The Ban on Assault Weapons - Lifted?

[iamtrip]

Because the gun industry wouldn't be too pleased?

 

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the $25 million funds given to Bush from the weapons industry

[TK-8252]

Where is there a point of a civilian ever having to use an assault rifle?

 

A ban on all firearms would never work in the U.S., because there's always those rednecks people who like to hunt (killing defenseless animals for your own amusment, what a great sport). And, criminals would still get guns - through blackmarkets. But this time, the money would be going to the illegal dealers rather than to legal organizations that have to deal with the government regulations. And there would be no way for people to defend themselves against intruders.

[Kain]

1:You could hunt with bows and arrows.

2:Police forces should be able to use guns until every gun is melted into construction beams.

3:Medival weapons all the way babay!

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

I have nothing againts hunting weapons being legal.

 

But assault weapons?!

 

I'm sure you hunt with your Ak-47 and your magnum(ok not an assault rifle but you get it).

 

Not only is a magnum not an assault rifle, it's not a gun at all. It's a type of ammunition.

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Aren't the assault rifles fully automatic? Well the modern ones that is.

 

 

NRA=Bunch of paranoiacs

 

No. Not one of the 19 "assault weapons" in the ban were automatic. All 19 were semi automatics. Does your comment make you paranoid, or ignorant? It's one of the two. I'll let you decide.

 

Originally posted by Kain

Apparently, fully automatic weapons are still banned though. Which begs the question: WTF is the difference between assault weapons and fully automatics?

 

No offense Kain, but you answered your own question there, bub. Sort of. Being classified as an "assault weapon" by your government, does not mean "automatic weapon". What made these weapons fall into the assault category, were not so much the weapons themselves, since you could still buy them just about everywhere, but the accessories that you can fit on them. IE; Larger magazines, collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, etc...All of which could still be purchased after your precious ban, just at a very large price.The bottom line is that these guns never went away in the first place. Nor did the ban change any of these guns rate of fire while it was in effect. Most of the changes were purely cosmetic.

 

Originally posted by ET Warrior

I think it's ridiculous that the ban was not reinstated. WHY would you ever need an assault rifle? What possible purpose could it ever serve that a normal gun would not?

 

Bah.

 

Well why do people need 3/4th's of the **** that has become commonplace to accept as "necessity" these days? People don't need tons of crap that you can find in most every American household, and yes, lots of it is harmful. Television and computers come to mind, but that's another thread. Yeah, people don't NEED these weapons, but they're fun, and nice to have. That's all. Why isn't anyone asking for a ban on automobiles? These things kill more people than nearly every disease and bullet combined, not to mention all the pollution being done by them. But nobody wants to talk about that. Why? Because you think you need one? You've been duped if that's your answer. People have gotten by for alot longer without automobiles than with them. In human history, they're only slightly newer than guns. That said, I'll be keeping my cars. Do I NEED them? No. But they're nice and convenient to have, even though it's far more likely I'll kill someone with one of my cars than any of my guns.

 

Originally posted by Doomie

Why don't they just ban weapons. We have it here in europe, and i believe we also have a lot less trouble, i believe. I heard your 'right to bear arms' comees from the age that it was necissary to protect yourself from hungry bears and bloodthirsty Indians, er i mean Native americans. Totally not needed anymore

 

But think of it. ban weapons all together, around the world, and people couldn't hurt eachother anymore. well, at least not very badly over great range...

 

About that cure for cancer thing, that sounds interesting to start another debate over.

 

But i'm not gonna do it.

 

More rants from someone who hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about. Oh well, this thread is chock fulla that, so here goes. The right to bear arms, as I understand, (I'm sure SkinWalker will correct me if I'm wrong;)) stems from the English taking them (guns) from citizens during the colonial period. And nothing more. It was set in place as a ground rule, so that if an oppressive government came to power and tried to be the only kid on the block with a gun, someone could point to the Constitution and say, "not so fast, slick." Has nothing to do with Indians, regardless of bloodthirst.

 

As for your enlightening hippy-esque request to just "ban weapons", I have to laugh. Where does that start? Take the guns. Then what? Knives? Then? Baseball bats? Rocks? Then bare hands? If someone wants to commit violence, they aren't always going to wait until they can get a gun. And some people are just good enough at being violent, that they don't need a gun. Hell, while you're wishing, why don't you tell Santa that you want violence itself banned? And while you're at it, ask that tornadoes and lightning never happen again. They kill people, destroy homes, AND they're are just as much a part of nature as human violence is. They're just as likely to stop by your asking Santa, as your asking for a ban on weapons and it actually happening are. The fact is, to the violent, angry and determined human mind, a gun is a convenience, and not a neccesity. If someone wants you dead or hurt bad enough, do you honestly believe that "no more weapons" is going to make a difference? Get serious here, please.

