Possibly for that reason, automatic weapons haven't been registered since 1986 (meaning there have been no new ones since that time), and were tightly controlled before that. IIRC, no civilian has ever murdered anyone with a legally obtained automatic weapon in the US.Bvenged said:I can't tell you how your country should be, but I can give my opinion on how I think shotguns and assault rifles are not PDWs.
How can you call a full automatic assault rifle "Personal Defence"? what the fuck are you defending against? If someone pointed a pistol at me, I'd be shitting equal amounts of bricks if it were an assault rifle instead. Assault rifles are precisely that. ASSAULT. You ASSAULT with them. How is ASSAULT retailed as DEFENCE in your country? Who the hell do you personally need to ASSAULT to DEFEND your life?
Well I took it that PDWs were pistols, because they're designed for personal defence, because an article I read on the new UK order of Glock's to replace the Browning's described them as defence if the primary gun fails. Alright, my mistake on the terminologies, but it doesn't change my verdict. US citizens are allowed to legally carry weaponry that far surpasses teh needs. I might have gotten the fully-auto wrong, but that raises the question: "How is a semi-automatic rifle personal defence?"thaluikhain said:Possibly for that reason, automatic weapons haven't been registered since 1986 (meaning there have been no new ones since that time), and were tightly controlled before that. IIRC, no civilian has ever murdered anyone with a legally obtained automatic weapon in the US.Bvenged said:I can't tell you how your country should be, but I can give my opinion on how I think shotguns and assault rifles are not PDWs.
How can you call a full automatic assault rifle "Personal Defence"? what the fuck are you defending against? If someone pointed a pistol at me, I'd be shitting equal amounts of bricks if it were an assault rifle instead. Assault rifles are precisely that. ASSAULT. You ASSAULT with them. How is ASSAULT retailed as DEFENCE in your country? Who the hell do you personally need to ASSAULT to DEFEND your life?
Of course, every time a semi-automatic rifle based on a military assault rifle is used in a crime in the US, it gets called an assault rifle, but they aren't.
Shotguns are widely seen as being good choices for defense weapons, though.
Oh, and Personal Defence Weapons (PDWs)? That is a military weapon designed for rear-echelon forces, though often used by police and special forces nowdays. It's going to be capable of automatic fire, and isn't something you want civilians to have...though you can get civilian semi-automatic versions of teh P90 in the US.
Well, good for shooting people. In that they are suitable for self defence. You just have to weigh that against the problems with everyone being armed with semi-automatic rifles. Which isn't something that individual gun buyers are going to do, of course. What's best for them personally is what's best for them. If it's having a negative effect on society, that only means they need it more.Bvenged said:I might have gotten the fully-auto wrong, but that raises the question: "How is a semi-automatic rifle personal defence?"
Depends on the state, in some you can wander around with AR-15s and MP5s (civilian variant) in public as much as you want. The police are going to ask you a few questions, but they can't actually stop you. A pair of people decided to wander round Portland (had a shooting about a month ago) for a bit with their AR-15s, in order that people would come talk to them about guns and gun control. The locals panicked and called the police. Of course.Bvenged said:Also, when I picture the use of a shotgun in my mind, I see it sat behind a jewellers counter or in the office of a bank, to be used in-case-of-emergency (IE armed robbers). I cannot imagine its use within a household, or out on the street. can you take semi-auto's and shotguns on the street in the US as you can pistols? Are they means for home defence? To me, that is excessive. IF your life is ever threatened, it will only ever be by an insane individual or an armed group of crooks. What are the likelihoods of that, and when it comes to defence, what can semi-auto's and shotguns do that a slow-firing pistol can't?
yup it's what i wanted but it seems the worlds desire to disarm america got in the wayTalaris said:And here I was as an outsider actually interested to see what the views of American users here would average to. Well, I suppose it was my mistake to think I can find an accurate poll on the internet, even worse The Escapist of all places.
I'll go sit in a corner to learn my lesson...
I mention that because generally pistols are associated as - one pull of the trigger gives one fired round - and you will only end up firing a handful of rounds before the clip is expired. Shotguns and rifles are military-grade, in my eyes, because you intend to kill if you're pulling the trigger, and the power behind such weaponry excess that of a pistol. You could cause collateral damage even if you hit your target. That is opposed to pistols used to deter your threat from turning hostile to you.thaluikhain said:snip
Why say that pistols are slow-firing? Semi-automatic pistol, semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. One trigger pull is one firing.
I wasn't referring to insane individuals as criminals, more like the random-murder-spree kind that happens far more often than it should in the US. Shouldn't there be regular health checks on owners of high-caliber weaponry?thaluikhain said:Oh, as an aside, it's not insane individuals you need to worry about. They get blamed for crimes a lot, but you are much more likely to get killed by someone you know that some random mentally ill person, and they are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrator.
Ah, if you are worried about over-penetration, fair enough.Bvenged said:I mention that because generally pistols are associated as - one pull of the trigger gives one fired round - and you will only end up firing a handful of rounds before the clip is expired. Shotguns and rifles are military-grade, in my eyes, because you intend to kill if you're pulling the trigger, and the power behind such weaponry excess that of a pistol. You could cause collateral damage even if you hit your target. That is opposed to pistols used to deter your threat from turning hostile to you.
Although shooting sprees are well publicised, they are comparatively rare in the scheme of things. Many more people get killed in ones or twos that don't make the news.Bvenged said:I wasn't referring to insane individuals as criminals, more like the random-murder-spree kind that happens far more often than it should in the US. Shouldn't there be regular health checks on owners of high-caliber weaponry?
You seem to have answered your own question there. If everyone else is armed, then you'd better be yourself. Hell, any number of armed people start talking about starting a civil war in the US at any excuse, I don't blame people for being scared.Bvenged said:For some reason I feel like I wouldn't be safe in the US without a gun, because every sod has one (it seems). What is everyone defending against? Every other person wielding a gun they own for defence.