a question to US gun owners.

[antonatsis]

well seeing a video the other day which shoed a guy holding a gun(smg i think)and walking down the road till police stopped him(which was obviously a bait to make police act extreme but unfortunatelly for him the police officer was smarter than him)
I want to ask...why not make gun laws Draconian.Since you take it for protection why not make those laws quite hard on people that brake them and the requirements at a big level...i mean if i had guns in my home i would surelly be pro-gun control because i wouldnt like any weirdo having an armory in his house...IF you guys are honest law abiding citizens hard gun controling laws wont make a diference right?

Also another question,why do you actually need AK-47 or machine guns,i mean i can undersatnd having a handgun or a shotgun but machine guns?Isnt that a bit extreme?

this is not a troll post i really like to see the reasoning behind this culture.So if someone only has to say "derp derp derp gun is bad" or "derp derp derp gun is good"please dont respond.I want answers from seemingly regular joes with guns.

[Porcell]

First, I doubt the person in the video you saw was "holding" the gun (and I also doubt it was an "smg" sub machine gun). It might have been someone open carrying a longgun, which is completely legal in many states.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with your Draconian laws. If you commit a crime with a firearm there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years.

A lot of pro-gun folks are against registration of firearms. It is as easy as looking toward the UK, where they had mandatory registration of firearms. When they later banned all firearms they were able to track down all of the legally owned guns because they were registered.

As for machine guns, very few people own machine guns. Enthusiasts and collectors own machine guns, not criminals. Furthermore, very few crimes are actually committed using AK-47s (well, in the US at least). Rifles are not the guns for crimes. They are the guns for hunting, target shooting, and fun. Have you ever shot an AK or an AR? It's pretty fun. So no, I wouldn't call owning a semi-automatic rifle as "extreme" in any way.

[monostat]

You cant just own a machine gun or AK
All machine guns must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the U.S. Treasury, unless they are under the control of the government. This means that the owner must provide his name and address, an identification of the gun and the date of registration. Federal law strictly prohibits individual ownership of machine guns registered after May 19, 1986. Those who violate these rules may face up to ten years in prison or a $250,000 fine."

The laws about carrying an unregistered gun are different from state to state, I know here in Florida it's a jail term and massive fine. You are absolutely forbidden by federal law to possess a machine gun if you have been indicted or convicted of a felony, are a fugitive, have received a dishonorable discharge from the military, are an illegal alien, are under a restraining order, have been admitted to a mental institution or have an addiction to any controlled substance.

[Al3sinth]

The guy in the video was carrying a mp5 replica that shoots .22LR (one of the smallest caliber you can get), and not an actual automatic mp5 that fires 9mm. Also like Porcell said shooting semi-auto or automatic (if you can afford it) rifles are extremely fun and addictive.

[Daelak]

well seeing a video the other day which shoed a guy holding a gun(smg i think)and walking down the road till police stopped him(which was obviously a bait to make police act extreme but unfortunatelly for him the police officer was smarter than him)
I want to ask...why not make gun laws Draconian.Since you take it for protection why not make those laws quite hard on people that brake them and the requirements at a big level...i mean if i had guns in my home i would surelly be pro-gun control because i wouldnt like any weirdo having an armory in his house...IF you guys are honest law abiding citizens hard gun controling laws wont make a diference right?

Also another question,why do you actually need AK-47 or machine guns,i mean i can undersatnd having a handgun or a shotgun but machine guns?Isnt that a bit extreme?

this is not a troll post i really like to see the reasoning behind this culture.So if someone only has to say "derp derp derp gun is bad" or "derp derp derp gun is good"please dont respond.I want answers from seemingly regular joes with guns.

Well assault weapon proliferation in the US makes it practically impossible to ban assault weapons, so there is not much else you can do. The federal government could have done a lot more to curb gun imports and production in the 70's & 80's when their numbers were a lot lower.

[time0ut]

I own guns for a number of reasons. Primarily, its just a fun past time for me. I've been shooting for almost 20 years now (since I was 10 or so). Its relaxing and enjoyable. Its like golf or bowling for me. I also own guns for self defense purposes, but that's another issue.

I do think we need better and stricter enforcement of existing gun laws. Every time some idiot does something stupid, it makes the 99.9% of normal law abiding gun owners look bad.

[Gombadoh]

The problem with strict laws on guns is actually a simple one for the US at least. What you do is make it harder for law abbiding citizens to get the weapons they have the right to own vs. a criminal that will steal them or buy them illegally and use them in a crime. See you will never "get rid of" guns from a world standpoint. Last time I checked there are currently in the billions of AK style rifles in circulation world wide. Criminals will always get guns and if they are in the US it will be done in an illegal manner.

So if you look at it like this, a criminal (felon or what ever) that buys guns does so now illegally. So gun laws being strict do not effect him at all.

I have to respectfully disagree with you , atleast on the merit of your argument.

The fact that a criminal has (easy) access to weaponry does in no way warrant 'law abiding' citizens to have them.If this reasoning was followed thered be a wide range of problems that could never be solved. Also, I read an alarmingly high number of cases where the criminal shoots the law abiding citizen with the law abiding citizens gun, not saying im an expert on this but it seams feasable enough for me to bring it up.

While I doubt there are billions of ak style weapons ( unless you mean assault rifles then maybe wed probably reach the billion mark) their presence in the world wouldnt mean that they are all piled up in america. The kalashnikov is a cheap mans' all terrain unbreakable weapon which makes it perfectly suitable for every bushwhack militia or african dictator wannabe.