 

Originally posted by TK-8252

Where is there a point of a civilian ever having to use an assault rifle?

 

A ban on all firearms would never work in the U.S., because there's always those rednecks people who like to hunt (killing defenseless animals for your own amusment, what a great sport). And, criminals would still get guns - through blackmarkets. But this time, the money would be going to the illegal dealers rather than to legal organizations that have to deal with the government regulations. And there would be no way for people to defend themselves against intruders.

 

Let me first say that I agree with most of what you say. The parts I have a problem with, I'll address. You can sort through for yourself and see the parts I like when I'm done, as I'll not be mentioning those.

 

The point is, if I want an assault rifle, and have no intention of doing criminal acts with it, who are you to infringe upon that? Honestly, when did it change in America where, if you want something, you have to give a 500 word essay justifying it? Another thing is this; Believe it or not, "rednecks" are not the only people buying and using these weapons. I will say that they seem to be the only people worth a **** as far as trying to maintain my (and your) freedom to own one goes, though. Which is strange, because as far as I know, the people committing the majority of the crimes reported with these weapons are hardly what I'd consider "rednecks". When's the last time you heard about ol' Earl shooting up a club in South Central? Or Billy Ray doing a drive by on Jim Bobs crib? Or Cletus and his compadres taking a group of truck drivers hostage, and threatening a beheading? Or ol' Willy and his buddies shot themselves up a school? I know rednecks do stupid things, and commit crimes too. But they really seem to be in the minority as far as these "assault weapons" go. But they keep on helping me out if I want to own one. What's the worst a redneck is gonna do with one of these weapons anyway? Go hunting and accidentally shoot his cousin?! BFD. And no loss to me, is what I say. So why do you let it bother you?

 

Also, that bit about the poor defenseless animals. If you're not a vegetarian, you need to hide under a rock after saying that. Because hunting is not only done for "amusement" but for *gasp* food also. Yes, that's right. Some people hunt to get something to eat along with doing something they like. If that's barbaric to you, well...the word treehugger comes to mind. Sorry. I ate a bowl of deer chili today. And it was among the best tasting things I've ever eaten. Ever. In fact, I use deer meat as often as I can, just because it's leaner and (I think) better tasting than the crap that passes for beef at the supermarket.

 

My biggest problem with this topic is all of the uniformed people spouting this and that, like they know something. Everyone seems to think the ban lift means that fully automatic machine guns are now on the street, when they weren't before. Well here's a newsflash. They were there before. And this ban has nothing to do with that. This ban dealt with semiautomatic rifles, and various attachments you could fit on one. None of these attachments make the rifles fully, or even close to automatic. Do you honestly think if I wanted you dead, that the fact that I'd have to pay through the nose for a pistol grip and a flash suppresor for my AR-15 would stop me, or even slow me down? Only the people who answer yes will suffer the branding "naive".

[toms]

Just because a ban on some weapons doesn't make all weapons disappear and stop all gun deaths doesn't mean there is no point to it. Anything that reduces the number of guns getting into supply (even if it is only by a fraction) and reduces the killing power of said guns is at least a minor step forward.

 

I say give everyone big tanks and cannons, that way we can all defend ourselves against everyone else who has big guns. Heck, give everyone weapons of mass destruction, then we will all be safe.

 

But you did change my mind when you used your highly persuasive argument about guns being just like cars, so if they ban guns they should ban cars. After all both have useful and constructive and legal roles to play in the way we lead our everyday lives... oh, hang on a sec...????

 

PS/ Saddam should have just moved all his weapons to the US,then claimed it was his right to bear arms, and had all the NRA lot leap to his defense

[iamtrip]

You're arguement is ludicrous.

Cars have a purpose, guns have no other purpose than to wound or kill.

Should we ban planes in case they get hijacked? How about the increasingly common crime of using computers and TV's as weapons?

What reason is there to have a gun? I see none other than to kill.

 

Banning them wouldn't stop crime agreed.

But it would stop John Doe walking into a gun store, legally purchasing and storing gun. This accessability means him blowing his boss and workers out of the sky becomes more likely.

Is he really going to take the risk of going underground and illegally purchasing and storing a semi automatic rifle?

He would be a lot more likely to purchase and keep one if its legal, and widely accessable.

 

 

 

Scientifically, its proven that if an object is immediately accessable to you, you're more likely to use it in a rage of fury than actually taking the time to seek, (illegally) purchase an object and then use somewhat days or hours later.

 

What I'm saying is, fair enough if semi-automatics are banned, John Doe might store an 8 shot pistol. He may use this to kill people is a rage one day.

 

If semi-automatic guns are not banned, John Doe might store a 126 shot semi-automatic (military issue) assault rifle. He might again use this in a rage one day.

