|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 18 2012 08:59 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. Out of curiosity, where did you hear that Assault rifles were banned in the U.S.? Are you referring to the sunset law that was passed by Clintion and expired under Bush? If not then I have no idea where this claim of assault rifles ban originates from, because I'm certain I'd get a letter by the feds stating that my AR-15 is illegal...
AR-15 stands for Armalite-Rifle. It is not an "assault rifle". The law you're referring to was Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
What affect did the 1994 ban on assault weapons have on gun crime in general?
Crime was already on a decline, so crime went down a bit, and it has gone down every year for the past eight to the 40 year low we are at today. This is also with record high gun ownership rates, and record high "assault weapon" rates.
Did criminals simply break the law
Yes, by nature, that's what criminals do.
How often are assault weapons, as defined in the 1994 ban, used in general crime?
< 1% nationwide
Are the death tolls higher when they are used compared to pistols, or compared to similar weapons which are not deemed "assault weapons"?
Read up on this. He used guns predominately used for hunting.
Also this. He used guns that would not have been effected by a ban.
Same here.
And even the recent tragedy in CT, was used with guns that is exempt from the ban, as CT already has a ban on "assault weapons."
I am asking for facts about the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban on gun crime.
None
You may want to check this out especially for the statistics. It's basic knowledge about gun rights and gun control.
|
On December 18 2012 08:59 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:54 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 ConGee wrote:On December 18 2012 08:40 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:36 ConGee wrote:On December 18 2012 08:22 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:17 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head. What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis. This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked. Lets just hope the government will actually do something this time  Gun control would have done nothing to stop that massacre. This psycho shot all his victims multiple times. He would have done similar damage with a knife if he stabbed his victims 3-4 times each. Gun control laws wouldn't have stopped Aurora. The shooter had illegally obtained automatic rifles and working grenades. Gun laws didn't stop Virginia Tech, the shooter should never of had access to firearms in the first place due to his diagnosed mental illness. Add that to the fact that almost all gun homicides are committed by former convicts/felons who should never have had guns in the first place, and the answer is clear. It's not MORE laws, it's ensuring that our current laws are actually enforced. If the gun laws are enforced so poorly now, what makes you think adding more ineffectively enforced gun restrictions is actually gonna fix anything? This has been argue'd before and is very weak, knife would not do no where near as much damage, not to mention the fact that teachers tried to stop this kid with a GUN, there is a much higher chance that they would of succeded if he only had a knife. All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant. What???? You think people would just stand there and let him stab them? have you heard about being able to pick things up and fight back? you dont need to use your fists. Have you even seen the guy? He was a skinny 140lb's kid. Are you really argueing that a knife can do more damage then assault rifle? lol His progression wouldn't have been to stab a teacher once. He would have stabbed them multiple times (he shot a victim up to 11 times and all victims at least twice). I'm not arguing that he would have done more damage with a knife, rather that it's dumb to simply conclude that he would have done significantly less damage if he had a knife.
Well if you really think that then i am sorry, but you are so terribly wrong ><
I dont want to bring this back up put its a perfect example, did you hear about what happend in china the very same day?
|
"Assault weapon" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary."
|
On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote:[quote] I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size  . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing! I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing). Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them). It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence. During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first.
Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I stand corrected.
Are you trying to say that buying a gun in the US requires more than a 30 minute background check, or no check at all if bought privately or at a gun show? Please educate me on this.
Do you feel more freedom by a: owning a gun or b: not owning a gun? Are you planning on using your gun against your own goverment or an invading army any time soon? I can actually understand arguments towards owning a gun because of self defense, even though its horrible uneducated. And I definitely understand owning guns for an actual use (recreational, sport or hunting). All I'm trying to argue towards is a bit of control. There is supposedly a register that keeps track of some guns, why not all? Why aren't guns treated like cars? You should be required to own a license before owning a gun, preferably with a mandatory test where you show how the safety pin works, and a bit more thorough background checks on you and your family. That would be a step in the right direction at least. Later down the line we can start talking about bans on fully automatic and require a purpose for owning a gun other than "self defense" or "liberty".
On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary."
I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking.
|
On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary."
