[civilian_number_two]

Ok Deucaon, you have convinced me that I was correct that explosives are not used in home invasions. Explosives as terrorist tools would not be deterred by assault rifles. I would not go to WalMart any more than I do now (I never go to WalMart) if I knew that the minimum-wage emplyees were carrying or had at the ready assault rifles should some shit go down. As for liquor, jewlry and convenience stores, I don't want those people firing random rounds into the air either. I prefer the policy of letting the guy rob you over the one of filling the air with heated projectile metals. I prefer this because I ma not a fan of collateral damage. The only way to be effective with the assault rifle in defence, really, is either already to have it ready (this is ridiculous) or to fire at the backs of the perps after they have left, peacefully or otherwise (this is outraeous).

You have not convinced me that assault rifles are used in home invasions. I remember that one in MILLER'S CROSSING when Albert Finney killed those goons with a Tommy gun, but I'm not sure if that counts cause he was a gangster.

All this business about close-quartered combat brings us to the heart of the matter. Do you really think this is what your country is dealing with? Urban war zones where common citizens must go about armed or die? Are there only three types of people in the world, heroes, villains, and victims? I have never heard of a scenario like the one you're imagining and presenting with military terminology.

Questions: what sort of gun do you have in your home for protection? Have you ever needed it for protection in your home? Do you feel it is adequate?

PS: some of your examples of explosives use involved home-made bombs. Maybe they all did; I don't feel like looking into it. The villains didn't have hand-grenades or land mines. If the only assault rifles out there were homemade ones, I would have to live with that. In general, the argument that if you outlaw something, then only outlaws will have it is an emotional and irrational one. Don't force me to mention that if you outlaw rape then only criminals will commit it. Gun control has reduced the rate of crime, despite hysterical fearmongering. The stats frequently cited don't contextualise the numbers, and they universally display raw numbers rather than rates compared with population sizes and poverty rates. Also, Dodge City.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 22 May 2008 - 01:33 PM
Reason for edit:: added PS

[J m HofMarN]

Why would anyone in their right mind be put off with people defending their place of business with assault rifles? I mean if they did that then it would be a safer place to shop.

Here's why. This is what I would say if the store I was in had just been robbed:

"Hey, I just got back from the store and the place got robbed. It was kind of worrying til the criminals left. I think the police caught up to them about an hour ago."

And this is what I'd say if I was in a store where the employees and criminals got into a massive fire fight:

"Grgh... Hurk.... Blurble..." That's the sound of me wheezing out my last dying breaths because I'm full of bullets from an automatic weapon wielded by a nineteen year old convenience store clerk with no idea how to operate it, and also some bullets from another kid who couldnt tell the difference between me and the clerk thanks to the panties over his head.

I thought to add anti abortionist bombings and KKK terror bombings but I thought those 3 examples would suffice.

The point is every time a bomb is detonated its big news and the purpetrator is almost always caught. If bombs were legal for self defense there would be more suspects, more incidents, investigations would take longer, and fewer culprits would be caught as a result.

People don't use explosives so often because weapons are more accurate and easier to use. You cant do a drive by shooting or rob a persons property with explosives.

No. People dont use explosives often because they're hard to get. Grenades are ideal to toss out while driving and anyone who wants to rob a bank can strap tnt to themselves and threaten to detonate if not given the cash. But this is very difficult due to the lack of availability.

So have a maximum of 15 rounds per clip is the same as having a maximum of 30 rounds per clip? Do you think... that a pistol round can penetrate walls/debris just as effectively as a rifle round?

This isn't Halo here. You can drop someone with one round either from an assault rifle or from a pistol. And it isnt a Flood ship whose walls you'd be shooting through, it's your own home filled with family and posessions. A lengthy fire fight using automatic weapons is not something you want.

And shooting through walls? Great idea.

-Footsteps from the hallway-

Sleeping Husband: Hmmm? What's that noise? IT'S AN ASSAILANT! OPEN FIRE THROUGH THE WALL WITH NO CHANCE OF VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TARGET!

-Body drops to the floor-

Bleeding Wife: God damn it Ernest! Every time I get up for a glass of water this happens!

Ask any gun owner and they'll tell you that the difference between who is dead and who is the victor has nothing to do with the size or fire rate of the gun, but of the skill and training of the combatants. The gun is just a tool, so its features are largely inconsequential. If you see a guy breaking into your home and you can fire off a round accurately before he does, it doesn't matter if he's carrying a butter knife or a bazooka, you still killed him.