And as stated above, not even the average criminal ( which is pretty stupid) is stupid enough to drive around with an smg/assault rifle , especially when pistols and the likes are legal..

Personally im pro gun control; people that use them for relaxation can go to the shooting club and use a wide range of weaponry there (theres some hella awesome sniper rifles at the club near me) whilst people with ill intent wont have access to weaponry ( people in an emotional state can do the craziest thing .. all it takes is a short moment )

[time0ut]

Well assault weapon proliferation in the US makes it practically impossible to ban assault weapons, so there is not much else you can do. The federal government could have done a lot more to curb gun imports and production in the 70's & 80's when their numbers were a lot lower.

There is a lot of misinformation about what assault weapons actually are. Private ownership of assault weapons is pretty rare. Most of the guns people label as assault weapons are not.

[pyrese]

Criminals will always be able to get the weapons they want. As to why 'normal' citizens should have a right to assault weapons I direct you to the battle of Athens, which occured in Athens, Tennessee in 1946 where corrupt local politicians were committing election fraud and exploiting the town for personal gain.

[Daelak]

There is a lot of misinformation about what assault weapons actually are. Private ownership of assault weapons is pretty rare. Most of the guns people label as assault weapons are not.

Semi-automatic assault weapons are very popular.

[Porcell]

There is a lot of misinformation about what assault weapons actually are. Private ownership of assault weapons is pretty rare. Most of the guns people label as assault weapons are not.

It depends on if you use the old definition of an assault weapon (i.e. an automatic weapon capable of select-fire) or the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" verbiage of pistol grips, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, and the 19 or so specific firearm models that are listed in that legislation.

Thus why pro-gun people dislike the term "assault weapon." It'd a dummy term used by the anti-gun folks.

[time0ut]

Semi-automatic assault weapons are very popular.

What exactly is an assault weapon? Functionally, the semi auto weapons you are talking about are identical to semi auto hunting rifles. The only arguable differentiations are superficial. Actual assault weapons are defined as select fire weapons.

---------- Post added 2012-08-23 at 02:26 PM ----------

It depends on if you use the old definition of an assault weapon (i.e. an automatic weapon capable of select-fire) or the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" verbiage of pistol grips, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, and the 19 or so specific firearm models that are listed in that legislation.

Thus why pro-gun people dislike the term "assault weapon." It'd a dummy term used by the anti-gun folks.

The gun-control version of assault weapon is misleading. It serves to categorize weapons based on meaningless superficial differences. Its a smoke screen designed to induce a fear based reaction in people who do not know any better.

[Daelak]

What exactly is an assault weapon? Functionally, the semi auto weapons you are talking about are identical to semi auto hunting rifles. The only arguable differentiations are superficial. Actual assault weapons are defined as select fire weapons.

---------- Post added 2012-08-23 at 02:26 PM ----------



The gun-control version of assault weapon is misleading. It serves to categorize weapons based on meaningless superficial differences. Its a smoke screen designed to induce a fear based reaction in people who do not know any better.

Or, its a guideline the ATF, FBI, and a bunch of other law enforcement agencies follow when they designate weapons. Can you show me a semi auto hunting rifle?

[time0ut]

Or, its a guideline the ATF, FBI, and a bunch of other law enforcement agencies follow when they designate weapons. Can you show me a semi auto hunting rifle?

http://www.dpmsinc.com/Hunting-Rifles_ep_75-1.html

Feel free to read about the term assault weapon as it applies to gun control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon.

[Al3sinth]

Or, its a guideline the ATF, FBI, and a bunch of other law enforcement agencies follow when they designate weapons. Can you show me a semi auto hunting rifle?

Remington Model 750's & Benelli R1 Rifle if those others were too "assault weapony" for you

[fletchdwb]

Gun rights are irrelevant. The idea behind gun rights is that if the govt gets too out of control then you have the arms to overthrow it. But technology has outpaced handguns. They now have drones and smart guns and body armor that will render most guns useless should an actual coup occur. This is why the Federal govt doesnt not actually care about taking away gun rights like many actually believe.

I am a liberal btw. However I do admit at this point our govt is something out of control and something to be afraid of. The US govt is turning into a Police State. I would not be surprised if a Revolution happens.

[time0ut]

Gun rights are irrelevant. The idea behind gun rights is that if the govt gets too out of control then you have the arms to overthrow it. But technology has outpaced handguns. They now have drones and smart guns and body armor that will render most guns useless should an actual coup occur.

The Taliban and the Viet Cong disagree.

It'd be a horrible thing and I hope it never happens, but history has shown that its damn near impossible to defeat a determined guerrilla force regardless of the technology.

[Daelak]

Remington Model 750's & Benelli R1 Rifle if those others were too "assault weapony" for you

They look like m-16's and HK's, is that supposed to be an aesthetic thing?

[time0ut]

They look like m-16's and HK's, is that supposed to be an aesthetic thing?

Basically. There are some practical reasons for it. The AR style rifles are ergonomically better and easier to customize. Functionally though, there is no real difference.

[Porcell]

They look like m-16's and HK's, is that supposed to be an aesthetic thing?

I'm not sure what you are asking. It's a gun, that's how they look. It has a stock that your shoulder goes on, it has a grip that you hold on to, it has a place for the magazine to go in, and it has a barrel that the bullet goes down. In the middle of these four pieces is the receiver where the magic happens. What exactly do you want a rifle to look like? Would it be less scary for you if it were pink instead of black?