or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Guns? (do you carry?) revived
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Guns? (do you carry?) revived - Page 11

post #151 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodum5
Possibly a foolish question, but why would one want to own an assault rifle? Yes, it'd be incredibly cool to light up a firing range with one but still, what real purpose would such a gun serve for one's use? And I'm no gun control hound (tho i do support it)

Why does it matter? We don't ask Ferrari owners why they need 400+ horsepowers to drive around town.
post #152 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodum5
Possibly a foolish question, but why would one want to own an assault rifle? Yes, it'd be incredibly cool to light up a firing range with one but still, what real purpose would such a gun serve for one's use? And I'm no gun control hound (tho i do support it)

Well, they're good for home defense, arguably better for a shotgun if just for the purpose of material preservation.
post #153 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute
Why does it matter? We don't ask Ferrari owners why they need 400+ horsepowers to drive around town.


yes, but assult rifles, and most firearms, are designed specifically to kill. it is prudent to control what happens to them - I don't believe civillians have any good reasons to want an assult riffle, and, as poor security or safty in the handling of these can cause a great deal of grief, I don't see any good reason to make them available to the masses.
post #154 of 200
Actually, the M-16 was designed to wound rather than kill under the rationale that a wounded soldier was more of a resource drain on the opposing force than a dead soldier. The rest of your argument is specious as "assault" rifles are no more lethal than "non-assault" rifles.
post #155 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dah328
Actually, the M-16 was designed to wound rather than kill under the rationale that a wounded soldier was more of a resource drain on the opposing force than a dead soldier. The rest of your argument is specious as "assault" rifles are no more lethal than "non-assault" rifles.


yes, although, to be perfectly accurate, m-16's were designed to kill slowly - an m-16 round doesn't make a wound that can be fixed very easily.

and you are right - an assult rifle isn't that much worse than another weapon. I don't see any really good reason to let people have rifles at all, except for hunting.
post #156 of 200
Well, to be fair, a lot more destruction CAN be easily wrought by, say, a .308 FAL with cheap 20 round box mags, than by a .308 Remington bolt action with 5-round (or whatever) internal non-detachable mag.

It's hard to justify without getting into "because I can" or creeping toward tin hat territory, but I'd rather be able to have it than not, personally.
post #157 of 200
Recently, I went to an Arms auction at Bonhams & Butterfield. It felt very right there, with a whole arsenal of vintage German weaponry in cases. There were also some French and Italian rifles.
post #158 of 200
Yet, despite being designed to kill, guns still kill less people annually than automobiles. God forbid murderers figure out that automobiles are even deadlier weaons. You gun control supporters can't seem to get around the fact that most gunowners behave responsibly.

We don't associate all car owners with drunk drivers, yet some people seem to have no problem associating criminals who use guns with all gunowners.
post #159 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute
Yet, despite being designed to kill, guns still kill less people annually than automobiles. God forbid murderers figure out that automobiles are even deadlier weaons. You gun control supporters can't seem to get around the fact that most gunowners behave responsibly.

We don't associate all car owners with drunk drivers, yet some people seem to have no problem associating criminals who use guns with all gunowners.


I calculate this as a cost benifit thing - cars are dangerous, but basically make the american system possible, and bring huge utility. guns kill less people by far, but bring little or no utility.


as to how "most" gun owners act, hard to say. for what ever reason, huge nunbrers of guns are stolen every year, and pretty large numbers of people are shot accidentily. that, in itself leads me to believe that guns are not being owned responsibly. the small number of american gun owners that I know personally are not responsible.
post #160 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
I calculate this as a cost benifit thing - cars are dangerous, but basically make the american system possible, and bring huge utility. guns kill less people by far, but bring little or no utility.


as to how "most" gun owners act, hard to say. for what ever reason, huge nunbrers of guns are stolen every year, and pretty large numbers of people are shot accidentily. that, in itself leads me to believe that guns are not being owned responsibly. the small number of american gun owners that I know personally are not responsible.

There are an estimated 40 million guns in the U.S. The number of people dying from accidental gun shootings number into at most, 5 figures annually. I'd say that proves your argument to be wrong regarding the responsibleness of gun owners. As you say, the number of American gun owners you know are small, yet you wish to make a sweeping generalization about all gunowners based on your small sample. I say you just need to hang around with a better class of people. Being someone who both owns firearms for protection and for sport, I daresay that the number of gunowners I know is quite large. Most are fairly level headed and responsible with their guns. There are a handful of cretins and plain idiots to be sure, but they are the minority.

