CekcHD wrote This doen
Nt effect me, i am a trained killer by working with the military as a sharp shooter. And sharp shooter trainer.

But they do have a right to take all guns away. Even after the bear arms all weapons should be for military only.(cops,army,navy,etc)

Just by your grammar I can tell that you most likely aren't a "sharp shooter". LOL My dad is in the army he's retiring this october after 22 years. If you really were a "sharp shooter" you would have specified your branch in services... Army, Navy etc. There is no such thing as a sharp shooter, you spend too much time playing video games....

Bipedal_Feline wrote

Bipedal_Feline wrote
The weapon used in the shooting, the assault machine gun known as the ar15 (stands for "Apfel Reich" in German which translates to "baby killer" in English), was specifically designed by the Nazis to mow down infants with ease, however even Hitler found it a weapon too evil to arm his troops with, and exiled the design and its creator from Germany, never to return. The design was then bought by the communist and convicted pedophile Eugene Stoner, who added capabilities such as the ability to take assault drum clips capable of holding up to 200 heat seeking 30mm shells or 50 small nuclear warheads capable of levelling 12 kindergartens at once.

Why would you want such an evil weapon to be in the hands of civilians?

How and the hell is the gun evil. It isn't the civilian is the evil one. The gun is nothing but a tool. It's like a hammer you don't need one every day but you still need one around for good measure.

CekcHD wrote This doen
Nt effect me, i am a trained killer by working with the military as a sharp shooter. And sharp shooter trainer.

But they do have a right to take all guns away. Even after the bear arms all weapons should be for military only.(cops,army,navy,etc)

This is a no. They do not have any right to take our guns unless we commit a crime with said gun. We deserve the right to protect our self from criminals that have illegal military guns. Giving guns only to military and cops, we would be in big trouble. There is a thing called dirty cops and military as well. They sell these guns to people on the street for excellent profit, the black market. You will make things worse if you take out the counter action to that, which is law abiding citizens having guns as well. At least we have that slim chance to stop what happens out there. Without them, guns come in illegally and take over.

r00t_b33r wrote

-Liiam- wrote i live in Ireland and most guns are illeagal or have resteaints on them like a handgun can have a max amount of 8 bullets per clip magazine i think dont quote me on that and the ones that are legal are weak as f*ck

If you're going to have heavy gun control laws, this is the proper way to do it. You don't need a large magazine or a battle rifle for civilian self-defense. As I said before and people who know their stuff will often agree, five rounds is the most you could possibly need for self-defense. Nor do you need a huge round to stop an attacker. The .22 LR round will kill you just as dead as a .50 BMG. Of course, there are plenty of other things to take into account when comparing calibers.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

A .22 caliber isn't sufficent for self defense. You would need a larger caliber. Like maybe the .38,.40, or the .45. Sure a .22 could kill someone but it would you really want a .22 in a life or death situation?

SovietRussia wrote

r00t_b33r wrote

-Liiam- wrote i live in Ireland and most guns are illeagal or have resteaints on them like a handgun can have a max amount of 8 bullets per clip magazine i think dont quote me on that and the ones that are legal are weak as f*ck

If you're going to have heavy gun control laws, this is the proper way to do it. You don't need a large magazine or a battle rifle for civilian self-defense. As I said before and people who know their stuff will often agree, five rounds is the most you could possibly need for self-defense. Nor do you need a huge round to stop an attacker. The .22 LR round will kill you just as dead as a .50 BMG. Of course, there are plenty of other things to take into account when comparing calibers.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

A .22 caliber isn't sufficent for self defense. You would need a larger caliber. Like maybe the .38,.40, or the .45. Sure a .22 could kill someone but it would you really want a .22 in a life or death situation?

I agree. You would need a lot more than one shot from a .22 to kill someone. Even if you hit them in the head it may take 2 or 3. And a .50 BMG is a very impractical round considering it costs about $6 per round, and the rifle itself is upwards of $5,000.

For self defense I prefer a .45 Sig Sauer.

