-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Makes no difference. Ban all weapons, overturn the Second Amendment and let’s rely upon our wise & benevolent government to protect us.
Logic: Those differences does make a weapon more deadly! if it didn’t they wouldn’t have been made *facepalm*
Oh…and ergonomics doesn’t play a part in any of this. Personal desire to have something that looks different from what everyone else has doesn’t play a part in this.
2 guns shooting the same bullet at the same speed produce the same result. How they look doesn’t change the end effect one bit.
I’m unsure if you’re dumb or stupid. The only thing im commenting about is the sentence about the differences are mostly superficial, which i find that it’s bullshit even though they said mostly. Logically speaking those modifications do play a role as a variable to the outcome of the performance of the gun and the user. With the polymer frame it’s lighter and you feel a bit less recoil. A collapsible stock can give advantage to different body frames of the user. a flash suppressor…by definition should explain itself. A pistol grip can help those who have bigger or smaller hands.
I honestly don’t care about the purpose of this image. Im just pointing out if whomever wants to make stuff like this they should post some facts and not opinions. I could care less about what left or right nut thinks. On average 30 people die in a homicide by firearm per day in the US.
A lighter gun provides less recoil? Have you ever shot a Glock? When the magazine is full it’s a good, solid weapon with a quick re-acquision time. As you shoot, the magazine starts to empty and the gun becomes lighter and the kick increases as does re-acquision time.
don’t bother making sense to these dumb fucks. because your average libtard “knows everything” even if they have no clue what the fuck they’re talking about.
Well, most of those differences are for reasons other than being deadly. The adjustable stock is partly for ease of storage and partly so that weapons are interchangeable between different people. The “black polymer frame” is just that. Plastic. Reducing the cost and improving the ability to repair the item does not make it more deadly. The pistol grip is just a comfort thing. A lot of target shooting rifles use a pistol grip to. The flash hider, sure I will grant you that is mostly a combat item. But don’t be confused to think that it hides the flash from the target. It is just so that the shooter doesn’t blind himself with the muzzle flash in low light. Limited use for hunting, but quite valid for defending your home.
As yet another example using a Ruger Product, my Son has a 10/22 than in just a few minutes using only a Screw Driver and and Allen Wrench, he can turn his Rifle from the Tin Can Plinker known and loved by Millions into something that in those States which still have Assault Weapons Bans will get ME Years in prison.
Would somebody please explain to me how ANY thing used as a Weapon is NOT an “Assault Weapon”?
What happened at that school was a tragedy, but the reason why it has caused such a response is because its not something that happens very often. Using that tragedy as a leaping off point for gun control is not very logical (Nor is calling for a gun in every teachers hand).
If the USA really wanted to do something about gun deaths they would focus on Mental Health and Poverty. More than half of gun deaths are suicide and a certain number of homicides would also be committed by troubled individuals.
The problem with fixing mental health issues is that its tied into the whole medical system that is constantly under debate, and on top of that its expensive and there isn’t a whole lot of political gain. Gun control on the other hand makes the Government look decisive and caring and vindicates and pleases one side while demonizing and upsetting the other.
this right here.
It’s not only Mental health issues, it goes deeper than that. It can go as far as how the culture of the american society is, XXL food for this, 20 pills for that headache, miracle solution for that. I cannot really blame the people for thinking like that. The amount of shit the media is feeding the society for centuries. Its been shaping and forming the perception of everyday life of an american, to a blissful dream.
That’s just pure dishabille bullshit.
A beguiled argument that when weighed out amounts to just the same disingenuous tin god defence.
I’m a Marine vet, pro-gun and raised around guns all my life; took quiet a few “bad” people out and I have problems dealing with that today… that’s another story. I never slept on a bed until I went into the military for fear a stray bullet finding me; sleeping each night to sound of gun-fire; my sister and I walked past bodies on our way to school, yeah – that’s the America I went to go fight for.
Today, I live abroad, a very gun-free country (18 deaths by guns in 2012, majority were hunting accidents). I reside in a very diverse multi-ethnic and cultured neighbourhood; at the beginning I fought and kicked like any true blood American would against this gun-free shit. After 20 yrs of not even having locks on the doors – I can unequivocally say – it’s the fucking guns.
