Do you think an AK-47 assault rifle should be as easy to buy as a hammer?

[billbuckhead]

Poll question: Do you think an AK-47 assault rifle should be as easy to buy as a hammer?

[DavidBowman]

1. Heck, No

AKs are far heavier.

[billbuckhead]

5. Dave Bowman?

or is it really HAL? Well welcome to DU Dave.

[DavidBowman]

10. Thanks

If you want to get technical, I guess I'm no longer Dave but just a baby floating through space. But you can call me what you like.

[Aristus]

16. Dave......Dave......

I want you to know I still have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.......

[DavidBowman]

18. Can you believe

that this name wasn't taken?

[billbuckhead]

20. Yes

[DavidBowman]

22. If that's the case,

then open the pod bay door, please.

[MrBenchley]

133. Sadly...

Some ill-bred people don't care for 2001 the way intelligent, charming, delightful people of wit and sophistication do....

By the way, I've just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit. It's going to go 100 percent failure in 72 hours.

[WMliberal]

2. only if they have the claw to pull nails out on the other side

[SomewhereOutThere424]

122. LOL, perfect reply

n/t

[KingFlorez]

3. No

AK-47 are the type of weapon terrorist would want and it's not good to make access too easy.

[Err]

4. What the hell does a person need an AK for?

I say hell no!

[DFWdem]

26. Because they're a helluva lot of fun to shoot n/t

[MadHound]

63. So is a rocket launcher,

Doesn't mean everybody should have one.

[salib]

6. Lame question

[billbuckhead]

11. Why lame? Manufacturers have less liability selling a gun than a hammer

Isn't this what appeasing the NRA-RBKA-GOA crowd is all about? No real rules or enforcement.

AT 12;47 EST IT'S 26 TO 10 for some regulation of assault rifles.

[Richard Steele]

32. Less liability? How so?

That statement sounds highly unlikely to me.
How much liability do you think hammer manufacturers have?

[billbuckhead]

37. Hammer makers are not absolved of liabilty like Congress granted gun lobby

The hammer makers can be sued unlike gun makers.

[Richard Steele]

51. I'm afraid that's simply NOT TRUE , Bill.

At least not in the context to which you refer.

Gunmakers, like any manufacturer of tangible goods,
can be held LIABLE for defects in the design, workmanship, or materials
of their products.

They can NOT, however, be held responsible for the ACTIONS
of other human beings whom they have never met.
But neither are the makers of hammers held liable
for such actions.

Do you honestly believe that an assault victim
who is illegally beaten with a hammer
has some right to SUE the hammer manufacturer?

Somehow, I doubt that you really believe that.

[ArkDem]

152. Hey, it's not fair to use facts or logic!

[liberaltrucker]

33. The weapon in question

Is chambered for the 7.62 X 39 cartridge. Full auto, semi auto, or single shot-the result's the same with a trained operator. Many of us are. eom.

[leftstreet]

7. Maybe rifles for Deer Hunters

[Ptah]

8. No

But I could make either one of them.

:rofl:

[napi21]

9. No, but it's not now either. Why are you even asking?

There are already regulations on buying guns, and if you think they should be stricter, that's one discussion, but if you think additional laws will make a diffrence, you're wrong.

If somebody really wants a gun...any kind of gun...they're available quite easily, outside the laws.

[billbuckhead]

14. That's just not true. Prove it.

Place's it's hard to get a gun have less murder. Japan has almost no guns and almost no murders with guns. If guns made people safe and free, America would the safest freest place around and we know that's not true.

[DFWdem]

19. If that's the case...

Why do you care what kind of gun it is? Based on your statement it appears "AK-47" was chosen purely for the sensationalism of the name.

[billbuckhead]

21. AK47 is just a well known brand name for this type product

Like saying Chevy-GMC Suburban or Prius to represent all of a type.

AT 12:53 EST it's 72% saying no to same access to AK-47 as a hammer.

[DFWdem]

24. I understand that

But if your point is that places without guns have fewer murders, then why stop at assault rifles?


spelling edit

[billbuckhead]

27. Assault rifles carry the most danger and still aren't prevalent

Would you like assault rifles in almost every home?

