gun control

[beebs111]

sorry to bust your bubble, jack, but one of the bad guys used a .50 cal at WACO, wreacked alot of havoc too. wether or not it was legally regestered or not i do not know. i entirely side with you, just pointing that out. try epoxying some mercury into the cavity of your fmj hp, that is a one shot stopper. (illegal one ) i love being able to shoot things at my local range.
joannarday, should people be allowed to have compound bows or pistol sized crossbows?, to be perfectly honest with you, my exploding pistol crossbow arrow would decapitate someone if it hit them in the neck. think several grams of AP plus arrow and waterproof fuse. i have never done anything terribly destructive besides shooting a cantalope, but if i suddenly snapped, im sure i could casue a hell of a lot of damage with what i have. just wondering if you knew that an arrow can penetrate things that even an armor piercong round cannot, like 36 inches of sand, water, and the steel and ceramic plating that covers the heart on a bullet proof vest. if i wanted an armor piercing round i would load up a 2.5" shotgun shell with a bunch of broken glass, that'd penetrate kevlar pretty well. hell, epoxy a pistol primer to the front of a .22 pellet and itll punch an inch wide hole in a cinderblock. maybe ill post pics of my homemade estes rocket launcher, with about a 3/4" wide 3 inch long cylinder shaped "payload" space. did i mention that the tip is a sharpened piece of metal rod so that it will stick into trees? obviously banning guns would not stop me if i decided to go fucking insane, but if a gun ban makes you feel safer, then fine, ignorance is bliss.

[Hotwired]

So you've got projectile devices and a basic knowledge of how to follow an internet guide to making simple primarys.

Join the club.

Firework rockets with a pointy spike were invented by the chinese centuries ago so don't think thats anything new either.

It's perfectly easy to buy small quantities of chemicals and mix up some explosives so lets legalise nerve gas.

Thats how relevant what you're saying is.

[joannaardway]

I'm not overly worried about crossbows, at least until some nutter decides to build their own version of the Van Helsing one and machinebow a load of people.

Even though crossbows are effectively silent, more powerful for their size than many firearms, have excellent penetration, and are easily built by someone in the know, I'm honestly not worried.

You never hear about bow crime epidemics, people being shot in schools with bows, or a bunch of guys doing over a bank with crossbows.

Against guns, crossbows are small game.

[beebs111]

actually, i didn't follow an online guide, that stuff is %100 pure inguniuety for ya. my point is, those things that i listed have the capability to do a ton more damage than a gun does, yet it is the gun that should be banned. it is not the device that is dangerous, i will give you one, 5 arrows with about 1 gram of AP in each are pretty inherently dangerous, very shock sensitive too but owning a gun does not make a person go off the handle. if someone is crazy enough to gun down 31 of their classmates, and they are not strapped to a bed sedated, then im not sure how many laws (if any amount) would stop them. if Cho(VA tech) was not able to obtain the guns he used legally, do you really think that would have stopped him. it might have slowed him down, but i think he would have managed to find something else(like an illegally obtained gun) to go about his evil with

[Hotwired]

Oh rubbish, you didn't invent AP.

No one is suggesting that owning a lethal weapon makes you go off the handle. The facts are that people DO go off the handle and the damage they then do is limited by what they have.

Hence the reasoning for restrictions on certain weaponry.

Explosives are very rarely used in comparison to firearms because they're much more difficult to obtain or make. Not to mention the inherent hazards of blowing yourself up by accident - check out the number of IRA members that died to their own bombs.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Explosives are very rarely used in comparison to firearms because they're much more difficult to obtain or make. Not to mention the inherent hazards of blowing yourself up by accident - check out the number of IRA members that died to their own bombs.

they still make better weapons of mass destruction

[Hotwired]

They are still small fry compared to what is done with guns. Particularly as thats the worst non-terrorist bombing recorded in recent times and it's dated 1927.

Improvised weaponry can't ever be controlled because its very nature is to be made of otherwise harmless materials but the effort to go about making such devices renders them as rather unattractive as weapons of choice.

