|
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 22 2012 08:57 Nagano wrote:It's going to be interesting to see the effects of a federal "assault weapon" ban, if it does make it through the house/senate. My guess is, it will do nothing. It will be modeled after CA's AWB (that still exists today). You can own as many as you want here provided your rifle meets the easy loopholes (hello bullet button). It's a political show that will not affect at all rates of ownership. Hi-cap mags have been selling beyond anything seen before. Brownells have sold 3.5 years worth of high-cap mags in the past 3 days alone( src), with God knows how much on backorder. If this bill doesn't pass, Feinstein will be kicking herself because this show has only served to skyrocket ownership of everything they want banned. And if it does pass, it won't stop new ownership at all. It's all pomp and circumstance that will only make it slightly more difficult to own while doing nothing to solve the problem (tighter screening, mental healthcare, media propping murderers up like they're the Joker)
The United States has already previously had a federal assault weapons ban
|
On December 22 2012 10:55 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:09 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 10:02 Rhino85 wrote:
My mother is a 1st grade teacher in a very small community. I have no problems with her obtaining a Concealed Handgun License and caring a pistol to school. I wonder if her first grade students+their parents would. Willing to wager they would have some issue with it. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right..
It's just such a huge difference in cultures. A school having an armed teacher in my country would mean one of the following:
-The teacher is fired instantly
-The teacher is bullied by parents into leaving
-The teacher is sued for endangering children's lives
-Most parents take their children away from said school.
A gun, per se, is dangerous. In the blink of an eye a child could curiously pick up the teacher's gun and cause an accident and kill himself/the teacher/some other kid.
You will say "yeah accidents happen all the time". Sure, but what's more likely to kill you, an accident with a gun, or an accident with a knife?
After reading this thread probably hundreds of times, I just can't understand USA's obsession with guns. I even like guns, personally, I think it's fun to shoot, and guns themselves seem kinda fun to collect. Would I ever for the life of me own a gun? Not.. a chance.. in hell.. it's just asking for trouble. Guns are synonym with trouble and violence, either violent crimes, or violent accidents, it's just the way it is. There's nothing more terrible than being in the ER as a doctor and receiving a dying child shot by his best friend while they were rummaging around the house. It happens, it's an accidents, and that accident wouldn't have been half as terrible if that gun wasn't there.
|
@american nightmare could you ever be persuaded that gun ownership is a bad thing?
|
On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. Show nested quote +As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children.
"Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumbhole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2
Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher)
The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for.
It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes.
The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt.
|
People should say full automatic, not "assault weapon" simce thats what they mean when they say it
and they're banned to begin with.
but i know a few people that modified their weapons illegally in california, and since they're people i know in car scene, its no different than doing illegal car modifications which is pretty damn fcking common
|
On December 22 2012 11:23 iplayBANJO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 08:57 Nagano wrote:It's going to be interesting to see the effects of a federal "assault weapon" ban, if it does make it through the house/senate. My guess is, it will do nothing. It will be modeled after CA's AWB (that still exists today). You can own as many as you want here provided your rifle meets the easy loopholes (hello bullet button). It's a political show that will not affect at all rates of ownership. Hi-cap mags have been selling beyond anything seen before. Brownells have sold 3.5 years worth of high-cap mags in the past 3 days alone( src), with God knows how much on backorder. If this bill doesn't pass, Feinstein will be kicking herself because this show has only served to skyrocket ownership of everything they want banned. And if it does pass, it won't stop new ownership at all. It's all pomp and circumstance that will only make it slightly more difficult to own while doing nothing to solve the problem (tighter screening, mental healthcare, media propping murderers up like they're the Joker) The United States has already previously had a federal assault weapons ban
If you think this is news then you must've not been paying attention to my posts.
In any case, the federal AWB from '94 did nothing to stop or even slow the proliferation of "assault weapons". People still bought "featureless" rifles and attached hi-cap mags, or bought bullet button mags and used any and all "evil" features they wanted.
You must be smoking something if you think gun ownership, rifle ownership, or even new rifle registrations went down or were slowed during that period.
Another federal ban will do nothing and is only intended for politicians to fool the majority of the public who know nothing about rifles or the previous bans, and even current ones still in place. CT maintained the federal AWB after its expiration in 2004. Unless I'm mistaken it did nothing to prevent the mass shooting.
Tighter screening, mental healthcare, an end to media-driven martyrdom
|
On December 22 2012 11:32 jinorazi wrote:
People should say full automatic, not "assault weapon" simce thats what they mean when they say it
And this is exactly why most people are being deceived by the politicians.
Let's just say full automatic is as good as banned and requires a huge sacrifice of privacy, rights, and money to get (think $20,000-$50,000 usd). The general public of course just assumes that these are what's being discussed.
|
On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt.
I'll do you one better.
