Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Even if you're pro-guns, why on earth are automatic rifles available in America? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    As long as the safe is in the bedroom, you can do it without alerting the intruder, and the fact that you have challenged an armed intruder, rather than just let them take your TV, doesn't lead to a firefight that results in the deaths of your children .
    I don't have children and don't routinely go around aiming guns in their general direction. No-one said anything about an intruder being armed, but yes - while that would obviously made the situation far, far more dangerous, I'd probably rather have a gun than not in it.

    Ultimately I'd rather not have someone break into my home - and even if they did, I'd rather not have to point a gun at them, but I can undoubtedly see why in some circumstances it would be valuable.

    So you agree that the "protection" and "safety" arguments are fallacious.
    Not in the least - feel free to read on to what I said after the section you've quoted for the reasons behind that. I've pointed out I'm largely frustrated with the inability of many people who post in these sort of threads to make a remotely balanced argument - it seems to either be gun-totin' types who want to turn Britain into the United States, or people who seem to think that guns don't serve any purpose and make spurious arguments that they should all be banned. I'm in the middle, and feel rather isolated by this sort of silly rhetoric.

    So, remind me how that's working out in the US?
    It's happening pretty well in the UK. We don't generally licence guns for personal protection in Great Britain at least - in Northern Ireland it's rather different, and that's fair enough. However if you were to ask me if someone was in my home, would I rather have a gun stored in my wardrobe than not then the answer would be a very resounding yes.

    If I was to own a gun (and I've never done so myself - as I've said, I grew up in the countryside and they were a fairly common feature in my life) then would I make sure I knew how to use it safely and take every precaution against accidents that I could? Of course, and I think everyone who has one should. Unfortunately they often don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Automatic rifles are not available for sale you liar

    Why do lie to further your agenda?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ESPORTIVA LUTA)
    Automatic rifles are not available for sale you liar

    Why do lie to further your agenda?
    Yes they are. The AR-15 for instance is an automatic rifle as the firearm automatically cycles rounds between trigger pulls. It is not fully-automatic however.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by L i b)
    I don't have children and don't routinely go around aiming guns in their general direction. No-one said anything about an intruder being armed, but yes - while that would obviously made the situation far, far more dangerous, I'd probably rather have a gun than not in it.

    Ultimately I'd rather not have someone break into my home - and even if they did, I'd rather not have to point a gun at them, but I can undoubtedly see why in some circumstances it would be valuable.



    Not in the least - feel free to read on to what I said after the section you've quoted for the reasons behind that. I've pointed out I'm largely frustrated with the inability of many people who post in these sort of threads to make a remotely balanced argument - it seems to either be gun-totin' types who want to turn Britain into the United States, or people who seem to think that guns don't serve any purpose and make spurious arguments that they should all be banned. I'm in the middle, and feel rather isolated by this sort of silly rhetoric.



    It's happening pretty well in the UK. We don't generally licence guns for personal protection in Great Britain at least - in Northern Ireland it's rather different, and that's fair enough. However if you were to ask me if someone was in my home, would I rather have a gun stored in my wardrobe than not then the answer would be a very resounding yes.

    If I was to own a gun (and I've never done so myself - as I've said, I grew up in the countryside and they were a fairly common feature in my life) then would I make sure I knew how to use it safely and take every precaution against accidents that I could? Of course, and I think everyone who has one should. Unfortunately they often don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Totally fallacious. Can't tell if troll or not...
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Anno007)
    Semi-automatics are legal in the UK if they are shotguns (rifles technically legal under section 5). I'd rather be shot by an AR-15 than a Saiga-12 any day. Anyone with a shotgun license can pick up a used Saiga-12 for about £600.

    See how evil a Saiga-12 looks:

    The difference is an incredibly smaller amount of people in the UK own guns, never mind this type.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Anno007)
    Totally fallacious. Can't tell if troll or not...
    Guns are bad, m'kay?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by chelseadagg3r)
    The difference is an incredibly smaller amount of people in the UK own guns, never mind this type.
    Also, getting a license in the UK is a lot harder than in the US. Probably why we have less people getting shot.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anno007)
    Yes they are. The AR-15 for instance is an automatic rifle as the firearm automatically cycles rounds between trigger pulls. It is not fully-automatic however.
    That's not automatic... that's semi-automatic. What your describing is self-loading in a manner that is require for an automatic weapon to be automatic. To be automatic it also requires firing of rounds as long as the trigger is held or pressed.