There isn’t a country anywhere especially here in Europe that isn’t dealing with mental-illness or poverty, if they don’t have guns – they find something else. It’s not the violent games or films – our kids here watch just as much or more (long winters). No other western industrialised nation is dealing with the U.S.’s mass blood-baths every 2 weeks, 10,000+ dead and 20,000+ wounded and maimed per year.
Millions of Mexicans are dying on the streets down there – Oh, fuck! Let’s ignore the elephant in that room! Yeah, let’s ignore that hard-reports showing that 94% of their firearms in this Mexican stand-off are imported from the U.S. (Yeah, those “demonised” Mexicans really love playing those violent Xbox games and they seem to have a really major problem with their mentally ill.)
Make any dissembled excuse you need to from out of your ass but it’s not some great mysterious feigned enigma – bottom line: it’s the firearms/guns.
We are probably going to agree to disagree, I don’t blame the gun and I certainly don’t blame one over the other because one looks aggressive. I put the blame on the cultural problems in the USA such as poverty, mental health, drug trafficking, immigration ( both legal and illegal), distrust in the government and minorities, the list can go on and on.
I am sorry to hear you grew up in less than encouraging living conditions, but it sounds more like a poverty issue where gun violence was the result of poor living conditions not the cause of.
Again I am sure we will disagree but this is a picture site and not a political theatre so I don’t care 😉
You’re right we will disagree on one main factor in this equation. Here in Scandinavia when we have a mass killing or deaths by guns/firearms (such as our infamous Norway madman) – our Parliaments & Assemblies do one thing different – they call emergency sessions that tighten the laws/rules to removing more firearms off the streets.
We aren’t immune to having all the same problems with poverty, hard line narcotics, alcohol, mental illness, minorities, etc. – but we don’t have people finding guns to relieve the anger and frustration. I’ve lived under both conditions and seen it from both sides and I truly believe today that when you remove the firearms, your citizens have a better chance of survival and harmony. Believe me, 20 yrs ago I never would have been on this side of this argument.
I agree with you about the notion that if these sorts of weapons were not around they would not be misused. Personally, I would not have put in the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately it is one of those cases of shutting the barn door after the horses have left. Simple fact is the US is already awash with guns. Even if all production and importation were to cease there will never be a shortage. Also, simple ground truth is that the 2nd is the law of the land and is one that cannot be changed short of revolution (even if just a revolution on paper).
you’ve been sucking too much euro dick there buddy. go fuck yourself and stay the fuck out of america’s problems. you quit like a bitch and moved the fuck out, so stay the fuck out. i don’t give a fuck if you served. piss off.
In any normal, sane country both weapons would be banned.
You don’t need a semi-automatic rifle for hunting purposes unless you’re shit.
Well,it certainly makes the follow on shot easier.Wing a boar and you`ll need that shot.Or a burglar for that matter.
Hogs are a good example, but frankly any dangerous game. I don’t hunt myself but when facing an animal that can seriously hurt you in short order the ability to shoot again if you miss is a life or death safety consideration.
Where do you live? Uganda? The Congo?
… or are you going around shooting pit-bulls on 18th street?
There are wild hogs in the USA…they’re actually a problem in some states and hunters are paid to thin out their numbers. Also pumas are still all over the western states, and even rarely show up on the East coast. Oh yeah…and
gah…I meant
BEARS THAT WILL BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE AND WRECK YOUR SHIT
Yup. Hogs are a serious menace. They destroy huge amounts of crops and can kill or seriously maim people and dogs. They are smart, surprisingly stealthy and quite often shots are taken at them at very close range and suddenly. Moose are quite capable of turning on you too, poor eyesight notwithstanding. Also Javalina, which most people wrongly think are hogs but aren’t can be aggressive. But within the US, hogs are the most serious type of dangerous game.
First of all, free or easy mental health care will have a much better effect on preventing mass killings.
Second, this is a straw man argument. The fact that previous laws couldn’t distinguish two weapons of effectively the same lethality has no relevance on whether firearm restrictions could or do prevent criminal deaths. That just means that the law was poorly written.
