Obama plans to BAN 5.56 through executive order

[Charger]

I don't own any guns but isn't there a different ammunition you could buy?

The law says "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun". There are no 5.56 handguns. What the heck. Are they defining the stock-less M4s as a hand gun? I thought those were banned anyway?

as others have pointed out a popular thing right now is ar pistols

[chilicheeseburger]

There's a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives? Sounds like fun to me.

Anyways I'm not from the US but I believe gun control or bannig certain ammunition won't do anything exvept criminalizing self defense in a lot of cases. If you commit a crime with a gun, murder, robbery wathever it doesn't matter if the gun is legal or not. And gun control won't make guns magically dissappear either.

[Lewellyn]

There's a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives? Sounds like fun to me.

Anyways I'm not from the US but I believe gun control or bannig certain ammunition won't do anything exvept criminalizing self defense in a lot of cases. If you commit a crime with a gun, murder, robbery wathever it doesn't matter if the gun is legal or not. And gun control won't make guns magically dissappear either.

 

Seat belts won't make deaths from car crashes magically disappear. We shouldn't have seat belts.

 

Anti-smoking ads won't make smoking magically disappear. We shouldn't have anti-smoking ads.

 

Proper food nutrition labels won't make obesity magically disappear. We shouldn't have proper food nutrition labels.

 

Vaccines won't make diseases magically disappear. We shouldn't have vaccines.

[hak4fun]

Im still amazed that you guys can buy these kind of weapons lol.

 

Why? A gun doesn't kill people stupid people kill people. I dare you to go live in texas, or alaska and not carry some sort of firearm. You will see angry brownbears, and hogs and you will need to protect yourself and your family from them. Oh and recreational use of ARs and pretty much any weapon is a nice, and safe hobby if done correctly.

That's an expensive ass weapon, with even more expensive ammo than the ar-15.

 

Funny thing is, lead production has nothing to do with XM-88 green tips, as they are steel rounds. Specifically military surplus steel rounds.

 

I guess I'll have to be switching over to the .223 that I hate (not that there is much of a difference lol). That or trade in for an AK, which I'd rather not do because I hate AK's (too rickety, not accurate enough for me, always feel like they're gonna fall apart in my hands)

Really? I know AKs that you can be thrown out of helicopters into lakes and continue to be used.

 

Why would you need it anyway? A .22 should be enough

Like I said, try taking down any big animal chasing after you with a .22 all it will do is make it more angry and run after you faster.

[Guest Kloaked]

Guys, I'm 12th prestige in Black Ops 2 and I have the highest K/D ratio in CoD 4. I know what I'm talking about with guns and ammunition.

[IP man]

@hak4fun ive said in eariler posts that i support guns like pistols/magnums and they can easily kill bears. I do not support these full auto/semi/ weapons made for war.

[IP man]

Guys, I'm 12th prestige in Black Ops 2 and I have the highest K/D ratio in CoD 4. I know what I'm talking about with guns and ammunition.

hahahaah

[Trik'Stari]

Why? A gun doesn't kill people stupid people kill people. I dare you to go live in texas, or alaska and not carry some sort of firearm. You will see angry brownbears, and hogs and you will need to protect yourself and your family from them. Oh and recreational use of ARs and pretty much any weapon is a nice, and safe hobby if done correctly.

Really? I know AKs that you can be thrown out of helicopters into lakes and continue to be used.

 

Like I said, try taking down any big animal chasing after you with a .22 all it will do is make it more angry and run after you faster.

Oh I'm not saying they aren't durable by ANY means. They are truly the be all end all of durability for semi/full-auto weapons (although when it comes to pure durability for all guns, Mosin Nagant wins hands down). I just don't like the way they feel, I like something nice and extremely well made and accurate. Like my Windham Weaponry WW-15.

 

 

It is comical that they are banning the cheapest and quite honestly, least effective ammo on the market. Only really useful if you fight with it using the military mentality, shoot to wound not to kill (with the exception of headshots)

[hak4fun]

@hak4fun ive said in eariler posts that i support guns like pistols/magnums and they can easily kill bears. I do not support these full auto/semi/ weapons made for war.

I see your point,  but Fully automatic? Not needed for recreational use. Semi? what is wrong with semi? Yea it should be regulated but so should any firearm. 

[Slash003]

Oh I'm not saying they aren't durable by ANY means. They are truly the be all end all of durability for semi/full-auto weapons (although when it comes to pure durability for all guns, Mosin Nagant wins hands down). I just don't like the way they feel, I like something nice and extremely well made and accurate. Like my Windham Weaponry WW-15.

 

 

It is comical that they are banning the cheapest and quite honestly, least effective ammo on the market. Only really useful if you fight with it using the military mentality, shoot to wound not to kill (with the exception of headshots)

If your gonna get one of the AK families make sure you dont get the cheap chinese knockoffs. Those will fall apart. I'd probably jump ship to Old gen AKs 7.62 x 39 but since that ammo is rare most likely newer ak 74s with 5.45x 39. But i'll never use .22's for an assualt rifle. But then again you cant ban good old 12 gauge.