    In terms of legislation, common terminology and usage withing both military and classification an AR-15 is not an automatic weapon. Automatic in anything outside of extreme technicalities (aka engineers who design the weapons), means fully automatic. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to be a smart arse who doesn't underside weapon definitions within the weapon industry, market or military.

    (Original post by Anno007)
    Semi-automatics are legal in the UK if they are shotguns (rifles technically legal under section 5). I'd rather be shot by an AR-15 than a Saiga-12 any day. Anyone with a shotgun license can pick up a used Saiga-12 for about £600.

    See how evil a Saiga-12 looks:

    Yes they're legal.... but to own one of those you need a firearm certificate as it is semi automatic, short barrel length and is capable of holding more than two rounds + the chambered round...

    Each time you buy a new weapon covered by firearm certificate you must seek an amendment and provide a valid reason, whether it be sport, work reasons or collecting. Which means the purchase could be denied quite easily, if the police don't agree with your reasoning for owning a semi-automatic shotgun with such a magazine capacity then it would be denied. One of the only ways you could likely own one is via sport, not vermin control for example, I have seen police deny certificates for similar weapons due to the fact they don't think such a potentially high capacity weapon is really necessary.

    It's basically not covered under a section 2 shotgun certificate which simply is denied if lack of security or danger to the public is posed.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Also, getting a license in the UK is a lot harder than in the US. Probably why we have less people getting shot.
    I was thinking the same thing. It honestly astonishes me how anyone and their mother can get a gun over there and so many have permits to carry them around. Something should've been done so many years ago.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by chelseadagg3r)
    I was thinking the same thing. It honestly astonishes me how anyone and their mother can get a gun over there and so many have permits to carry them around. Something should've been done so many years ago.
    They should have done what Britain and Australia did. A bunch of kids got shot and the government said "maybe having guns out and about as they are isn't a good idea".

    Anyone saying they'd like a gun for protection is flatout bullsh*ting, how about I carry around a knife for protection? Oh, because I'll get 4 years in prison for doing that. And if someone else has a knife, the exact same thing will happen to them. If you want to be protected, then support gun control, if you want to feel like you have a big ****, then don't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    It's also illegal to shoot people but that doesn't seem to stop them
    Nowhere in the Penal Code of any state or the federal code does it say it is illegal to shoot people.
    There are a myriad of situations where it is perfectly legal to shoot someone. While these situations differ from state to state , basically if your in fear for your life and can't escape the situation you can shoot. If you see someone being battered to the point where your in fear for their life and your not physically able to stop it you can shoot.
    In all situations you can't use excessive force. If your 6'2'' and weigh 220lbs. and your assailant is a drunk 70 yr. old hitting you with a cane you should leave your gun in your pocket.
    An individuals self defense is his or her own responsibility. Everyday in America people successfully use firearms to defend themselves and their families.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Nowhere in the Penal Code of any state or the federal code does it say it is illegal to shoot people.
    There are a myriad of situations where it is perfectly legal to shoot someone. While these situations differ from state to state , basically if your in fear for your life and can't escape the situation you can shoot. If you see someone being battered to the point where your in fear for their life and your not physically able to stop it you can shoot.
    In all situations you can't use excessive force. If your 6'2'' and weigh 220lbs. and your assailant is a drunk 70 yr. old hitting you with a cane you should leave your gun in your pocket.
    An individuals self defense is his or her own responsibility. Everyday in America people successfully use firearms to defend themselves and their families.
    oh yes because I was really concerned about the specifics there...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chelseadagg3r)
    The difference is an incredibly smaller amount of people in the UK own guns, never mind this type.
    Irrelevant, you were saying that you see no valid reason "why semi-automatics are for sale" and that "America needs to sort its priorities out". My comment was about that equally potent semi-automatics are available in the UK - more potent in fact than the fabled AR-15. It was not a comment on which country has better laws, or what factors effect level of gun crime, or how easy it is to obtain firearms.

