2 topics, gun laws and the rifle for Doom 3

[deadnail]

First of all, just so I don't forget, how do you feel about gun legislation in the US and abroad (well, mostly the US)? If you think I'm some kind of a gun nut I found a nice site for you to read:
http://www.gunnery.net/RKBA/meaning.html
If it doesn't change any of your government instilled paranoias nothing will.


Now then, onto another topic.


Why has the M16 given way to the M4? Why is the most used submachinegun the MP5? Well, there's a simple reason: They are easily adaptable to their situation. Both guns support a number of attachments and customizations, easily performed on the field in a firefight, that expand upon the functionality of the weapon greatly.

Now then, the rifle that I have concieved for Doom 3 should follow this formula but given the chronological setting of the game should have liberties taken.

Picture an assault rifle in your head, with two barrels on the end vertically aligned. The bottom would have two pistol grips and two drums. Yes, this is a very large assault rifle.

Now then, the customizability of this would say that the barrels are auto-adjusting, that they can adapt to fit any kind of ammunition you feed it. The upper barrel could adjust to fit any round sizing between 5 and 15 millimeters, while the bottom barrel would adjust from 15 to 30. When you pull the drum the chambered round is (somehow :) placed back into the drum in case you load in a different type of ammunition. On the top would be a scopemount. On the 'right' hand side while carrying would be a flashlight, both for illumination and combat use. It's positioned not to interfere with casing ejections (although caseless ammuntion should be perfected by this time). The left hand side could have a flip-out screen like a camcorder with a zoomed in picture of what you're aiming at, ammuntion counts and info, whatever. One cell for a Plasma Rifle shot would probably give this weapon enough juice to operate for three days straight.

Selective firing would allow single semi-automatic operation, burst 3 shot operation, full auto and full auto fast for both triggers.

If you've got ammo like 5.57 loaded into the top you can deal with the kickback and put it on full auto fast, ripping out probably 1200 rounds per minute. Standard full auto would be for more powerful rounds like 7.62 and kick out maybe 600 - 800 rounds per minute.

With the freedom of size ammunition could be specially designed for this weapon, such as 30mm grenades or rockets for the bottom. Considering that shotgun shells are 23 millimeters wide you could load in a drum of those too.

It may not be the best thing for a video game, but logically thinking this would be the type of assault weapon made available for the infantry in several hundred years time (even if there still IS an infantry in that time or if the concept of war is just button pushing to destroy enemy supplies). Hell, just 100 years ago semi-automatic handguns were just a diagram on paper. It's also worth noting that !right now! assault rifles that fire both 5.56 and 12 gauge ammo are in testing phases. A high powered scope with output to a HUD screen is also being tested by the US Army. Why? Firing around corners without exposing yourself, and of course better accuracy at high distances.

1 - Out of ammo, melee
2 - Pistol
3 & 4 - different kinds of ammo for top barrel
5 to 8 - different kinds of ammo for bottom barrel
9 - Plasma Rifle (possibly with the same versatility)
0 - BFG (of course)

Who wouldn't want to have a machinegun that can fire faster than the chaingun in Quake 2 and a shotgun in one?

This is just a thought, but I would appreciate some intelligent feedback on this. Hell, even I agree that this would probably not be the best thing for Doom 3. :)

[NiGHTMARE]

I like the fact that gun ownership was so heavily restricted in the UK a few years ago.

The big cities like London and Manchester are now about the only places where gun related crimes are still carried out, and even then the number of such crimes has been drastically reduced.

Kinda makes the most common thing American pro-gun owners say in defence of the weapon, that "they're needed for self defence" look like complete b/s, doesn't it? :)

[deadnail]

In the big 10 crime cities in the US you can't get a permit to carry a pistol. No one can defend themselves. It's not as if a bunch of new laws will mean dick to criminals anyway, as they're already breaking laws just by illegally possessing a pistol. Now if our fucking government would just prosecute these people it'd be a different story, but no, they want to take Britain and Canada's example.

Step 1: Stop enforcing current laws.
Step 2: Say laws don't work while imposing new laws basically designed to get the name and number of everyone owning a gun.
Step 3: Confiscate all firearms from citizenry.