Thanks for knowing your stuff before posting
|
On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:In the United States people own guns to protect themselves against threats as well as a Tyrannical Government. It is written in the constitution and therefore is a cornerstone of our government. The right to own guns is going nowhere. Guns are our protection against a Government that listens not to the people but to itself. For those saying that the 2nd amendment is not applicable to modern times I present to you the Switzerland Example. Most have heard of this overly used cliche of an example so google it if you do not understand. With recent events it is easy to scapegoat gun owners for what has happened. But in reality, if someone as sick and twisted as this man was is determined to hurt people, we will do it regardless of if he had legal access to guns or not. Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htmBanning guns is starting another war on drugs. A war that cannot be won. Guns are here to stay embrace it. Banning guns will work as well as banning Heroin, Meth or even Weed has. Two states have already tried to legalize weed and this forum gives them praise. Same situation with guns. Imagine if school teachers carried how this situation would have changed. This man attacked a school because it was defenseless and he wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking the cowards way out. Would he have done the same if he realized he would get one or two shots off before receiving return fire? I doubt it. Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:54 spacemonkeyy wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 ConGee wrote:
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant. Not sure if serious, killing something with a knife is far from a clean, quick, easy affair. Easily overwhelmed. The suspect himself did not look exactly like the hulk either. The logical progression for a spree killer is not gun -> knife. Knifes do not provide the sheer killing power guns do. Spree killers would switch to homemade bombs. Sometimes bombs would be the first choice as shown in this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Well people kill people ... not guns ... but letting them have guns helps. And all i can say is i really hope not everyone thinks like you. How can you imagine a school teacher with a gun at a class where the children are under 10 years old ? And in my opinion drugs are easy to get because sadly people let them.
|
On December 18 2012 09:04 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I stand corrected. Are you trying to say that buying a gun in the US requires more than a 30 minute background check, or no check at all if bought privately or at a gun show? Please educate me on this. Do you feel more freedom by a: owning a gun or b: not owning a gun? Are you planning on using your gun against your own goverment or an invading army any time soon? I can actually understand arguments towards owning a gun because of self defense, even though its horrible uneducated. And I definitely understand owning guns for an actual use (recreational, sport or hunting). All I'm trying to argue towards is a bit of control. There is supposedly a register that keeps track of some guns, why not all? Why aren't guns treated like cars? You should be required to own a license before owning a gun, preferably with a mandatory test where you show how the safety pin works, and a bit more thorough background checks on you and your family. That would be a step in the right direction at least. Later down the line we can start talking about bans on fully automatic and require a purpose for owning a gun other than "self defense" or "liberty". Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary." I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking.
I'll put up with how condescending you're phrasing your questions to point a few things out (Against an invading army? Uneducated? Really? Sigh.)
I've already stated I'm for more effective restrictions on gun purchases, so we agree there.
Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Know what you're talking about please. You have no idea but pretend to by googling between posting.
|
On December 18 2012 09:04 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking.
It's not just terminology where you're wrong. Full automatic has been banned since 1968.
Fucking sigh.
|
Fully automatic rifles made before 1980 are not banned. They are however expensive and tightly regulated compared to other firearms.
|
On December 18 2012 09:11 heliusx wrote:
Fully automatic rifles made before 1980 are not banned. They are however expensive and tightly regulated compared to other firearms.
Correct, got $20,000+++ dollars and an 8-week check by the ATF? Be my guest.
|
Like one guy here said, I've never seen a pro-gun control advocate win a debate. Facts are never on that side.
|
On December 18 2012 09:08 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:04 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I stand corrected. Are you trying to say that buying a gun in the US requires more than a 30 minute background check, or no check at all if bought privately or at a gun show? Please educate me on this. Do you feel more freedom by a: owning a gun or b: not owning a gun? Are you planning on using your gun against your own goverment or an invading army any time soon? I can actually understand arguments towards owning a gun because of self defense, even though its horrible uneducated. And I definitely understand owning guns for an actual use (recreational, sport or hunting). All I'm trying to argue towards is a bit of control. There is supposedly a register that keeps track of some guns, why not all? Why aren't guns treated like cars? You should be required to own a license before owning a gun, preferably with a mandatory test where you show how the safety pin works, and a bit more thorough background checks on you and your family. That would be a step in the right direction at least. Later down the line we can start talking about bans on fully automatic and require a purpose for owning a gun other than "self defense" or "liberty". On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary." I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking. I'll put up with how condescending you're phrasing your questions to point a few things out (Against an invading army? Uneducated? Really? Sigh.) I've already stated I'm for more effective restrictions on gun purchases, so we agree there. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Know what you're talking about please. You have no idea but pretend to by googling between posting.
