Ok these are a lot of fun. It brings both groups off the sideline.

Here's a question:

Which gun is more dangerous, a semi-automatic AK-47 clone (WASR-1) or a Remington 700 rifle with 3-9x scope in .308 caliber? Why?

I am not a firearms expert but I suspect it depends a lot on what your goals are.

You could argue that taking out one or two, shall we say, "high value targets" could be more dangerous than taking out a handful of ordinary civilians. You probably couldn't get close enough to accomplish such an assassination with an AK without getting stopped, but you might be able to with the Remington.

On the other hand, in a shootout, I suspect I'd rather have an AK than a bolt action.

zkissane makes a pretty good point, it would really depend on the situation. I'm sure that if you looked at numbers you would easily find that the AK-47 has killed tons more people than the Remington, but the Remington probably has gotten a lot more important kills. And to run off onto a huge tangent, it would probably be a lot easier to use the remington to kill a world leader which would no doubt start some civil strife, and then most like AK's would be the weapon of choice. So one bullet from one gun could spark God knows how many from the other one. So honestly there isn't any good way to compare the 2 guns. Its not like comparing 2 shotguns, or 2 pistols. Your looking at an assault rifle and a sniper rifle, there isn't really any comparision to be made.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! You are correct on one account. There is no good way to compare these two guns. Both are designed for different purposes, and neither is more deadly or dangerous than the other. In your last sentence, you made a mistake, however. The WASR-1 is not an assault weapon. It is semi-automatic only. Also, the Remington 700 is not, in itself, a sniper rifle. There are Rem 700's that have been equipped for and designated sniper rifles, but my Rem 700 is not a sniper rifle. It is more suited to sniping than an AK variant, but it is not a sniper rifle.

In short, neither gun is dangerous until you put one of them in the hands of someone who intends to do harm. Even then, it is the shooter who is the danger, not the gun. You can take a fully automatic AK-47 (true assault weapon) with a fully loaded magaizine, round in the chamber, safety off, and lay it on the ground. It will stay that way forever and never go off until one person walks up to it and pulls the trigger. You could do the same thing with the Rem 700 or any other gun for that matter.

Guns are not dangerous or evil; it is the person behind the gun that is the danger. Until people realize this and do something about society, it will not matter how many or how few, if any, guns are out there. People will still find ways to kill each other.

That's not the point behind the argument about gun-control, though. I'm not for banning guns, but the point is that while "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (which i do believe), guns make it a heck of a lot easier.

In the entire US, right at 66% of murders are by gun, for the past twenty years or so (all available data). So there's plenty of murders (4,770 in 2003, to be exact) that do not involve guns. Still, that leaves 9,638 murders by gun in 2003. Assuming that gun murders wouldn't have happened without a gun, and assuming that the murderer wouldn't have had an illegal gun anyway... that's almost 10,000 people who would be alive today if all guns were banned, right?

Well... except for the millions of Americans who used a gun in self-defense each year. Surveys indicate between 800,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses each year. Only one survey was lower than that (NCVS) but that did not ask specifically about using a gun in self-defense, was by federal law enforcement officers, and was not anonymous. All other estimates are In the range I give above. (you can PM me if you want to know more details on why that survey is artificially low)

Let's be conservative here and say that 800,000 is a good number. That's nearly 100 defensive uses of guns for each gun murder. Comparing self-defense uses to murder rates is better than comparing to violent crime rates because using a gun in self-defense means fear of being murdered.

Okay, what if the high estimate is correct? That's 250 people who would be dead because of not being able to defend themselves, for every person who would be alive because of lack of a murder weapon.

But how many people DO get a gun and murder someone? In England which strictly bans guns, 8% of murders are still by gun. And how many people would just use a knife, or a bat, or a stick, or fists, in the absence of a gun?

Considering that 92% of murderers have previous violent crime convictions (or juvenile convictions, from the FBI UCR), let's say that the remaining 8% of people would return to peacefulness in the absence of a gun, instead of getting an illegal gun or using a different weapon.

That leaves 771 murders that theoretically wouldn't have happened if a gun hadn't been present.

So between 1040 and 3250 people use a gun defensively for EACH person theoretically saved from a "murder of passion" made possible by the presence of a gun.

Sutherlands, you're right. Guns do make it easier to kill someone. But they make it a whole lot easier to save someone - and it happens a lot more.

Wow, you make it sound like I can't possibly be defensive and successful at foiling an attacker without a gun... .8 to 2.5 million defensive uses.. does 10% of the population even own guns?, I'm looking for an answer here, I really don't know.

While the argument you make is pretty much as good as it gets on that side of the fence (me thinks), about the only thing I can think of right now to say in defense is, there's no need to ban guns, just tougher gun-control, to stop the re-selling to i.e. convicts.