Particularly when it's easier and much more reliable to obtain a firearm instead.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Your average insurgent doesn't walk into a crowded place with a gun - he does so strapped with explosives.

Would Timothy McVeigh have killed so many people had he walked into that Federal building brandishing an assault rifle instead?

[Hotwired]

Compare, if you will, deaths by improvised weaponry and deaths by firearms.

Why, for all the extra carnage possible are they still way down the list of causes of death?

Thats why I say it's a worthless distraction to throw in improvised weaponry as an excuse to dodge the responsibility of restrictions on firearms.

Incidentally, some people seem to think I'm advocating a total ban on guns. I have not said that and I'm not likely to say that.

[joannaardway]

I don't want to see a total ban either.
I'd love to go to gun ranges and shoot, but although I am safe - or at least consider myself to be. I've not gone mad on the few occasions I have used live firearms - I couldn't vouch for other people I know who wouldn't be stopped by the US gun laws - no criminal record, no warnings, not known to the police, any of that.

But I still wouldn't be happy if they had a gun. So I think it's probably the best way to go.

[beebs111]

i didn't say that i invented AP, just that i designed the exploding crossbow bolt, i misunderstood what u meant when u said primaries. my only point to that post, was that if i decided that i wanted to kill anyone, or lots of people, i am one of the few that realize that a gun is actually a pretty impractial to go about your evil deeds. joannaardway; you say
Quote "Even though crossbows are effectively silent, more powerful for their size than many firearms, have excellent penetration, and are easily built by someone in the know, I'm honestly not worried.

You never hear about bow crime epidemics, people being shot in schools with bows, or a bunch of guys doing over a bank with crossbows."

what this comes across as is sort of garbage. you agknoledge that a crossbow has better penetration and silece/power, yet you suggest a gun ban because people use them more. it is not about restricting the more dangerous item, but the one that more people see as "scary"
i am not denying that guns are used to commit violent acts of crime, jsut pointing out that there are many other things that have the same capabilities but are overlooked because they are not regularly used.

[Hotwired]

Why am I hearing that a gun is impractical compared to a bow?

Bows are capable of being used for hunting large game so it's pretty clear they can be used to kill.

So why are they very rarely used for crime?

Two handed use and one shot, manual reloading unless you've got some whacky mechanism on a crossbow. Very inconcealable. They also need significant space around you to use as they require a fair bit of physical effort and movement to arm them.

The noise is not a factor in gun crime. The availability of silencers in the UK has no effect on crime and I've not actually seen any UK gun crime that did involve a silenced weapon.

Yes the issue IS about restrictions on the more dangerous items. Again I'm going to say that this is not about a total ban on guns because you didn't notice it being said all the other times or for that matter in Jo's post just above yours.

[thermonub]

if gun where outlawed only outlaws would have guns" this statement is very true and imagine if every one carryed a pistol around what criminals would do- lukemac i believe ( i could be wrong) that in sweden or switzerland that once everyone leaves the army they keep a gun so pretty much everyone has a gun, and i think there are very little violent crimes.

also, although i found reading this thread very much, you simply can't come to anything on the subject of gun control. it's useless to argue about it. but it's human nature to argue......

[cdheller]

I've been checking on some side issues on guns, crime,and stuff .
found some interesting stuff about prescribed antidepressant's and other mind altering drugs.

given the nature of the crime I was expecting to see high numbers .
the rates and totals still shocked me

like that of the last decades mass school shooters were ALL on or withdrawing from some kind of anti depressant/psycho drug.or combination

be ready for some long list's

scroll down.
http://www.teenscreentruth.com/psychiat ... icide.html

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php


http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/casualties.htm


I doubt whether we'll see this covered on the same networks that are sponsored by the pharmaceutical companys

[Hotwired]

Hah, yes. At the end of every advert in the warnings:

May cause desensitisation to acts of violence.

That'll get the sales figures moving like nobodies business.