Ok, lets google.
+ Show Spoiler +"Manufacture of full auto firearms for civilian commercial sales ceased in 1986. Any full auto weapon manufactured and registered prior to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 is still transferable. To purchase one, you need to be willing to shell out a lot of money, and be approved for a Class III NFA tax stamp. Your likelihood of being approved varies by state.
Other than that, any means of purchasing a post-86 full auto firearm require you to have an FFL (Type 1, Type 7, Type 10) with a Class II Special Occupational Tax Stamp, a law enforcement letterhead approving the purchases of those firearms as dealer samples, and the understanding that those are not transferable."
Maybe you should try it.
I'm sorry if my tone is a bit condescending, I actually understand how annoying it is to argue against. But I'm just really sick and tired of people trying to argue that the gun laws in USA are perfectly fine right now because "liberty!", "second ammendment!" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and so on (The reason I added the "invading army" is and "rise against corrupt government" is because people have argued with those very words earlier in this thread).
At least you agree that something needs to be done. So lets stop fucking around with who is the most technical correct with their terminology and discuss what can actually be done instead.
|
On December 18 2012 09:15 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:08 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:04 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I stand corrected. Are you trying to say that buying a gun in the US requires more than a 30 minute background check, or no check at all if bought privately or at a gun show? Please educate me on this. Do you feel more freedom by a: owning a gun or b: not owning a gun? Are you planning on using your gun against your own goverment or an invading army any time soon? I can actually understand arguments towards owning a gun because of self defense, even though its horrible uneducated. And I definitely understand owning guns for an actual use (recreational, sport or hunting). All I'm trying to argue towards is a bit of control. There is supposedly a register that keeps track of some guns, why not all? Why aren't guns treated like cars? You should be required to own a license before owning a gun, preferably with a mandatory test where you show how the safety pin works, and a bit more thorough background checks on you and your family. That would be a step in the right direction at least. Later down the line we can start talking about bans on fully automatic and require a purpose for owning a gun other than "self defense" or "liberty". On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary." I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking. I'll put up with how condescending you're phrasing your questions to point a few things out (Against an invading army? Uneducated? Really? Sigh.) I've already stated I'm for more effective restrictions on gun purchases, so we agree there. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Know what you're talking about please. You have no idea but pretend to by googling between posting. Ok, lets google. + Show Spoiler +"Manufacture of full auto firearms for civilian commercial sales ceased in 1986. Any full auto weapon manufactured and registered prior to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 is still transferable. To purchase one, you need to be willing to shell out a lot of money, and be approved for a Class III NFA tax stamp. Your likelihood of being approved varies by state.
Other than that, any means of purchasing a post-86 full auto firearm require you to have an FFL (Type 1, Type 7, Type 10) with a Class II Special Occupational Tax Stamp, a law enforcement letterhead approving the purchases of those firearms as dealer samples, and the understanding that those are not transferable." Maybe you should try it. I'm sorry if my tone is a bit condescending, I actually understand how annoying it is to argue against. But I'm just really sick and tired of people trying to argue that the gun laws in USA are perfectly fine right now because "liberty!", "second ammendment!" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and so on (The reason I added the "invading army" is and "rise against corrupt government" is because people have argued with those very words earlier in this thread). At least you agree that something needs to be done. So lets stop fucking around with who is the most technical correct with their terminology and discuss what can actually be done instead.
Read my posts 2 posts above yours.