    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Guns are bad, m'kay?
    I assume troll then... It's difficult to tell on TSR.
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Also, getting a license in the UK is a lot harder than in the US. Probably why we have less people getting shot.

    Again, utterly irrelevant to the point made, for same reasons as above.

    (Original post by DanB1991)
    That's not automatic... that's semi-automatic. What your describing is self-loading in a manner that is require for an automatic weapon to be automatic. To be automatic it also requires firing of rounds as long as the trigger is held or pressed.
    Automatic to mean self-loading is the first and purest definition of the term. It is derived from the first 'automatic pistol' by Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher. A semi-automatic pistol today. Military definitions don't always make the most sense as they are often taken from gunsmiths and engineers and then adjusted for application. Pedantic and purist definitions are fine to use, especially when used tongue-in-cheek - did you catch my cheeky 'automatic rifle' reference?
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Yes they're legal.... but to own one of those you need a firearm certificate as it is semi automatic, short barrel length and is capable of holding more than two rounds + the chambered round...

    Again, irrelevant. I never made a point about what specific licenses are required for ownership. Only that semi-automatics are available if they are shotguns.



    You people are arguing for the sake of arguing. Only @DanB1991 made a relevant point - not that I like his point or how he made it (surrounded by irrelevancy).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I find this thread truly bizarre in that for once it tends to be the "pro"-gunners who are more knowledgeable and making the more rational arguments. Mainly because they accept a need for rigorous gun laws and believe that implementing these would be more useful than a "ban all guns, guns = nuclear war" attitude.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anno007)
    Automatic to mean self-loading is the first and purest definition of the term. It is derived from the first 'automatic pistol' by Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher. A semi-automatic pistol today. Military definitions don't always make the most sense as they are often taken from gunsmiths and engineers and then adjusted for application. Pedantic and purist definitions are fine to use, especially when used tongue-in-cheek - did you catch my cheeky 'automatic rifle' reference?



    Again, irrelevant. I never made a point about what specific licenses are required for ownership. Only that semi-automatics are available if they are shotguns.
    Automatic would only be correct in a pure technical sense of how self loading works (aka it self loads automatically)... if you say you want to ban automatic weapons for example it would only apply to fully automatic weapons. Automatic in military, civilian and market usage only refers to fully automatic weapons (aka automatically fires rounds when the trigger is pulled). If you're talking on a technical forum or concerning arms development you 'could' use the term automatic, but even then term semi-automatic is preferred.

    Even Mannlichers first semi-automatic pistol in 1894 was designated and marketed as a "half automatic or semi-automatic pistol". All his later rifles were also designated semi-automatic, simply automatic was never used as far as I can tell.

    You stated anyone on a shotgun license (aka certificate) can get one, it's not seeing it's a firearms certificate which is completely different. Even then specific weapons can and will be denied if it's not seen as necessary. It's not how you suggested that anyone with a shotgun or firearm certificate can pick up a semi-automatic shotgun and take it home without any further checks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    They should have done what Britain and Australia did. A bunch of kids got shot and the government said "maybe having guns out and about as they are isn't a good idea".
    Firearms are legal in Australia and the United Kingdom

    In the case of Australia they banned semi-automatic rifles and spent 500 million dollars on a forced buyback scheme for some 800,000 firearms.

    20 years on after the semi-auto ban the number of legally owned firearms in Australia has doubled, gun crime has dipped up and down but it is roughly the same as it was pre-ban (the same has proved generally true for the UK after the pistol ban).


    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Anyone saying they'd like a gun for protection is flatout bullsh*ting, how about I carry around a knife for protection? Oh, because I'll get 4 years in prison for doing that. And if someone else has a knife, the exact same thing will happen to them. If you want to be protected, then support gun control, if you want to feel like you have a big ****, then don't.
    Why don't you hop along to South Africa, Mexico or certain parts of the US and try and convince them with that reasoning, hijackings and house invasions are commonplace. Criminals/Terrorists do not obey gun laws.