[DFWdem]

31. Actually, yes

If it was common knowledge that there was an assault weapon in almost every home the number of burglaries and home invasions would be almost zero. Besides, assault rifles aren't any more dangerous than any other gun unless they are made fully automatic, which is already illegal.

[DavidBowman]

35. He's right, Billy

Now leave him alone!

[billbuckhead]

36. So you would allow an Ak-47 to be bought as a easy a buying a hammer?

Teenagers, obvious mental cases, illegal immigrants, recently released from prison criminals, they could all buy guns?

[countryjake]

66. None of the people you've mentioned can legally buy a gun,

anyway! If the people you've mentioned want any weapon, other channels are used for their purchases. What ever makes you think that laws keep people with questionable intentions from getting their hands on a weapon?

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. How, exactly?

In what way is a semi-auto Kalashnikov functionally different to any other semi-automatic weapon? (NB: fully automatic weapons have been illegal for private ownership in this country for seventy years.) The ONLY way you could argue that a semi-auto AK is more dangerous is in the volume of fire one may deliver without reloading, with the availability of Eastern Bloc surplus 30-round clips; but that difference, in a clip-fed weapon, is fairly negligible (matter of seconds to drop the clip, load a fresh magazine, and work the charging handle). So saying assault rifles are "most dangerous" is at best ill-informed, unless you happen to be talking about mil-spec full-auto versions.

[napi21]

30. That wasn't the question. Sure, countries that do not permit

it's citizens to have guns have less murders. The question was should AK47's be as easy to get as a hammer. They are already harder to get tham a hammer!

I don't think guns are the real problem in the US. Canada has fairly liberal gun laws, but their experience with murders and crimes committed with guns are extremely low compared to the US. There's obviously some other problem here than just the availibilty of guns. I really think it's a culture thing. I know I was raised in the era of "The Lone Ranger", "The Cisco Kid", "Wyatt Earp", "Gunsmoke", need I go on? As a little kid, we played cowboy & indian all the time! I'm 62 now, and although I'm still a pretty good shot, I haven't shot a gun in probably 10 years. Can't say that I really care to anymore. But there's something in our culture that seems to love the image of the gun and the way this country was won.

There's very little chance that you'll ever change the American's love of their guns.

[billbuckhead]

40. Let's make them as easy to get as hammer NRA people say

I predict that this poll will be freeped by people who say that assault rifles should be as easy to buy as a hammer.

BTW, is it as easy to buy an AK-47 as a hammer in Canada? I think not.

[baltlib]

60. well....

quote: BTW, is it as easy to buy an AK-47 as a hammer in Canada? I think not.

yes it is... in canada with the right license it is easier they will mail it right to your house.you dont even have to leave home to get it

[yorgatron]

54. Japan is a poor example.

they are far more likely to commit suicide than murder someone,these days.
even if they WERE to murder someone they'd probably use a sword.

[Spider Jerusalem]

55. Japan also has far fewer social problems than the US.

Not to mention a much more socially integrated and homogeneous population.

While here, we have: Poverty. Racism. Underfunded and overpopulated schools in urban areas. The almost complete breakdown of socail services in many areas. Widespread corruption and brutality among police. The list of the root causes of crime goes on and on, and YOU propose that the best way to deal with the problem is to ban guns. That's a lazy and ignorant position, and is likely to do about as much good as trying to eliminate smoking by banning cigarette lighters.

[billbuckhead]

71. It's cheaper to solve our social ills with guns is what you're saying

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. Excuse me, but...what the FUCK?

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? What I'm saying is that banning guns and expecting it to solve any of our social problems is like expecting a Band-Aid to be effective treatment if you've just lost your right hand to a bandsaw. The social problems are the cause; violence is the effect. Are you so wrapped up in your Righteous Crusade against the evils of firearms that you fail to see that? The solution is far more complex and requires far more effort than just a simple action like criminalisation of firearms ownership.

[billbuckhead]

91. Other developed nations have far less gun crime and murder than USA

It's a proven fact. Here' what the Brookings insitute has to say about America's gun situation.

"Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder. Although widespread gun ownership does not have much effect on the overall crime rate, gun use does make criminal violence more lethal and has a unique capacity to terrorize the public. Gun crime accounts for most of the costs of gun violence in the United States, which are on the order of $100 billion per year."

