:Assault weapons are not just "ugly guns." Semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on the accurate shooting of one bullet at a time. Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip and are designed to maximize death and injury from a very rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed with military features such as silencers, folding stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds and bayonets which are ludicrously unsuited for civilian use. :

I found this at a anti gun lobbyist web site
and was wondering if it is true obviously the bit about assult rifles being ugly was bull shit(:P) but the part "spray fired from the hip" is that true if so why have sites and scopes. I know anti-gun lobbistists dont know any thing about guns apart from that they are "bad".

bah, the media uses assault weapon for every little firearm. or combat style or something. trying to make it look illegitimate.

yes you are right, no one in the military is taught to spray from the hip. someone correct me if im wrong there. a lot of anti gun idiots are uneducated sheep who need someone to protect them. they barely know the facts, and chant hypotheticals like they are at a football match.

some valid points are made by these people, but it is overruled by the fact that people have a given right to protect themselves from any criminal element, and/or a corrupt government.

today, in australia, they decided they will ban most concealable handguns. sadly, i dont see the law ever being overturned

Gun laws are set in stone unless we get invaded and we have some sort of community defence force I dont see the laws changed.
The laws come in to force in june,july damnit


[This message has been edited by Rangoon (edited 12-06-2002).]

This guy is thinking "spray from the hip Rambo/Terminator style with a hailstorm barrage of relentless lead".

It is actually more along the lines of short controlled bursts.

Very few guns are actually designed to be fired from the hip - it's too innaccurate. The 5.56mm calibre (NATO standard ex. USA) is designed not to kill, but to injure, so that they can be taken POW and returned after the war. The 7.62mm calibre (found on heavy machine guns such as the GPMG) is designed to kill, you can mow down whole sections with it.

I'm not sure about other countries, but in the UK you fire 3-round bursts from light weapons (SA-80, LSW, M-16 etc) since you lose accuracy over much more. The only time you are firing loads is either against moving targets (aircraft etc.) or against armour, you wont be doing either if you are properly prepared.

True, the add-ons are useless to civilians, but so are used stamps, yet people still collect these.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IAmMe:
The 5.56mm calibre (NATO standard ex. USA) is designed not to kill, but to injure,

---

Nope. It's very capable of killing someone,even through body armor.

quote:

---

silencers, folding stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds and bayonets which are ludicrously unsuited for civilian use.

---

A "silencer" is suited for civilian use. Guns are really loud. They can be dangerous to hearing, and an annoyance to those who live nearby. Because it's difficult to get a suppressor in America, we have to wear hearing protection when firing guns. The hearing protection can be bulky and uncomfortable, but more importantly it decreases one's awareness of his environment. Wouldn't you rather the guy holding the gun be as aware of what's going on around him as possible? It makes much more sense to make the gun quiet. It decreases risk of hearing loss to the gun operator, allows him to hear what's going on around him, and decreases sound pollution. The anti's have managed to decrease gun safety by making suppressors hard to obtain.

Folding stocks are great. A folding stock means that the gun takes up less space when it's being stored and can be fit into a smaller carrying case for easier transport. A folding stock is perfectly well suited to civilian use.

A lot of flash suppressors also act as compensators making the gun more pleasant to fire. A flash suppressor prevents a person from losing their night vision when firing weapons at night. I guess the antis want the guy with the gun to not be able to see.

A barrel shroud is a safety device! It's there so that you don't burn yourself on a hot barrel!

In any case, the author of that statement has a thoroughly skewed definition of civilian use. All of the features mentioned (with the exception of the bayonet) would be nice on a hunting or target rifle. They would also be nice on a self defense weapon, but I doubt the author recognizes self defense as a legitimate civilian use of small arms. He is wrong. Is a woman about to be raped wrong to try to defend herself? Is a man about to be murdered wrong to defend himself? Self defense is a legitimate civilian use of firearms. Further, if I'm trying to defend myself, I need to do it as effectively as possible. I want the most hard, ass-kicking, lead spewing, death raining gun this world has ever seen.

:Further, if I'm trying to defend myself, I need to do it as effectively as possible. I want the most hard, ass-kicking, lead spewing, death raining gun this world has ever seen:
Just in case any kewls read this and think "I want a .50 bmg entry weapon!" and start asking about it on totse, it isnt real.

Its excalty that bullshit this people dont realise even if there banned guns ther would still be guns.And besides any crazy fucker with some imaginaton and zippo can get rather creative with ether starting fluid and kill and maim many....oh shit now there going to ban aerosol cans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rlpinca:
Nope. It's very capable of killing someone,even through body armor.

---

i have to disagree with you there. no doubt is it fully capable of killing an enemy but killing is not its primary purpose. its far more logical to wound an enemy.

dead soldiers:
cost nothing

wounded soldiers:
eat food
deplete medical supplies
reduce a units mobility
often reduce morale more than an unseen dead soldier

full metal jacket is used acording to politically correct humanists to do no more damage than absolutly necesary to human beings. in reality we know that full metal jacket is used because it is less likely to kill an enemy than non jacketed rounds, while at the same time effectively nutralizing him. which equates into a greater cost and reduced mobility for the enemy with the wounded soldiers. funerals, body disposal, etc. is an after the fact affair which is done once the funds are available (if that country provides for them at all).

sure a FMJ round fired from an m16 will easily kill if a hit is scored in the right place (or you have some luck with it bouncing around inside the enemy) but in an ideal world every round would only wound an enemy untill he is nuetralized (which often happens)

to be honest a boyonete has a great aplication for civilians. i cant tell you how many times i could have used one on a hunting rifle. if you hit a deer in the lung he will crash shorty after the hit but remain alive on the ground. i think its inhuman to let its death drag on an wouldnt mind just using a bayonete rather than shooting it again and risking destroying more edible meat.

btw they can kick the shit out of you so a knife alone wont do it unless you want to be kicked to death by a deer

Good post beatmeofficer!

quote:

---

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of americans to feel safe.

---

quote:

---

If i would have gotten 51 votes in the us senate for a outright ban, picking up every one of them, mr & ms america turn em all in! I would have done it!

---

Senator Dianne Feinstein D-CA

Concealed weapons permit holder

Senator Dianne Feinstein <-- packin heat in kalifornia!

Rich politicians always have better judgement than us poor regular people, so it's ok for them to have a gun.