I see a bigger point here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wtf is the point of a society where half or more of the population has guns, and perhaps no police? would you rather enforce the law, or let the police do it? gun proliferation isn't the answer to lower crime. lower crime is also possible with giving law enforcement what they need. go ahead... tell me of how cops you've met told you how properly educated and responsible citizens with guns can save lives, again, there is something wrong with a society where a quarter or half or more of the population has guns.

oh, and the government is going to get whoever it wants, regardless of those people owning or not owning guns, i.e. during a military curfew, placed for no reason what so ever on a small town.

The road you guys took (defense) advocates false safety, and nothing else. Because there are better ways of "defending" oneself.

edit: I'm not against guns, just for much much tougher scrutiny on who should get guns. As in, you can get one, but only after spending a significant amount of time and money.

You bring up some good points. Yes, you can successfully avoid being a victim without using a gun - in fact, by the time you get a gun you should already be using all these techniques. By the time you have to use a gun, all these techniques have failed. A gun isn't an alternative to other methods of defense - it is a last resort when they have failed.

Pay attention to your surroundings. Take note of the exits in a room, take note of the people around you (anyone look suspicious? anyone act suspicious?) and if you suspect a problem, leave. Rule #1 for deadly encounters: arrange to be somewhere else. Be prepared to run - wearing flip-flops outside could cause problems if you were accosted, because you can't run away. Don't make yourself an easy target - don't flash expensive jewelry, don't carry a lot of bags to your car, don't walk alone at night, etc. A very important thing to remember when trying to avoid crime: avoid criminals. It seems obvious... but there are people who hang out with druggies and petty thieves and then are surprised when they get robbed or arrested or something.

How many Americans own guns you ask? A NIJ study in 1994 (telephone questionairre) estimates that 25% of American households own guns. There are some who say that number is too low, probably because of fears of registration/confiscation, or the common criminal ploy of calling a house and conducting a "survey" to determine what valuables are in the house so they know who to rob. If someone called me on the phone, I'd say I didn't have any guns. Also keep in mind that many cities ban handguns, and have very strict regulation on other guns... are you going to confess a crime to the NIJ?

My only problem with banning the re-sale of guns to convicts is that there's lots of people with non-violent convictions, who now can't protect their families. I am all for preventing the sale of guns to violent criminals. Not that they won't find a gun anyway... but I'm sure as hell not going to sell a gun to someone who might use it in a crime - they'd for sure trace it back to me, and I'd be in a world of hurt.

I do not suggest that we do away witih the police. I'm just saying that the police will not arrive in time to rescue you. They take reports and clean up the mess, then maybe go after the bad guys. You are responsible for your own safety, the police are responsible for tracking you down if you abuse your tool of safety. We need the police.

A note to your note: why should people have to spent lots of money to get a gun? You've created a class rift, so that only the rich have guns. The poor need guns more because they live in crime-infested low-income housing. Vermont allows anyone to carry a gun, and they have very, very low crime. Ever hear of a mass shooting in Vermont? Background checks? Sure. But don't make getting a gun so expensive that the poor are defenseless. In the past, ballot taxes and gun taxes were used to keep guns out of the "wrong" hands... and back then that meant "black" hands. The same is true today, with the poor districts of many cities full of primarily black people, and the politicians making huge fees and training requirements so that the majority of blacks can't afford to have a gun. I'm sorry, did you think politician aren't racist?

lordofthworld, why is there something wrong with a society where half the population has guns? The Swiss men are given assault rifles and ammunition to keep in their homes. I wish we did that here, but we don't. Anyway, I digress. If a lot of people have guns, it usually means they like target shooting. Ask me how many people I have shot with my guns and I'll tell you absolutly none. Ask me how many pop cans and how much paper I've shot and I'll tell you a countless number of each. I also hunt with mine, just not the 2-legged variety.

Most people own guns for pleasure. The guns serve as a last line of defense if needed, but most guns are used for pleasure, not defense. As the naked prophet pointed out either in this thread or the another one, guns are used in many, many instances to prevent a crime. Most instances you never hear about because it would give the appearance that having guns actually helps people. That's not what the media wants you to hear, so they usually don't report those instances where having a gun meant a life saved. They only want you to know about the times where a bad guy used a gun in a crime.

I would say somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of PEOPLE who own guns own them for protection. These people generally only will have one gun, a pistol. I'd say less around 5-10% of the total number of guns are there for that protection role.

You ask if even 10% of the population owns guns. I would say that it is 10% quite easily. Heck, my Grandma even owns two pistols. They were her son's that died, but she keeps them both around in case she ever feels threatened and needs to keep one with her. One website I found claims 25% of Americans own a gun (42% of men, and 9% of women). So, just the women own guns as much as you were thinking all of America did.

The same website claims "Overall, 46 percent of gun owners own some kind of gun primarily for protection against crime". That takes into account both the woman who only has a 38 special to keep in her purse and also the gun nuts with two dozen guns and has a shotgun by the bedside.