<http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/evaluatinggunpolicy.htm>

[Spider Jerusalem]

106. you don't do anything but parrot the same points over and over...

do you? I'm aware of this, thanks. I'm also aware that the United States, compared to other developed nations (read: Japan and Western Europe) has the most fundamentally BROKEN society of any of them, and that our murder and violent crime rates probably have at least as much to do with this fact as with the availability of firearms. But I point that out, and you skirt the issue and try to come back to blaming ALL of it on the availability of firearms. (Which, if you'll notice, I HAVEN'T said isn't a contributing factor.)

[Xithras]

82. Incorrect.

Switzerland and Israel both have incredibly high gun ownership rates, and yet both have a tiny fraction of the crime rate found in the U.S. (factoring out terrorist attacks in Israel, of course).

Murder is a social problem, not a problem caused by pervasive guns. If your statistic were correct, nations like Britain would have almost no murders at all since guns are practically impossible to get there. Instead, Britain has a murder rate that's climbing every year. They just use knives instead of guns.

[billbuckhead]

102. Switzerland has far stricter gun regs than USA Here's a link to compare

Gun Ownership in Switzerland

1. Firearms Legislation in General
Until January 1, 1999, regulating firearms was the responsibility of the Swiss Cantons, which had enacted their own laws and had agreed upon some basic uniform rules in a Concordat (Agreement of March 27, 1969 on Trade in Firearms and Ammunition). In 1993, Swiss voters approved a constitutional amendment which authorized the Federal Parliament to pass a Firearms Control Law aimed at making access to firearms more difficult.

On June 20, 1997, the Swiss Parliament adopted a federal law on arms, arms accessories and ammunition (Arms Act), which entered into force on January 1, 1999. As a general rule, the Arms Act requires a permit for each transaction involving weapons or relevant parts of weapons purchased from an authorized gun dealer's shop. Permits for purchasing weapons are issued by the competent authorities of the Cantons, which have to ensure that the necessary legal requirements are fully met. The selling party has to verify the absence of any legal obstacle on the buyer's side (18 years of age, absence of an apparent risk to the buyer or third persons, no entry in the Register of Convictions for Violent Crimes and Misdemeanors). Subsequent transfers either by sale or by another transaction among private individuals have to be documented through a written contract between those individuals themselves, which they have to keep for at least ten years. In addition, foreign nationals without a permanent residence permit in Switzerland need an authorization to purchase weapons or relevant parts of weapons from private dealers as well. Foreign nationals must obtain their permit from the competent authority of the Canton in which the purchase will take place. In order to obtain a permit, foreign nationals have to present an official certificate issued in their home country to prove that they are entitled to purchase a weapon or a relevant part of a weapon.

In addition to requiring the above-mentioned permit to purchase weapons, the Arms Act also requires a special certificate to bear arms in public. A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks. To obtain a permit to bear arms one also has to pass an examination on the correct handling of weapons as well as a test on legislation on the use of firearms. Permits are normally valid for a specific type of weapon and for the entire territory of Switzerland, but are limited to five years.

2. Special Regulations for Military Firearms, Sporting and Hunting Guns
Due to the long tradition and the special organization of the Swiss armed forces as a militia army, special rules are applicable for army weapons. Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities. Special rules also govern hunting or sporting rifles.

<http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html>

[liberaltrucker]

12. Sure, why not?

Or an AR-15 or MAC-10. Why shouldn't we libs dare defend our rights?

[Tace]

13. Why Do You Want To Regulate Hammers?

I suppose you want to regulate box cutters, too?

(No, assault weapons should not be easy to purchase -- period.)

[Oceansaway]

15. i cant vote......

cuz i'd never buy either one anyway.......

[Blue_Tires]

17. single-fire or full auto??

n/t

[liberaltrucker]

23. Full auto is more fun

In a closed firing range, of course :wink: :nod:

[wookie294]

25. Should acquiring a drivers license be as as easy as buying a hammer n/t

[liberaltrucker]

28. In Alabama, it is nt

[Czolgosz]

29. No, but Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito does

[DanCa]

34. I think garden rakes should be outlawed

I hate it when that sucker smacks me in the face when I step on the wrong end.

