Rambo?s Sylvester Stallone supports gun control

[norway]

The 66-year-old actor, writer and director said he also hopes for an additional focus on mental health to prevent future mass shootings.

?It?s unbelievably horrible, what?s happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It?s that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are friggin? crazy. Really crazy! And that?s where we?ve dropped the ball: mental health,? he said. ?That to me is our biggest problem in the future, is insanity coupled with isolation.?


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/2/rambos-sylvester-stallone-supports-gun-control/#ixzz2Jr2zVSP4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Axl4Prez2004]

He's right.

[Gunner80]

Another fucking Hollywood moron. Fucking steroid, HGH abusing penis pumping hypocrite. And no Axl4 he's not right.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

It does not matter the type of gun that kills someone, it is the type of person that kills someone that matters.

[AxlsMainMan]

It does not matter the type of gun that kills someone, it is the type of person that kills someone that matters.

An assault weapon inflicts/is capable of inflicting more senseless bloodshed than your basic .45

[norway]

you want armed criminals and armed police/government agencies, and disarmed citizens...why

It does not matter the type of gun that kills someone, it is the type of person that kills someone that matters.

An assault weapon inflicts/is capable of inflicting more senseless bloodshed than your basic .45

good!

[Gunner80]

It does not matter the type of gun that kills someone, it is the type of person that kills someone that matters.

An assault weapon inflicts/is capable of inflicting more senseless bloodshed than your basic .45

How is that the guns fault? hmmmm?

[C0ma]

It does not matter the type of gun that kills someone, it is the type of person that kills someone that matters.

An assault weapon inflicts/is capable of inflicting more senseless bloodshed than your basic .45

You identified the caliber of the 'basic' .45, but in a few words define 'assualt rifle' for me. What makes something an assualt rifle? Is it the size of the clip? Is it the calibre? Is it how a weapon cycles or what the cycle speed is?

Most people define 'assualt rifle' by saying AR-15. In MA for example a compliant AR-15 is sold with a 5-10 round magazine and shoots .223 rounds. I carry a .40 Glock handgun for work with a 15 round magazine (plus 1 in the chamber), and I carry 2 additional magazines in my duty belt. With reloads I can put 46 .40 rounds down range in just over 1 minute if I take my time. Those 46 rounds in close quarters are going to do significantly more damage than the .223 rounds. 
 
Back in the 1990's a friend of mine bought a typical Ruger .22 rifle that kids are taught to shoot, he then bought a 30 round banana clip (pre ban)... that .22 which has never been identified as part of any ban could put just as many rounds down range as an AR15 in just a slightly longer time frame.

[AxlsMainMan]

You identified the caliber of the 'basic' .45, but in a few words define 'assualt rifle' for me. What makes something an assualt rifle? Is it the size of the clip? Is it the calibre? Is it how a weapon cycles or what the cycle speed is?

For me, an assault rifle would essentially be any weapon designed/intended for a military/combat setting (types of weapons still sold for home defense and hunting despite their intended purposes)

With reloads I can put 46 .40 rounds down range in just over 1 minute if I take my time. Those 46 rounds in close quarters are going to do significantly more damage than the .223 rounds. 

Yeah, but if my assault rifle holds 100 rounds can't I just blow you away 100 times before you likely even get a handful of your .40 rounds off at me?

[tim_m]

He is right. Find me a sane person that shoots up an elementary school and kids that are barely old enough to be in grade school. That's right you won't find any cause sane people don't do shit like this.

[rebelhipi]

if every fucked up kid gets a gun, there will be way more unnecessary deaths.

stopping stupid people getting guns is way more easy than stopping stupid people being born.

plus you dont have to be officially mentaly ill to kill some one, having a gun, being pissed off , being idiotic and drunk is usually enough to do stupid things. and by that i dont necessary mean killing someone. shooting at some ones animal, car, or anything by that matter is bad. so why would guns be avaible to everyone?

[C0ma]

You identified the caliber of the 'basic' .45, but in a few words define 'assualt rifle' for me. What makes something an assualt rifle? Is it the size of the clip? Is it the calibre? Is it how a weapon cycles or what the cycle speed is?

