|
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 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.
i personally dont really care for self defense as i havnt had that experience yet at home so i can't comment on how it feels to have your house broken into. as for protection at all time, concealed carry, having a gun with me at all time is illegal as far as i know in california. i do want it for recreational use though, as a hobby and i'm glad that is possible.
however i heard i can get a concealed carry license depending on the need and in my case, maybe its possible since it would be for transporting expensive goods.
|
On December 22 2012 11:59 fishey wrote:
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.
I'd agree that pistols play a much more statistically significant role in gun-crime. I also agree with tighter screening for mental health. What happened in CT was that the mother who knew she had a mentally ill son, all the while he obviously had access to them. Also, "assault weapons" is a made up term, if you put a forward grip or a telescoping stock on your 7.62 hunting rifle, you'd have a U.S'-defined "assault weapon". Automatic weapons are already as good as banned in the U.S, and have been since 1968.
|
On December 22 2012 10:55 AmericanNightmare wrote:
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..
...are you serious? If you had "faith in people to do what's right" then why the fuck would you even need guns? Dumbest thing I've read today.
|
On December 22 2012 12:00 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:55 Jockmcplop wrote: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. i personally dont really care for self defense as i havnt had that experience yet at home so i can't comment on how it feels to have your house broken into. as for protection at all time, concealed carry, having a gun with me at all time is illegal as far as i know in california. i do want it for recreational use though, as a hobby and i'm glad that is possible. however i heard i can get a concealed carry license depending on the need and in my case, maybe its possible since it would be for transporting expensive goods.
In CA, it depends on your city/county. Some counties have a shall-issue status with CCW. Some counties, like SF or LA, have a never-issue-unless-you're-sucking-the-sheriff's---well, you get the idea.
|
On December 22 2012 12:03 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:55 AmericanNightmare wrote:
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..
...are you serious? If you had "faith in people to do what's right" then why the fuck would you even need guns? Dumbest thing I've read today.
I get what he's trying to say. The gun crime will happen if the perp wants it to happen. This will include a teacher who has firearms at home and bringing it to the school. In this case, lifting the law requiring schools as "gun-free zones" would only be beneficial.
I don't say I agree with it, just that I know where he's coming from.
|
i personally dont really care for self defense as i havnt had that experience yet at home so i can't comment on how it feels to have your house broken into. as for protection at all time, concealed carry, having a gun with me at all time is illegal as far as i know in california. i do want it for recreational use though, as a hobby and i'm glad that is possible.
however i heard i can get a concealed carry license depending on the need and in my case, maybe its possible since it would be for transporting expensive goods.
I'm sorry but in my opinion taking the risk of arming a psychopath because you would like to have a weapon for recreation is not acceptable. The only way that it could be acceptable would be, as fishey said, to have very strong controls on who is or isn't allowed to own a gun, and to make everybody take a special training course. It would also be imperative to come down very strongly on suppliers who break rules, and close any legal loopholes which allow guns to readily available to anyone.
Nagano could you explain why you want a weapon, if not protection, thanks 
|
On December 22 2012 12:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +i personally dont really care for self defense as i havnt had that experience yet at home so i can't comment on how it feels to have your house broken into. as for protection at all time, concealed carry, having a gun with me at all time is illegal as far as i know in california. i do want it for recreational use though, as a hobby and i'm glad that is possible.
however i heard i can get a concealed carry license depending on the need and in my case, maybe its possible since it would be for transporting expensive goods. I'm sorry but in my opinion taking the risk of arming a psychopath because you would like to have a weapon for recreation is not acceptable. The only way that it could be acceptable would be, as fishey said, to have very strong controls on who is or isn't allowed to own a gun, and to make everybody take a special training course. It would also be imperative to come down very strongly on suppliers who break rules, and close any legal loopholes which allow guns to readily available to anyone. Nagano could you explain why you want a weapon, if not protection, thanks
I dont think anyone here is ok with current laws and want more strict regulations, not these cosmetic bs
|
On December 22 2012 12:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +i personally dont really care for self defense as i havnt had that experience yet at home so i can't comment on how it feels to have your house broken into. as for protection at all time, concealed carry, having a gun with me at all time is illegal as far as i know in california. i do want it for recreational use though, as a hobby and i'm glad that is possible.
however i heard i can get a concealed carry license depending on the need and in my case, maybe its possible since it would be for transporting expensive goods. I'm sorry but in my opinion taking the risk of arming a psychopath because you would like to have a weapon for recreation is not acceptable. The only way that it could be acceptable would be, as fishey said, to have very strong controls on who is or isn't allowed to own a gun, and to make everybody take a special training course. It would also be imperative to come down very strongly on suppliers who break rules, and close any legal loopholes which allow guns to readily available to anyone. Nagano could you explain why you want a weapon, if not protection, thanks
I think the burden lies among those who want to enact a law that would effectively change nothing. If you want a new law, you have to prove why it will solve whatever it is you're creating it for. You simply don't try to ban something and ask opponents why do they even want it, especially when it's a constitutional right.