[Jack_DeLeon]

38. Sure why not...

Its not the tool that kills, its the person that is weilding it.

[DanCa]

42. Or t he bullet what was chris rocks joke?

Raise the price of a bullet to a thousand bucks per shell and you wont have to worry about crossfire? sorry it's late and my mind wont function.

[-..__...]

39. Ban assault hammers now!

Think of the children!







No legitimate carpenter or DIY'er has a need for these!

[maximovich]

80. Duh...

I guess you didn't get the point of this thread... BAD ANALOGY!

[Syncronaut Seven]

41. Before 2000, no. after 2000, absolutely.

I think now everyone should have one.

I never thought I would find myself philosophically aligned with the survivalists. I sure am now! Thanks george!

[billbuckhead]

43. Attitudes like that are the end of American civilization

Let's let the worst Americans bring us down to their level.

[Syncronaut Seven]

47. You may have missed the point.

We're running out of options, and time.

[DanCa]

45. Trust me the why i aim you dont want me to have a hand gun.

With my tremors the safest place to stand is where I shoot. :D

[Dave Reynolds]

44. It isn't.

I have never had to show photo ID and have an FBI background check to buy a hammer.

[oregonindy]

46. drop this and focus on bigger more inclusive issues....I dunno like maybe

bush hasnt been impeached yet.

[LaPera]

48. Much Easier!!!

With a AK-47 I wouldn't have to buy a hammer, I could just aim my AK and force some pacifist to do the hammering for me...Nothing gets between me and my AK-47!!!!

[Guy Fawkes]

49. I have a magazine here somewhere...

that sells all of the parts to an AK-47. You buy them seperate and then you can put it together.

Seriously, why would you need one? Are you hunting Godzilla?

[NickB79]

75. I find that hard to believe

You can commonly buy all the parts to make an AK minus the reciever. Even a reciever stripped down to bare metal is still legally recognized as a firearm. You remove the stock, the trigger, the magazine, even the barrel, and it's still legally a firearm. Any magazine that sold recievers through the mail WITHOUT REQUIRING THEM TO BE TRANSFERRED THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED FIREARMS DEALER would be breaking federal law in place since 1968. If someone were so blatantly stupid to advertize an illegal activity that way, the BATF would be knocking on their door really soon.

[MidwestTransplant]

50. A Hammer can be dangerous in the wrong hands

[Zuni]

120. LOL

:rofl:

[Fescue4u]

52. It takes about 6 months of waiting to buy an AK-47

Plus an intensive background check and a $200 tax. Its been that way for many decades.

Furthermore, in a number of states, ak-47s and other full auto weapons are completely banned for private ownership.

Regardless of your poll results, buying an AK-47 is infinitely more difficult than buying a hammer.

[-..__...]

58. I have an unregistered set of metric socket wrenches,

I live in MA. Yeah, I'm exaggerating, but not by much. They do that kind of shit around here. :-(

[Fescue4u]

61. I wouldnt go around admitting that on a public board

Because, your neighbors might find out, and then you know...well you'll have to fix something of theirs.

[billbuckhead]

62. Answer the question. Would you make AK's as easy to buy

as a hammer?

[Fescue4u]

68. No. I would keep things as they are now.

6 month background check for real ak-47s that cost about $15,000

BATF form 4473, Government Identification, Brady bill instant background check for look-alike, but semi-auto ak-47's that cost about $500

$7.99 for a hammer.

[Wcross]

84. You are proposing to drop the NFA laws?

Cool. I would treat machine guns just like any other firearm sale. Go through a background check and walk out with the machinegun.
You ain't as much of a gun control fanatic as I thought you were!

[billbuckhead]

103. I'm just throwing the idea out there and seeing who salutes

:)

[dorktv]

56. yes because sometimes hammering is not enough. You have to shoot it in.

[Neil Lisst]

57. You can have my hammer when you pry it from my cold, dead ...

... tool box.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

59. please hammer. . . don't hurt em.

[EstimatedProphet]

64. No, but...

I don't have a problem with citizens owning them. I do think they should be harder to buy than a hammer though-or are you suggesting that hammers should require a background check?

