|
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 January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind.
It is not legal for Americans to own "assault rifles" or "sub-machine guns".
Okay, I lied. You can. But you have to purchase one made before 1986 (which at the cheapest is close to 10 grand), go through a lengthy background check by the ATF, pay 200 dollars, get the approval of your head law enforcement officer in your area, register it with the ATF, have proper paperwork at all times or go jail, and all kinds of other things. These are usually for diehards, and I haven't heard of a legal fully automatic weapon being used in a crime before.
|
Do people not read up at all on this subject at all? Automatic weapons, for all intents and purposes, have been banned for civilian use. That means no assault rifles, no smgs, no mgs. Only if they were made pre 1986. These types of guns cost 5k+ and you need a license to own them.
|
On January 17 2013 07:44 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:38 DannyJ wrote:On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind. Probably because those "weapons of war" are almost non existent when it comes to gun crime. It appears you may have missed a major news event from December
Those weren't weapons of war. It was a semi-automatic rifle (the most popular in America). In all gun crimes they account for roughly 0.6% of incidents.
Weapons of war are fully auto (or burst).
|
On January 17 2013 07:48 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:44 lachy89 wrote:On January 17 2013 07:38 DannyJ wrote:On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind. Probably because those "weapons of war" are almost non existent when it comes to gun crime. It appears you may have missed a major news event from December and there were 30 people killed by guns every day since then, almost all from handguns.
Oh don't get me wrong I think that's ridiculous too, but it's obvious America won't change its gun culture so why aim for major gun bans when banning weapons aimed at taking mass lives should make logical sense to people.
It's pointless argueing with America about their gun culture, but surely Americans should agree that Assault rifles and sub-machine guns serve no purpose other than mass murder.
|
On January 17 2013 07:49 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind. It is not legal for Americans to own "assault rifles" or "sub-machine guns". Okay, I lied. You can. But you have to purchase one made before 1986 (which at the cheapest is close to 10 grand), go through a lengthy background check by the ATF, pay 200 dollars, get the approval of your head law enforcement officer in your area, register it with the ATF, have proper paperwork at all times or go jail, and all kinds of other things. These are usually for diehards, and I haven't heard of a legal fully automatic weapon being used in a crime before.
At 10k a weapon the target better be damn worth the kill!
|
On January 17 2013 07:53 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:48 DannyJ wrote:On January 17 2013 07:44 lachy89 wrote:On January 17 2013 07:38 DannyJ wrote:On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind. Probably because those "weapons of war" are almost non existent when it comes to gun crime. It appears you may have missed a major news event from December and there were 30 people killed by guns every day since then, almost all from handguns. Oh don't get me wrong I think that's ridiculous too, but it's obvious America won't change its gun culture so why aim for major gun bans when banning weapons aimed at taking mass lives should make logical sense to people. It's pointless argueing with America about their gun culture, but surely Americans should agree that Assault rifles and sub-machine guns serve no purpose other than mass murder.
Please, tell me what an assault rifle is.
|
On January 17 2013 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:49 ImAbstracT wrote:On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind. It is not legal for Americans to own "assault rifles" or "sub-machine guns". Okay, I lied. You can. But you have to purchase one made before 1986 (which at the cheapest is close to 10 grand), go through a lengthy background check by the ATF, pay 200 dollars, get the approval of your head law enforcement officer in your area, register it with the ATF, have proper paperwork at all times or go jail, and all kinds of other things. These are usually for diehards, and I haven't heard of a legal fully automatic weapon being used in a crime before. At 10k a weapon the target better be damn worth the kill!
Most of the people I know who own one keep it as a safe queen/investment. Since you can't purchase any new ones the value only goes up =).
|
On January 17 2013 07:51 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Do people not read up at all on this subject at all? Automatic weapons, for all intents and purposes, have been banned for civilian use. That means no assault rifles, no smgs, no mgs. Only if they were made pre 1986. These types of guns cost 5k+ and you need a license to own them.