 

Now tell me:

a). which would do the most damage

b). Which would be harder for police officers to take down

c.) Which some idiot/terrorist would find more useful

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, to me this arguement (as well as being some what one sided) is also besides the point.

The fact that Bush can just be bought off for $25 million dollars over a Gun law says a lot about him as a character, his morals as well as making me wonder what other Laws (and wars) he might have been bought off over...

[lukeiamyourdad]

I don't want to flame but perhaps we should cripple you with bullets and ask you if you still like guns after that...

 

EDIT: OK didn't have time to post full reply last time but now I do.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Not only is a magnum not an assault rifle, it's not a gun at all. It's a type of ammunition.

 

I stand corrected, but we both know what I meant.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

No. Not one of the 19 "assault weapons" in the ban were automatic. All 19 were semi automatics. Does your comment make you paranoid, or ignorant? It's one of the two. I'll let you decide.

 

You're right. All guns were semi-automatic.

Call me paranoid if you want, I care for the sanctity of life.

 

 

 

I fell on this interesting site:

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=aw

 

Assault Weapons: Key Facts

 

* Assault weapon bans work. In 1989, when President Bush stopped the import of certain assault rifles, the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime dropped by 45% in one year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.

* Assault weapons are not just "ugly guns." Semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on the accurate shooting of one bullet at a time. Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip and are designed to maximize death and injury from a very rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed with military features such as silencers, folding stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds and bayonets which are ludicrously unsuited for civilian use.

 

Assault weapons were used…

 

* To kill 5 children and wound 29 others in a Stockton, CA schoolyard in 1989. The AK-47 held 75 - that's right, 75 - bullets.

* To kill 8 people and 6 others at a San Francisco law firm in 1993. Two TEC-9's with 50-round magazines were used in the massacre.

* To kill 2 CIA employees and wound three others outside the CIA's Langley, VA headquarters in 1993.

* To kill 4 ATF special agents and wound 16 others at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX, when the officers were attempting to serve warrants on the cult in 1993.

 

Although assault weapons comprised only 1% of privately-owned guns in America, they accounted for 8.4% of all guns traced to crime in 1988-91.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by toms

Just because a ban on some weapons doesn't make all weapons disappear and stop all gun deaths doesn't mean there is no point to it. Anything that reduces the number of guns getting into supply (even if it is only by a fraction) and reduces the killing power of said guns is at least a minor step forward.

 

I say give everyone big tanks and cannons, that way we can all defend ourselves against everyone else who has big guns. Heck, give everyone weapons of mass destruction, then we will all be safe.

 

But you did change my mind when you used your highly persuasive argument about guns being just like cars, so if they ban guns they should ban cars. After all both have useful and constructive and legal roles to play in the way we lead our everyday lives... oh, hang on a sec...????

 

PS/ Saddam should have just moved all his weapons to the US,then claimed it was his right to bear arms, and had all the NRA lot leap to his defense

 

I'm sorry, your location says "uk", so this effects you how? Oh, in no way shape or form? So you're arguing just to be doing so? I see. Anyways, on to your misinformed post. As I stated before, the ban did NOTHING to change these weapons rate of fire. So saying "Anything that reduces the number of guns getting into supply (even if it is only by a fraction) and reduces the killing power of said guns is at least a minor step forward." is ignorant, if you'll excuse me please for saying so. These weapons fire at the same rate, and use the same ammunition that they did before/during/and after the ban. Putting a pistol grip or flash suppressor on a rifle does nothing to make it shoot faster, more accurate, or more powerfull. If anything, the flash suppressor would make it less accurate. So the ban did nothing to make them less lethal. Once again, this was mentioned in my previous post. You might have caught it if you hadn't just skimmed through it looking for something to bitch about. Oh, and this "But you did change my mind when you used your highly persuasive argument about guns being just like cars, so if they ban guns they should ban cars. After all both have useful and constructive and legal roles to play in the way we lead our everyday lives... oh, hang on a sec...????" was rich. Tell me, at what point did I ever say guns are just like cars? Or that cars should be banned? Oh, never? That's what I thought. I said they're just as, if not more lethal and harmful. So why isn't anyone trying to ban them? They're dangerous and unneccesary too. But obviously a child can look and see they're not the same. Oh, and I'm sure you feel your car is something you simply cannot live without, because almost everyone does. But it's not true. That's all I was saying. At least when someone gets themselves behind a gun, they usually have the intent of killing something. The same can't be said for cars. I can be killed by a grandmother of six a block from my house anytime. And I think the odds of that happening are far greater than being shot by one of the banned weapons and killed. Does that deter me from driving, or make me wish cars were banned? No. I was just trying to make a point, which apparantley nobody got.

 

I won't even mention the Saddam comment, because it's not relevant to this conversation at all. Nor did I find it humorous.