No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end.
|
On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end.
sucks for hunting and recreational shooting 
|
On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end.
And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either?
Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense.
Tirah Valley massacre happens, no one blinks an eye. Black youth are killing each other every day on urban streets using mainly handguns, no politicians call for handgun bans. 20 american children are murdered by a mentally-deficient murderer with stolen weapons, and everyone goes into panic mode calling for laws that will not affect the problems they were created for, like even at all.
It reminds me of the hospital scene in the Dark Knight with the joker and Harvey Dent. No one gives 2 cents about Tirah or all the black urban youth because it's all a part of the plan. But when something unexpected happens, no matter how statistically insignificant (don't let this fool you, it was evil as shit and the guy is going to hell if there is one), everyone loses their minds.
The real problem here is not guns, video games, movies. It's that this kid was a fucking psycho that should have been caught early and shouldn't have had access to his mother's weapons. The blood of those people are on her hands for not taking the precautions when she knew she had a mentally unstable kid. And she paid that price dearly.
|
On December 22 2012 11:40 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either? Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense.
Personally, I'd say hell yeah. 20 children is 20 children more than enough
|
On December 22 2012 11:39 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. sucks for hunting and recreational shooting
Imagine if you had land, animals, and varmints. I'd hate to try and clear out coyotes with a pistol. Guess we'll have to go back to poisoned meat and letting them suffer for days.
So much for humane kills in any kind of hunting really.
|
On December 22 2012 11:42 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:40 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either? Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense. Personally, I'd say hell yeah. 20 children is 20 children more than enough
i see, no gun = no innocent death
how could i have been so blind, remove all guns right now!
|
United States24752 Posts
On December 22 2012 11:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:39 jinorazi wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. sucks for hunting and recreational shooting Imagine if you had land, animals, and varmints. I'd hate to try and clear out coyotes with a pistol. Guess we'll have to go back to poisoned meat and letting them suffer for days. So much for humane kills in any kind of hunting really.
It's a moot point since a sudden change in policy like this would either result in poor enforcement or civil war.
|
On December 22 2012 11:44 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:42 JingleHell wrote:On December 22 2012 11:39 jinorazi wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. sucks for hunting and recreational shooting Imagine if you had land, animals, and varmints. I'd hate to try and clear out coyotes with a pistol. Guess we'll have to go back to poisoned meat and letting them suffer for days. So much for humane kills in any kind of hunting really. It's a moot point since a sudden change in policy like this would either result in poor enforcement or civil war.
Also relevant. But then, we're completely blind to the fact that voluntary gun turn-ins work other places! That's why when America hears "Possible new gun control", every single gun store starts selling out of roughly everything somewhere slightly in excess of the speed of light.
|
On December 22 2012 11:42 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:40 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either? Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense. Personally, I'd say hell yeah. 20 children is 20 children more than enough
You probably think the TSA, Patriot Act, and wiretapping are all great ideas too, then.
|
On December 22 2012 11:44 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:42 mordk wrote:On December 22 2012 11:40 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either? Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense. Personally, I'd say hell yeah. 20 children is 20 children more than enough i see, no gun = no innocent death how could i have been so blind, remove all guns right now!
That would be nice, it's pretty much impossible though because of how US society works
With less guns, there's less gun related deaths, that is all. It's easier to kill someone with a firearm than with pretty much any other method, so no firearms means less people die.
On December 22 2012 11:48 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:42 mordk wrote:On December 22 2012 11:40 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either? Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense. Personally, I'd say hell yeah. 20 children is 20 children more than enough You probably think the TSA, Patriot Act, and wiretapping are all great ideas too, then.
Let me google that 
Nah that's crazy, and absolutely, completely, and utterly unrelated to guns in any possible way. That's just plain intrusion of privacy, a completely different issue.
|
On December 22 2012 11:44 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:42 mordk wrote:On December 22 2012 11:40 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either? Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense. Personally, I'd say hell yeah. 20 children is 20 children more than enough i see, no gun = no innocent death how could i have been so blind, remove all guns right now!
The same idea disproves the main point of both sides of the argument. If someone is REALLY determined to kill a bunch of people, having restricted access to weapons probably wouldn't stop them. Then again, neither would an armed security guard.
To be honest this is a deadlock that i can't see being broken. Violent crime will always exist with or without guns, but they just make it that much more deadly.
Personally i'm glad i don't own a gun, and i'm glad that i don't feel like i have to own one to be safe. Its really hard for me to comment one way or another on how Americans see it because i have never been there. It seems there are a whole bunch of lines of reasoning that i really don't understand, or seem to have no real connection to guns IMO. Freedom certainly isn't achieved by having a weapon, in the UK at least. I have as much freedom as i really need without having the ability to kill someone.