There are no closing of loopholes in this case. If you knew a thing about guns you'd understand why. What separates a 7.62x51mm hunting/sports rifle from an "assault weapon"? Semi-auto capability? High-cap mags? Pistol grip? Lawmakers will never ban semi-auto without going after handguns. High cap mags are easily, EASILY circumvented by carrying multiple mags. A pistol grip? Well, that's what the current AWBs say make up an "assault weapon".
This is my problem with the anti-gun crowd/legislatures. They have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the subject, yet they are the ones that want to enact laws on it.
|
Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count
|
On December 22 2012 11:35 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:23 iplayBANJO wrote: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. ... 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.
Wow. You read a lot of text in that post that didn't exist. I was only replying to the statement that "[i]t's going to be interesting to see the effects of a federal 'assault weapon' ban." Because you can already see them, and apparently you already have.
I am actually pro gun ownership not necessarily because I think the world is better off with firearms available to the masses (which I actually do), but because I don't think it's feasible to try to police the availability of something as simple as a gun. The requirements to enforcing such a law are oppressive by design, and evidence of this is easily available by examining the modern day war on drugs; which is also good evidence for the effectiveness of such law enforcement.
|
On December 22 2012 12:16 iplayBANJO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:35 Nagano wrote:On December 22 2012 11:23 iplayBANJO wrote: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. ... 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. Wow. You read a lot of text in that post that didn't exist. I was only replying to the statement that "[i]t's going to be interesting to see the effects of a federal 'assault weapon' ban." Because you can already see them, and apparently you already have. I am actually pro gun ownership not necessarily because I think the world is better off with firearms available to the masses (which I actually do), but because I don't think it's feasible to try to police the availability of something as simple as a gun. The requirements to enforcing such a law are oppressive by design, and evidence of this is easily available by examining the modern day war on drugs; which is also good evidence for the effectiveness of such law enforcement.
Yea my bad, I inferred the opposite meaning from your post. In my defense, it was written ambiguously 
|
On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote:
Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros.
Or, if you wanted to restrict guns, you'd pick things besides a flash suppressor?
Oh wait, the word "suppressor" makes it sound stealthy, which is clearly evil, and it LOOKS evil, too. If we get a new ban on rifles with X features, I'll just get a PCC with all of the same features. Maybe something in .45, since my pistol is a 9mm.
Actually, for self defense and plinking, I'd rather have a PCC anyways. Not as much punch as a rifle, but compact, low recoil, accurate at any sort of self defense distance.
|
On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote:
Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count
I don't have an anti gun irrationality and i have freely admitted that i know very little about the subject. I live in another country and i don't understand the American viewpoint on guns. It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense.
BTW i wasn't trying to argue with you i am just interested in what the arguments for possession of guns are other than protection and recreation.
Another point is that in this recent case, even having controls on who can own a weapon would not have helped, because it wasn't his weapon.
|
On December 22 2012 12:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote:
Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count I don't have an anti gun irrationality and i have freely admitted that i know very little about the subject. I live in another country and i don't understand the American viewpoint on guns. It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense, and all the hot air in the world won't change that. BTW i wasn't being confrontational with you i am just interested in what the arguments for possession of guns are other than protection and recreation.
Well, the thing is, most halfway sane gun owners don't have a problem with reasonable restrictions on firearms. We're glad pedos can't walk into Guns Galore and stock up.
Our problem is with arbitrary, useless restrictions on all the wrong damn things. Which is the majority of what shows up.
And since the pro-gun lobby is made up of people who probably shouldn't actually own a gun, the laws are written by the ignorant far too often.
|
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.
This argument is the most idiotic argument I keep hearing in this debate. China had a guy who was REALLY determined to kill a bunch of kids, but there are restricted access to guns in China, so he only could get access to a knife. 22 children slashed, yet every child survived.
Can we please bury that argument in the ground now?
Btw there's something wrong when civillians have less prerequisites they have to fulfill in order to get a gun, than a policeman.
|
On December 22 2012 12:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote:
Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense.
The majority of gun-owners would agree with you here. That's what everyone wants. What the politicians are pushing is a "ban" on "assault weapons". Like it will do anything of the sort. It sounds nice but it is modeled after the current CA AWB, which has accomplished nothing it promised except make Feinstein and other politicians win political points.