Better yet, read the first post on this page in it's entirety including the compilation on Reddit.
|
On December 18 2012 09:15 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:08 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:04 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I stand corrected. Are you trying to say that buying a gun in the US requires more than a 30 minute background check, or no check at all if bought privately or at a gun show? Please educate me on this. Do you feel more freedom by a: owning a gun or b: not owning a gun? Are you planning on using your gun against your own goverment or an invading army any time soon? I can actually understand arguments towards owning a gun because of self defense, even though its horrible uneducated. And I definitely understand owning guns for an actual use (recreational, sport or hunting). All I'm trying to argue towards is a bit of control. There is supposedly a register that keeps track of some guns, why not all? Why aren't guns treated like cars? You should be required to own a license before owning a gun, preferably with a mandatory test where you show how the safety pin works, and a bit more thorough background checks on you and your family. That would be a step in the right direction at least. Later down the line we can start talking about bans on fully automatic and require a purpose for owning a gun other than "self defense" or "liberty". On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary." I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking. I'll put up with how condescending you're phrasing your questions to point a few things out (Against an invading army? Uneducated? Really? Sigh.) I've already stated I'm for more effective restrictions on gun purchases, so we agree there. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Know what you're talking about please. You have no idea but pretend to by googling between posting. Ok, lets google. + Show Spoiler +"Manufacture of full auto firearms for civilian commercial sales ceased in 1986. Any full auto weapon manufactured and registered prior to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 is still transferable. To purchase one, you need to be willing to shell out a lot of money, and be approved for a Class III NFA tax stamp. Your likelihood of being approved varies by state.
Other than that, any means of purchasing a post-86 full auto firearm require you to have an FFL (Type 1, Type 7, Type 10) with a Class II Special Occupational Tax Stamp, a law enforcement letterhead approving the purchases of those firearms as dealer samples, and the understanding that those are not transferable." Maybe you should try it. I'm sorry if my tone is a bit condescending, I actually understand how annoying it is to argue against. But I'm just really sick and tired of people trying to argue that the gun laws in USA are perfectly fine right now because "liberty!", "second ammendment!" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and so on (The reason I added the "invading army" is and "rise against corrupt government" is because people have argued with those very words earlier in this thread). At least you agree that something needs to be done. So lets stop fucking around with who is the most technical correct with their terminology and discuss what can actually be done instead.
Out of the hundreds of people posting in this thread I've only come across a few that were not for stricter laws keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and what not. I've literally read every page of this thread since it was opened. So claiming to argue versus people who think current US gun laws are fine is basically a straw man because I don't see anyone taking that position.
|
On December 18 2012 08:53 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:48 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 08:46 micronesia wrote:
The amount of ignorance about actual gun laws in the USA is understandable, considering there is no easy way to look them up. They vary from state to state, county to county, and city to city. What I think we all need is actual/accurate/complete information about gun laws in the USA. Does anyone know of an up-to-date resource for this? For federal laws the ATF is a good reference. As for state laws they each have wikipedia pages that source the state websites. Even within states laws vary a lot though... what we need is a carefully compiled overview of gun laws... things like, in what percent of the country (by population that lives in the region) do you need a license before you can purchase a pistol, and is it legal anywhere to buy crazy weapon X, etc.
Here in Virginia you don't need a license nor are you required to register any firearm you own. Of course this does not apply to firearms that require special permits (on the Federal level I believe) such as fully automatic weapons, anti-aircraft guns, etc.
Background checks are required for purchases from gun dealers (Federal law I believe), but not if you are buying from a private dealer at a "gunshow" for example, or on craigslist.
Concealed permits in my state require small fee, a background check, filling out a form, and completing a course, which you can accomplish online.
I went to Target (sorta like Walmart) a week ago and there was a random guy in the store shopping with a handgun in a holster on his waist, completely legal. Firearms are also legal at bars, even concealed (though you cannot consume alcohol if you are carrying a weapon.)
|
1019 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:
Imagine if school teachers carried how this situation would have changed. This man attacked a school because it was defenseless and he wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking the cowards way out. Would he have done the same if he realized he would get one or two shots off before receiving return fire? I doubt it.
Thats a useless argument and a fantasy that pro-gun supporters dream about in their sleep. Ok...lets hypothetically suppose the principal pulled out a rifle from an office locker and shot at the gunman. What if the gunman was well-trained and was able to kill her first? Or suppose the principal missed him and the gunman kills her and then moves on to the defenseless classrooms? So now I suppose we should have the classroom teachers armed with handguns kept in a file? I guess we should also arm the custodians while we're at it and teach children how to shoot a gun in case their teacher is shot? So where does it end? The idea that we should have a loaded gun inside an elementary school classroom is a scenario that is completely obnoxious and inappropriate.