[yella_dawg]

65. If it comes down to getting shot with an AK

or bludgeoned to death with a hammer. I'll take the AK.

Let's lobby for hammer control. And saws. How horrible would it be to be attacked with a Skill saw?

[countryjake]

67. Is there anybody in there?

Tear down the Wall!

[slackmaster]

69. Present controls on the AK-47 are more than adequate

I don't even have to read all the responses in this thread to know that a lot of intelligent, educated people are misinformed about this subject.

Selective-fire rifles (capable of fully automatic fire) are strictly regulated as "machineguns" under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

Anyone who is interested in knowing more about regulations on machineguns and other NFA items and other federal gun control laws should check out the BATFE's Web page at:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/index.htm

[rd_kent]

70. Abolutely

I'm a steadfast believer in firearms. Take 'em away, then what are you gonna do? Throw rocks? It's cliche' , but guns dont kill people, people kill people.
Just my opinion.....

[HEyHEY]

107. Yeah, but I'd rather have people throwing rocks than shooting at each othe

with assualt weapons.

Particularily if I'm in the middle of it all

[rd_kent]

119. Maybe

But if youre in the middle of it all, wouldnt you want a gun, not a rock? And if it gets to the point over here where we find ourselves "in the middle of it" youre going to NEED a gun.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

72. Not that easy, no.

I do think citizens should be able to own them but there should be an extensive background check first.

[NickB79]

73. WHERE is it as easy to buy an AK as a hammer?

Address please, because I'll be there by sundown :-)

[ErisFiveFingers]

76. Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen come to mind...

Still sure you want to go?

[Fescue4u]

89. Only in the land of innuendo and half lies.

Which is where gun grabbers live

(Unless of course they live in Iraq or Somalia)

[ErisFiveFingers]

77. Someone, think of the children!

In never ceases to amaze me when people fail to see the difference between a harmless tool and a dangerous weapon.... see link:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0089665/

[wtmusic]

78. No they should be banned n/t

[rman]

110. No, ownership should be regulated

As in: requires a licence, kindof how it is with cars.
Now how unreasonable is that?

[wtmusic]

147. Too dangerous

one person with an AK can do too much damage in too short a time.

I'm not that interested in guns, and that's where I would draw the line.

[0rganism]

79. To buy? Yes. To transport? No.

IMHO, small arms of all sorts should be legal to own and keep on private property -- with consent from the property owner, of course. Any registration and/or licensing should be for transport and firing off premises. You want to keep an uzi around the house for home defense? Okay, good luck, please keep it away from the kids. But the second that thing leaves the owner's property or discharges a bullet that does, the owner and/or shooter becomes completely or jointly liable for the effects, and should be required to prove him/herself sufficiently responsible via a standard weapons safety exam appropriate to the type of firearm considered.

The only reason a firearms manufacturer should be held liable is if the weapon does not function as advertised under normal use and maintenance conditions in a way that materially harms the user or a bystander.

[maximovich]

81. They Should Be Banned

Their only use is for military. Gun nutters want to play soldier... enlist!

And no... it's not a tool morans.

[Fescue4u]

85. I disagree. Hammers have many uses besides bludgedoning

While it is true that hammers have been used to murder many many times, many great men have made good use of hammers.

Look at Jimmy Carter and his habitat for humanity.

[maximovich]

90. Yeah... Try Creating Something with a AK-47

and then get back to me...

[Fescue4u]

95. Try creating something with a painting

And then get back to me....

or a porsche

or a couch

Since when does being able to create something else, become a qualification for being?

[billbuckhead]

100. Wes Clark said if you want an assault rifle to join the Army

"My favorite Clark riposte is on guns. He grew up hunting, in a family that had more than a dozen hunting rifles. But he's pro-gun control. "If you want to fire an assault weapon," he has said, "join the Army." The National Rifle Assn. can put that in its AK-47 and smoke it."

<http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1046>

[Fescue4u]

105. How did his nomination go btw?

For some reason, I don't remember hearing about him much around election time.

[billbuckhead]

108. So you're against Wes Clark?

Clark did do better than Howard DINO and wins every poll on DU to this day.