For me, an assault rifle would essentially be any weapon designed/intended for a military/combat setting (types of weapons still sold for home defense and hunting despite their intended purposes)

With reloads I can put 46 .40 rounds down range in just over 1 minute if I take my time. Those 46 rounds in close quarters are going to do significantly more damage than the .223 rounds. 

Yeah, but if my assault rifle holds 100 rounds can't I just blow you away 100 times before you likely even get a handful of your .40 rounds off at me?

The average 'assault rifle' has a 30 round magazine, but there are already several states where magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned (MA for example). In those states in a close quarters situation (like an elementary school) a larger calibre handgun would do far more damage. The Virginia Tech massacre was perpetrated with handguns, not assault rifles... the Arizona mass shooting (Gabby Giffords) was also a handgun.

As far as large capacity magazines like 100 round drums... they have been designed by 3rd party companies to fit what have been traditionally considered hunting and target rifles with small calibers like .22... where do you draw the line in gun control? Can I not teach my son to shoot a .22 rifle because I could buy a 30+ round magazine for it?

I know it's a stupid cliche, but guns don't kill... people do. I am all for taking it farther that the NRA wants and do stringent background and mental health checks, I also have no issue with a nationwide firearms registry. There should also be stiffer mandatory penalties for those who commit current firearm law violations.

I truly believe that the average citizen doesn't need an AR-15 (.223) or an AR-10 (.308) but if you start there, where do you stop? I would love to hear an official definition for Assault Riffle, because yours doesn't pass muster, semi auto AR15's aren't designed for the military, they are civilian versions of the fully automatic M16/M4. You have to pull the trigger once for every bullet that leaves the chamber.

[tim_m]

if every fucked up kid gets a gun, there will be way more unnecessary deaths.

stopping stupid people getting guns is way more easy than stopping stupid people being born.

plus you dont have to be officially mentaly ill to kill some one, having a gun, being pissed off , being idiotic and drunk is usually enough to do stupid things. and by that i dont necessary mean killing someone. shooting at some ones animal, car, or anything by that matter is bad. so why would guns be avaible to everyone?

That's true but he's not talking about your average idiot who gets drunk and fires a gun for no reason. He's talking about lunatics who do shit like what happened in Newtown and Aurora.

[tim_m]

You identified the caliber of the 'basic' .45, but in a few words define 'assualt rifle' for me. What makes something an assualt rifle? Is it the size of the clip? Is it the calibre? Is it how a weapon cycles or what the cycle speed is?

For me, an assault rifle would essentially be any weapon designed/intended for a military/combat setting (types of weapons still sold for home defense and hunting despite their intended purposes)

With reloads I can put 46 .40 rounds down range in just over 1 minute if I take my time. Those 46 rounds in close quarters are going to do significantly more damage than the .223 rounds. 

Yeah, but if my assault rifle holds 100 rounds can't I just blow you away 100 times before you likely even get a handful of your .40 rounds off at me?

The average 'assault rifle' has a 30 round magazine, but there are already several states where magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned (MA for example). In those states in a close quarters situation (like an elementary school) a larger calibre handgun would do far more damage. The Virginia Tech massacre was perpetrated with handguns, not assault rifles... the Arizona mass shooting (Gabby Giffords) was also a handgun.

As far as large capacity magazines like 100 round drums... they have been designed by 3rd party companies to fit what have been traditionally considered hunting and target rifles with small calibers like .22... where do you draw the line in gun control? Can I not teach my son to shoot a .22 rifle because I could buy a 30+ round magazine for it?

I know it's a stupid cliche, but guns don't kill... people do. I am all for taking it farther that the NRA wants and do stringent background and mental health checks, I also have no issue with a nationwide firearms registry. There should also be stiffer mandatory penalties for those who commit current firearm law violations.

I truly believe that the average citizen doesn't need an AR-15 (.223) or an AR-10 (.308) but if you start there, where do you stop? I would love to hear an official definition for Assault Riffle, because yours doesn't pass muster, semi auto AR15's aren't designed for the military, they are civilian versions of the fully automatic M16/M4. You have to pull the trigger once for every bullet that leaves the chamber.

