Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Modern ‘assault rifles” look scary but most are pretty had to shoot well because the things are nearly impossible to control on full automatic. They can spray a lot of bullets and are deadly because of that. Fully automatic assault rifles are very difficult to own under existing law. These are generally not used by criminals except on TV, most criminals probably use .38 caliber revolvers because they are numerous and easy to use at close range.
Before California started banning all sorts of guns, I've had friends who had things like Uzi's and whatever else. They all say that those guns spray a lot of bullets around and you can't really control them. They also say "They are fun to shoot."
Based on that, I don't feel that these are appropriate home defense items and should be restricted to use in "appropriate venues." In other words, I don't think everyone should (or needs to) own one.
Before California started banning all sorts of guns, I've had friends who had things like Uzi's and whatever else. They all say that those guns spray a lot of bullets around and you can't really control them. They also say "They are fun to shoot."
Based on that, I don't feel that these are appropriate home defense items and should be restricted to use in "appropriate venues." In other words, I don't think everyone should (or needs to) own one.
Most of those weapons would have been semi-automatic and had to be registered but weren't banned....I believe,I try and stay away as far as possible from anything to do with California.Automatic weapons are legal to possess there I believe.
As to 'spraying bullets' around,ummm ask yourself this,why would a military want a firearm incapable of hitting a target?
Also there is the small matter that almost every automatic weapon is select fire.
Finallywhat you think regarding what others should own is unimportant and seems to be based upon little in the way of facts but more upon personal bias.
I am sure you wouldn't want others demanding laws to restrict rights based upon similar ignorance of the facts would you?
For those who oppose firearms, and carrying of firearms, should look at this story about an armed security guard - a volunteer, who literally took on a crazed gunman in a church and is being credited with saving hundreds of people -
Later, at New Life Church, a gunman wearing a trench coat and carrying a high-powered rifle opened fire in the parking lot and later walked into the church as a service was letting out. Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot Murray, who was found with a rifle and two handguns, police said. Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused. "It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God," she said at a news conference. The pastor credited her with preventing more bloodshed. "There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over 100 lives." Boyd said the gunman had a lot of ammunition and estimated that 40 rounds had been fired inside the church, leaving what looked like a "war scene." About 7,000 people were in and around the church the time of the shooting, Boyd said. Security had been beefed up after the shootings hours earlier in Arvada, he said. The church had a total of 15 to 20 volunteer security officers inside at the time of the attack, he said.
It would appear you are one of those who would like to ban all guns regardless of what it is. This is your reaction to your fear of guns and violence. It is not the gun you should fear but the crimminal who has it. Do you really think banning all guns would solve anything? In a total ban the the only people who would have a gun is the crimminal because they don't obey laws and would not give their weapons up. Does that sound good to you?
I am a proponent for gun control, I want control of my own guns!
To answer the question, the SM FAL on the top is more dangerous. The pistol grip allows for greater control during rapid fire and the collapsable stock makes it easier to conceal. They both might shoot the same bullet, .308, but if not, then the FAL is more dangerous in that regard, too. It also holds more ammo.
Like I said - There are few dangerous guns and a lot of dangerous people.
I am beginning to believe (yeah - old socialist me) that owning weapons is the basis of a civilized society. It is also the basis of an independent Republic. On these grounds I think that every adult, sane and non-criminal citizen should be armed and trained with military weapons in addition to whatever concealable weapons they care to own. Armed civilians are a much more effective deterrent to violent crime than any police department. A civilian being mugged is already there. A policeman has to take some time arriving to see who won. I prefer to be a winner instead of trusting the better nature of a mugger.
In New Hampshire I can carry a pistol with a permit issued by my local police department but I cannot carry a double edge knife. The New Hampshire law spends one sentence on guns and a couple of paragraphs on knives. I think this was used to ban weapons carried by poor people back in the day.
The wood stocked hunting rifle is more dangerous because, without any recoil absorbing mechanism, it will likely bruise your shoulder when fired. Very dangerous.
For what it is worth, I saw a 12 ga. shotgun based on an AK action. With a rifled barrel it is a .72 cal. carbine. This would make a fine house defense gun.
Last edited by GregW; 02-05-2008 at 09:18 AM..
Reason: added text
i dont really much care which they keep or ban, though people react so strong to appearance i would stay away from assault rifle appearance. however i am concerned from the CD posts i see that people have a very distorted sense of what is going to happen when they use that firearm under any but the most utmost extreme life threatening conditions.
putting it real real simple, regardless of what i have had quoted to me from state laws, by some well intentioned but somewhat abrupt posters, if (other than inside the home) you shoot somebody and there are not some holes of some sort in you, a good bet you are going to be punished. that goes for cops and citizens alike. you will not ride off into the sunset with your cowboy hat on, while being admired by a cheering crowd. ask Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn has yet to be charged with anything...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Automatic weapons are legal to possess there I believe.
Gun Ban