[Fescue4u]

126. Against? no. But I did find his attitude statement on RKBA condescending

Against is certainly to strong a word. But his suitable for president dropped many points when he took that position in my eyes.

[billbuckhead]

129. Anything but the Republican position on guns is condescending

It's amazing how many war heros are for gun regulation.

[Fescue4u]

132. "The Republican position"" ?

What pray tell would that be, and why would I care?

Freedom is not defined by politics.

Freedom just is.

[billbuckhead]

134. One can't be free in a crossfire

If guns made mankind free, Afghanistan would be the freest place on earth and ireland a gulag.

[Fescue4u]

145. or with an army boot on your neck either

[rman]

111. No ownership should be regulated.

As in: requires a licence, kindof how it is with cars.
Now how unreasonable is that?

[Wcross]

83. Typical Billbuckhead.

You can not buy a true ak-47 unless you go through an FBI background check, pay a 200 transfer tax and can find one for sale. I think the last time I looked they were going for 15-20k. Hardly affordable.
I can walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer without any ID or criminal background check. You can't buy a .22 plinking rifle without having a background check.

You know better than to post this drivel in the general discussion area. You are deliberately deceiving people with your biased comments.

If you want people to start taking you seriously perhaps you could argue a point on the facts rather than half truths and lies.

[billbuckhead]

93. How did I lie? Prove I lied or apologize

The poll had nothing to do with any current, past or future laws. It just asked a simple question of whether guns should be allowed to be sold as easy as other "tools". Gun "rights" people are always saying guns are just tools. I guess most people at DU think otherwise.

[Wcross]

96. You imply that hammers are as easy to buy as AK-47's.

They aren't. You know you can't buy an ak-47 nor any of its semi-automatic copies without a background check. Not so with hammers.
If not lies, they are half-truths. I have seen your numerous posts in the gun dungeon. You know better.
I will not apologize. Give it up so we can win an election or two, huh?

[billbuckhead]

98. Do you think an AK-47 assault rifle should be as easy to buy as a hammer?

Do you think an AK-47 assault rifle should be as easy to buy as a hammer? How does that imply anything but that one sentence? Thos doth preotest far too much, but that;s the point.

The gun "rights' movement is nothing but a sanitized way for white reactionary guys to hurt black people, women and urban people and then play civil rights victim. Charlton Heston spoke for the vast majority of the gun "rights" movement so well.

"Mainstream America is depending on you—counting on you—to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time or resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it's a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other, and all the New-Age apologists for juvenile crime, who see roving gangs as a means of youthful expression, sex as a means of adolescent merchandising, violence as a form of entertainment for impressionable minds, and gun bans as a means to lord-knows-what."

"But on the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual-rights fund-raisers but boycott gun-rights fund-raisers... and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved."
<http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/excerpts.html>

[Wcross]

99. Sorry, you fail to make any sense at all to me.

Your fear of lawful gun owners is peculiar. Your attempts to color the facts with rhetoric is transparent. Sorry guy. It does not fly with me.

[ArkDem]

151. 'color the facts'

good one!!

[sweetheart]

86. Just as long as heroin, cocaine and meth stay easier to buy than a hammer

Guns... whatever.

[0007]

87. Why would any anyone want an AK-47? n/t

[NNN0LHI]

92. Bet the Iraqis are glad they have them n/t

[billbuckhead]

101. Yeah, how's that working out for Iraqis with the civil war and all?

:crazy:

[Fescue4u]

104. considering that they have held out against the US military for 2 years +

which is more powerful than the rest of the worlds militarys combined...

Id say that its working out as well as they could possibly ask for.

Of course the alternative is to simply SUBMIT, which if I recall is what the gun grabbers say we should do when faced with crime.

blind submission maybe be fine for some, but most of humanity disagrees.

[billbuckhead]

135. You have no idea what you're talking about

The Iraqis were defeated in days. What's been going since then is a civil war. I don't have blind submission to weapons making corporations or their gunwhores.

[Fescue4u]

146. So you think it was Mission accomplished eh?

Well that makes 2 of you.

