Over the long term, the comparative levels of scarcity that would result from a complete hand gun and assault rifle ban would make it difficult for these weapons to play such a common role in violence amongst minorities.

But of course we can't ever ban these weapons because we need to have the option of starting a guerrilla war against the US government in suburban Cleveland - because that's the only way to get rid of tyranny!

Also no mention of subsonic ammunition which makes silenced guns even more silent.
They dont know the different between a machine gun and an assault rifle either.
But to be fair, an AK47 (not a machine gun) can burst into flames. Well kinda at least. The heat will be so big that the wood will catch fire. But not after only a few shots fired as suggest in this video. That will take several hundred bullets to happen, if not over a thousand.

Sure, there is no need to speak in terms of civil war. Unless you're one of these guntoting, armed to the teeth nutjobs who think it would be a good idea. You know, the kind of people who buy an *assault rifle* for self defense.
However, no matter how well trained your riot police is, their less than lethal tactics are only useful up to a certain amount of people, they can become rather useless if the crowds get too big to contain or simply too violent themselves. That's when it gets interesting, that is when protest can turn into riots.
When the cops face huge, somewhat peacful crowds, they might enter Tiananmen Square. At what point would american cops or military personnel start thinking that it's unwise or inhuman to start firing into the crowd? Before the first shot? After the second magazine? On day three?
It's not the 1960s anymore but the sixties are not forgotten. Not by those who faced police officers willing to fire into the crowd. You know, black people. The kind of people whose parents and grandparents are still alive to tell them about their fight against oppression. This is still alive in the american concious, it shaped your country and it won't go away soon. Just ask Barak about his birth certificate.
Civil unrest is part of your recent history, the seed is there. Even under a President Stalin all you'd need go from isolated, contained riots to complete and irreversible shitstorm is a Martyr, a Neda Agha Soltan or a Treyvon Martin. No matter what ethnicity (although african american would be nice), that would present a tipping point.
Your police can bring out the tanks on Times Square if they want but if half of NY shows up, these guys inside the tanks might want to get out ASAP.
The Erich Honecker regime of the German Democratic Republic was basically brought down by somewhat peaceful demonstrations of people shouting "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" in east german accents.
The StaSi, the Ministry of State Security, who was efficient enough to make *every* citizen a potential informant in the eyes of their opposition, ran from the protesters like little girls. They used to imprison and torture people who spoke up.
The east german border used to be the most secure in the entire world. It was protected by minefields and guards who shot and killed anyone who tried to cross it. Before David Hasselhoff even had a chance to put on his illuminated leather jacket the government caved and just fucking opened it. People just strolled through Checkpoint Charlie and bought Bananas as if it was Christmas.
This was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. You know, the guys who lost over 20 Million people in WW2 and still kicked the Nazis in the nuts.
Nobody brought a gun. All the east germans had was shitty cars and lots of anger. They tore down not just a dictatorship, they tore down the iron curtain.
And they didn't even have a Nelson Mandela. Or Lech Walesa.
I still stand by my point: strength in numbers, not caliber.

See? This is why we need assault rifles and large magazines.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Machine Gun, Take Apart, Assemble, Queue, Students, Russia' to 'Machine Gun, Assault Rifle, Take Apart, Assemble, Queue, Students, Russia' - edited by calvados

This is probably a very minor issue when it comes to spiked ammo, but I think anyone who fires an assault rifle in celebration is getting what's coming to them. Just ask the families of hundreds of Filipinos who are killed or injured each year by "celebratory gunfire". So long as heavily armed idiots don't understand parabolas, I'd be happy if their guns explode.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2013/01/03/filipino-child-dies-from-new-year-eve-shooting/5DPm8tGbjjQ6yvPFv1uSdL/story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/01/new-year-gunfire-firecrackers-injure-400-in-philippines/

Hmm No one yelling "Drill baby Drill". This is what they wanted right? Oil flowing like water down the streets. Throw in some babes in bikinis wrestling some music and a few assault rifles and you have Republican Heaven on earth.

Well, only one down-vote:

IMO Carey just pissed on what's left of any real career-The producers of Kick-Ass 2 seem to agree that he's not thinking clearly, not unlike some of the peeps on this banal thread.

If you begin with the Kool-Aid being served with semantics like "assault rifle" and end up on a video blog with about 5 videos published with any meat having to do with the recent whack-job mass-shooting, the bulk of whose active users are east/west coast U.S. and outside of the C.U.S....IS IT SURPRISING, that you have a skewed representation of attitudes towards free will relative to firearms in the United States?

I do see these bills introduced in states and nationally the writing on the wall to an eventual fascist future for the entire fucking world, and those who don't, deserve that future.

Carrey's schtick never did it for me after age 16, he's so off in the realm of some EST whack-job in interviews, (like some motivational speaker from a closed-circuit kid's show in Ottawa on at 6 a.m.) and now with this, why the turd even dishonors the memory of Stringbean Akeman by taking a jab at Hee Haw and the fine people of Nashville.

Fuck Jim Carrey, BIG BROTHER say's he's doubleplus unfunny

So Piers is convinced banning assault rifles will keep them out of the hands of criminals. Making possession of them illegal is something he thinks will improve things.

