perspective. Thanks :)

 

I get the feeling this isn't the first time you've given thought to the subject.

 

I will now dis/gracefully bow out (until she gives back the corkscrew), and start a less controversial topic. Same sex marriage or Religion? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah no question about it,if you wanna start a heated debate talk gun right,politics or religion.

 

You all know Dillinger and I are on the same page with the whole "firearms" topic and with not being sheep    ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...