 

Originally posted by iamtrip

You're arguement is ludicrous.

Cars have a purpose, guns have no other purpose than to wound or kill.

Should we ban planes in case they get hijacked? How about the increasingly common crime of using computers and TV's as weapons?

What reason is there to have a gun? I see none other than to kill.

 

Well, for one thing maybe you shouldn't skim-read like mr. toms. Because I was never trying to make an argument for banning cars, regardless of it being ludicrous. I was using cars as an example of something that isn't "needed", and that kills plenty of people far more indescriminately than all of the guns in that ban combined. Cars are nice to have, to be sure. But if you think you need one, then I have to wonder what the size of your ass is, because it's evident that you're not doing enough walking. Once again, I never said "we should be banning cars, people!!!". Please try to read more than the first couple of sentences in a paragraph, or latch onto only the words and phrases that catch your eye. I hate repeating myself.

 

Also I was unaware that this threads point was not the assault weapons ban lift, but to instead talk sh!t about President Bush lining his pockets. That could be my mistake, if it weren't for the threads title. So I guess that makes it yours. But to stay on your off topic for just a moment: Are you telling me that politicians are dishonest? And that they'll do things...things for money:eek:?! What makes you think that? Saying that politicians are dishonest is like saying water is wet. Everyone already knows it, if they don't, they will soon enough. And there's plenty of threads about that around here without turning this into one.

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

I don't want to flame but perhaps we should cripple you with bullets and ask you if you still like guns after that...

 

I know what you're saying, but to counter I'd like to say I know alot of veterans. Several of which, have been shot. Guess how many of them are excited about deer season being around the corner, and this ban being lifted? Every last one. Now guess how many have not touched a gun since being shot? Zero. That's just been my experience though. I'm sure it varys all over the place.

 

"* Assault weapon bans work. In 1989, when President Bush stopped the import of certain assault rifles, the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime dropped by 45% in one year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.

* Assault weapons are not just "ugly guns." Semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on the accurate shooting of one bullet at a time. Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip and are designed to maximize death and injury from a very rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed with military features such as silencers, folding stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds and bayonets which are ludicrously unsuited for civilian use."

 

Well, it's hard to argue with statistics because everyone thinks they're the gospel. That said, I won't try. I will say that it could be more than coincidence. Because I just don't know. As for the second paragraph, it's just plain hogwash. Once again, the rate of fire has changed NOT ONE BIT on ANY of these weapons. They fire the same ammo, at the same rate as they did when this ban was in place. So saying that they now "spray-fire" is just completely wrong. Also, the features lifted from the ban do not make it possible to now shoot "from the hip". The only people you'll see doing this either

 

A: Don't know what they're doing, and have no business firing or much less owning a gun.

 

or

 

B: Are on TV. Like the Rambo movies or something. Which pretty much puts them in category A.

 

That paragraph even goes so far as to contrdict itself, if people have any idea what they're talking about, they'd catch it. That seems to be the problem here. Nobody knows what they're talking about. Honestly, do you think fitting a bayonet on a rifle makes it any faster to shoot?

 

Maybe all of you people trust your government enough to be the only ones with decent weapons. I don't. I'm not paranoid, a member of a militia, and I don't think "the man" is out to get me. I just take comfort in knowing if I want to own a decent gun, I can. I don't break laws with my weapons. So who are you to say I can't have one? You know, you're sitting back watching and applauding when someone else's freedoms are being infringed upon, and booing when they're not. But when they run out of sh!t to take from me, who do you suppose is next? You are. Gamers, movie fans, music fans, etc...The list could go on forever. Sure guns are bad. But they aren't going anywhere. So maybe instead of trying to keep them out of the hands of honest people like myself, you should be glad that there are some people that use them responsibly, and take great joy in it. Because you never know when you'll want the help of someone you've helped disarm to keep something you enjoy free.

[iamtrip]

You don't address the question.

What possible good could come out of allowing people to carry around semi automatics with 126 bullets rather than pistols with 8?

 

The car comparason is flawed.

Cars are needed. Granted, a lot of people use them too much, but unless you desire people to walk 50 miles to work each day, it6 seems rather a silly comment.

 

What function do gguns bring? Can I ride a gun to work? Or watch it at night? Or read it? Or play with it?

A guns sole purpose is to kill.

Comparing it with objects that may have the capacity to kill is a ludicrous. All objects have the ability to kill ibn the right circumstances. A Gun's sole function is to kill however, and if they can be avoided then I don't see the problem?

 

 

So again...what purpose is there to have 126 bullets over 8?

 

 

 

So politicians lie.... Some more than others. Not all are corrupt however, especially not on the massive scale detailed from this Gun law lifting, the arms contracts for Iraq and the reconstruction projects in war torn afghanistan and Iraq.