The scenario requires the criminal to have an assault rifle, a submachine gun or a shotgun because regardless which they have they would still have an edge in close range over a person who carries a pistol or rifle.

Youre turning this into some sort of combat situation, working under the assumption that the goal of the criminal is to kill the occupants of the house. This is incorrect. Half the time if a criminal even sees an unarmed person they're going to get the hell out of there. Most criminals don't break into a house expecting world war 3. They indeed try to seek out unoccupied houses. And if I meant to snatch stuff from a house with no one in it, why would I bring a cumbersome assault rifle?

I didn't realise that an assault rifle required a full auto feature for it to be classified as an assault rifle.

I said that this solution is a cop out, and I stand by that. And if it still looks the same, that just causes even more problems for the police force to try to guess whether an assault rifle is a legal type or an illegal type.

I knew that the minimum-wage emplyees were carrying or had at the ready assault rifles should some shit go down

You really have a way of evoking the horror of the situation. Angsty underpaid high school kids with assault rifles is not my idea of a good consumer experience. I'd go and ask for my usual bacon cheeseburger hold the mustard, and then a shudder of terror would pass through me as my pimply executioner revealed that, yes, special orders really do upset us.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 22 May 2008 - 09:15 PM

[Casual]

Duacon all I can say is that it deeply worries me that you think you need an assault rifle firing armour piercing rounds through walls to protect your family, with that sort of attitude you're far more likely to accidentally kill them than protect them. And where exactly do you live that your expecting assault rifle and explosive wielding criminals to burst into your house and purposefully try to kill you, seriously is it Baghdad or Belgrade? If not then you're massively overreacting. The situation you're describing sounds more like a mob hit form the Sopranos than an actual burglary.

[Dr Lecter]

I can totally see where he's coming from now... clearly you need fully automatic assault rifles, to defend yourself. I mean, how often do you come home from work, and see the entire cast of The Godfather in your house nicking your TV? Are you saying I should call the cops or shoot each of them one by one? Hell no, assault rifle the bastards. You don't even need to aim!

[J m HofMarN]

[Don Corleone]"I nevah knew until now... it was Deuacon all along."[/Don Corleone]

[Jordan]

I actually know a kid from highschool, whose dad was killed in the night from a burglar. I never got the full story, only his close friends probably did, and I would never ask, but apparently he went downstairs with a baseball bat, after calling the cops, to defend his family. He was stabbed to death by two guys.

If he had a hand gun or hunting rifle, he'd probably been more successful. Not sure if a full out assualt rifle would have been needed had he owned a legal gun. (are hand guns legal in Alberta?)

Same guy lost his cousin to a swimming accident, lots of tragdegy in that family. But any how, I don't think an assault rifle is needed unless you're going up against an assault rifle. Most burglars probably go in with a knife or hand gun at most. I'd say the vast majority go in with nothing, they sneak in, if they get caught they book it like a bat out of hell.

[Deucaon]

Duacon all I can say is that it deeply worries me that you think you need an assault rifle firing armour piercing rounds through walls to protect your family, with that sort of attitude you're far more likely to accidentally kill them than protect them. And where exactly do you live that your expecting assault rifle and explosive wielding criminals to burst into your house and purposefully try to kill you, seriously is it Baghdad or Belgrade? If not then you're massively overreacting. The situation you're describing sounds more like a mob hit form the Sopranos than an actual burglary.

Fighting off a criminal wielding a submachine gun, shotgun or assault rifle with a pistol or rifle is not smart in close quarters. Having an assault rifle which doesn't have a full auto feature and fires AP rounds produces less collateral then a shotgun in close quarters. If ever third house has an assault rifle then criminals would think twice before attacking that house.

[civilian_number_two]

Fighting off a criminal wielding a submachine gun, shotgun or assault rifle with a pistol or rifle is not smart in close quarters. Having an assault rifle which doesn't have a full auto feature and fires AP rounds produces less collateral then a shotgun in close quarters. If ever third house has an assault rifle then criminals would think twice before attacking that house.

Could you cite any actual source on these conclusions? Because it seems you're just assrting that without assault rifles we are at the mercy of the assault-rifle-wielding zombie hordes. Are you sure that the exact ratio is "every third house?" Because I read that when this was tried on the Mars colony, they went with every third house, and we haven't heard from them in 16 years. Maybe every second house would have been better. Or maybe, just maybe, they should have had motion-sensor lasers and landmines.