[Javaman]

88. I think hammers should be as easy to buy as AK-47's.

[NNN0LHI]

94. Couple years ago I would have given a firm no. But I am now wavering

I used to be under the false assumption that even if we were all well armed it wouldn't do much good against a government possessing the modern weaponry of today. Iraq has shown to me that is not the case.

A persistent force using just small arms and cunning can wear down a much better armed opponent. Might take a little time. But it can be done. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Don

[twaddler01]

97. No

Unless we want people shooting each other even more so now!

[Peter Frank]

109. This is a trick question, right?

I mean, Delay was so easily bought -- of course the answer's no.

[Mr.Green93]

112. No one needs an AK-47 assault rifle to hunt traps

It is just too much gun for the public to have access to.

[MrBenchley]

113. No reason to let them be sold to civilians at all...

Ban assault weapons now.

[NNN0LHI]

115. Would it have been a good or a bad thing for the Jews living in 1930's...

...Nazi Germany to have had them? I say it would have been a good thing.

Don

[MrBenchley]

127. Hey, what if they'd have had guided missiles and a giant robot....

Give me a fucking break. Are you actually trying to pretend that the sort of shithead buying assault weapons these days is being persecuted like the Jews in 1930 Germany?

And it's worth noting that every asswipe with a swastika today is peddling this gun rights bullshit at the top of their rancid lungs....

Hell, Gaston Glock is bankrolling Austria's neoNazis...

[triguy46]

114. I have a god given right to own as many hammers as my wife will allow.

[Jackpine Radical]

116. WHEN HAMMERS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS

WILL GET HAMMERED ....errr, wait....

[FearofFutility]

117. I live in the inner city

NO! There have been numerous shootings in our neighborhood, and the most frightening one involved an AK-47. One of the bullets from that particular incident traveled approximately 1/4 of a mile, went through my neighbors house and lodged in the wall above their sons bed. We're used to the sound of gun shots, and we barely bat an eye when it happens anymore, but I never want to hear the sound of an AK-47 again. It was terrifying. My children were traumatized. Gangs will get guns no matter what, buy why make it easier to get them.

[Wcross]

139. So you blame the gun rather than the criminal that pulled....

...the trigger? Do you know that most hunting rifles have more range and travel at a much faster velocity than a round fired from a semi-automatic version of the AK-47?
You admit criminals will always have firearms. Why outlaw them? What have you accomplished?

[FearofFutility]

143. I said that it shouldn't be EASIER to get them

Yes, criminals and young wannabes will always have guns, but why make it easier. I think that was the original question.

[ArkDem]

118. Should be easier. Plus you can use the AK-47 as a hammer too!

[slackmaster]

121. We need better hammer control

This thread rocks.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

123. Disguisting

That so many vote yes on this. How many people voting on this poll have held an ak-47? Seen it fire? These are not accurate guns and one of the guns which cause a lot of mis-fire at different targets.

For the love of christ I have idiot hunters going 50 feet near my woods and firing rounds aimlessly. I don't want these things in their hand.

And to everyone else who tells me we should have the right to own a gun -- I ask a simple question. Why? Because the infamous "They" can get you otherwise? Because holding an object that your child can accidentally kill their best friend with is "fun"?

If you want a real hobby, collect swords. Atleast those don't explode and blow people's heads off when in the hands of the foolish. We're not voting for "Sane people having the right to own guns". We're voting for anyone, freepers, the large dominion of americans who attempt to ignite their own farts, and psychopaths, all having this right. Look at iraq. That is an equal opporatunity to own guns. Did it work?

[haroldo]

124. you people are so confused.... *sigh*

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accomodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accomodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.

and for the last time, it is not "easy" to purchase a semi-auto "AK-47"

[billbuckhead]

128. That's not the experience in other advanced nations

Guns multiply violence. An argument that in other nations becomes a fist fight becomes a murder in America because of the easy and societally approved access to guns.

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap>

[BurningDog]

137. General murder statistics don't say the same thing.

If you look at the murders per capital graph on the same site. ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap ) you'll see that the countries at the bottom of the gun murder chart (UK and New Zealand) rank along side other countries who's gun murders account for nearly all of their murders (Canada and Switzerland).