Personally i'd ban anything that's fully automatic. If you need a rapid fire gun for home protection or hunting, you need to spend more time at the shooting range if your aim is that shitty you need an automatic weapon.

[C0ma]

Personally i'd ban anything that's fully automatic. If you need a rapid fire gun for home protection or hunting, you need to spend more time at the shooting range if your aim is that shitty you need an automatic weapon.

There are very few places in the US where you can buy a fully automatic rifle. They require a Federal Machine Gun License that is very very hard to get your hands on. The guns that everyone is up in arms about are semi auto rifles that you need to pull the trigger one time for each bullet that leaves the chamber... Aurora and Newtown were both Bushmaster XM15 (AR15) semi auto riles. Newtown would have been just as devastating with any rifle fitted with an aftermarket 30 round magazine which is why a think banning the AR15 is a slippery slope.

[tim_m]

Personally i'd ban anything that's fully automatic. If you need a rapid fire gun for home protection or hunting, you need to spend more time at the shooting range if your aim is that shitty you need an automatic weapon.

There are very few places in the US where you can buy a fully automatic rifle. They require a Federal Machine Gun License that is very very hard to get your hands on. The guns that everyone is up in arms about are semi auto rifles that you need to pull the trigger one time for each bullet that leaves the chamber... Aurora and Newtown were both Bushmaster XM15 (AR15) semi auto riles. Newtown would have been just as devastating with any rifle fitted with an aftermarket 30 round magazine which is why a think banning the AR15 is a slippery slope.

Those i agree i see no point in banning. I personally don't see how they differ from a standard handgun. Perhaps limiting the size of magazines further would help. But i guess then the perpetrator would just bring even more guns to make up for the less rounds in the clip. There is no magic solution to all this unfortunately. Better laws for better background checks and laws to make sure guns aren't being re-sold to criminals will help. In the end though anyone who wants to do something this awful bad enough is gonna find a way to do so. I mean short of having everyone who wants to buy a gun a psych evaluation. What do we do really?

[pilferk]

I would love to hear an official definition for Assault Riffle, because yours doesn't pass muster, semi auto AR15's aren't designed for the military, they are civilian versions of the fully automatic M16/M4. You have to pull the trigger once for every bullet that leaves the chamber.

Here's the one from 2000, an update to the previous Clinton Era ban which expired, and the update died (http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2):

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

    A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
        A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
        A thumbhole stock.
        A folding or telescoping stock.
        A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
        A flash suppressor.
        A forward pistol grip.
    A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
    A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
    A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
        A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
        (B) A second handgrip.
        A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
        The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
    A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
    A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
        A folding or telescoping stock.
        A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
    A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
    Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
        "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.
        The following definitions shall apply under this section:
            "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
            "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
            "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

and here's the one that basically died in committee, yesterday (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary):

    All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
    All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
    All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
    All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
    All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
    157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

[pilferk]

The thing is, it's not about caliber (because a .22 can do enough damage to kill a person).  It's about continuous stopping power, reload times, and ease of use.

With your average handle-loaded cartridge pistol/handgun (rather than, say, a .38 special with a speed loader), your total reload time for most shooters is much greater, over the same period of time, than someone using an AR-15 with an extended mag.  The gap narrows if your pistol shooter is well trained and experienced and your AR-15 shooter isn't.  Still, that leaves a lot less time for potential victims to disperse or for potential retaliation against the gunman (either amongst the victims or by law enforcement).  An AR-15 empties a standard 10 mag clip pretty quickly and can disperse bullets over a pretty wide range.  Even if the shooter is carrying a lot of extra ammo, and duck tapes clips bottom to bottom, there is going to need to be relatively frequent reloads. 

The other issue is that AR type (and other "assault style") rifles are "fire and forget" weapons.  Any moron who knows how to point and pull a trigger becomes a veritable Rambo and can fire from the hip or shoulder with little recoil or loss of target (or need to even lock a target).   With pistols, there is a certain amount of experience and training to make you as dangerous.  Which isn't to say those perpetrating these crimes wouldn't have such training...if they're choosing to use a pistol/handgun, they probably do.