[Dr Lecter]

Psh, if there's an assault rifle in every third house, all they have to do is find a house with one in, then rob the next two, leave the third, rob the next two, etc.

[J m HofMarN]

Fighting off a criminal wielding a submachine gun, shotgun or assault rifle with a pistol or rifle is not smart in close quarters.

What if the criminal is wielding a dog with bees in its mouth and when it barks it shoots bees?

Having an assault rifle which doesn't have a full auto feature and fires AP rounds produces less collateral then a shotgun in close quarters.

How do you figure? If youre firing armor piercing shells inside your own home, isnt it likely those shells will penetrate one or more walls, tearing into rooms that are, if you're willing to consider the possibility, NOT occupied by blood thirsty assault rifle wielding hordes of marauding pirates, but by wife, kids, or lovable pooch?

Also, your continual use of close quarters terminology is getting to be suspect. I can see why an assault rifle might be useful for sweeping a room of hostiles, but most criminals are not out to do this. Also, we must assume that the home owner is conscious and ready to defend himself, so wouldnt he have his hand gun or rifle aimed at the door, ready to fire the moment the criminal entered? Wouldnt such an easy shot require just one bullet?

Maybe if there were four criminals, or they were ex army rangers, there would be a need for a more powerful rapid fire weapon. But criminals usually work solo to maximize profits, they usually dont go armed since they figure houses will be empty, and they usually have little to no experience with automatic weapons. Criminals are not expert marksmen.

And is an assault rifle only useful for battling the zombie hordes if they attack you at close range? What about long range combat? Getting to work each day I have to take out two enemy pill boxes, pass a minefield, and dodge a sniper in a bell tower. What would be the best self defense weapon for me? Working in 1944 Normandy is kind of a bitch sometimes, but the pay is right.

If ever third house has an assault rifle then criminals would think twice before attacking that house.

No, they'd just wait til three thirds of the cars in the driveway of that third house were gone, break in, and steal the assault rifle along with any other valuables. Then a third of criminals would have assault rifles and MAYBE your logic for having assault rifles for self defense would be justified.

Maybe I'm wrong. You used the term "attack" not break in. However if some guys are being sent to whack you in your house, they're probably used to people having guns because they're proffessional killers. The fact that you have an automatic weapon will not deter people whose job it is to go kill you. They have guns too, and probably pick axes as well.

Rather than just giving up, the only effect will be that they'll ask Dutch Shultz for more money, saying that "We hear this guy is a real tornado." And then Dutch is all "We live in inflationary fuckin' times."

Jordan- I'm sorry to hear that. I definately wouldnt have a problem with someone owning a hand gun or rifle. It's true one of those might have saved his life. Also he might have just called the police and stayed in the room. But this debate has long since cast aside the need for factual anectdotes, and we're now largely just talking about our favorite gangster/war movies, and what kind of weapon would be most useful in them.

But any how, I don't think an assault rifle is needed unless you're going up against an assault rifle. Most burglars probably go in with a knife or hand gun at most. I'd say the vast majority go in with nothing, they sneak in, if they get caught they book it like a bat out of hell.

One of thsoe rare occasions when we're in complete agreement. However it's not really us who are agreeing so much as reality, so I dont suppose it counts.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 25 May 2008 - 01:28 PM

[civilian_number_two]

My bioweapons division is working on taming a species we found in one of our colonies. Pretty soon those assault-rifle-wielding thugs will have more than they bargained for.

[Casual]

Is there an assault rifle wielding gene for you to target? If so they're fucked.

[Dr Lecter]

So... if the IRA had pipe bombs... why weren't we allowed pipe to defend ourselves? Damn fucking communist British government we had under Thatcher. Next they'll be going back on their word to legalise tactical nukes...

[J m HofMarN]

I'm going to assume that Deuacon was mowed down in a hail of bullets by a dozen attackers who were after his car stereo. Therefore the gun control side wins by default.

[Deucaon]

Believe what you want. NOBODIES GONNA TAKE AWAY MI BABI!

*strokes AK-47*

Even if they take away mi babi I will still have the SVT-40 to hold and cherish... maybe I could even modify it to take AK clips... yes... I can see it now... the future will be an interesting period of time.