Admittedly the US is still high on the list, which is more of an indicator of a violent culture than gun ownership. Another reason commonly cited for high crime statistics in the US is that we're more likely to exaggerate crime rates (for whatever reason) and other countries are more likely to minimize them. The disclaimer at the top of the page says the same thing: " Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence"

[billbuckhead]

140. Scotland is considered by the UN to be more violent than USA

Hell, they had less people killed in France during these weeks of riots than most Southern states have on a Saturday night. The reason? They don't have so many guns there and aren't so gun crazed as Americans.

[BurningDog]

141. You seemed to miss the point of my post, but...

Care to back that up with something that proves conclusively that the french rioters can't murder people because they don't have guns? It seems to me that the rioters in France are more concerned with property damage than they are with physical violence. France has 1/2 of the US's "monstrous" murder rate, so they've obviously devised other ways to kill people that they could employ.

[billbuckhead]

144. Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society.

Americans aren't worse than the Europeans, Japanese or anyone else, we just have easy access to guns and a culture that relys too much on guns as problem solvers.

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap>

Here's what a noted Harvard researcher found.

Death by the Barrel
David Hemenway applies scientific method to the gun problem

by Craig Lambert
--------------------
"Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society. Although gun proponents like to compare this country with hot spots like Colombia, Mexico, and Estonia (making America appear a truly peaceable kingdom), a more relevant comparison is against other high-income, industrialized nations. The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. (These figures count only civilian guns; Switzerland, for example, has plenty of military weapons per capita.)

"It's not as if a 19-year-old in the United States is more evil than a 19-year-old in Australia—there's no evidence for that," Hemenway explains. "But a 19-year-old in America can very easily get a pistol. That's very hard to do in Australia. So when there's a bar fight in Australia, somebody gets punched out or hit with a beer bottle. Here, they get shot."

In general, guns don't induce people to commit crimes. "What guns do is make crimes lethal," says Hemenway. They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there's a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent."
-------------snip---------
<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html>

[ArkDem]

130. Very well written and you display a remarkable knowledge

of weapons and the way they work!

[Fescue4u]

131. :)

[Wcross]

138. Remarkable ignorance if you ask me.

"How many people voting on this poll have held an ak-47? Seen it fire?"- Apparently you haven't. The ak-is not the most accurate. Then again I seem to recall you people complaining about "sniper" rifles. Just what type of gun IS acceptable?

"These are not accurate guns and one of the guns which cause a lot of mis-fire at different targets." WTF does that mean? What is a mis-fire (failure to fire) "at different targets" mean??????

[SomewhereOutThere424]

142. Have you held one and fired one? I have

They shoot burst fire. Which means they are not accurate. A sniper rifle has impeccable aim, so you can hit your target. Give your average redneck a weapon which holds a 70% hit rate, and the 30% will be very noticable.

Thank you for commenting on my ignorance, it's quite amusing you do so while admitting you have no clue what I'm talking about :)

[Wcross]

148. Yes I have had range time with the AK

I had several familiarization courses with Soviet block weapons while I was in the Marine Corps. While not as accurate as other weapons I found the ak to be controllable if fired in short bursts.
I don't disagree with your assessment of it.

My comment of ignorance was directed at this statement you made.

"These are not accurate guns and one of the guns which cause a lot of mis-fire at different targets." That is a direct quote from your post.

Perhaps you mean the accuracy problem results in unintended targets being hit by error? Your use of the term mis-fire (which means a FAILURE TO FIRE) is where I am stumped. How can a bullet that fails to fire hit ANY target?

[ArkDem]

149. I shoot automatic weapons (including several AK versions) where

I work. I also have extensive experience with Remington's M-24 Sniper System. I must say that the M-24 never has aimed itself so it doesn't have 'impecible aim'. It can be very accurate if the person firing it knows how to used a scope.

[Wcross]

150. Good point as well.

Its as if some people think firearms do things of their own free will or something.

[bleedingheart]

125. only if I could wipe out the mole population in my yard...

and the added bonus would be that I could quickly aerate my yard...hahaha

[LoZoccolo]

136. YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!

It should be even easier than that, because a lot of places won't sell little kids tools like hammers. It should be as easy to buy as a pack of Now N Laters!