We're a much bigger country than Britian. Of course crime happens here, especially in bigass cities where the little people don't count and there's plenty of rich people. Naturally there's going to be the motive for criminals to illegally obtain weapons to use them in a crime. Limiting the firearms available to the regular people is BULLSHIT.

They are needed for self defense. That's why crime is so bad in cities, you're forced to rely on the police for protection. What's the average police respond time? Fourteen minutes. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Britain is doing a damn good job, I will admit that. You can't even sneak a plastic BB gun into that country. However, guns have ALWAYS been the mainstay in our country, and superior firepower has always been our military's advantage.

It just doesn't make sense to disarm the people that live in heavily populated areas. How many people live on the island of New York City, five, maybe seven million? That many people in such a small area with no legal way to carry protection... it's a fucking criminal's dream.

Whereas you DON'T hear about crime in places like Vermont, Alabama or Texas where people still have the right to protect themselves.

Political rhetoric doesn't mean dick when there's some asshole in your apartment with a gun he bought from a drug dealer.

This is what pisses me off. If the current laws would just fucking be enforced there wouldn't even be an issue and thousands of lives would be saved.

What I really dislike is the concept of disarming the whole civilized world.

What was Hitler's first major act? He disarmed the people, stating that the country was the safest it had ever been. Then what did he do, he herded six million people (unable to defend themselves) into deathcamps.

That's not the only example, either, it's happened a DOZEN times in the last hundred years.

Then again, maybe it would be nice if we were all under the same flag, world peace was real, and everything was nice and friendly. Punishing criminals is a part of that concept, though, and that requires enforcing the current laws.

Blame your local Democrat.

[stphrz]

Riddle me this. Why are the vast majority of victims of gun violence (deliberate or accidental) also gun owners???

Hmmm??????

Hmmm???????


Live by the sword (so to speak).................

[deadnail]

Oh, you mean how 99.8% of firearms legally owned will NEVER be used in a crime?

Something else, kids shooting their heads off/their friends heads off with their daddies gun has been grossly exaggerated. Your kid is more likely to die on his bicycle.

Got another one for me?

[fodders]

Just owning a gun seems innocent enough but it never stays that way, a gun is very much like a wife...
keep one around the house long enough and your gonna want to shoot the fucker :)

[Linguica]

deadnail said:

Oh, you mean how 99.8% of firearms legally owned will NEVER be used in a crime?

And 100% of guns illegally owned will be involved in a crime.

[deadnail]

Linguica: Were you being sarcastic? Why else would someone pay twice as much for a weapon just to possess it without being on the records that police call up everytime they pull someone over?

Fodders: ROTFLMAO! =) Nice one! Oh, and I do shoot my guns regularly. Goddamn paper with circles... grr!

[stphrz]

deadnail said:

Oh, you mean how 99.8% of firearms legally owned will NEVER be used in a crime?

Something else, kids shooting their heads off/their friends heads off with their daddies gun has been grossly exaggerated. Your kid is more likely to die on his bicycle.

Got another one for me?

Um, you evaded the question. Ok, answer this one. It's an absolute indisputable fact. If you DO NOT own a gun (illegal or legal) you are way way way less likely to be a victim of gun violence. And I mean way way way way way less likely :).

Do you really think walking down the street with a gun in your pocket will make you safer?

Would you want or would you want someone close to you to be involved in Law inforcement, where everyone and his beagle had a gun, or two, or three even, with no accountablity or resposiblity until of course said gun(s) were actually used in some sort of crime?(too late then -heh).

Actually I would think that being a firearms expert you would at least know that guns offer no protection whatsoever as they are PURELY an OFFENSIVE device. A gun in your hand doesn't make you bullet proof. It does however make you a high priorty target....

[Guest D-clone]

Linguica said:

And 100% of guns illegally owned will be involved in a crime.

obviously.