    The world outside of the UK is not a cuddly pacifist paradise, the self defense argument is valid in certain parts of the world.

    I hope you can at least see this point of view.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Automatic would only be correct in a pure technical sense of how self loading works (aka it self loads automatically)... if you say you want to ban automatic weapons for example it would only apply to fully automatic weapons. Automatic in military, civilian and market usage only refers to fully automatic weapons (aka automatically fires rounds when the trigger is pulled). If you're talking on a technical forum or concerning arms development you 'could' use the term automatic, but even then term semi-automatic is preferred.

    Even Mannlichers first semi-automatic pistol in 1894 was designated and marketed as a "half automatic or semi-automatic pistol". All his later rifles were also designated semi-automatic, simply automatic was never used as far as I can tell.

    You stated anyone on a shotgun license (aka certificate) can get one, it's not seeing it's a firearms certificate which is completely different. Even then specific weapons can and will be denied if it's not seen as necessary. It's not how you suggested that anyone with a shotgun or firearm certificate can pick up a semi-automatic shotgun and take it home without any further checks.
    I concede that I missed off the requirement of a firearms license. I didn't realise that I missed it off. Thanks for pointing it out.

    I have read that Steyr & Mannlicher Pistols referred to the model 1894 as having an 'automatic action'. I can't find that source anymore, but here are some which use the term 'automatic pistol'.
    http://www.hungariae.com/Mann94.htm
    http://www.forgottenweapons.com/earl...omatic-pistol/
    I know this source may not be useful if you haven't bought the book, but I can't find a PDF. https://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Auto.../dp/B0032U0DCK

    The term has multiple meanings, of course, but one should specify in the context of such a discussion. Again, I do want to say that I only used that definition tongue-in-cheek as the term 'automatic rifle' was used, despite it being an almost obsolete and archaic term.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    of course it would... the number of victims would be far lower.

    :facepalm2:
    The trigger of a 45 can be pulled as fast as the trigger of an AR-15.
    I think the number of targets, and their proximity to you are the main factors that determine number of victims. If there are more targets available and you need to change magazines, the speed with which you can do this would also become a factor
    My point here is that a shooter with a 45 and a few extra loaded clips in their pocket can do as much damage as a shooter with an AR-15 and a few extra clips.

    long guns (rifles) are either, single shot bolt action where the shooter has to manually pull the bolt back to eject the spent round and rechamber a new round, semi-automatic where some of the gas produced when a round goes off is used to drive the bolt back and rechamber the next round. It does this one time only with each pull of the trigger. Next would be a fully auto weapon, (machine gun). The trigger need be pulled one time and the weapon will reload itself and fire until the ammunition is gone. Most fully autos have a three round burst feature on them where the trigger must be pulled after every third round than three more rounds will fire in an automatic fashion. These weapons have been illegal for decades. In 50 years of shooting I've known one person who has had one in his possession. He gor rid of it quickly because it is not something you want to get caught with.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    The bad guys would have their guns taken away if prohibition took place. Then do you jnow how expensive guns would be on the black market? And then do you not realise how difficult it would be to access the black market? Not every mentally ****ed ****nugget could walk into a corner shop and pick up a semi automatic assault rifle and shoot up a school.

    As for defence, the only reason one would want a gun is for shits and giggles, bexause they think they're cool. I.e. they arent called "defence rifles" are they?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    " The bad guys would have their guns taken away if there was prohibition"

    Just like drinkers had their alcohol taken from them during prohibition. Yeah, that was a resounding success.

    I'm just guessing but there might be ten thousand small machine shops in the U.S. capable of turning out gun frames as good a quality as are now mass produced and I won't venture a guess as to the number of gunsmiths. Re-loading equipment is almost as common in U.S. households as fishing gear.
    Within a few months they WOULD be turning out weapons with no restrictions on their rates of fire or who they were sold to. The mind boggles.

    We would be better off to put a gun in the hands of every law abiding citizen and hope the right people would meet their end.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.