12-Yr-Old with an AK

[Luther]

That's the problem. In Australia. We must have a lockable gun cabinet, or a gun safe. Seems a very logical idea to me.

No, thieves are the problem

 

[coco]

No, thieves are the problem

 

[coco]

No, thieves are the problem

If there is no thieves, then there is no problem. Are you all there?

 

[Luther]

If there is no thieves, then there is no problem. Are you all there?

Me thinks thieves are way... more abundant than AK-47's laying around (wink)

Are you all there?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Did I say that? I said it wouldn't affect me, as I keep mine secured anyway. That aside, I'm not sure it is a good idea to criminalize every sort of behavior someone or other can think of.

Maybe. But with the gun epidemic going on in this country, starting somewhere, anywhere would be a good start.

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe. But with the gun epidemic going on in this country, starting somewhere, anywhere would be a good start.

the WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING nonsense. when the liberals start supporting enforcement of laws that actually punish HARMFUL behavior, maybe we will listen to lefties who want to penalize behavior that is not objectively harmful. But I suspect not because harassing honest gun owners is the leftwing agenda-not incarcerating violent felons

 

[coco]

Me thinks thieves are way... more abundant than AK-47's laying around (wink)

Are you all there?

The

the WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING nonsense. when the liberals start supporting enforcement of laws that actually punish HARMFUL behavior, maybe we will listen to lefties who want to penalize behavior that is not objectively harmful. But I suspect not because harassing honest gun owners is the leftwing agenda-not incarcerating violent felons

That's your favorite excuse. Nonsense, unlocked guns don't kill people. Oh that's right. If there in a house they are deemed as locked up. Hilarious.

 

[calamity]

the WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING nonsense. when the liberals start supporting enforcement of laws that actually punish HARMFUL behavior, maybe we will listen to lefties who want to penalize behavior that is not objectively harmful. But I suspect not because harassing honest gun owners is the leftwing agenda-not incarcerating violent felons

I see no reason to object to stringent background checks. Besides, banning certain guns has been shown to be effective. We see that with the machine gun restrictions. Very few mass shootings involve the use of the M16 or Tommy Gun. Also, very few people use a suppressor while committing murder, another highly restricted gun accessory.

Gun control works.

 

[SMTA]

Trouble is no law says he can't have the AK lying on a coffee table...or up in the attic in some box or other. Thanks NRA.

NRA my ass.
It's my house, and I'll leave anything laying around that I want.

 

[coco]

I see no reason to object to stringent background checks. Besides, banning certain guns has been shown to be effective. We see that with the machine gun restrictions. Very few mass shootings involve the use of the M16 or Tommy Gun. Also, very few people use a suppressor while committing murder, another highly restricted gun accessory.

Gun control works.

The Tommy gun was an amazing gun for its time. The prohibition of alcohol made it the deadliest gun of its time back in the 1920's. After all this time only the AK 47 comes close to its rate of fire. But most importantly the weight of the bullet. Just for you gun nuts, the AK shell holds 53 % more grain than the AR 15. That means a much bigger bang. The bullet is also 13 grams heavier. That's the difference between a bullet hole, and no arm at all.

 

[SMTA]

I see no reason to object to stringent background checks. Besides, banning certain guns has been shown to be effective. We see that with the machine gun restrictions. Very few mass shootings involve the use of the M16 or Tommy Gun. Also, very few people use a suppressor while committing murder, another highly restricted gun accessory.

Gun control works.

Nope.
Those items are cost-prohibitive for most folks.

 

[calamity]

Nope.
Those items are cost-prohibitive for most folks.

lol...that would be a result of gun control. Sheesh.

 

[coco]

NRA my ass.
It's my house, and I'll leave anything laying around that I want.

In Australia, we need gun lockers. If they break into our locked locker then we are not to blame. But if the gun is not secured, then we are to blame for the consequences.

 

[calamity]

The Tommy gun was an amazing gun for its time. The prohibition of alcohol made it the deadliest gun of its time back in the 1920's. After all this time only the AK 47 comes close to its rate of fire. But most importantly the weight of the bullet. Just for you gun nuts, the AK shell holds 53 % more grain than the AR 15. That means a much bigger bang. The bullet is also 13 grams heavier. That's the difference between a bullet hole, and no arm at all.

Fully automatic AK-47's are illegal in the US.

 

[SMTA]

lol...that would be a result of gun control. Sheesh.

Nope.
Supply and demand.

 

[SMTA]

In Australia, we need gun lockers. If they break into our locked locker then we are not to blame. But if the gun is not secured, then we are to blame for the consequences.

Good idea.

 

[calamity]

Nope.
Supply and demand.

lol...and what government action limits the supply? Sheesh.

 

[coco]

Fully automatic AK-47's are illegal in the US.

I know. Any fully auto is not allowed. But semi's are still very, very dangerous.
They work on the premise that as quickly as the trigger is pulled, a bullet will follow.
And have they got to the bottom of bump stocks? That is what killed all those poor people in Las vegas.

 

[RF667799]

Maybe. But with the gun epidemic going on in this country, starting somewhere, anywhere would be a good start.

Fine, let's start by banning ice cream trucks.


You said "starting somewhere anywhere."

 

[The AntiDonald]

Fine, let's start by banning ice cream trucks.


You said "starting somewhere anywhere."

Go ahead, you ban ice cream trucks, I don't eat ice cream as I am a diabetic.

At what amount of gun saturation in the US do YOU think we should start doing something?

 

[RF667799]

Go ahead, you ban ice cream trucks, I don't eat ice cream as I am a diabetic.

At what amount of gun saturation in the US do YOU think we should start doing something?

You don't care if ice cream trucks are banned, because you have no interest in or personal use for ice cream trucks.

I notice that exact thing on the part of people who call for gun bans.

I don't believe in the idea of "excess guns", as I spoke of in another thread. People don't kill other people because yet another party has more guns than you think is proper.

 

[SMTA]

lol...and what government action limits the supply? Sheesh.

The government does not control production of private companies.

 

[calamity]

The government does not control production of private companies.

Yeah, companies are known for manufacturing millions of pieces of an item that government restricts people from purchasing. Think.

 

[SMTA]

Yeah, companies are known for manufacturing millions of pieces of an item that government restricts people from purchasing. Think.

Not millions. You think.
Demand is low as is supply.
Drives price up.

 

[calamity]

Not millions. You think.
Demand is low as is supply.
Drives price up.

Low demand never drives up price...lol. Low supply does, however.

Now, an argument could be made that low demand results in an artificially low supply. After all, why manufacture things no one wants to buy? That low supply then would drive up the price for the few people interested in buying said item. And, that gets us back to the beginning.

Gun control works.