[Guest Clone999]

fodders said:

Just owning a gun seems innocent enough but it never stays that way, a gun is very much like a wife...
keep one around the house long enough and your gonna want to shoot the fucker :)

Deadnail: I really like your idea for the rifle, but theres only one problem. You woulden't need any more guns! That weapon would do everything for you, 'specially scince you can load rocket ammo and crap. I enjoy having a multiple variety of guns. That's why Turok 2 ruled scince day 1. DO NOT ELIMINATE THE M16! THE GUN FUCKING RULES!

[danarchist]

Umm...ya know why would you need a gun for self defense...you see if no-one had a gun (bought for self defense) you wouldn't need a gun for self defense, just a knife would do, or even good old martial arts (which, BTW came from a weaponless society).

And one thing else...if you think it's constitutional to own a gun...think again...the part about the right to bear arms was just taken out of context. The 2nd ammendment actually says that the citizens have a right to form a militia...with weapons from a local armory, not form thier own cabinet (or whatever).

[deadnail]

Stphrz said:

Um, you evaded the question. Ok, answer this one. It's an absolute indisputable fact. If you DO NOT own a gun (illegal or legal) you are way way way less likely to be a victim of gun violence. And I mean way way way way way less likely :).

Do you really think walking down the street with a gun in your pocket will make you safer?

Would you want or would you want someone close to you to be involved in Law inforcement, where everyone and his beagle had a gun, or two, or three even, with no accountablity or resposiblity until of course said gun(s) were actually used in some sort of crime?(too late then -heh).

Actually I would think that being a firearms expert you would at least know that guns offer no protection whatsoever as they are PURELY an OFFENSIVE device. A gun in your hand doesn't make you bullet proof. It does however make you a high priorty target....

Yeah I probably mispelled your nickname. It's too damn complicated for my little head. :)

Well, my ISP just finished a massive fourteen hour shit so now I can post my repy to this post. Oh, and Danny boy, your reply is on the bottom.

How is it an indisputable fact that if you don't have a gun you're much less likely to be a victim of gun violence? How many people are shot in the US every day? The number I remember is 6000 from some years ago. I'd like you to explain this one to me.

If someone's holding a gun on you common sense should dictate that you do not have the time to go for yours. However it seems to me that you're not including holding people at gunpoint as gun violence whereas I would.

Walking down the street with a gun make me safer? Hell no. Not until smart gun technology has been perfected so no one can take it and use it on me. That's why I don't feel the need to get a permit and carry a gun. I keep one in my house, though. Someone's place is broken into every 9 seconds I hear.

You want me to 'feel safe' in a high crime area? Then how about we get rid of Democratic politics and start punishing criminals? Gun law violator prosecutions dropped over three quarters since Clinton took office. I am **SO** fucking glad that fashion fake cocksucker Gore didn't win (oh, and he didn't win either. Funny thing about the electoral college... except that's how it has ALWAYS been here. those lawsuits of his were bullshit. you can't change the rules after the game has been played. definition? crybaby.).

I find the 'everyone and their beagle' owning three guns with zero accountability or responsiblity statement extremely offensive. Who the fuck do you think I am, some toothless redneck sitting in the woods shooting anything that moves for shits and giggles?

Possession of ANY firearm implies accountability and responsibility, asshole. Who in the FUCK could possibly think otherwise? A car is designed for transportation. Accountability and responsiblity is implied every time you get behind the wheel. A gun is designed for killing things for Chrissakes! You missed every single one of my points en-fucking-tirely. :(

People in high crime areas should be allowed to posses a firearm for home protection. No one likes to talk about this but 2 million Americans every Goddamn year protect their families with firearms, but you sure as fuck hear about it every time some lunatic shoots up a public place. These cowards do it in heavy cities, too, they don't do it in small rural areas. Why? They might get shot. Heaven forfend!

Yeah, guns are a purely offensive devise. Pistols were designed with the sole intention of killing people. As the old cliche goes the best defense is a good offense. I never said carrying a gun makes you safer, did I? Of course it doesn't. What about the Principal that took his handgun to the prom 'just in case'? He shot and killed a kid that was going to kill everyone at the dance with a rifle. What happened? He was fired and fined, I haven't been able to locate the story again but there's a chance he might be jailed.

Maybe the media would've been happier with a few dozen kids killed to make it 'newsworthy'.