$5000, Wow that is huge, I may as well take out money on my home loan and purchase 4. Your license system is flawed (clearly) and why should someone be able to obtain a license to begin with?
|
On January 17 2013 07:56 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:51 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Do people not read up at all on this subject at all? Automatic weapons, for all intents and purposes, have been banned for civilian use. That means no assault rifles, no smgs, no mgs. Only if they were made pre 1986. These types of guns cost 5k+ and you need a license to own them. $5000, Wow that is huge, I may as well take out money on my home loan and purchase 4. Your license system is flawed (clearly) and why should someone be able to obtain a license to begin with?
Good luck finding a crime committed with a class 3 firearm in the last 60 years. You're clearly being intentionally ignorant to make up for your non-argument. The real question is why would you bother post if you have no intention of having an intelligent debate. Throwing out buzz words in a completely ignorant and irresponsible fashion won't prove anything besides your clearly non-existent understanding of the subject.
|
There's a big % of people in the US that are dirt poor. They have little to no options and it ends up being survival at some point. It's quite sad. Other countries have heavily developed their infrastructure and seem to show a great deal of care for their citizens and their citizens are on average much happier.
I personally think no one should allowed to own guns aside from maybe a hunting shotgun and even then there would have to be ridiculous restrictions on that. I don't even think everyday police officers should carry guns but instead keep the swat team and call them in if something happens.
I don't think anything can be done at this point for the US. It's far too broken and screwed up to be fixed imo. It's sad.
|
On January 17 2013 07:56 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:51 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Do people not read up at all on this subject at all? Automatic weapons, for all intents and purposes, have been banned for civilian use. That means no assault rifles, no smgs, no mgs. Only if they were made pre 1986. These types of guns cost 5k+ and you need a license to own them. $5000, Wow that is huge, I may as well take out money on my home loan and purchase 4. Your license system is flawed (clearly) and why should someone be able to obtain a license to begin with?
Show us the stats on how many people have been killed by these guns. The mass murder machines!
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_International
Weapon of the Connecticut Massacre, in the hands of a citizen. Argue all you want with what you classify the gun as, its a gun designed to kill more than one person.
Argue with names, dates, money all you want. This gun was available to a 21 year old, with no criminal record and 27 deaths later the argument begins.
All I ask Is a legitimate reason why a citizen in the US should be allowed to carry this weapon under any circumstances, licenses, checks etc.. seems stupid to me
|
what exactly designates a firearm as being "designed to kill more than one person? two bullets? four? six? black paint job? features that do nothing to increasing killing capability? or is it just those scary names the news throws around?
|
He literally has no idea what an AR or submachine gun is but he thinks it's a good idea to argue about it.
The thing the Newtown kid used wouldn't have been banned under the old AR ban, which I guess is worth talking about, but christ at least learn what things are...
|
On January 17 2013 08:10 DannyJ wrote:
He literally has no idea what an AR or submachine gun is but he thinks it's a good idea to argue about it.
The thing the Newtown kid used wouldn't have been banned under the old AR ban, which I guess is worth talking about, but christ at least learn what things are...
Doesn't even matter honestly. If those 'tactical rifles' weren't available it would be mini14s and m1s which no politicians are brave enough to speak up against same as handguns. The laws are all show.
|
On January 17 2013 07:56 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:51 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Do people not read up at all on this subject at all? Automatic weapons, for all intents and purposes, have been banned for civilian use. That means no assault rifles, no smgs, no mgs. Only if they were made pre 1986. These types of guns cost 5k+ and you need a license to own them. $5000, Wow that is huge, I may as well take out money on my home loan and purchase 4. Your license system is flawed (clearly) and why should someone be able to obtain a license to begin with?