It will be the same nationally. The politicians will pat themselves on a "good bill" that will not actually do anything. And the public will believe it.
|
On December 22 2012 12:24 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:55 Jockmcplop wrote: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. This argument is the most idiotic argument I keep hearing in this debate. China had a guy who was REALLY determined to kill a bunch of kids, but there are restricted access to guns in China, so he only could get access to a knife. 22 children slashed, yet every child survived. Can we please bury that argument in the ground now? Btw there's something wrong when civillians have less prerequisites they have to fulfill in order to get a gun, than a policeman.
China doesn't have 300 million firearms in half the households in the entire country. Do you propose we do away with the 4th and 5th amendment as well and forcefully confiscate all weapons? Also, do you think that's even remotely possible with the recent rulings in IL and DC that such complete bans are unconstitutional?
|
On December 22 2012 12:27 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 12:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 22 2012 12:14 Nagano wrote:
Also, if you really want to solve this issue, and not just feed your anti-gun irrationality, you'd go for a law that would provide for tighter screening of individuals, better mental healthcare, and a media that does not feast on this butchery and turn the murderers into anti-heros, fueling more people who would've otherwise off'd themselves in their parents basement to try and make a new world record on body count It seems completely alien to me, as there is no gun culture here. All i have said is that there needs to be strong controls on who can and can't own a weapon. To me that is common sense. The majority of gun-owners would agree with you here. That's what everyone wants. What the politicians are pushing is a "ban" on "assault weapons". Like it will do anything of the sort. It sounds nice but it is modeled after the current CA AWB, which has accomplished nothing it promised except make Feinstein and other politicians win political points. It will be the same nationally. The politicians will pat themselves on a "good bill" that will not actually do anything. And the public will believe it.
Yeah that is the problem. Unfortunately politicians need to show that they care about issues, not point scoring. But then i can't see that ever happening. The few who talk sense will have their voices lost completely in the media outrage and sensational stories about 'assault weapons'.
|
On December 22 2012 12:29 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 12:24 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2012 11:55 Jockmcplop wrote: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. This argument is the most idiotic argument I keep hearing in this debate. China had a guy who was REALLY determined to kill a bunch of kids, but there are restricted access to guns in China, so he only could get access to a knife. 22 children slashed, yet every child survived. Can we please bury that argument in the ground now? Btw there's something wrong when civillians have less prerequisites they have to fulfill in order to get a gun, than a policeman. China doesn't have 300 million firearms in half the households in the entire country. Do you propose we do away with the 4th and 5th amendment as well and forcefully confiscate all weapons? Also, do you think that's even remotely possible with the recent rulings in IL and DC that such complete bans are unconstitutional?
Where were I talking about that? Please point out where.
|
On December 22 2012 12:13 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 12:06 Jockmcplop wrote:i personally dont really care for self defense as i havnt had that experience yet at home so i can't comment on how it feels to have your house broken into. as for protection at all time, concealed carry, having a gun with me at all time is illegal as far as i know in california. i do want it for recreational use though, as a hobby and i'm glad that is possible.
however i heard i can get a concealed carry license depending on the need and in my case, maybe its possible since it would be for transporting expensive goods. I'm sorry but in my opinion taking the risk of arming a psychopath because you would like to have a weapon for recreation is not acceptable. The only way that it could be acceptable would be, as fishey said, to have very strong controls on who is or isn't allowed to own a gun, and to make everybody take a special training course. It would also be imperative to come down very strongly on suppliers who break rules, and close any legal loopholes which allow guns to readily available to anyone. Nagano could you explain why you want a weapon, if not protection, thanks I think the burden lies among those who want to enact a law that would effectively change nothing. If you want a new law, you have to prove why it will solve whatever it is you're creating it for. You simply don't try to ban something and ask opponents why do they even want it, especially when it's a constitutional right. There are no closing of loopholes in this case. If you knew a thing about guns you'd understand why. What separates a 7.62x51mm hunting/sports rifle from an "assault weapon"? Semi-auto capability? High-cap mags? Pistol grip? Lawmakers will never ban semi-auto without going after handguns. High cap mags are easily, EASILY circumvented by carrying multiple mags. A pistol grip? Well, that's what the current AWBs say make up an "assault weapon". This is my problem with the anti-gun crowd/legislatures. They have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the subject, yet they are the ones that want to enact laws on it.
I couldn't really identify the difference between a hunting rifle and a "assault weapon" when i made my post and I knew someone would say this. you can ban high cap magazines but they will always be in existence because there too easy to make. Then i thought about semi automatic and if you banned those on rifles you would have to ban it on shotguns too and anyone can take the plug out of there shot guns and get extra storage capacity. It would be asking too much. I think it would be best if you were required additional training to purchase a weapon and mental health checks along with criminal background checks and to register guns and if your weapon is used in a crime by someone else then its on you too if you can justify it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
