quote:

Originally posted by speed:
trisscar most shootings don't involve psycopaths and maniacs, most shootings are accidental or passional.

Actually, according the the CDC well over half of US firearm deaths are suicides, and about 39% are actual homicides. Only 4% are accidental or "undetermined". Of the homicides, a very large portion are gang related, or associated with urban crime. Crimes of passion are not a major source of gun deaths.

It seems that people get the idea that most US firearm deaths are caused by some guy getting pissed off and shooting someone in cold blood. That's just patently untrue.

trisscar most shootings don't involve psycopaths and maniacs, most shootings are accidental or passional.

You know what? The truth is, if someone REALLY wanted to go shoot up somewhere. They would get a gun whether it was registered or not. Truth is, there isn't much you can do to stop psycho paths from doing stuff like that. Sure, if the police get a warning from someone it can be stopped, but besides that it isn't easy.

Hunting rifle, whatever. You're talking to someone who has no clue what .45 or 9mm means.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
I suppose if you're just hunting for meat, then it makes sense. I guess I always associated hunting with rifles, not semi-autos.

"Rifle" and "semi-automatic" are not mutually exclusive.

I suppose if you're just hunting for meat, then it makes sense. I guess I always associated hunting with rifles, not semi-autos.

Sorry about the knee jerk reaction there but in a discussion about firearms where someone says "Yeah but what use would the average person have for it?" 95% of the time that person is about to argue that the weapon should be banned.

It's not about having "horrible aim", it about being able to have a quick follow up shot if needed. Everyone misses sometimes. Plus, it's just fun to shoot.

Why do you assume I'm trying to find some reason to disallow semi-automatic weapons? I'm just saying that it appears it would only be useful if you were a hunter with horrible aim. Most people wouldn't have any use for it.

Why isn't it a suitable hunting gun? It uses the exact same ammunition as a hunting gun, and sometimes is lighter due to synthetic stocks. On top of that, it allows for quick follow up shots if you miss. Also it's good for target shooting and fighting tyranical government.

And anyway, I don't need to come up with a reason someone has to own it. You have to provide legitimate reasons why they should NOT be able to own it. Because it looks agressive and allows you to shoot quickly? Because it's "only purpose to kill people"? That's like saying we should ban or heavily regulate the sale of Ford Mustangs because thier only purpose is to break the speed limit.

What use would the average person ever have for a semi-automatic rifle? I mean, it's not as if that sort of thing is a suitable hunting gun, and it's overkill for intruders.

quote:

Originally posted by speed:

An AR-15 is the civilian version of a military assault rifle, how much would you expect to pay for an assault rifle? You can purchase a handgun or a more conventional rifle for under half that price.

You need a Class III firearms permit from the federal government, which runs you $200 and all sorts of hassle, paperwork, and investigation. Then, the gun itself is prohibitavely expensive for most people. An full auto AR-15, or most other fully automatic weapons, cost upwards of $14,000 to $50,000, due to rarity.

However, there are many semi-auto versions of these guns that are much more affordable, and don't require the permits. They are, however, nothing more than evil looking hunting rifles. When you hear the term "Assault Weapon" in the news, 95% of the time it's one of these "evil looking" guns.

In Canada we are not allowed to have guns other than for hunting purposes, a couple years back they started wanting us to register for owning hunting rifles. this was widly boycotted by the population, and we still don't have our guns regestered (some are, most aren't). Its not a big deal here (atleast not in the north).

If you do have a fire arm for non-hunting purposes you have to have to be regestered and take a course to own it and its highly regulated.

That's exactly what I want to know!
It may seem I'm criticizing american culture because of that but I'm not, I just wan't to find an explanation for something that seems somewhat strange.

American culture is like that. I've no clue why, but violence is more common here than in Europe.

You don't have to be part of a militia, actually there isn't such a thing as a local militia in most places.
I wont flip out about a kid finding his dads gun and blowing his top off by accident, it happens, and is just as likely to happen in europe as in the US.

What seems strange to me is the number of non self inflicted injury's by firearms that occur in the US.

An AR-15 is the civilian version of a military assault rifle, how much would you expect to pay for an assault rifle? You can purchase a handgun or a more conventional rifle for under half that price.

quote:

In europe people own firearms

not really in the majority of europe guns are banned from private ownership unless your part of the local militia

a statistic that I've always found funny is that for all the talk of the danger of children dying from finding daddie's gun they are more likely to drown in the swimming pool out back I'll have to go find the exact numbers..but it still seems strange that libs flip out when a kid hurts/kills themselves after finding dad's gun and yet they aren't going around demanding we fill in our much more lethal swimming pools

quote:

but the current regulations are incredibly lax

how so? I turn 21 I fill out some paper work and register with my state and in mosts states I can get a gun some more paper work and registration and I can carry that weapon concealed. Seems perfectly fine to me

quote:

the low prices

where do you live? it's close to $14000 for an AR-15 around here and I don't think that's cheap in any book

i do recognize the right to posses firearms, but the current regulations are incredibly lax, too much in my opinion. People will continue to purchase guns nomatter what the regulations are, but the low prices and the current ease to obtain one make it a lot more likely.

Hell, there's time's i'd like to have a gun

I'll ask the same question:

In europe people own firearms, but for some reason you don't get gun killings on the news everyday. what makes it happen in the US? why do people kill each other with firearms in the US and not in europe? What is the difference? Where is the difference?

Wait, so people can be responsible with alcohol, but it's impossible to be responsible with firearms? That makes no sense.

Statistically speaking, I am more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than I am by someone with a gun. Maybe that's just the area I live in, but I'm more afraid of the former than of the latter.

Regardless of which is more dangerous, imposing strict gun laws won't reduce the number of deaths resulting from firearms because people will still manage to get guns and use them. The only sure-fire way to eliminate firearm deaths would be to remove all weapons from the North American continent. Not only is that logistically impossible, but it's also insane. There is a reason we as Americans have a right to bear arms. I would think you of all people would recognize that.

Don't try to drive this off topic talking crap about death threats and quoting me out of context to back it up.

clpo i can understand you hate beer, tons of people hate beer and alcohol in general. But even accepting that, it's just deviated for someone to have a declared preference for owning firearms(wich are made for killing people, not for protection) than for being able to drink a benign fluid. Alcohol is "responsible" for more deaths according to statistics, but do you think most of the people that die in relation to firearms where the ones responsible for their deaths? Death from alcohol typically involve someone acting irresponsibly and paying for it, death from firearms typically involves someone acting irresponsibly and someone else paying for it.
There are the obvious situations where a drunk driver will hit someone or have a wreck, but alcohol causes more death's because of ethilic comas and liver problems than because of traffic accidents, so I don't think this is a valid rebuke to my stance(someone will obviously bring this up anyway though).

The thing is, with alcohol is you can make a responsible use, and if you do nothing bad will happen, but with firearms you're not the one who's responsible, and are subject to other people's use of them

quote:

you rather have a gun in your bedside drawer than be able to sit down on your terrace and drink a beer and relax?

I'm gonna go with yes. I hate beer.

Also, here is an interesting page showing the leading causes of death in the United States during the year 2000. Alcohol is substantially higher on the list than guns, which I find highly interesting...

Heh, as it stands right now, fast food restaurants are more dangerous than guns. You're more likely to die from a heart attack related than you are from a gun shot wound.