Hey TNP:

You need to be logical about your stance on gun control. Not every one of those 2.5 million defensive uses of guns would have ended in a murder. Heck, maybe only 5 or 10% of them would be (but that is still at least 125,000 that would have). Most of them probably would have ended up in a robbery or a beating.

Here's a question to stir some debate:

Should TV shows and movies realistically portray bullet wounds?

Example (24 spoiler alert)
A terrorist basically has the country by the balls (deadly virus, blah blah). One of his demands is that the President order the execution of one of the government agents investigating this guy's money trail. The Prez passes that duty on to the protagonist, Jack. After some sad dialogue, Jack fires a Walther P99 into the back of Chappelle's head. Later when we see his body picked up, he just has some red stuff (it doesn't even really look like fresh blood) near where the entry wound probably was. His face is 100% recognizable, as though there were no exit trauma. It was without a doubt toned down for prime time.

Obviously the death itself wasn't toned down (to quote an earlier episode, "you're either dead, or you're not dead; there's no such thing as 'sorta dead'"). But it leaves viewers with the impression that a point blank shot to the back of the head is a lot less gruesome than it really would be. Is that doing a disservice to viewers, who now probably have a severe underestimation of the destructive power of a gun?

If they more accurately portray bullet wounds, they'd better make their actors stop throwing themselves 15 feet back after getting hit with a handgun or even a rifle. Sometimes hollywierd does a decent job of portraying wounds but most of the time they screw it up.

They also need to make arrow wounds more realistic. I know there's not a lot of arrows used in movies/TV, but when they are and someone gets hit with a crossbow or compound bow, the arrow normally sticks in the body. If they've ever seen a deer get hit, the arrow normally goes completely through and exits the other side. A human body has a smaller cross section and thinner bones, so it would stand to reason that the arrows should exit the body and produce a BUNCH of blood.

I think this is a bad example, "ever hear of a mass shooting in Vermont?" Do you ever hear of anything in Vermont. There's no big cities, mostly mountains and forested areas, nice lakeside cabins. If Los Angeles was in Vermont, you'd hear (or not hear) of the hundreds of shooting that occur there. I dont know about the politicians attempting to keep the guns out of the hands of the black man, if they are, then its wrong. They should be keeping the guns out of eveyone's hands.

The original question in this thread was which is more dangerous, a semi-automatic, or a near-sniper rifle. On this point, I agree with CPT 100%. neither of these guns does any harm until they are placed in the hands of a person set on causeing that harm. So I ask this: would the people be able to inflict that harm so easily if the AK47 was NOT placed on the ground, with a full clip and the safety off, waiting for someone to come pick it up?

Would a dozen people have been sniped out of existence in Austin, TX if that psycho ex-marine didnt have a gun to climb into the tower with?

If I were face to face with nearly anyone holding a gun, I would be scared. I honestly dont trust the average American to not have the malice needed to shoot me where I stand. If I had a gun, would that change? Would that man not have an increased reason to kill me, now that I am a threat? I wouldnt have it in me to shoot someone even if my life depended on it. I would rather be killed than take a life, and if everyone felt like that, there would be no murder. CPT is right, we need to change our society in order to fix this problem, and the first step is to remove the primary tool of murder.

i agree, but then again im no way for the support of the progression of limited rights.

i dont own a gun, have used them, my dad has one, havent fired it in 5-6 years. but im thinking that there should be a stricter requirements on guns that obviously not used for sport. no body needs a clone AK, or a pistol really. a person can protect themselves with a lot of things, that wouldnt have to include a gun, if handguns were no longer sold.

though i dont think this change will ever happen. our country isnt too good about changing ideals

Howdy Phil, nice to see we agree on something. However, our paths to the same goal is very different. Banning the guns is not the answer. As has been said more than once on these forums, take a look at any US city that has banned handguns and you'll notice they have the highest murder rates. They have a ban on handguns! So, only the bad guys have them and ordinary citizens are the ones who pay the price. Lets even up the odds a bit.

Sadly, society will not change until this world is no more. The world and our nation have continued to morally degrade from the start and it will not get better. That's my opinion and my belief, whether anyone else believes it or not. Doesn't matter to me.

Phil, why are you scared of anyone with a gun? You've seen people carrying guns, especially in Texas. Are you only scared of them if you see the gun? There's no reason to be afraid of someone with a gun. It all depends on what they are doing with the gun. If they are doing something illegal, leave the area and call the police. Chances are the police won't be able to really do anything, but what the hey.

I would definitely recommend that you not get a gun. If you are scared of it, I would suggest taking a shooting class or hunter safety class of some sort. Heck, I'd even be willing to take you shooting sometime. Just IM me and we'll set up a time to go shoot. If you don't think you could shoot someone if forced to, you don't need a gun. Guns should only be used if/when you have the right mindset to be able to pull the trigger.