funnymouth
Active member
i think \"assault rifle\" generally refers to a weapon that fires a \"tumbling round\" to increase soft tissue damage (not useful in hunting, but very useful for anti-personel). im not sure on this though.
experts?
I didn\'t wanna bring it up, BUT...
- Thread starter DaN
- Start date
i think \"assault rifle\" generally refers to a weapon that fires a \"tumbling round\" to increase soft tissue damage (not useful in hunting, but very useful for anti-personel). im not sure on this though.
experts?
According to the Brady Bill:
DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon\' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and
`
(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.\'.
So, conceivably, I could put a grenade launcher on a 30.06 hunting rifle and it not be an assault rifle.
But if I thread the barrel of same hunting rifle to add a recoil suppressor, and a folding stock it is.
Needless to say this is why most people with a knowledge of guns found the Brady Bill to be complete garbage.
Considering one of the main pushers of the 2007 gun laws when interviewed about it had no idea what a barrel shroud is, is a little scary in itself. Link
DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon\' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and
`
(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.\'.
So, conceivably, I could put a grenade launcher on a 30.06 hunting rifle and it not be an assault rifle.
But if I thread the barrel of same hunting rifle to add a recoil suppressor, and a folding stock it is.
Needless to say this is why most people with a knowledge of guns found the Brady Bill to be complete garbage.
Considering one of the main pushers of the 2007 gun laws when interviewed about it had no idea what a barrel shroud is, is a little scary in itself. Link
Legacy Account
Active member
OLD, OLD, OLD, OLD data....
I think you\'ll find that the Swiss have a FAR higher murder rate than the UK nowadays. Switzerland is also a less densely populated country than the UK.
Making all of what you just said completely irrelevant.
Countries listed by murder rates
Population densities by country...
If you\'re going to make comparisons, make like-for-like ones and make sure they\'re in favour of your arguement!!
Speaking of population densities, the US is way down on that count. And way up in the homicide rates one.
In fact you could say that the US has by far the highest homicide rate of any supposedly \'stable\' first world democratic regime bar South Africa.
So the UK is doing pretty well and is a decently safe place to live when you take into account the fact that there are 8 TIMES the amount of people occupying each square KM/mile.
Mr.S.Marbo
New member
Newspapers and people have used what happened to add \"weight\" to their views. People saying if the students were armed they could have defended themselves to those who have called for stricter gun controls.
All of this misses the fact that quite simply being a college / university student in the US is pretty safe. 27 million Americans attend college and of those less than a few dozen are killed by guns every year. The odds of you as a US student in any one year of getting killed by a gun are much less than 1 in 58,000. This compares to a chance of about 1 in 6050 that you will be killed in a car accident in any one year (NSC.org). Therefore I don\'t see that American students are at a big risk of gun violence and therefore I don\'t think they need to carry guns.
As for people who have said that there is less violent crime in the US than the UK I really don\'t think it\'s that easy to say that. Firstly the US definition of violent crime includes: \"murder and non negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault..... [and] violent crimes involve force or threat of force\". US crime data
I don\'t know exactly what \"aggravated assault\" is but still a quick look at the definition of \"violent crime \" in the UK UK crime data seems to include a lot more types of crime. For example the UK definition of \"violent crime\" includes a whole range of offences from murder to harassment, child neglect and abandonment, possession of weapons, death by certain driving offences, soliciting of women by men, endangering a railway passenger.... I could go on. A quick glance at the UK definition seems to show a much bigger amount of offences count as violent compared to the US definition (although I don\'t know what \"aggravated assault\" is... maybe it\'s a catch all for a huge diverse amount of offences??).
Also I couldn\'t find anywhere in the US data as to what all the US violent crimes resulted in. What percentage of them resulted in death or serious injury... what percentage resulted in no injury at all? I don\'t know. 84% of the UK violent crime was classed as \"less serious\", 49% resulted in no injury, and only 2% of UK violent crime resulted in the victim having to have a hospital stay. It looks to me that it\'s mostly drunken threats and punch ups that don\'t result in much injury (the UK alcohol fueled disorder and pub / football fighting). Therefore it\'s not that easy to say the UK has more violent crime than the US.