These guns arent used in crimes at all. The ones used in newtown were not an assault rifle, smg, or mg.
|
On January 17 2013 08:05 lachy89 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_InternationalWeapon of the Connecticut Massacre, in the hands of a citizen. Argue all you want with what you classify the gun as, its a gun designed to kill more than one person. Argue with names, dates, money all you want. This gun was available to a 21 year old, with no criminal record and 27 deaths later the argument begins. All I ask Is a legitimate reason why a citizen in the US should be allowed to carry this weapon under any circumstances, licenses, checks etc.. seems stupid to me
He stole them from his mother. I own a LE6920, when Im away from my house I keep it in a gun safe that weighs 250 pounds with a giant combination lock. Im also 21.
|
On January 17 2013 08:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 08:05 lachy89 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_InternationalWeapon of the Connecticut Massacre, in the hands of a citizen. Argue all you want with what you classify the gun as, its a gun designed to kill more than one person. Argue with names, dates, money all you want. This gun was available to a 21 year old, with no criminal record and 27 deaths later the argument begins. All I ask Is a legitimate reason why a citizen in the US should be allowed to carry this weapon under any circumstances, licenses, checks etc.. seems stupid to me He stole them from his mother. I own a LE6920, when Im away from my house I keep it in a gun safe that weighs 250 pounds with a giant combination lock. Im also 21.
And you don't think its strange at all that you are allowed such a weapon?
Hypothetically if you had a bad day today, you could go home take such weapon into a shop, a school, a college and kill 10-15 people relatively easily before anyone could stop you. This is of no concern to you? (I know people will argue with the difficulty of doing such a thing, concealing a weapon etc... hide it in your car drive to a parade or something before unloading)
Not only that there are other people your age with the similar opportunity. Seems like a giant unnecessary risk to me.
|
I don't understand how people think removing guns by law will stop them from being used to commit crimes. Most criminals acquire guns out of the laws bounds.
Irrational gun laws impede law abiding citizens from protecting themselves from threats, including our own Government should it ever come to that. There are already fairly strict regulations and laws surrounding firearms, we have to be careful with any more.
You never hear about how many times a gun has saved a persons life, only about people who don't even care about the laws or value of life anyway. How can written laws impede people unrestrained by them? How is that better than having an honest person armed, capable of defending him or herself, or their family, etc.
Legal gun ownership does more to protect people than laws, there will always be atrocities. An armed guard or teacher in that school,may have made a difference.
|
On January 17 2013 08:34 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 08:27 Lockitupv2 wrote:On January 17 2013 08:05 lachy89 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_InternationalWeapon of the Connecticut Massacre, in the hands of a citizen. Argue all you want with what you classify the gun as, its a gun designed to kill more than one person. Argue with names, dates, money all you want. This gun was available to a 21 year old, with no criminal record and 27 deaths later the argument begins. All I ask Is a legitimate reason why a citizen in the US should be allowed to carry this weapon under any circumstances, licenses, checks etc.. seems stupid to me He stole them from his mother. I own a LE6920, when Im away from my house I keep it in a gun safe that weighs 250 pounds with a giant combination lock. Im also 21. And you don't think its strange at all that you are allowed such a weapon? Hypothetically if you had a bad day today, you could go home take such weapon into a shop, a school, a college and kill 10-15 people relatively easily before anyone could stop you. This is of no concern to you? (I know people will argue with the difficulty of doing such a thing, concealing a weapon etc... hide it in your car drive to a parade or something before unloading) Not only that there are other people your age with the similar opportunity. Seems like a giant unnecessary risk to me.
No, I dont find it strange. I find it strange that people have a problem with it. Its hardly used in crimes or murders.
Do I have the capacity to go on a killing spree with it? Sure. Can I go on a killing spree with other things? Yeah. Am I going to go on a killing spree? Nope.
It really doesnt bother me. Despite what the media might have you believe, its not a warzone outside. I gladly, and I do, talk walks around my neighborhood, play pick up games of ultimate frisbee/basketball, without any fear at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