[hak4fun]

Oh I'm not saying they aren't durable by ANY means. They are truly the be all end all of durability for semi/full-auto weapons (although when it comes to pure durability for all guns, Mosin Nagant wins hands down). I just don't like the way they feel, I like something nice and extremely well made and accurate. Like my Windham Weaponry WW-15.

 

 

It is comical that they are banning the cheapest and quite honestly, least effective ammo on the market. Only really useful if you fight with it using the military mentality, shoot to wound not to kill (with the exception of headshots)

Yea I would have to agree. Nagants are amazing.

I get what your saying. a good AR will almost always beat a AK for feel.

[IP man]

@hak4fun ok dont mind semi/automatic for a second, i just dont see what a person needs an (examples) AK/M4/MP5. 

 

And ofc in alaska and such people need a gun yes for animals, and a pistol will do great. A normal joe should not have weapons made for war. imo.

[Trik'Stari]

If your gonna get one of the AK families make sure you dont get the cheap chinese knockoffs. Those will fall apart. I'd probably jump ship to Old gen AKs 7.62 x 39 but since that ammo is rare most likely newer ak 74s with 5.45x 39. But i'll never use .22's for an assualt rifle. But then again you cant ban good old 12 gauge.

Well, I have this nice savage .308 with a nice bushnell scope on it.....they can't ban a "hunting rifle" now can they? At least not in the same sentence as an "assault rifle"

 

 

@hak4fun ok dont mind semi/automatic for a second, i just dont see what a person needs an (examples) AK/M4/MP5. 

 

And ofc in alaska and such people need a gun yes for animals, and a pistol will do great. A normal joe should not have weapons made for war. imo.

 

 

That argument can be made for everything. One could argue "well to prevent hacking, you don't need an open source computer unless your a programmer with a job programming, otherwise you must be a hacker" etc. Every object or product can be misused accidentally or purposefully, not just guns, and you can't punish the innocent for the actions of the insane or the wicked.

[hak4fun]

@hak4fun ok dont mind semi/automatic for a second, i just dont see what a person needs an (examples) AK/M4/MP5. 

 

And ofc in alaska and such people need a gun yes for animals, and a pistol will do great. A normal joe should not have weapons made for war. imo.

Eh, we don't really need semi-full. But it is a blast to send that much lead down range, and if we are not hurting anybody by doing so I don't see why that should be taken away from us.

 

You are right. a pistol will almost always be fine for taking down animals that are chasing after you. Now that I think of it, unless you are purposefully going out to take down such animals a rifle isn't really needed for that sort of thing.

[IP man]

 

 

That argument can be made for everything. One could argue "well to prevent hacking, you don't need an open source computer unless your a programmer with a job programming, otherwise you must be a hacker" etc. Every object or product can be misused accidentally or purposefully, not just guns, and you can't punish the innocent for the actions of the insane or the wicked.

The  only thing i want to say is that those war guns do more harm than good when their legal, just think about criminals, they would get the guns yes, but it would be much harder. and the argument you said. i see youre point but, were talkin about guns not things that wont harm anybody.

[Trik'Stari]

The thing only thing i want to say is that those war guns do more harm than good when their legal, just think about criminals, they would get the guns yes, but it would be much harder. and the argument you said. i see youre point but, were talkin about guns not things that wont harm anybody.

Can't make that distinction. No object exists that can't be used to harm someone in some way. And in this country, it won't be harder for criminals to get those guns, not even a little bit, not with our corrupt ass next door neighbor that can't police its own border (mexico) and our own government refusing to police our own boarder because it's somehow racist to want to make sure that people are coming here for legal reasons. 

 

Gun control might work in your country, great, fine, but it will NOT work here. Not to mention the vague term "war guns", my gun isn't a machine gun, it's semi auto, it's no more or less dangerous than a fully automatic "assault rifle", probably less considering I am using it and not some highly trained military personnel. Simple fact is, today in America, roughly 60 million people own guns legally, and 99% of them didn't kill anyone. It's already illegal for known felons to buy guns, even if you buy one from an unlicensed dealer (i,e, "hey joe, let me buy that gun from you"), that person still can go to jail for selling a gun to a criminal.

 

Ever notice that the cities in America which have the strictest gun control measures, have the absolute highest amounts of gun crime? When you disarm people via a law, you only disarm the innocent.

[AlwaysFSX]

The  only thing i want to say is that those war guns do more harm than good when their legal, just think about criminals, they would get the guns yes, but it would be much harder. and the argument you said. i see youre point but, were talkin about guns not things that wont harm anybody.

Just going to interject here, it would be stupidly easy for me to drive across the border and buy a gun, and a pain in the ass here. If I wanted to buy a gun, illegally, it's not hard. At all.

