The Ban on Assault Weapons - Lifted?

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

Have you heard about Harlem in New York! my dad says it is like hell on earth! at night people are killing left and right! they would Kill you for your SHOES! it is so bad even cops wont go in!I wouldnt go in without a full suit of bullet proof armor!(helmet included)!

 

Adding more guns to Harlem won't do a damn thing. You're a bit naive if you think it would.

[kipperthefrog]

youre probably right!

 

i been having second thoughts!

 

if Harlem REALY is as that bad, wouldnt everyone in Harlem be dead by now?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

Have you heard about Harlem in New York! my dad says it is like hell on earth! at night people are killing left and right! they would Kill you for your SHOES! it is so bad even cops wont go in!I wouldnt go in without a full suit of bullet proof armor!(helmet included)!

... dude.... *sighs* nah man, Harlem isn't as bad as everyone says, hell I've been there at 3 in the morning, it's not as bad as all that. Sure those things happen, but not as often as people think. And wow, one neighborhood has turned you into a gun-nut vigilante? kind of rediculous don't you think? Just travel in numbers and never say stupid **** to people you don't know and you'll avoid all kinds of trouble.

[kipperthefrog]

I figured if there are places like that, you needed powerfull self defense stuff!

 

if what you say is true and my dad is wrong, maybie things are NOT as bad as dad described it!

 

THAT means it will only be that bad if you DO legalize guns like that!

[toms]

if you shoot someone in the back as they are driving away, that would be manslaughter at the least. It wouldn't be in self defence, it would be in revenge... and personally i'd rather let someone have my car than cripple or kill them... maybe i just value human life...

 

If carjackers start getting shot, they will just start carrying guns themselves, or more likely shooting first, then taking the car... the thought of guns as a deterrant is a joke... surely the US (with all it's decent citizens all armed up to the teeth) should be the LEAST crime ridden country on earth if that was true? Burglars, robbers, carjackers...they waould all be too scared to stop anyone...

 

Or more likely the burglars will just steal your gun and either sell it or use it on you.

----------

You have to think that it is this unreasoned FEAR of all the terrible stuff they see on the news that makes everyone in the US 9and UK too) so scared, and so willig to do stupid things, or want more guns, or give away their freedoms in the hope it will keep them safe....

...but the more they do, the more they get scared... and on it goes.

 

"Fear of Crime" stats never bear any relation to actual crime stats.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It's amazing that people still use the old "if you ban guns, you'll have to ban knives" argument. It's downright B. S. and it's been proven as such so many times it's simply not subject to reply anymore.

 

But then again, it doesn't need to be, does it? 'Cause that's not the intention. It's one of those phrases you use just because everyone else use them. Like homophobes saying "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!". It's one of those slogans that are so great not for the intelligence in them, but for their shortness (which allows them to easily fit on posters, etc.), and for their popularity. After all, why write a 5-page essay like your opponents do if you can yell some short phrase at them?

 

Kipper, please just calm down or leave. This is a debate forum, not a "5h0ut1n' C0nT35t!!!!111111111 forum". If your arguments are so sound, why do they need to be capitalized and in red? I have to wonder.

 

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.

Well said, Toms.

 

I figured if there are places like that, you needed powerfull self defense stuff!

More exclamation marks.

Why "powerful self-defense stuff"? Do you think that if you're assaulted by a thug who tries to rob you, you're better off with a Uzi that has to be loaded before being used than pepper spray?

 

Which brings me to the next question: Why do people who are so fanatical about self-defense and burglars not use deterrants that are proven to work, like alarms? If you're a burglar, a simple "Alarm" sign in the window is enough to deter you. Why? Simply because you'll try breaking into a house without an alarm.

 

Second thoughts? Good. Now consider this:

In the USA, and everywhere else, local ownership of guns causes local crime to increase.

Also, burglar alarms are proven deterants.

Why do you think burglars attack at night instead of at day? Because they don't want a fight.

Think the US is a war zone? Consider other countries with a higher crime rate. By the way, those countries have citizens that know that guns are bad and so put in better locks, iron gates, and so on in their houses instead. Yes, I said in their houses. If you want to break into someone's bedroom, you have to break through 4 layers of iron gates after having kicked the doors in.