Saying all politicians are corrupt is a very defeatist and ignorant attitude. Perhaps if you realised some may not be as corrupt as others, your opinion may change.

Churchill once said: "Democracy is a terrible form of government, but it sure as hell is better than all the rest".

This applies to a lot of things.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by iamtrip

You don't address the question.

What possible good could come out of allowing people to carry around semi automatics with 126 bullets rather than pistols with 8?See remainder of post just above this one for rest of quote

 

I'm not talking about what's good and evil, since that hasn't been what the debate has been about up until this point. It's a pretty bunk point to make since I already said "guns are bad" in my last post. And I didn't address the question, because it hasn't been asked until now. What good can come from having a high capacity magazine as apposed to something with 6-8? Nothing "good" can come from either, if you want to start talking about what's "good". It's just more fun, that's all. What good can come from having 126 sattelite channels as apposed to 6-8?

 

The car comparisson is not flawed, because cars are NOT "NEEDED". If you've been tricked as a consumer to believe that, then that's your problem, and not mine. Believe it or not, cars don't grow on trees, and they haven't always been around. People got this far without their use until just about a hundred years ago. So don't gimme that crap about how needed they are. You NEED food. You NEED shelter. You NEED water, oxygen, etc...And if someone doesn't have the skill, or common sense to find a job closer than 50 miles to their home, THAT would be the epitome of silly, and screw 'em.

 

As far as all that nonsense about "can I ride a gun to work? and blah blah blah", why would I care to understand what you find purpose in, if you can't see what I find purpose in? I think guns are fun. Not just for hunting, but also just to shoot at targets. Hell, I even like cleaning my guns. So that's not your cup of tea. I don't piss and moan about your hobbies, because frankly, I don't care what they are. It's your business. As long as I conduct my business, and carry out my hobbies and activities without breaking the law, putting someone in harms way, or pissing all over someone else's rights, why shouldn't I expect to be treated with the same level of fairness? What's "ludicrous", since that seems to be your favorite word, is the fact that you assume anyone who wants to purchase an assault weapon, intends to "kill" with it. I say that because you keep harping on about how that's all a guns sole purpose is. To kill. You don't know the first thing about guns, have probably never fired one, yet here you are pretending to make informed posts on the subject. A swords sole purpose was to kill. Not much of that going on these days, I know, but guess what? People still purchase swords, and engage in sporting activities with them that involve, get this, NO KILLING!

 

"A Gun's sole function is to kill however, and if they can be avoided then I don't see the problem?"

 

Wrong. A guns sole purpose is not to kill. And they cannot be avoided. What sort of Utopian society do you live in? As long as there are people on this planet, there will always be guns. There will always be crime. Taking away a symptom, does not cure the disease. Where I fail to "see the problem", is me doing something I enjoy, that's perfectly legal, and disturbs no one. I mean, you're either dense or you're calling me a liar, so which is it? If I tell you there shouldn't be any reason for me to not have access to these weapons, because I will not perform criminal acts with them, and you come back with "guns are only for killing", you're either saying you're not listening or you don't believe me.

 

Meh, whatever. This thread has outlived it's usefullness to me. It's became apparant that I'm not going to convince you of anything, any more than you'll convince me. That and I find it an odd mix of foolish and ammusing to have a heated debate about laws that concern only me, since most of the people doing all the whining aren't even American citizens, and thusly aren't being endangered by these weapons at all. I made my points, and don't feel the need to justify them any further. I just thought maybe if I actaully straightened out the popular misconception in this thread that automatic weapons were released from a ban, that maybe someone might say "oh, well I stand corrected! I had no idea what I was talking about! Maybe I should pull my head out of my ass before I try typing on the interweb". But instead I got "well guns are guns are guns! And guns are all bad!" Well no sh1t, sherlock. Yeah, it's too bad that we live in a world where we have things like guns, violence, and what not. But they're here, and they aren't going anywhere. They never went anywhere in the first place. You could still legally buy those guns, minus the extra attachments at any gun show. So that's how informed a debate I'm having here.

 

One last thing. I never said that all politicians are corrupt. I said they were dishonest. I think there's a difference. A slight one, maybe. But still different. Dishonest is lying about a blow job from an intern. Corrupt is accepting money to do things like letting gun bills slide. But even had I said that, I didn't, you did, but if I had, I wouldn't think of it as a defeatist or ignorant attitude. What I consider an ignorant attitude, is the majority of what's been said by yourself and a few others here. Take 'er easy.

[toms]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

I'm sorry, your location says "uk", so this effects you how? Oh, in no way shape or form? So you're arguing just to be doing so? I see.

 

I see what you mean. And in a debating forum as well. I am SOOO ashamed of myself.