[IP man]

Just going to interject here, it would be stupidly easy for me to drive across the border and buy a gun, and a pain in the ass here. If I wanted to buy a gun, illegally, it's not hard. At all.

 

 

Can't make that distinction. No object exists that can't be used to harm someone in some way. And in this country, it won't be harder for criminals to get those guns, not even a little bit, not with our corrupt ass next door neighbor that can't police its own border (mexico) and our own government refusing to police our own boarder because it's somehow racist to want to make sure that people are coming here for legal reasons. 

 

Gun control might work in your country, great, fine, but it will NOT work here. Not to mention the vague term "war guns", my gun isn't a machine gun, it's semi auto, it's no more or less dangerous than a fully automatic "assault rifle", probably less considering I am using it and not some highly trained military personnel. Simple fact is, today in America, roughly 60 million people own guns legally, and 99% of them didn't kill anyone. It's already illegal for known felons to buy guns, even if you buy one from an unlicensed dealer (i,e, "hey joe, let me buy that gun from you"), that person still can go to jail for selling a gun to a criminal.

 

Ever notice that the cities in America which have the strictest gun control measures, have the absolute highest amounts of gun crime? When you disarm people via a law, you only disarm the innocent.

I think we need to agree to disagree with this topic 

 

Peace.

[AlwaysFSX]

I think we need to agree to disagree with this topic 

 

Peace.

Uh, no. You obviously don't understand how guns aren't are bad things.

[IP man]

Uh, no. You obviously don't understand how guns aren't are bad things.

okay 

[SSOB]

Good

[Lewellyn]

Ever notice that the cities in America which have the strictest gun control measures, have the absolute highest amounts of gun crime? When you disarm people via a law, you only disarm the innocent.

 

Using correlation to imply causation, nice. That's the first rule you ever learn in science or stats and you broke it.

[Trik'Stari]

Using correlation to imply causation, nice. That's the first rule you ever learn in science or stats and you broke it.

You have a better explanation? Maybe you'll go with the "well those guns come from other cities/states" argument, to which I would point out, we have an unregulated border with a nation that has high amounts of government corruption and numerous large criminal organizations, which by the way is a nation where gun ownership....is a crime.

 

I could also point out that areas that don't have strict gun laws, don't always have extremely high rates of gun crime. Or I could point out that the fact remains, when you pass a law banning guns, you only effectively disarm the innocent who obey the law. Also, I wasn't implying causation, I was pointing out reality. I didn't explicitly say "these places have the highest amounts of gun crime because the average citizen can't own a gun" I was point out that gun laws don't work, because criminals don't give a damn what the law is.

[Lewellyn]

You have a better explanation? Maybe you'll go with the "well those guns come from other cities/states" argument, to which I would point out, we have an unregulated border with a nation that has high amounts of government corruption and numerous large criminal organizations, which by the way is a nation where gun ownership....is a crime.

 

I could also point out that areas that don't have strict gun laws, don't always have extremely high rates of gun crime. Or I could point out that the fact remains, when you pass a law banning guns, you only effectively disarm the innocent who obey the law. Also, I wasn't implying causation, I was pointing out reality. I didn't explicitly say "these places have the highest amounts of gun crime because the average citizen can't own a gun" I was point out that gun laws don't work, because criminals don't give a damn what the law is.

 

 Every time I hear "Well this state has high gun crime and they banned guns, hur dur disarming the innocent" all I hear is " I don't understand basic logic + science about correlation and causation" 

 

Your post was laden with heavy implication, you can try to smooth talk your way by saying something like "I didn't directly say X" or some lawyer's shit, but everyone knows what you meant. The areas that have the highest gun crime lie mostly in urban settings with high gang activity, low education standards, and low income. Your oversimplification of the reality is gravely annoying.

[Trik'Stari]

 Every time I hear "Well this state has high gun crime and they banned guns, hur dur disarming the innocent" all I hear is " I don't understand basic logic + science about correlation and causation" 

 

Your post was laden with heavy implication, you can try to smooth talk your way by saying something like "I didn't directly say X" or some lawyer's shit, but everyone knows what you meant. The areas that have the highest gun crime lie mostly in urban settings with high gang activity, low education standards, and low income. Your oversimplification of the reality is gravely annoying.

You're attempt to stick words in my mouth is equally annoying. I am simply saying that banning guns, does not prevent gun crime. I never said "it has nothing to do with high gang activity, low education standards, and low income" either. I simply didn't feel the need to inject those topics into this already controversial topic. I could go on to mention that the people who support gun laws in those areas, are the same ones who control the education standards, and created taxes that have driven away well paying businesses that employed a hell of a lot of people (as well as unions), but all of that is a completely separate argument. I am merely pointing out the reality that banning guns, does nothing.

 

Stop trying to put words into my mouth please, maybe try something other than going directly to the age old trick of simply poking holes in the other person argument, rather than providing your own actual counter argument on the subject. Or would that require too much effort?