We need to decide (hopefully with research and data) whether restricting firearm lethality will have a positive effect, decide whether it’s worth the consequences, and THEN craft very finely tuned laws that actually do so. The ineffectiveness of previous laws is not logically relevant.
Well, the previous law is relevant in that one of the main discussions in the US about firearms laws is the push to reenact that same law. The posted image is a criticism specifically of such a law and does not address the effectiveness of firearm laws or restrictions in general.
Why does the military use one of these but not the other (or do they?)?
The problem is that fast-reload magazine & the fact more than 200 million firearms are in the hands of civilians.
Actually they use neither of them. Indeed, they don’t use “assault weapons” at all for the most part. The only thing that makes an assault rifle useful in a military context is that it can fire full auto (or in the case of some American assault rifles in 3 shot bursts). Make the rifle semi-auto only and it is obsolete and more or less unsuitable as a soldiers primary weapon for any battlefield since the late 19th century.
theres bullshit and theres BULLSHIT. this post is from a small penised spoiled republican bible (guns are god given dont ya know) carrying bill of right thumping crybaby. bored? read a GODDAM BOOK.
Maybe so, but the commentary in it is still accurate. The “Assault Weapons” ban prohibited weapons based on them having a combination of a certain list of features. Most of these features are ones that are more or less irrelevant to the general hazard the rifle poses to the public in general.
what a rational argument you have provided here. read a book. ok. go fuck yourself, faggot.
This M[c]S is so full of leftist nausa inducing shit! I keep coming only for the (scarce) naked girls. The rest is plain shit, nerdy videogame stuff, liberal and socialist bullshit, internet militant atheism, obamalovers, gun control stupidities..
Fuck, You guys should shut the fuck up and post more girls, so I could hate this place a little less..
We’ll see if we can dig up a naked picture of Laura Bush or Ann Coulter with an assault weapon for you.
There are plenty of other websites out there with naked women… are you sure you want to be here?
I’ve been here from the beginning and I get just as frustrated with the lib(ertarian)tards and fucking right-wing sociopaths. Witness all the goddamn gun jargon in this thread alone. You idiots take way too much pride in your gun knowledge.
Hate all you want, I hope you delete the bookmark.
You will not be missed.
Plain and simple…the police feel they need items like this to handle criminals. Go ahead and tell me that the criminals breaking into my home arn’t the same criminals that the police face. As the police need these to fight those criminals…I too need these kinds of weapons to fight off these kinds of criminals.
As for high capacity mags…I have read where 3 officers fired more than 100 rounds at a criminal and no one was hit. If highly trained officers can fire more than 100 rounds and not hit anything then I (as an untrained individual) need access to more rounds than that to deal with threats.
Doesn’t work like that, shitbrick. When you’ve got the training of a cop or soldier and maintain that training, then you will be qualified to carry a deadly weapon. Until then, you’re just a huge danger to yourself and others with an over-inflated sense of your own badass warrior skills.
It is still a reasonable point. Assuming that self-defense is a legitimate purpose for a firearm, is it so unreasonable to have a weapon that is designed for that purpose? I personally don’t find the need to arm myself to protect myself from the boogeyman but I’m not about to say that other people should not be allowed to.
The problem is not the assumption that self-defense is a legitimate purpose, of course it is.
Just like a legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons is to win a war. That doesn’t mean it’s not also a horrible idea.
The fact is, in my life I’ve known 3 people who have been shot. None by a burglar, none by an illegal firearm. Two of them died. One by his own hand, one playing soldier in his friends yard at the age of 12.
I would not scrap the second amendment. I also wouldn’t make high fructose corn syrup illegal.
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t both killing us. It also doesn’t mean that that there isn’t anything that can be done.
Oh shit, you’re just another fucking tragedy waiting to happen.
(What state/area do you live in? …and most importantly: are you keeping up with your meds?)
