|
Post by aboveathletics on Jul 11, 2010 0:10:36 GMT -5
Fun fact: Nunchaku are illegal to carry in public in my state, despite the fact that they are literally just two sticks tied together with a short length of string (or chain) and do less damage that a baseball bat. Fun fact: Silencers are not regulated in any way in Finland. Some people say silencers are only good for assassination, but they actually have the potential to greatly reduce hearing loss in gun ranges. I don't see why we can't use them at least for that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 11, 2010 0:17:21 GMT -5
Because as with any weapon, the potential for misuse is far greater than the benefits of replacing a 50 cent pair of ear plugs.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Jul 11, 2010 0:26:16 GMT -5
Silencers, or suppressors, are not really that effective at silencing a gunshot. I mean, it's better than nothing, but not something to put your trust in for anything.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 11, 2010 1:23:09 GMT -5
Given that the decibel scale is logarithmic, and silencers cut out like 40 or 50 decibels from a gunshot, I'd say that that's "pretty effective". But it's not like in movies, it's true, and the resulting sound is still like 110-120 decibels for a handgun, more than enough to cause permanent hearing damage. Which I assume is basically what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jul 11, 2010 1:42:33 GMT -5
I'm an atheist and self-described gun nut. I love guns in damn near all their forms and I have no problem with responsible people owning them. I'm actually fine with the current federal gun laws. I don't mind people being able to own semiautomatic firearms and I don't mind then even being able to own .50 caliber rifles for the simple reason that the rifles cost more than a year's minimum wage pay and a crate of 120 rounds of .50 BMG ammo can sell for as much as $620 dollars (I'm not kidding) so the chances of the average thug using one is extremely low. Of course, anything over a .50 is just retarded. Yes, I know you want a rifle that can shoot a 20mm round, Joe-Bob but let me ask you; just how small is your penis, anyway? AK-47 and M16 style rifles I'm also comfortable with, so long as they are limited to semi-auto only. They just look really scary. Now, do I think people should be able to own flame throwers, tanks, full-auto weapons, and grenade launchers? Well, as I said, I'm comfortable with the current laws which mark them as Class 3 Destructive Devices and make you jump through legal and financial hoops to be able to own them to the point that only the stupidly wealthy can afford them and requires them to be locked up. Do I support the idea of mandatory gun safes and trigger locks? No, actually. Because a good thief can sometimes get through the safe (or steal it outright) and once they have your gun they'll be able to take their time getting the trigger lock off. And if I need to get to my weapon, I don't want to have to fumble with getting a trigger lock off or a safe door open when time is a real factor. So, like I said, I like guns and I'm just fine with the laws that are currently enforced on a federal level.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jul 11, 2010 2:18:57 GMT -5
Those are terrible weapons. Unless you have spent years training with them, nunchaku are often worse than no weapon. Even if you HAVE been training that long you're probably just as good with your fists and feet. That being said, it is extremely amusing to watch morons who hold a mistaken belief that they are Bruce Lee whack themselves in the testicles. Oh, absolutely. It's just an extreme example of the inconsistency of weapon laws. Often times things are banned or heavily regulated that are less dangerous than things that are legal.
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Jul 11, 2010 6:03:47 GMT -5
Silencers, or suppressors, are not really that effective at silencing a gunshot. I mean, it's better than nothing, but not something to put your trust in for anything. Whether a gun is "silenced" or not depends if subsonic ammunition is used in combination with the suppressor. Granted, subsonic ammunition doesn't have the distance or penetration of standard ammo, but it is mostly reliable in being stealth. On the flip side, a suppressor with standard ammo is often used to merely hide the location of the shooter. It supposedly spreads the sound around so it sounds like it is coming from multiple angles, and it hides the flash of the barrel. In terms of silence, it may even silence it enough that the enemy may think it was just someone's car exhaust.
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Jul 11, 2010 8:13:34 GMT -5
Oh, absolutely. It's just an extreme example of the inconsistency of weapon laws. Often times things are banned or heavily regulated that are less dangerous than things that are legal. Never underestimate the stupidity of laws made to appease the concerned mothers.
|
|
|
Post by katz on Jul 11, 2010 9:07:08 GMT -5
Guns are awesome.
I wish I could get a handgun for target shooting at the moment, but they're super hard to get in Canada. You can only get a concealed carry permit if you are 1) a retired cop, or 2) actually in mortal danger from someone.
|
|
|
Post by safaraz on Jul 11, 2010 10:06:08 GMT -5
I am religious (Neo-Pagan) and British, and I tend to think that America's laws on gun control are ludicrous. If you are a farmer/hunter then I understand why you need shot guns/rifles but why normal people living in cities need firearms and pistols is just mental to my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 11, 2010 10:19:14 GMT -5
Oh, absolutely. It's just an extreme example of the inconsistency of weapon laws. Often times things are banned or heavily regulated that are less dangerous than things that are legal. Never underestimate the stupidity of laws made to appease the concerned mothers. The Brady Bill is a perfect example. I've seen people credit it for lowering crime, though crime was already on the fall before the ban was passed. It really stopped nothing, the banned weapons already on store shelves and in the US remained unaffected except their price went up, while manufacturers just made cosmetic enhancements mostly to get by it all. Case in point, I owned a completely legal Yugo SKS bought well after the ban was in effect. How it went from legal to evil with the addition of a pistol grip is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Jul 11, 2010 14:17:41 GMT -5
The Brady Bill is a perfect example. I've seen people credit it for lowering crime, though crime was already on the fall before the ban was passed. It really stopped nothing, the banned weapons already on store shelves and in the US remained unaffected except their price went up, while manufacturers just made cosmetic enhancements mostly to get by it all. Case in point, I owned a completely legal Yugo SKS bought well after the ban was in effect. How it went from legal to evil with the addition of a pistol grip is beyond me. The best part is that the morons who wrote that law actually thought that it would stop gun manufacturers from making evil black rifles. You could circumvent the AWB with a hack saw.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 11, 2010 14:21:51 GMT -5
The Brady Bill is a perfect example. I misread that as "The Brady Bunch" and was like "whaaa?"
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jul 11, 2010 14:52:17 GMT -5
A quick back-story: My neighbor, a pretty hard-core Christian, recently declared that Atheists were " gun-scared Liberals who would make us bow down to the first gunmen we see." .... I think that first line sums it up for me. The guys like this neighbor all seem to have a similar line when it comes to politics and guns. They accuse the ones they don't like (liberals or anyone who thinks there should be at least some gun control) of fearing guns.. and in that very same sentence make a fear based rational for owning a gun. The guy who led the campaign for concealed weapons in Missouri did a similar line, saying that people who opposed him were just afraid of guns.. and that he needed guns to protect his wife from the inevitable rapist that was going to sneak into their house any day now. So maybe it's just me but this whole spiel that Liberals are afraid of guns might be projection. Personally while I don't like guns (and it has nothing to do with my religion) I don't think we should outlaw them. But I also think that if one has a gun to protect you from criminals or the government, it's little more then a security blanket, a way of giving you the illusion of power and control. Cons seem to base so many of their decisions on fear, maybe they just assume everybody else does as well.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 11, 2010 15:25:51 GMT -5
Cons seem to base so many of their decisions on fear, maybe they just assume everybody else does as well. I found an article, about a small study, that seems to back this up. Granted, there are definite flaws in the thing (like having so little people and it being a tiny geographic region), but yeah, still posting it. www.denverpost.com/politicswestnews/ci_10503487?source=bb
|
|