Nothing makes you bullet proof. Not even million dollar tanks are invincible and they're not exactly convenient either.

Criminals are by definition cowards so of course they're willing to kill the dangerous people first. The act of a crime, usually theft, simply shows that all they are capable is taking the easiest path anyway. Least resistance.

Who the FUCK said I was a gun expert?



So what the hell is your solution, bucko? Take Britian's route and just say zero guns for citizens all together? Then what about the millions of guns already in illegal possion by criminals? Whoops, forgot about Dre. If the government hasn't enforced existing gun laws for the last eight Goddamn years why would they start now?

You don't think gun running won't skyrocket when criminals know that no one can protect themselves? Police deaths will skyrocket too because criminals will have almost nothing to fear.



You're taking this way too seriously anyway. It's not like anything we say, think, or do will have ANY impact on the US government. It's been a closed door pseudo-democracy since day one designed from the ground up to keep an elite few in total control while forcing the rest of the population into ignorant bliss.

Jesus Christ, I'm more likely to die from my CIGARETTES than by a gun. I get much more entertainment looking at a cat play with a paper sack then I get just holding onto one of my rifles.

*cough*

I just get riled up when millions of people eat spoonful of bullshit after spoonful, completely obvlivious to the truths of the matter. I hate when people blame crime on guns and not the shitty education and lax law enforcement. Hell, I sent off an angry email the other day when some asshole on Gamespot reviewed Megaman X5 and said it took place in 20XX.

Stupid bastard, everyone knows it takes place in 21XX!


----And as for you Danarchist, what happens when you take the guns away from the citizenry when you still don't enforce the laws against the criminals? Think about it. I'd be **JUST FUCKING HUNKYDORY** if they took our guns away SO LONG AS THEY FUCKING DID THEIR JOB ON THE CRIMINALS. It's either or for both, not half-way 'cuz then we'll get FUCKED. Simple as that.

[Phoenix]

To the first post. A gun should have some weakness, sort of speak, other wise we might as well play in God mode.
To the second post
Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only. To shoot 'things' from a distance with deadly force. I lived in Canada in a Big city and I lived in Canada in a very small town. There are more guns in this little town, per capita because of hunting than in the big City (Toronto). Yet you feel save going for Coffee at three in the morning in this small town, can’t say that in certain neighborhoods of Toronto. I know you heard that before, guns do not kill people, people do. Let’s focus on the criminals and get rid of them, than you’ll solve the ‘gun’ problem.

[sirgalahadwizar]

deadnail said:

5-7million eh?

I say we just drop an H-bomb on them and solve the crime problem (although that does seem like killing the patient to cure the illness).

Make no mistake, if I had god-like powers (ie, like on DBZ), I would fucking kill every last person on this planet, but I don't so I guess that's that.

(::wonders how many ppl think im insane now, goes to the tally board::)

[deadnail]

Use a Neutron bomb instead so only living matter is destroyed. That way we can get the money, vcrs, and Athlons back. Just move right in and take over.

First operation? Double the width of all the roads. =)

Oh, and as for killing every single last fucking person on this planet... well, it'd be kinda cool to have some badass neophysical powers so long as monsters came with the deal so I could have some fun exterminating them. IE? Parasite Eve 2. Hell yeah.

You're not insane you're just frothing with angst. Welcome to the club, bucko.

[stphrz]

deadnail said:

Well, the NRA is against any kind of registration, licensing or mandatory training for gun owners. They are against any form of standards whatsoever. All those guns owned by people who have no fucking idea how to use or store them puts every single person who comes in contact with them at unacceptable risk. To drive a car legally you must have a license. You must pass a driving test to show you know how to operate a motor vehicle safely. That is what I mean by accountability. No matter what the moral rights of an individual may be, said individual has zero right to endanger others with irresponsible behavior. Irresponsible behavior unlike morality can and should be legislated :P

[deadnail]

You know, I heard from some old guys at work how they had shooting classes in high school. The NRA officially endorses training, education, and whatnot but they are distrustful of the Democrats and don't want anything MANDATORY. This is where I disagree.