I'm not a big fan of federal Assault weapon bans (but I'm OK with state bans)....but the fact is the SC has ruled (and would likely rule again, given some of the conservative justices, like Scalia's, recent comments) that the govt has a right to restrict the KINDS of weapons that are sold.

I do think there should be a restriction on Mag size, from the fed. That would solve some of the issues.  If you have a 10 round mag, and you can't hit what you're shooting at....well, it is supposed to be "sport", right?  Well, you're now down 10-zip and the deer, target, or whatever you're shooting at just won.  If you're defending your home from intrusion, and you haven't hit the assailant with one of your 10 rounds, the assailant is likely now either at close range or you are dead.  If you are lucky enough that neither of those is true, then you have time to reload without compromising yourself.

I absolutely think there should be universal, stringent, background checks at EVERY point of purchase (including "gun shows", which were proliferate in CT before Sandy Hook...I'd see ads for them just about every weekend).  I think there should be some level of accountability for gun owners and their weapons, too.  Not quite some of the draconian measures I've seen proposed, but certainly some (ie: if your weapon is used in committing a crime, and you have not reported it stolen, you are disarmed and you are not authorized to purchase weapons in the future by virtue of failing a background check with some common sense restrictions).

I think, to a larger point, there should be a massive overhall of the mental health care system in this country, from first responders and law enforcement all the way up to how we care for people and the "purging" of psychiatric facilities due to overcrowding/underfunding.

That being said: The gun issue is much more politically "sexy", doesn't cost the taxpayers anything directly (though it probably costs the govt tax revenue...how much I don't know), and can be used for "gamesmanship" much easier than the other, larger, issue of mental health care.

So guess which ones the politicians are going to latch on to?

[pilferk]

Those i agree i see no point in banning. I personally don't see how they differ from a standard handgun. Perhaps limiting the size of magazines further would help. But i guess then the perpetrator would just bring even more guns to make up for the less rounds in the clip. There is no magic solution to all this unfortunately. Better laws for better background checks and laws to make sure guns aren't being re-sold to criminals will help. In the end though anyone who wants to do something this awful bad enough is gonna find a way to do so. I mean short of having everyone who wants to buy a gun a psych evaluation. What do we do really?

Carrying more guns (vs carrying more ammo) means more weight and bulk and less mobility for the perpetrator/shooter. Changing weapons is time consuming,  If they're also changing weapon types, it takes some adjustment by the shooter, too, to become accurate and AS dangerous, again (unless they're well trained).  In other words, it makes it harder.  That, really, is all anyone can do.  If the person is unbalanced enough, and determined enough, they are going to find a way to inflict mass casualties.  What we're talking about (because it's all we can talk about when talking about this kind of stuff) is limiting the number, not eliminating the incident.

[tim_m]

Those i agree i see no point in banning. I personally don't see how they differ from a standard handgun. Perhaps limiting the size of magazines further would help. But i guess then the perpetrator would just bring even more guns to make up for the less rounds in the clip. There is no magic solution to all this unfortunately. Better laws for better background checks and laws to make sure guns aren't being re-sold to criminals will help. In the end though anyone who wants to do something this awful bad enough is gonna find a way to do so. I mean short of having everyone who wants to buy a gun a psych evaluation. What do we do really?

Carrying more guns (vs carrying more ammo) means more weight and bulk and less mobility for the perpetrator/shooter. Changing weapons is time consuming,  If they're also changing weapon types, it takes some adjustment by the shooter, too, to become accurate and AS dangerous, again (unless they're well trained).  In other words, it makes it harder.  That, really, is all anyone can do.  If the person is unbalanced enough, and determined enough, they are going to find a way to inflict mass casualties.  What we're talking about (because it's all we can talk about when talking about this kind of stuff) is limiting the number, not eliminating the incident.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up since the more important issue seemingly isn't gonna be tackled of mental health and background checks.