As far as the cost benefits of guns, every year the estimated number of times that gunowners protect themselves with a firearm number into the six figures even from the most conservative estimates. Some reports suggest the numbers are in the seven figures. If that's not utility, I don't know what is.
post #161 of 200
Mute,

let me ask this - you will agree that there are criminals who have guns, correct? there are three possible ways that they are getting them (I am assuming that not that many make their own any more) they are either buying them legally, stealing them from legal owners, or buying them from people who have either stolen them or are selling them illigaly.

the fact is that there are a hell of a lot of guns in the hands of criminals, which, to me, seems to indicate that a great deal of people are not storing their guns in a responsible manner.

Not to be argumentative, but I am surprised at the figure you refer to in terms of number of times american gun owners use firearms to protect themselves. Can you provide a link that is not from a gun site?






Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute
There are an estimated 40 million guns in the U.S. The number of people dying from accidental gun shootings number into at most, 5 figures annually. I'd say that proves your argument to be wrong regarding the responsibleness of gun owners. As you say, the number of American gun owners you know are small, yet you wish to make a sweeping generalization about all gunowners based on your small sample. I say you just need to hang around with a better class of people. Being someone who both owns firearms for protection and for sport, I daresay that the number of gunowners I know is quite large. Most are fairly level headed and responsible with their guns. There are a handful of cretins and plain idiots to be sure, but they are the minority.

As far as the cost benefits of guns, every year the estimated number of times that gunowners protect themselves with a firearm number into the six figures even from the most conservative estimates. Some reports suggest the numbers are in the seven figures. If that's not utility, I don't know what is.
post #162 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
Mute,

let me ask this - you will agree that there are criminals who have guns, correct? there are three possible ways that they are getting them (I am assuming that not that many make their own any more) they are either buying them legally, stealing them from legal owners, or buying them from people who have either stolen them or are selling them illigaly.

the fact is that there are a hell of a lot of guns in the hands of criminals, which, to me, seems to indicate that a great deal of people are not storing their guns in a responsible manner.

Not to be argumentative, but I am surprised at the figure you refer to in terms of number of times american gun owners use firearms to protect themselves. Can you provide a link that is not from a gun site?

You also forget that many criminals get the guns through strawman purchases. I will grant that more people should lock up their firearms, but I doubt that will significantly change the ability the criminals to access firearms.

As to a link on defensive gun use, this link from the Depart of Justice's National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Their own estimate of defensive firearms usage by private citizens is 108,000 per year.

Look. I don't want guns in the hands of criminals anymore than you do. But the fact is guns exist and we can't get the genie back into the bottle. Limiting private citizen's access to firearms won't deter the criminal. It'll will just create easier victims. England and Australia hasn't had much success with their gun ban. In the U.K., they seemed to have spurred the growth of a firearms black market. I doubt it will be any different in the U.S. if we follow their path.
post #163 of 200
Quote:
Actually, the M-16 was designed to wound rather than kill under the rationale that a wounded soldier was more of a resource drain on the opposing force than a dead soldier. The rest of your argument is specious as "assault" rifles are no more lethal than "non-assault" rifles.

By chance do you have any source for your statement, I've seen this reasoning around quite a bit but have always considered it BS. I thought the reasoning for the small round was that "research" suggested that hits were relatively random in a firefight and that the more lead in the air, the better as well as most fights being in a relatively short range. Thus, the smaller and lighter round was adapted as soldiers could carry significantly more ammo.

Me, I prefer the FALs, but there is no denying the speed of a M16/AR15.
post #164 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dah328
Actually, the M-16 was designed to wound rather than kill under the rationale that a wounded soldier was more of a resource drain on the opposing force than a dead soldier. The rest of your argument is specious as "assault" rifles are no more lethal than "non-assault" rifles.

I heard M-16s were poorly designed, initially. Weren't they prone to jamming?
post #165 of 200
I've read that in many places by authors that included infantry officers who would presumably know. That the 5.56mm round was introduced to enable soldiers to carry more rounds is not mutually exclusive with its design to wound, or as globe puts it, kill slowly. The random hits theory is definitely not true for the infantry soldier armed with a semi-auto rifle. With those rifles' rates of fire, accuracy is more important than volume as shown by the emphasis of the army and especially the marines on individual marksmanship.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Guns? (do you carry?) revived