Cyx wrote But in the UK, where no-one has a gun, no-one gets shot because no-one has a gun...

Yes but if someone came up to your town with a gun and all the Law enforcers weren't around what would you do ?

Zir wrote

Straight-Edge wrote

AtH1337 wrote You know what? I really think that legalizing them would do more harm than good because if people from the Ghetto can just go out and buy a gun like that then crime rates will definitely increase. Legalizing them would not only increase crime rates, but it would put the police at a disadvantage when in a combat situation.

There are some positives, like it may become a whole new business and may help citizens defend themselves, but honestly I think it would probably do more damage in the long run and would INCREASE the amount of murders that happen in the U.S.

So, no, I don't want firearms to be legalized. I think people should have to have extensive training and no criminal record to even fathom owning a gun.

They are already legalized. What is illegal right now are military grade and automatic weapons. This discusssion is about them illegalizing single shot and semi-auto rifles and pistols. The type of guns usually shown in the Ghetto, like the Uzi, are illegal which in itself proves the point that if they want guns, they will get them. I doubt they are as easy to obtain as seen on TV but people can still obtain them.

Everything you just said is not true. Fully automatic weapons are legal as long as the one's you own were manufactured before 1986. But they cost anywhere from $10,000 up. And you have to through a lot paper work.

You have to go through criminal and mental background checks,You have to be a law abiding citizen ,you have to have the cash to spend. On top of all of this you have to pay a tax on full autos. Trust me it isn't illegal in my state.

Cyx wrote But in the UK, where no-one has a gun, no-one gets shot because no-one has a gun...

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ] Nuff said.

SovietRussia wrote

r00t_b33r wrote

-Liiam- wrote i live in Ireland and most guns are illeagal or have resteaints on them like a handgun can have a max amount of 8 bullets per clip magazine i think dont quote me on that and the ones that are legal are weak as f*ck

If you're going to have heavy gun control laws, this is the proper way to do it. You don't need a large magazine or a battle rifle for civilian self-defense. As I said before and people who know their stuff will often agree, five rounds is the most you could possibly need for self-defense. Nor do you need a huge round to stop an attacker. The .22 LR round will kill you just as dead as a .50 BMG. Of course, there are plenty of other things to take into account when comparing calibers.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

A .22 caliber isn't sufficent for self defense. You would need a larger caliber. Like maybe the .38,.40, or the .45. Sure a .22 could kill someone but it would you really want a .22 in a life or death situation?

I'd bet my life on a Ruger P22 or SW M&P22 any day of the week and against the same threats for which I'd carry another handgun.

I also used the two calibers because they're at both ends of the spectrum. I'm not attesting to the practicality of the .50. A single .22 LR round to the head will kill you.

r00t_b33r wrote

SovietRussia wrote

r00t_b33r wrote

-Liiam- wrote i live in Ireland and most guns are illeagal or have resteaints on them like a handgun can have a max amount of 8 bullets per clip magazine i think dont quote me on that and the ones that are legal are weak as f*ck

If you're going to have heavy gun control laws, this is the proper way to do it. You don't need a large magazine or a battle rifle for civilian self-defense. As I said before and people who know their stuff will often agree, five rounds is the most you could possibly need for self-defense. Nor do you need a huge round to stop an attacker. The .22 LR round will kill you just as dead as a .50 BMG. Of course, there are plenty of other things to take into account when comparing calibers.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

A .22 caliber isn't sufficent for self defense. You would need a larger caliber. Like maybe the .38,.40, or the .45. Sure a .22 could kill someone but it would you really want a .22 in a life or death situation?

I'd bet my life on a Ruger P22 or SW M&P22 any day of the week and against the same threats for which I'd carry another handgun.

I also used the two calibers because they're at both ends of the spectrum. I'm not attesting to the practicality of the .50. A single .22 LR round to the head will kill you.

Not saying I don't agree with you, but for self defense I prefer a .45 or a 9mm. However I do think with hitting someone in the right place you could easily take them down with a .22 LR. Same with the .50 BMG, although I'm pretty sure it could rip your head off.