The public discourse should be about how to prevent the wrong people from getting guns, and how to sufficiently train gun owners from keeping their weapons safe, and how to encourage a culture of peace where we don't have to deal with this kind of stuff. Just adding more guns all over the place does not make society automatically safer.
If there should be guns in a public school, the best idea is having an armed police liason officer in the school who not only acts as an armed guard but also someone to deal with trouble or disciplinary issues. That was the case with my high school and a good way to keep the school safe. I was definitely glad we had someone like him.
|
On December 18 2012 09:15 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:08 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:04 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I stand corrected. Are you trying to say that buying a gun in the US requires more than a 30 minute background check, or no check at all if bought privately or at a gun show? Please educate me on this. Do you feel more freedom by a: owning a gun or b: not owning a gun? Are you planning on using your gun against your own goverment or an invading army any time soon? I can actually understand arguments towards owning a gun because of self defense, even though its horrible uneducated. And I definitely understand owning guns for an actual use (recreational, sport or hunting). All I'm trying to argue towards is a bit of control. There is supposedly a register that keeps track of some guns, why not all? Why aren't guns treated like cars? You should be required to own a license before owning a gun, preferably with a mandatory test where you show how the safety pin works, and a bit more thorough background checks on you and your family. That would be a step in the right direction at least. Later down the line we can start talking about bans on fully automatic and require a purpose for owning a gun other than "self defense" or "liberty". On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary." I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking. I'll put up with how condescending you're phrasing your questions to point a few things out (Against an invading army? Uneducated? Really? Sigh.) I've already stated I'm for more effective restrictions on gun purchases, so we agree there. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Know what you're talking about please. You have no idea but pretend to by googling between posting. At least you agree that something needs to be done. So lets stop fucking around with who is the most technical correct with their terminology and discuss what can actually be done instead.
Tighter mental health regulations. That's what these shootings are all about, right?
Firearms are easier to obtain than mental healthcare in this country. That says just as much about the healthcare system than it does about the ease with which to obtain a firearm. Better screening for purchase of firearm (hi, are you crazy or is anyone in your family crazy?) and better access to mental healthcare.
Banning "assault weapons" and other firearms, meanwhile, does nothing and has never done a thing in the past.
|
On December 18 2012 09:07 Greenwizard wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:In the United States people own guns to protect themselves against threats as well as a Tyrannical Government. It is written in the constitution and therefore is a cornerstone of our government. The right to own guns is going nowhere. Guns are our protection against a Government that listens not to the people but to itself. For those saying that the 2nd amendment is not applicable to modern times I present to you the Switzerland Example. Most have heard of this overly used cliche of an example so google it if you do not understand. With recent events it is easy to scapegoat gun owners for what has happened. But in reality, if someone as sick and twisted as this man was is determined to hurt people, we will do it regardless of if he had legal access to guns or not. Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htmBanning guns is starting another war on drugs. A war that cannot be won. Guns are here to stay embrace it. Banning guns will work as well as banning Heroin, Meth or even Weed has. Two states have already tried to legalize weed and this forum gives them praise. Same situation with guns. Imagine if school teachers carried how this situation would have changed. This man attacked a school because it was defenseless and he wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking the cowards way out. Would he have done the same if he realized he would get one or two shots off before receiving return fire? I doubt it. On December 18 2012 08:54 spacemonkeyy wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 ConGee wrote:
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant. Not sure if serious, killing something with a knife is far from a clean, quick, easy affair. Easily overwhelmed. The suspect himself did not look exactly like the hulk either. The logical progression for a spree killer is not gun -> knife. Knifes do not provide the sheer killing power guns do. Spree killers would switch to homemade bombs. Sometimes bombs would be the first choice as shown in this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Well people kill people ... not guns ... but letting them have guns helps. And all i can say is i really hope not everyone thinks like you. How can you imagine a school teacher with a gun at a class where the children are under 10 years old ? And in my opinion drugs are easy to get because sadly people let them.