A quick google search suggests he also believes the EXACT OPPOSITE effect is to be expected with illicit drugs...

Really wish honest debate still existed somewhere and not just political point scoring contests.

I have to say I agree with Wayne on this.

If you asked Wayne "are you happy Obama allows guns in national parks and on Amtrak Trains?" I'm sure his reply would be

"Yes I am; but the current legislation on limiting ammo clips/magazines and banning assault rifles is just wrong. The national registry is a conspiracy to blah blah blah"

It's like finding videos of my ex-wife giving me a television for X-mas and then fast forwarding to the day we got divorced. Of course I'll look like a Moron but you missed out on all the context in between.

Care to provide any specific counter-arguments to any of the points I made or the evidence I cited to support them? Again, do the research yourself because politicians and lobby groups have no interest in anything that undermines their agendas. If you're waiting for them to provide objective and thorough research, you'll be waiting a long time. Of course, if you're only interested in research that supports your own opinion, that will probably be easier to find.

Check out the crime statistics on the FBI website. Compare Florida's violent crime rate to DC's violent crime rate. Compare the percentage of violent crimes committed using assault rifles, handguns and melee weapons. Look at the percentage of crimes committed using legally-obtained guns. Look at the results of the ban on drugs today and the ban on alcohol during the prohibition. If you can look at all that and still believe that banning guns will significantly reduce violent crime, you clearly don't need any amount of research to support your opinions.

You can do your own research if you really want to find the answer. From the research I've done, I've already established that the availability of guns does not guarantee a significant reduction in violent crime. If that were the case, DC's violent crime rate would be significantly lower than it is because they have very strict gun laws. I've also established that a ban on assault rifles would not have a significant impact on gun-related crime because the vast majority of gun-related crime is committed using pistols, not fully-automatic weapons. I've also established that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, either stolen or obtained through unofficial means. The facts simply don't support the idea that banning assault rifles (or even all guns) would significantly reduce violent crime.

The current fixation on gun control is a purely reactionary response to recent shooting sprees (which comprise a negligible percentage of all gun violence). The only reason people care now is because these shooting sprees generally take place in middle and upper-class areas. Nobody cares when people get killed in poor areas, where the bulk of violent crime occurs.

I'm in no way a gun nut (I don't own nor plan to ever own any guns) but I'm not going to let my opinion of guns get in the way of facts. People who blindly believe that banning guns will solve all problems are just as bad as the NRA. Do your own research and don't ignore facts that contradict your own position. The FBI website is a great place to start, as they provide annual statistics on all crime in the U.S. and they don't have any reason to skew the numbers.

Sure. Alcohol, for example, clearly does more harm than it does good if alcohol-related death statistics are accurate. The question is whether or not guns actually do more harm than good and that's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly other countries with strict gun laws but those are different countries with different populations, different economies and different cultures. In an ideal world, banning guns would solve all our problems. Crime rates would decrease and nobody would have anything to fear. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen in reality. Criminals would still get guns (because they don't care about laws) and there would still be gun-related deaths (albeit fewer), in addition to all the unrelated violent crimes. I'd be surprised if overall crime didn't increase to compensate for the lack of guns and the inability for civilians to protect themselves.

It just seems to me that the recent uproar about gun laws is a reactionary response to the occasional shooting spree. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed using pistols (such as the one used in this story), yet everyone is focused on assault rifles which are almost never used. Then everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking and alcohol cause significantly more deaths than guns do. Why is no one trying to ban those? Oh, right, we've tried that already and it failed. Banning liquor during the prohibition only resulted in criminals getting the upper hand, just as banning guns would do today.

A good way to judge the effectiveness of gun laws is by comparing Florida to Washington D.C. Floria basically has no gun laws. You can buy assault rifles in garage sales. No licenses or registrations required. It's essentially the Wild West. Conversely, D.C. has strict gun laws. No assault rifles, no automatic weapons, no concealed carry, no open carry, an extensive registration and permit process, etc. However, despite all this, D.C. had more than double the violent crime rate of Florida in 2011 and more than triple the murder rate.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

"This can probably be attributed to better firearms training, safety and general awareness."

I have nothing against safety training, of course. And sure, Its even a good thing to be familiar with weapons, if nothing else but to see how dangerous they are. But I'm also favouring gun control. When the ATF can't even say its illegal to sell guns to DRUNK people, I think its been heading in the wrong direction for quite some time. Its fine if you own a gun, but then you should also know how to handle one safely, and be deemed reasonably fit to own a gun. You should be required to store it safely, and so on. There's a lot of things you can do without "taking your weapons".

"BTW - I envy the firearms that you've gotten to fire."

Yeah, this was in the army, I havent touched a gun since., but shooting rockets from the shoulder with the Carl Gustav is pretty fun.(I called it M84 in my previous post, we called it RFK in the army) Also the MG3 because its such a classic (its basically an MG42) And the A3G3 is one mean-ass assault-rifle(I think we calculated that we shot 15000 or was it 30k? rounds each (in my platoon) with that gun during that year.)