You had better warn all those other non-americans who are making comments on issues that don't concern them as well, before they make the same mistake...*

 

Anyways, on to your misinformed post. As I stated before, the ban did NOTHING to change these weapons rate of fire. So saying "Anything that reduces the number of guns getting into supply (even if it is only by a fraction) and reduces the killing power of said guns is at least a minor step forward." is ignorant, if you'll excuse me please for saying so. These weapons fire at the same rate, and use the same ammunition that they did before/during/and after the ban. Putting a pistol grip or flash suppressor on a rifle does nothing to make it shoot faster, more accurate, or more powerfull. If anything, the flash suppressor would make it less accurate. So the ban did nothing to make them less lethal. Once again, this was mentioned in my previous post. You might have caught it if you hadn't just skimmed through it looking for something to bitch about.

 

Hmmm, i see what you mean. My lack of knowledge of the classifications of different guns is always something i knew would be a detriment in later life. I should have payed more attention in gun class.*

 

As far as i can tell "assault weapons" is a fairly arbitary classification, but basically seems to be designed to include weapons whose main purpose is "mass destruction" or "quick random violence" or "weapons with military features", rather than ones such as pistols and huntin rifles. Maybe i have got it wrong.

I know that even those that got the bill passed weren't that happy about the compromises they had to make, but figured it was better than nothing. I can certainly see why you feel that having easier access to such useful weapons is a good thing.*

 

Tell me, at what point did I ever say guns are just like cars? Or that cars should be banned? Oh, never? That's what I thought. I said they're just as, if not more lethal and harmful. So why isn't anyone trying to ban them?

Hmmm, odd, that seems to me to be COMPARING GUNS WITH CARS, exactly what you say you didn't do. Oh sorry, not "just like" but "just as lethal"... silly me. Big difference. The obvious difference being that cars have useful functions in everyday life, guns don't (at least not in the hands of civilians). Anyone would think i would have made that point... oh hang on, i did, you just didn't get it.

 

They're dangerous and unneccesary too. But obviously a child can look and see they're not the same. Oh, and I'm sure you feel your car is something you simply cannot live without, because almost everyone does. But it's not true. That's all I was saying.

 

I have happily done without my car for the last two years, as i didn't need it. That has nothing to do with anything. I'm actually fairly anti-car, but i understand that the modern world would grind to a halt if they all disappeared tomorrow. If all guns disappeared tomorrow then what negative effects would there be?

 

At least when someone gets themselves behind a gun, they usually have the intent of killing something. The same can't be said for cars. I can be killed by a grandmother of six a block from my house anytime. And I think the odds of that happening are far greater than being shot by one of the banned weapons and killed. Does that deter me from driving, or make me wish cars were banned? No. I was just trying to make a point, which apparantley nobody got.

 

I still don't get it? The point you are making is that cars can kill accidentally, guns can kill on purpose? This seems to be an anti-gun point. Many things can kill you: cars, fires, toasters... but we own them all because they make our lives easier. Their purpose isn't to kill. they do other things.

 

I won't even mention the Saddam comment, because it's not relevant to this conversation at all. Nor did I find it humorous.

Shame, i'm upset. The point is that all the people who are dead keen on stopping saddam haing weapons, are dead set against any attempt to stop THEM having weapons. Since the constitution says "arms" not "guns" you should be able to interpret it as tanks, bombs, nukes, gas... anything. Or nothing.

 

 

Well, for one thing maybe you shouldn't skim-read like mr. toms.

Or maybe you didn't make yourself clear? maybe?

 

Well, it's hard to argue with statistics because everyone thinks they're the gospel. That said, I won't try. I will say that it could be more than coincidence.

Could be, but they usually point towards something... and these seem pretty positive to me.

 

 

A: Don't know what they're doing, and have no business firing or much less owning a gun.

or

B: Are on TV. Like the Rambo movies or something. Which pretty much puts them in category A.

 

And we all know that only SENSIBLE people own guns.*

So you are arguing that it is a good thng that guns DESIGNED TO APPEAL to group B are now back on sale then?

 

Honestly, do you think fitting a bayonet on a rifle makes it any faster to shoot?

The point is that all these features have no purpose outside military conflict... they are there to appeal to people who want guns like the army or in the movies (your group B, who shouldn't have guns according to you).

 

You COULD buy a tank and use it to do your shopping and whatever (i'm sure someone has) but the main reason a tank exists, the purpose of it's design and the main reason most people would want to own it is because IT IS A TANK. It crushes and blows stuff up. These "assualt weapons" seem to be the same. You could maybe use them for legitimate reasons, but that isn't what they are good at or why they appeal. This is bourne out by the "Although assault weapons comprised only 1% of privately-owned guns in America, they accounted for 8.4% of all guns traced to crime in 1988-91." statistic.

 

 

Maybe all of you people trust your government enough to be the only ones with decent weapons. I don't. I'm not paranoid, a member of a militia, and I don't think "the man" is out to get me.