Have the guns in a container such as a fire extinguisher. Let an alarm go off when one is broken. The teachers arm to protect the students, give them military training. You want to protect your kids, enable your teachers to protect them. You hear the story of the teacher who hid her students in a closet as she confronted the shooter and was promptly killed. I wish she had a gun to defend herself with instead of being slaughtered like a cattle. Teachers are willing to go to extreme lengths to protect our countries young, giving them an opportunity to start the bloodshed before police get there will let those heroic teachers act.
People will find ways to kill people, you cannot prevent them from doing that, what you can do is give people the opportunity to defend themselves. Taking away guns puts us all at the mercy of the offender.
Drugs are easy to get because there are cartels beheading people in front of their families to scare people into not messing with them. If there is enough money in a product a black market will arise. The war on drugs has done nothing but enforce that theory. Look at bootlegging, the worst kind of criminals arose from the black market need to acquire alcohol; Prohibition started the mafia.
What makes you think guns would be any different then drugs. It is a case of 'Invading Russia During Winter'. It didn't work for drugs, but it will work for guns because this time it is different.
On December 18 2012 09:20 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:
Imagine if school teachers carried how this situation would have changed. This man attacked a school because it was defenseless and he wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking the cowards way out. Would he have done the same if he realized he would get one or two shots off before receiving return fire? I doubt it.
Thats a useless argument and a fantasy that pro-gun supporters dream about in their sleep. Ok...lets hypothetically suppose the principal pulled out a rifle from an office locker and shot at the gunman. What if the gunman was well-trained and was able to kill her first? Or suppose the principal missed him and the gunman kills her and then moves on to the defenseless classrooms? So now I suppose we should have the classroom teachers armed with handguns kept in a file? I guess we should also arm the custodians while we're at it and teach children how to shoot a gun in case their teacher is shot? So where does it end? The idea that we should have a loaded gun inside an elementary school classroom is a scenario that is completely obnoxious and inappropriate. The public discourse should be about how to prevent the wrong people from getting guns, and how to sufficiently train gun owners from keeping their weapons safe, and how to encourage a culture of peace where we don't have to deal with this kind of stuff. Just adding more guns all over the place does not make society automatically safer. If there should be guns in a public school, the best idea is having an armed police liason officer in the school who not only acts as an armed guard but also someone to deal with trouble or disciplinary issues. That was the case with my high school and a good way to keep the school safe. I was definitely glad we had someone like him.
Read my response above. Just because the gunman might be well trained does not mean you roll over and quit. Resistance is key here. Resistance saves lives, it slows down the gunman. Training is key. You train your staff to carry in cooperation with the local police. Teachers, Principles.. Proctors, they are now an extension of the local authority and a safeguard for the children.
Look i respect where you are coming from. We both want a society where the bad guys don't have access to things that can harm the good guys. Everyone should live in peace, period. The problem lies that this is not our world. Preventing the wrong people from getting guns is a fool errand, it is like preventing cigarette users from acquiring cigarettes. If you need them you need them and you will find a way to acquire them. Read the fact sheet i shown in my first post. It shows some 60% of felons fear confronting a armed victim over getting caught by the police.
The problem is police are understaffed, underpaid, and under-appreciated until situations like this arise. They face anger customers every single day. They simply cannot be everywhere at once. My idea is not to hand all the teachers a gun and shove them off to teach. Train them without the local police. Build working-relationships between teachers and policemen. Ideally if everyone was aquatinted with how to use a weapon properly, there would be no crime.
Stopping here because i thought of a point. If the lethality of a gun is what is causing you pause, what about non-lethal options. Rubber Bullets/Stun Guns, etc. Ranged non-lethal weaponry that has the stopping power of gun. Give them out to teachers.