IM A THUG IM WOOPIE GOLDBURGH THE KING AND IM BACK, YOU WILL ALL BOT TO ME, I RUN THIS SITE, YOU WILL ALL SUFFER AND FEAR ME THE KING. AND YOU WILL SCOOT YOUR ASS ACROSS THE FLOOR AND THEN LICK UP THE SKID MARKS THAT YOU HAVE LEFT BEHIND AS I LAUGH AT YOU FOR ENTERTAINMENT. I AM THE KING SHUT UP AND BOW TO ME. IM FAMOUS IM WOOPIE GOLDBURGH IM A THUG, IM A NINJA IM A HORNY NINJA. I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOUR BUTTHOLES. POOP IS ALL YOU WILL EAT YUM YUM THIS MAKES HAPPY INDIAN TOILET HAPPY.
Ban all guns, make it mandatory to carry bows and crossbows. How else are you going to defend yourself against crazy people and your government?
Bonus: they’re hard to conceal.
Well, the answer is to ban them both, if the differences are not important. Or, keep things the way they are and practice looking sympathetic for the next time someone with weapons he couldn’t get in other democracies walks into a school and starts killing toddlers.
And that is at least consistent. Proposing a ban on semiautomatic rifles in general however is not what is being proposed by the Dem’s. Presumably the Dem’s understand that semiautomatic hunting rifles are quite common and are explicitly suitable for hunting and pest control purposes. The actual proposal is to reenact the previous ban that would ban one but not the other, which makes no sense.
Hello, Canada here.
I never understood the insane theory that without guns, you can’t defend yourself, and that even without guns there would be just as many homicides. Or, if you take guns from people, they can’t defend themselves from the masses of criminals that will suddenly have an illegal arsenal. And that all this will undoubtedly happen if you take away the guns.
We have gun control. You’ll notice we generally have just over 200 deaths attributed to guns each year, versus the 14-16,000 in the states.
What people don’t generally consider is that a gun is much easier to use then a knife, or other weapon. To pull a trigger from dozens of feet away is less dangerous and less personal to an individual prone to murder. You don’t really hear of mentally ill people who run around a town square with a hunting knife. You do hear about them in a high tower with a power rifle.
Call us whatever you will. We prefer the insults to, you know, death.
Well said.
I’m not really refuting your comment but the basic comment that the image is making applies to Canada as well. The frustration that a lot of gun-folk have about “Assault Weapon Bans” is how arbitrary such bans are. To use Canadian gun law as the example, consider 3 rifles.
The Ruger Ranch Rifle, as depicted here, is an unrestricted long gun in Canada. This means it is available at any sporting goods store that decides to carry it and its use is no more restricted than is any other rifle in Canada. As made available to the public the Ruger Ranch Rifle is a gas operated semiautomatic rifle fed from a detachable magazine and is chambered in .223Rem.
The AR-18 is a prohibited weapon in Canada. If you had one before it became prohibited you may keep it but it cannot be transferred to anyone but your children. It is not available for sale. It is in the same category as machine guns and bazookas. The AR-18 was designed by the same company that designed the AR-15. Armalite had sold the rights to the AR-15 to Colt due to the long time it was taking the US to decide on a rifle. It was designed to be an improved substitute for the AR-15 so that they could compete in the same market. As made available to the public the AR-18 is a gas operated semiautomatic rifle fed from a box magazine and is chambered in .223Rem.
The AR-15 is a restricted weapon in Canada, in the same category as handguns. It is allowed, but can only be fired in designated places such as registered firing ranges. For a short while the AR-15 was a prohibited weapon but it was quickly apparent that the wide use of the type in common established target shooting competitions, including AR-15 only events, showed that it was clearly a rifle that was “suitable for sporting purposes”. As made available to the public the AR-15 is a gas operated semiautomatic rifle fed from a detachable magazine and is chambered in .223Rem.
In terms of the hazard to the public, these rifles are essentially identical but each is covered under very different sets of rules. Whether semiautomatic rifles in general are suitable for being available to the general public is a separate issue than the poster is trying to raise. The issue is that bans of “assault weapons” are not based on any significant characteristic of the weapon itself but simply based on rifles that basically look mean.
Clearly there is something that is different about firearm ownership, usage and regulation in Canada. I would not disagree that these differences are probably the key factors in the widely different firearm violence rates. I would strenuously disagree however that the specific regulation of “assault weapons” in Canada is at all relevant to these differences.