 

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?

Just paint symbolic red marks at the side of your car. One mark, one enemy downed. Hey, being a "Top Ace" got fighter and bomber pilots respect, so it'll probably get you respect as well! While you're at it, though, why not give yourself a medal or stripe every time you kill someone? Like, to wear on your jacket or shirt or whatever?

 

Oh, and the second amendment: Your right to bear arms is infringed and will always be. Arms, by definition, are:

A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

[Other meanings irrelevant to discussion]

--Dictionary "Dot Com".

 

So.. does the second amendment guarantee you to have an underground ICBM launch site in your back yard? Does it give you the right to arm your Toyota van with a TOW Missile launcher? No, I didn't think so. Think about that the next time you start throwing that "2nd Amendment can't be infringed" argument around. It's not absolute and it cannot be.

 

If you own a shotgun or another hunting weapon, you use your right to bear arms. That plain, that simple.

 

"(...)MILITIA(...)":

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

--Dictionary "Dot Com".

 

I don't think any of the people who buy guns to defend their homes qualify as any of those.

 

"(...)WELL-REGULATED(...)"

To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.

To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.

To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

--Dictionary "Dot Com".

 

The 2nd amendment clearly states that there should be regulations on guns, yet you use it to argue that there should be no gun regulations? Grow up.

[CagedCrado]

there are commas in the second ammendment that you blatantly ignore.

 

The militia and the bearing of arms are two seperate related things.

 

The militia is regulated not the guns necesarily.

 

It doesnt say 'in order to maintain a militia' it just says 'a militia'. Thus your ideology is flawed.

 

If there werent commas you would be correct, but there are. So the militia is not important to owning weapons, it doesnt even say it has to be a government regulated militia.

 

The simple facts are banning guns wont stop gun deaths. It wont stop murder either, if someone wants to kill somebody else there are plenty of other ways to do it and very much less obvious ways to do it since most other types of weapons are harder to trace.

 

The UK has a ban on firearms yet has a higher knifing death toll.

 

So people who want guns for sport dont get to have them, and people who want illegal weapons for crime will just buy them so banning guns solves absolutly nothing.

[CagedCrado]

The national guard is the equivelant of a militia, it allows soldiers to benefit economically while serving in the military. Without the national guard the standing army would have to be much larger.

 

So yes militias are very important to the armed forces, and most countries do have militias of some type.

[El Sitherino]

well it's easy to fight back against someone with a knife. But a gun, it's much harder, all they have to do is shoot you in the head and you're dead.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

there are commas in the second ammendment that you blatantly ignore.

I think not.

 

The militia and the bearing of arms are two seperate related things.

Is that what you really think, or are you seriously mis-reading the thing?

 

It doesnt say 'in order to maintain a militia' it just says 'a militia'. Thus your ideology is flawed.

My ideology? Whoever says I agree with the constitution just because I point out the parts of it?

 

Oh, and please explain why my reasoning is flawed.

 

You realize that it says "because a militia is important to the Free State" (or whatever the...)", right? Please study grammar a little. What did you think it said, "a militia is important. Oh, and by the way, you can have guns if you want to"?

 

If there werent commas you would be correct, but there are. So the militia is not important to owning weapons, it doesnt even say it has to be a government regulated militia.

But you realize it does, right? Geez, I just quoted the definition of the word to you. :rolleyes:

[CagedCrado]

I did say why. Ill make the second ammendment blatantly obvious so you can tell what it says, and then you will know what i am talking about instead of being absolutly clueless.

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Obviously you dont understand commas if you read this.

[El Sitherino]

and since the national guard is the regualted militia, average citizens have no real requirement to bear arms, save for hunting.

[CagedCrado]

Dont forget for sport also.

 

People use guns for target practice, and there are championships to win money for being able to hit targets at great distances.

 

Its like competitive archery.

 

Like i said, it doesnt specify a particular regulated militia or another. Regulated doesnt mean by the government necesarily, it can be regulated by citizens according to the second ammendment.

[El Sitherino]

True, and while I do like and participate in marksmanship events, it's not really a required thing. And not the average everyday citizen can compete in those events and such.

[CagedCrado]

Only a small amount of people can compete in professional baseball, but it is still legal.