As for the gun debate, guns are a very dangerous product (like cars I guess) and therefore the fact that they are available is going to mean more people will be killed. They provide an easier method of killing and increase the chances of murder happening. (Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.) \"In reality, firearms violence stems not from \'guns in the wrong hands,\' but from the .... distribution of an inherently dangerous consumer product.\"
As for what happened, sadly I don\'t think it could have really been avoided.
All of this misses the fact that quite simply being a college / university student in the US is pretty safe. 27 million Americans attend college and of those less than a few dozen are killed by guns every year. The odds of you as a US student in any one year of getting killed by a gun are much less than 1 in 58,000. This compares to a chance of about 1 in 6050 that you will be killed in a car accident in any one year (NSC.org). Therefore I don\'t see that American students are at a big risk of gun violence and therefore I don\'t think they need to carry guns.
As for people who have said that there is less violent crime in the US than the UK I really don\'t think it\'s that easy to say that. Firstly the US definition of violent crime includes: \"murder and non negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault..... [and] violent crimes involve force or threat of force\". US crime data
I don\'t know exactly what \"aggravated assault\" is but still a quick look at the definition of \"violent crime \" in the UK UK crime data seems to include a lot more types of crime. For example the UK definition of \"violent crime\" includes a whole range of offences from murder to harassment, child neglect and abandonment, possession of weapons, death by certain driving offences, soliciting of women by men, endangering a railway passenger.... I could go on. A quick glance at the UK definition seems to show a much bigger amount of offences count as violent compared to the US definition (although I don\'t know what \"aggravated assault\" is... maybe it\'s a catch all for a huge diverse amount of offences??).
Also I couldn\'t find anywhere in the US data as to what all the US violent crimes resulted in. What percentage of them resulted in death or serious injury... what percentage resulted in no injury at all? I don\'t know. 84% of the UK violent crime was classed as \"less serious\", 49% resulted in no injury, and only 2% of UK violent crime resulted in the victim having to have a hospital stay. It looks to me that it\'s mostly drunken threats and punch ups that don\'t result in much injury (the UK alcohol fueled disorder and pub / football fighting). Therefore it\'s not that easy to say the UK has more violent crime than the US.
As for the gun debate, guns are a very dangerous product (like cars I guess) and therefore the fact that they are available is going to mean more people will be killed. They provide an easier method of killing and increase the chances of murder happening. (Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.) \"In reality, firearms violence stems not from \'guns in the wrong hands,\' but from the .... distribution of an inherently dangerous consumer product.\"
As for what happened, sadly I don\'t think it could have really been avoided.
fortunesfool
New member
Edited because I decided to check out your second link.
Hmmmmm...
-First it is wikipedia and therefore could be very, very wrong. But lets assume that it is right.
-The statistics provided are deliberately related to the homicide rate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people were killed by shooting, knifing, etc. The information could be skewed by a hundred different factors such as the NHS. It could even relate to the increased distances in the US. If you\'re shot in the UK, you\'re hospital tends to be a max of 30 minutes away (I know mine is 15 minutes away/less by ambulance). When I lived in the US it was much farther away. Actually now that I think of it, it could be down to the efficacy of the police departments. For the information to be included it has to be considered a homicide.
-Whoever collated this data felt an interesting need to subdivide it into regions in the UK and countries for the rest of the world. That seems slightly abnormal especially as it makes it difficult to create a clear picture of the homicide rate of the UK as a whole.
-The very beginning of the paper specifically states that the reliability of homicide rates may vary.
-There are quite a few years where no statistics are available in many different and supposedly random countries. An example is 2005. The only statistics for 2005 are from the US and Canada. This makes for patchy evaluation.
-The data in and of itself According to this it is providing the murder rates per 100,000 individuals in a given country.
2006
US=5.9
Switzerland=2.94
Scotland=2.56
UK=2.03
You\'re right in 2006 things do work out as you say. But if you go back into previous years Switzerland didn\'t begin to compete with the UK until 2001 at which point the number almost trebled. In the subsequent years they\'ve been roughly the same depending on how you choose to view the regional UK statistics provided.
As for your second link about population density. Okay. I\'m not going to argue with you about that.