|
On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote:On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing! I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing). Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them). It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence. During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not)
You're trying to argue with ignorance
|
On December 18 2012 09:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:15 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 09:08 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:04 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:52 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:43 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:32 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect? It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there. Whoa, I used the wrong word. I accidently wrote "weapon" instead of "rifle". I surely must know nothing about guns or the subject! If you're not some "white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype" then stupid using the words "constitutional rights" and "liberty", because they have nothing to do with this thread. We have looked at studies and facts, all thread long. The problem is that those things doesn't work everytime someone new enters the thread and starts shouting "freedom!" and "rights!". Facts: USA have one of the highest death related crime rate in the western world. USA have one of the highest "gun pr person" now at around 88 per 100 people (That is a lot btw). USA have little to no background checks on anyone who wants to buy a gun, meaning that mr "I want to murder as many people as I can at a mall or a school" can get his "assault weapon" after spending up to 30 minutes at his local arms dealer, or none if he just buys it off someone else. It also means that Mrs "I have no clue how the safety pin works!" can get her hands on a handgun, somehow thinking it will make her life more secure. Gun rights isn't a liberty issue? Also, you clearly know nothing of how firearm purchases work in the U.S.. And no, you used the right word. "Assault rifles" are already banned in the United States. You read that correctly. The subject this thread is mainly revolving around is "assault weapons". Please know the difference between the two because people like you, who tend to know the least about firearms and laws around it, are typically the ones most opposed to them. It's important to know everything first. Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I stand corrected. Are you trying to say that buying a gun in the US requires more than a 30 minute background check, or no check at all if bought privately or at a gun show? Please educate me on this. Do you feel more freedom by a: owning a gun or b: not owning a gun? Are you planning on using your gun against your own goverment or an invading army any time soon? I can actually understand arguments towards owning a gun because of self defense, even though its horrible uneducated. And I definitely understand owning guns for an actual use (recreational, sport or hunting). All I'm trying to argue towards is a bit of control. There is supposedly a register that keeps track of some guns, why not all? Why aren't guns treated like cars? You should be required to own a license before owning a gun, preferably with a mandatory test where you show how the safety pin works, and a bit more thorough background checks on you and your family. That would be a step in the right direction at least. Later down the line we can start talking about bans on fully automatic and require a purpose for owning a gun other than "self defense" or "liberty". On December 18 2012 09:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term anyway. It is completely undefined, and varies from state to state. You take one gun and it is perfectly legal, you put a different handle on it and suddenly it is an illegal assault rifle. Basically assault weapon means "looks scary." I've always drawn the line at "fully automatic rifles", but I can see how this is actually wrong, technically speaking. I'll put up with how condescending you're phrasing your questions to point a few things out (Against an invading army? Uneducated? Really? Sigh.) I've already stated I'm for more effective restrictions on gun purchases, so we agree there. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Know what you're talking about please. You have no idea but pretend to by googling between posting. Ok, lets google. + Show Spoiler +"Manufacture of full auto firearms for civilian commercial sales ceased in 1986. Any full auto weapon manufactured and registered prior to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 is still transferable. To purchase one, you need to be willing to shell out a lot of money, and be approved for a Class III NFA tax stamp. Your likelihood of being approved varies by state.
Other than that, any means of purchasing a post-86 full auto firearm require you to have an FFL (Type 1, Type 7, Type 10) with a Class II Special Occupational Tax Stamp, a law enforcement letterhead approving the purchases of those firearms as dealer samples, and the understanding that those are not transferable." Maybe you should try it. I'm sorry if my tone is a bit condescending, I actually understand how annoying it is to argue against. But I'm just really sick and tired of people trying to argue that the gun laws in USA are perfectly fine right now because "liberty!", "second ammendment!" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and so on (The reason I added the "invading army" is and "rise against corrupt government" is because people have argued with those very words earlier in this thread). At least you agree that something needs to be done. So lets stop fucking around with who is the most technical correct with their terminology and discuss what can actually be done instead. Out of the hundreds of people posting in this thread I've only come across a few that were not for stricter laws keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and what not. I've literally read every page of this thread since it was opened. So claiming to argue versus people who think current US gun laws are fine is basically a straw man because I don't see anyone taking that position.
1. Oh yes they are. I know you have been following this thread for a while, so it surprises me that you've somehow skipped all those posts. Maybe your trollalert is more finely tuned than mine.
2. It can also be very hard to realize where exactly people want to go when you start arguing that knives are equally damaging as guns, that guns used for self defense is effective, and that apparently there are no statistics that "holds up" when it comes to gun control..you know, with the exception of most western countries with the exception of USA being a living example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