Yeah, licensing is a damn good idea. Mandatory firearm education and responsiblity training. I love the sound of that. Maybe if Carmack would've had this the shotgun shells would be flying out of the ejection port by now... :)

[sirgalahadwizar]

Stphrz said:

Well, the NRA is against any kind of registration, licensing or mandatory training for gun owners. They are against any form of standards whatsoever. All those guns owned by people who have no fucking idea how to use or store them puts every single person who comes in contact with them at unacceptable risk. To drive a car legally you must have a license. You must pass a driving test to show you know how to operate a motor vehicle safely. That is what I mean by accountability. No matter what the moral rights of an individual may be, said individual has zero right to endanger others with irresponsible behavior. Irresponsible behavior unlike morality can and should be legislated :P

Don't give me this accountabiltiy shit, you say accountabiltiy, I say shoot you in the head!

Then again it is an unacceptable risk to let children on the internet because they can be lured somewhere where someone can kidnap them. And besides, what IS an unacceptable risk?

You cannot propose a grey area either like so many f*ucking republicans do. I want to hear your "operational definition" of an unacceptable risk damit!

And what the hell is morality, define that.

[sirgalahadwizar]

Stphrz said:

Um, you evaded the question. Ok, answer this one. It's an absolute indisputable fact. If you DO NOT own a gun (illegal or legal) you are way way way less likely to be a victim of gun violence. And I mean way way way way way less likely :).

Do you really think walking down the street with a gun in your pocket will make you safer?

Would you want or would you want someone close to you to be involved in Law inforcement, where everyone and his beagle had a gun, or two, or three even, with no accountablity or resposiblity until of course said gun(s) were actually used in some sort of crime?(too late then -heh).

Actually I would think that being a firearms expert you would at least know that guns offer no protection whatsoever as they are PURELY an OFFENSIVE device. A gun in your hand doesn't make you bullet proof. It does however make you a high priorty target....

No, but wearing full combat armor just might :)

(it might make you slower and sweat alot but it's better thna getting shot).

[sirgalahadwizar]

Clone999 said:

Deadnail: I really like your idea for the rifle, but theres only one problem. You woulden't need any more guns! That weapon would do everything for you, 'specially scince you can load rocket ammo and crap. I enjoy having a multiple variety of guns. That's why Turok 2 ruled scince day 1. DO NOT ELIMINATE THE M16! THE GUN FUCKING RULES!

There are alot of guns better than the m-16.

The M-4 has a grenade launcher underneith it.

The Ar-15, while being a offshoot of the m-16 is smaller and shoots the same ammo (thus being better).

The new OICW is supposed to replace the M-4 soon (as soon as they can cut the weight from 14lbs to a more modest 7-9lbs).

The P-90 is smaller than the m-16, stabler, and uses very lethal 5.7mm ammo (which is far more powerful than m-16's - from velocity) even though some consider it a SMG.

And there is a whole host of AK assault rifles out there that are actually better than the m-16 because they're so damn reliable (almost never jams, and when it does it is really easy to clean. And the weapon is priced really cheap too!), although im not a big fan of AK weapons because they look too much in the cold-war style (I like the ones that look futuristic, like OICW and P-90).

[sirgalahadwizar]

deadnail said:

You know, I heard from some old guys at work how they had shooting classes in high school. The NRA officially endorses training, education, and whatnot but they are distrustful of the Democrats and don't want anything MANDATORY. This is where I disagree.

Yeah, licensing is a damn good idea. Mandatory firearm education and responsiblity training. I love the sound of that. Maybe if Carmack would've had this the shotgun shells would be flying out of the ejection port by now... :)

See, I do consider myself democrat (for all intensive purposes), but I am all for guns.

I jsut don't condier myself a repubican because I feel all the rich fucks should be drug out in the street and get their frigging heads blown off, then their money spread evenly across all citizens (here's two for you, and two for you, and two for you...). Maybe some other vile, in-humane form of punishment is suitable for thier manicured asses.

Republicans are definatly for aristocracy - and don't give me this "oh, you aren't trying hard enough" bullshit! (or you may find a gun in your face as well).