I changed my mind. Not only is your link out of date but it doesn\'t take into account regional densities. From experience most of the UK tends to be LOTS of mid-sized towns (I could of course be wrong) where as the US runs the whole gamut. More importantly, I remember reading a bit of research which would be highly relevant to this discussion (unfortunateley I have no link as it was hardcopy). The research more or less compared the homicide levels, population densities, and levels of firearm registration in the US. The findings were roughly as follows:
1. There were huge levels of homicide in cities like Miami, St. Louis, etc. (i.e. cities of over a couple million individuals) These areas also happened to be the areas where the lowest level of legal gun registration was occurring.
2. Mid to low cities of population density had minimal homicides and high levels of legal gun registration.
Applying this research to the UK where most cities I\'ve seen are in the mid range could easily be an explanation for the lower levels of \"homicide\".
On an aside, I remember laughing as I compared the distribution charts for density and homicides with the last election results and found that the democrats were in charge of 90% of the areas which fit the high density/homicide profile. Not that I\'m a conservative or anything.
My opinion as for why the US has a higher incidence of homicide (as provided by your statistics) is simple:
money and stress.
The american populace has a much higher level of RELATIVE wealth compared to most of the rest of the world. Crime and money are intrinsically linked unfortunately.
Hmmmmm...
-First it is wikipedia and therefore could be very, very wrong. But lets assume that it is right.
-The statistics provided are deliberately related to the homicide rate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people were killed by shooting, knifing, etc. The information could be skewed by a hundred different factors such as the NHS. It could even relate to the increased distances in the US. If you\'re shot in the UK, you\'re hospital tends to be a max of 30 minutes away (I know mine is 15 minutes away/less by ambulance). When I lived in the US it was much farther away. Actually now that I think of it, it could be down to the efficacy of the police departments. For the information to be included it has to be considered a homicide.
-Whoever collated this data felt an interesting need to subdivide it into regions in the UK and countries for the rest of the world. That seems slightly abnormal especially as it makes it difficult to create a clear picture of the homicide rate of the UK as a whole.
-The very beginning of the paper specifically states that the reliability of homicide rates may vary.
-There are quite a few years where no statistics are available in many different and supposedly random countries. An example is 2005. The only statistics for 2005 are from the US and Canada. This makes for patchy evaluation.
-The data in and of itself According to this it is providing the murder rates per 100,000 individuals in a given country.
2006
US=5.9
Switzerland=2.94
Scotland=2.56
UK=2.03
You\'re right in 2006 things do work out as you say. But if you go back into previous years Switzerland didn\'t begin to compete with the UK until 2001 at which point the number almost trebled. In the subsequent years they\'ve been roughly the same depending on how you choose to view the regional UK statistics provided.
As for your second link about population density. Okay. I\'m not going to argue with you about that.
I changed my mind. Not only is your link out of date but it doesn\'t take into account regional densities. From experience most of the UK tends to be LOTS of mid-sized towns (I could of course be wrong) where as the US runs the whole gamut. More importantly, I remember reading a bit of research which would be highly relevant to this discussion (unfortunateley I have no link as it was hardcopy). The research more or less compared the homicide levels, population densities, and levels of firearm registration in the US. The findings were roughly as follows:
1. There were huge levels of homicide in cities like Miami, St. Louis, etc. (i.e. cities of over a couple million individuals) These areas also happened to be the areas where the lowest level of legal gun registration was occurring.
2. Mid to low cities of population density had minimal homicides and high levels of legal gun registration.
Applying this research to the UK where most cities I\'ve seen are in the mid range could easily be an explanation for the lower levels of \"homicide\".
On an aside, I remember laughing as I compared the distribution charts for density and homicides with the last election results and found that the democrats were in charge of 90% of the areas which fit the high density/homicide profile. Not that I\'m a conservative or anything.
My opinion as for why the US has a higher incidence of homicide (as provided by your statistics) is simple:
money and stress.
The american populace has a much higher level of RELATIVE wealth compared to most of the rest of the world. Crime and money are intrinsically linked unfortunately.
fortunesfool
New member
I still think the kid can take him.
Legacy Account
Active member
Money and stress? There are plenty of other comparably wealthy countries which have a far lower homicde rate.