Really, cos you sound like it.

 

I just take comfort in knowing if I want to own a decent gun, I can. I don't break laws with my weapons. So who are you to say I can't have one? You know, you're sitting back watching and applauding when someone else's freedoms are being infringed upon, and booing when they're not. But when they run out of sh!t to take from me, who do you suppose is next? You are. Gamers, movie fans, music fans, etc...The list could go on forever. Sure guns are bad. But they aren't going anywhere. So maybe instead of trying to keep them out of the hands of honest people like myself, you should be glad that there are some people that use them responsibly, and take great joy in it.

 

I'm sure it is very comforting, knowing you own something that is far more likely to injureor kill you or someone you love, or to be stolen and used in crime than , than to EVER be used by you to defend yourself. I think i could do without that form of comfort.

 

I obviously have a different definition of freedom, cos when i think of freedom the last thing ithink of is wanting to carry a gun. I think the US is the ONLY country where the right to carry a gun is enshrined in the constitution and considered a freedom. (based IMHO on a misreading of the badly worded constitution).

I do find it quaint that you have this romantic vision of you using your little guns to defend or take back your country from the evil government... surely if that is the purpose of holding a gun then you should be agreeing with me that the right to bear arms should allow you to have more powerful weapons, so you are on a par with the military? (after all, when it was written there were few weapons more powerful than a rifle, and that was what people had the right to bear... so you need to keep up with the times).

 

Guns might be here to stay... but they are flooding into the US marketplace at an ever increasing rate... and then ending up in the blackmarketplace... there are easily enough guns in the US for EVERYONE to have as many as they want... why would halting or slowing the production of such wepaons be a bad thing? Or making them harder to get? Reducing the availability might take a while to filter through, but it would push up the prices for everyone (including criminals).

 

*possible sarcasm warning.

[iamtrip]

Agreed, cars were not needed when people lived in huts, interbred and never moved more than 10 miles from their birthplace.

But the modern world is very different.

 

The fact is, cars have a primary purpose to travel. TV's have a primary purpose to entertain. Wardrobes have a primary purpose to store clthes.

All could be lethal in the correct (although unlickely) circumstances.

 

 

A guns primary purpose is to kill.

Theres no getting away from it.

What other job would you have it do? Fly? Sing? Dance? Hang up your coat?

 

 

Furthermore, you argue that these functional objects are not needed... well why would you need a gun?

A kind of perverse entertainment through superiority? Defence (Don't know what type of place you live in)?

 

The fact is, if people such as yourselves weren't carrying guns for selfdefence then there would be less gun crime.

A tiny minority actually carry a gun with the intent to kill.

Just think, if someone holds you at gunpoint and asks for your wallet and you pull out a pistol do you think they're more or less likely to shoot you? You might get them, but so what, you both end up dead.

Added to that, with hot headedness, their immediacy and a grandioso sense of self importance, people begin to use selfdefence weapons as offensive ones.

 

Just think, if guns weren't as accessable and immediate, then less people would have guns.

Only a tiny minority would actually be bothered enough to risk purchaseing and storing a gun illegally.

 

 

 

However...this was never the arguement.

 

Why was the ban on certain assault weapons not renewed in the USA.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the $25 million funds given to Bush from the weapons industry

 

This was the argument.

I don't particularly care if you have a gun or get some kind of pleasure from cleaning it.

 

The point was, this lapse was clearly afrom a pay off.

 

As you said, all people are corrupt to a certain extent.

Although, clearly, some people far more than others.

[rccar328]

I love the car comparison. Personally, I see cars as unnecessary but convenient. I ride my bike almost everywhere, unless I absolutely need to get somewhere fast or too far away.

 

Anyway, yeah, the purpose of guns is to kill. So what?

 

If some jerk breaks into my apartment, I'd much prefer to come at him with a gun than with a baseball bat or a knife. And if he has a gun, too, then that's just a risk I have to take.

 

And even if all guns were banned, a determined person could still find a way to get one, and then where would we be? We'd be a bunch of defenseless people at the mercy of whoever is weilding the gun.

 

The status of guns as weapons doesn't make them intrinsically evil.

 

 

 

 

The thing that amuses me the most about the non-renewal of the 'ban,' though, is that democrats try to blame it on President Bush, when it was never sent to him by Congress to be signed back into law.

 

 

If good Senator Kerry really cared so much, maybe he should've worked a little harder on that one.

[iamtrip]

My point was to establish that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill, after the ludicrous suggestion that it could sing or something.

 

 

I never said a determined person couldn't get a gun. I just said its a lot less likely that people in a fit of rage would take a gun (either pre-bought or just bought) if they weren't immediately ready.

If people have to buy them illegally, then the average person won't carry a gun. Hence less accidents and less 'rage' crime.