Then again i don't NEED protecting from gun toting criminals.
|
I had to take the course to attain and possess restricted firearms in Canada so i could carry a weapon for work. There was lots of things I had to do some of the things being mental health testing, criminal record checks etc and after that I had to get my license notarized by a police officer or judge that could vouch for me etc.
If I had my way I would not allow people to attain hand guns or automatic rifles at all or make them take special courses like they do in Canada. hunting rifles and shotguns should be sufficient to provide home security to those who feel they require a gun to stay safe at home.
I hear the argument about "bad people would get guns regardless of rules" and i somewhat agree but in my opinion if some kind of regulation was in place it would stop some people and that's all you can really hope for. Its also pretty easy to conceal a pistol, the Asian kid that shot up that school last year had a few pistols. do you think he would of killed as many people as he did with a hunting rifle. He wouldn't of made it to the school by the time someone spotted him and called the police. I know if i seen a kid walking with a rifle sticking out his backpack id raise the alarms.
I hunt to provide food for me and my family and have 7 guns in my household all of which are hunting rifles/shotguns. I live in a remote area of Canada and i couldn't cope without being able to carry a gun because it would change my way of life.
|
On December 22 2012 11:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:44 jinorazi wrote:On December 22 2012 11:42 mordk wrote:On December 22 2012 11:40 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 22 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote:Why can't I be allowed to own an assault rifle just to own one? Let me ask you a legit "what if" question...
"What if" I or my wife won a substantial lottery winning or settlement agreement. We've already spent some on what is needed.. Paid off the house.. set enough aside for children future and even some for more kids in the future... I myself have 300k to spend on whatever I want.. I'm not a person who likes to be flashy.. I don't need/want 5 car... (I want to spend my money without people knowing I have money)..
Guns are a very good way of spending that money.. I could easily spend 200k on gun and my neighbors would never know.. and they don't need to know. Why does my need to own assault rifles have to be on the premise that I'm going to shoot someone with it? Could I not just want one just to have it? So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. As someone who will have children in public school soon.. I would choose a school that allowed armed teacher in the class. I do not believe that they would pull them out to settle down wild children because unlike more than half of you irrational people.. I have faith in people to do what's right. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. "Assault weapons" is a completely made up word. If by that you mean the guns that look like automatic assault rifles, then I'd understand what you mean. But assault weapons are legally defined as: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2Do you notice how what politicians and lawmakers have defined as "assault weapons" are just the cosmetic features of a rifle? (minus grenade launcher) The CA ban is what the federal ban is being modeled after. These evil "assault weapons" are nothing more than cosmetic features. You can't ban "assault weapons" and expect any reduction in crime because it does not affect the functionality of the weapon. You might as well ban all rifles (barrels over whatever length you specify), or ban all firearms, before you create some convoluted law that does nothing to stop the crime it was created for. It was already banned in CT where the shooting took place, it's banned in CA where people are still buying "assault weapons" where people just go around the legal loopholes. The whole federal "assault weapon" ban is a political stunt. I'll do you one better. No one should be allowed to own anything other than a pistol. The end. And I'm assuming you're not a very big fan of the 5th amendment either? Pistols are used in the large majority of gun crime (think 80%+). Yet you want to ban shotguns, rifles of all kinds and cartridges (probably 150 million already in circulation) because one mentally deficient, deranged murderer steals his mother's weapons to kill children. Makes perfect sense. Personally, I'd say hell yeah. 20 children is 20 children more than enough i see, no gun = no innocent death how could i have been so blind, remove all guns right now! The same idea disproves the main point of both sides of the argument. If someone is REALLY determined to kill a bunch of people, having restricted access to weapons probably wouldn't stop them. Then again, neither would an armed security guard. To be honest this is a deadlock that i can't see being broken. Violent crime will always exist with or without guns, but they just make it that much more deadly. Personally i'm glad i don't own a gun, and i'm glad that i don't feel like i have to own one to be safe. Its really hard for me to comment one way or another on how Americans see it because i have never been there. It seems there are a whole bunch of lines of reasoning that i really don't understand, or seem to have no real connection to guns IMO. Freedom certainly isn't achieved by having a weapon, in the UK at least. I have as much freedom as i really need without having the ability to kill someone. Then again i don't NEED protecting from gun toting criminals.
The U.S. isn't some gun-toting Wild West some people make it out to be. Nor do the majority of gun-owners feel that they are under the constant stress of self-preservation. The simple way to explain it would be that the self-defense argument is just the most commonly cited. There are 300 million firearms in half the households in all the U.S., I can assure you half the U.S. aren't all paranoid crazies. I'm sure if you visited the U.S. you'd see it's very normal just like any other country. It's these statistical anomalies like this psycho who had access to his mother's apparently unlocked firearms that give the 300 million firearms and 150 million households a bad wrap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