I\'ll doubt it\'s the people with the money doing the killing anyway. I believe there\'s a HUGE disparity between the richest and the poorest in the US, with the rich and \'average\' becoming more prosperous over the last ten years, whilst those at the bottom end have actually become poorer. Same trend here in the UK. Crime is intrinsically linked with LACK of money!
Yes, there are lots of factors. Some of the figures seem to be irrfutable though. As for Wikipedia, at least they state their sources, which is more than most websites do....
fortunesfool
New member
Sorry if I came across as abrupt. Although Wikipedia is great, the fact that anyone can put up anything they want on there tends to decrease it\'s reliability as a source.
I think in response to your post I went into critical review mode (being a doctor you have to read through a lot of research. Most of it is crap and therefore you are forced to be critical, very critical). Oh well.
Either way, if I did come across as abrupt, I\'m sorry.
I still say the kid could still take him.
vincegamer
Active member
As to the accuracy of Wikipedia, a study was done in the journal Nature, where they compared science information on Wikipedia to that in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Wikipedia averaged 4 errors per article.
Britannica averaged 3.
Of course, as soon as the article was published Wikipedia corrected all identified errors. Britannica of course did not, so Wikipedia is now more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Time for a recap
For those of you just joining us, I\'d like to summarize the salient points made so far.
Side A
- Everyone should be armed, ideally with pocket-sized thermonuclear devices
- The US singlehandedly won both WW I and WW II
- Everyone should believe exactly as I do
- Everyone who doesn\'t believe exactly as I do should be shot.
Side B
- All guns and sharp objects should be confiscated and banned
- Western Culture - and America in particular - are the root cause of everything
- The American Constitution sucks
- The US did nothing useful in either WW I or WW II. In fact, the Welsh pretty much had the thing sewed up before they got there.
- Everything the US did manage to do, they did only for $$$
- Everyone should believe exactly as I do
- Everyone who doesn\'t believe exactly as I do should be ridiculed
PS - I hope I didn\'t leave anyone out. If you feel slighted, please let me know and I will try to offend you as well.
For those of you just joining us, I\'d like to summarize the salient points made so far.
Side A
- Everyone should be armed, ideally with pocket-sized thermonuclear devices
- The US singlehandedly won both WW I and WW II
- Everyone should believe exactly as I do
- Everyone who doesn\'t believe exactly as I do should be shot.
Side B
- All guns and sharp objects should be confiscated and banned
- Western Culture - and America in particular - are the root cause of everything
- The American Constitution sucks
- The US did nothing useful in either WW I or WW II. In fact, the Welsh pretty much had the thing sewed up before they got there.
- Everything the US did manage to do, they did only for $$$
- Everyone should believe exactly as I do
- Everyone who doesn\'t believe exactly as I do should be ridiculed
PS - I hope I didn\'t leave anyone out. If you feel slighted, please let me know and I will try to offend you as well.
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
Originally posted by dauber22
For those of you just joining us, I\'d like to summarize the salient points made so far.
Side A
- Everyone should be armed, ideally with pocket-sized thermonuclear devices
- The US singlehandedly won both WW I and WW II
- Everyone should believe exactly as I do
- Everyone who doesn\'t believe exactly as I do should be shot.
Side B
- All guns and sharp objects should be confiscated and banned
- Western Culture - and America in particular - are the root cause of everything
- The American Constitution sucks
- The US did nothing useful in either WW I or WW II. In fact, the Welsh pretty much had the thing sewed up before they got there.
- Everything the US did manage to do, they did only for $$$
- Everyone should believe exactly as I do
- Everyone who doesn\'t believe exactly as I do should be ridiculed
PS - I hope I didn\'t leave anyone out. If you feel slighted, please let me know and I will try to offend you as well.
so if I follow your thinking.....I should be ridiculed then shot... wow that is going to leave a mark.as a witch, yes I feel unloved and slighted.....get to it buster!!
lol:beer:edit: why yes I would like some Vikings ...send a long ship full over to the Freak Bar. lol
funnymouth
Active member
side Z
screw this! im headed to the freak bar for a drink.
screw this! im headed to the freak bar for a drink.