 

Guns do not defend.

If you're held at gunpoint, chances are you do (or don't) as they ask and you dont get shot.

If you pull a gun on them, theres more chance you get shot or both of you get shot.... and either you both die or one/both of you end up in courth sueing each other.

I don't see the point of how a gun can defend.

 

 

This however, was also besides the point.

I didn't see why having say 126 bullets is preferable over 8 bullets, besides to shoot and kill more people.

Lets face it.

If Bush wanted to renew the law, he could have easily called for it. Hell he pressed for Iraq strongly enough. But perhaps his payoff was a little bigger for that one...

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by rccar328

If some jerk breaks into my apartment, I'd much prefer to come at him with a gun than with a baseball bat or a knife. And if he has a gun, too, then that's just a risk I have to take.

yes, because a simple hand gun shot to the head won't kill a robber, you need an assualt weapon with a high caliber bullet to kill robbers, because they're like vampires, a normal bullet wont' kill them

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

yes, because a simple hand gun shot to the head won't kill a robber, you need an assualt weapon with a high caliber bullet to kill robbers, because they're like vampires, a normal bullet wont' kill them

 

 

*A military issue M16 assault rilfe, with scope, handgrip, flash suppressor and 126 bullets.

[Hiroki]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

yes, because a simple hand gun shot to the head won't kill a robber, you need an assualt weapon with a high caliber bullet to kill robbers, because they're like vampires, a normal bullet wont' kill them

 

 

Hahahaha! Ahh that’s really funny.

 

I do not really see the need for high caliber assault weapons either. A hand gun should be fine, that is probably all a robber would have. Instances people breaking into houses with there AK-47's blazing are few and far between.

[toms]

but then there are lots of countries when guns are restricted. So the "ordinary citizen" can't get hold of a gun to defend himself, but (of course) criminals can usually manage to get hold of guns illegally.

 

Oddly, none of these countries have anything approaching the gun deaths that the US has. Of course it is more complex than that, but the idea that if guns were made illegal (or restricted) then the whole country would be overrun by gun weilding criminals is patently untrue, as it doesn't happen anywhere else.

 

The thing is, the more legal guns and ammo there are floating around, the more of them end up in illegal circles. For every gun that is "correctly" used to defend someone, there are probably several that end up in accidents or the wrong hands.

 

Guns are available in the criminal world in the UK too, and have been a growing probelm due to people trying to emulate the US gun cluture, but they aren't as common, are usually old pistols (not modern assualt weapons) and are harder to find and therefore more expensive. In the US they appear to be so common that any punk can get hold of one.

 

(and this doesn;'t even cover things like columbine or accidents or crimes of passion that all involve legally held guns).

 

It just seems to me that the US needs to start putting a valve on the manufacture and distriburtion of guns and ammo to slowly reduce their entry into the market and slowly reduce the number floating around.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by toms

In the US they appear to be so common that any punk can get hold of one.

tis true, I know people that sell ak-47's for 350 USD right down my street. It's pretty easy to get a gun here, legally or not.

[lukeiamyourdad]

What about irresponsible citizens?

 

Oh and you just destroyed your own argument. You're using a pistol to defend yourself against a thug, not your M-16.

 

Oh and just so people know, it takes a hell of a lot of courage(or you can just be a bit of a psycho) to actually shoot someone. It's not as easy as in the movies.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

If I get carjacked I would rather have my own auto pistol in my coat. when the thug drives off in my car, i get to shoot to cripple him from behind! THAT will set an example for future carjackers!

 

Auto pistol? It wouldn't be nearly as useful as a semi-automatic pistol in that situation, considering the recoil would be a big problem.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

If I get carjacked I would rather have my own auto pistol in my coat. when the thug drives off in my car, i get to shoot to cripple him from behind! THAT will set an example for future carjackers!

 

And what happens if your bullets go astray and shoot the poor woman out on her morning jog? Or even if you DO only hit the carjacker, what are the chances that a future carjacker will know that YOU are the guy who shot that one carjacker? They won't and they'll still steal your car. You would have been better served simply letting him go and quickly calling the police with a description of the carjacker, your car, and your licence plate.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Tyrion

Auto pistol? It wouldn't be nearly as useful as a semi-automatic pistol in that situation, considering the recoil would be a big problem.

indeed. An assualt rifle is useless for the average citizen. I'm fine if some guy or girl has a 9mm but I seriously see no need for a semi-automatic rifle using high caliber bullets. What's the point? A 9mm shot to the head will kill someone.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Wow talk about paranoia...

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

considering all the killing in this country, our streets is practicly a warzone already! we need higher gun power to protect ourselves since police cant be everywhere at once!

I'm all for self-defense, but vigilante-ism is not a good thing, infact it has always proven a bad thing.