 

Besides, you can kill with baseball bats, so obviously baseball should be illegal.

right.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by CagedCrado

you can kill with baseball bats, so obviously baseball should be illegal.

true, but unlike guns, they weren't designed to kill. Plus it takes a lot more effort to kill someone with a bat than it does a gun. Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to go on some tangent about all guns should be banned, I just don't think people should have access to assault rifles, and I don't think average citizens should need anything larger than a .9mm pistol, unless they have a hunting license, in which case they can get a deer rifle or such as that. But I fail to see any real use in a citizen having an AK-47, or even a .44 calibur firing handgun.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

...and since the national guard is the regualted militia, average citizens have no real requirement to bear arms, save for hunting.

Bingo. Great one, InsaneSith.

 

Obviously you dont understand commas if you read this.

Was that sarcasm? Because I don't think anyone really understood the grammar of that quote of yours. And no, I don't understand you.

 

 

Baseball bats should be banned

I just addressed that...

[CagedCrado]

Baseball bats are identical to clubs. Clubs were designed to kill people, thus baseball bats are modified clubs. So they are a weapon to kill originally but were put to recreational uses. Exactly like guns.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by CagedCrado

So they are a weapon to kill originally but were put to recreational uses. Exactly like guns.

 

Hmmm.. perhaps you're on to something. Don't ban the guns.

 

Instead, ban the sale of ammunition or powder. Then you can keep your 5.56mm gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, selective rate, club. Perhaps a new sport can be devised where the pitched magazines are whacked and bases are run.

[El Sitherino]

sounds like fun!

[CagedCrado]

Fire arms are already used as a sport. http://www.olntv.com/showviewer.asp?sid=177&eps=155828

 

I have said this probably 20 times already, and every time it has been entirely ignored.

 

You just dont get the term sport do you?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sport

 

Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.

 

One known for the manner of one's acceptance of rules, especially of a game.....

 

Shooting at a target is certainly not going to hurt or kill anyone, perhaps instead of crying to ban guns you should consider crying for gun education to help people better understand to handle and operate their firearms and prevent accidents?

 

Criminals already buy most of their guns illegal and a gun ban will not change this.

 

Im sure everyone in the hood with an oozy will line right up to register their guns or turn them in because they are illegal. They are already illegal.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Criminals already buy most of their guns illegal and a gun ban will not change this.

 

Im sure everyone in the hood with an oozy will line right up to register their guns or turn them in because they are illegal. They are already illegal.

 

Not initially, but eventually the supply source having been cut, existing gun supplies will slowly deplete as they are confiscated, disposed of, lost, or damaged. The lack of new supply will increase the street value to more than the few dollars they currently are and criminals will do a better job of keeping their guns secure. In other words, they'll leave them locked at home rather than risk losing them since replacement will be costly.

 

I'm not necessarily advocating a ban on all firearms, just pointing out the fallacy of the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Fire arms are already used as a sport. http://www.olntv.com/showviewer.asp?sid=177&eps=155828

 

I have said this probably 20 times already, and every time it has been entirely ignored.

I've addressed your speech about it as a sport, and even told you I participate in the sporting event.

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Criminals already buy most of their guns illegal and a gun ban will not change this.

no but it sure will slow down the trade.

 

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Im sure everyone in the hood with an oozy will line right up to register their guns or turn them in because they are illegal. They are already illegal.

wow, just when I thought you couldn't get any denser.

 

first it's spelt uzi, second not everyone in the hood owns a gun, not everyone owns an uzi, and not everyone purchases guns illegally.

 

or are you saying anyone that's not one of the rich folk can't legally buy a gun, if so you're a bigot, and an all around *ad hominem remark*

[toms]

those with illegal weapons might well not turn them in. But reducing the availablility of NEW illegal weapons has to be a good thing.

 

The ones in circulation will slowly be picked up by the police, discarded, break, become tainted and end up out of circulation.

 

Of course, people will still try and smuggle in arms to sell, but if all arms are illegal then it gets a lot harder to disguise what you are doing.

 

Either way, it is fairly clear that the massive flood of new weapons onto the market (legal, then illegal) is hardly making the good citizens of america feel any safer.