So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 17 NEXT
 

xDarc:
Just thought I'd share a picture of my new gun. I ordered it the day after the shooting when all the gun control headlines started eating up the google news aggregator. The next morning they were sold out.

*shrug* Not too shabby. Seems like an awfully expensive way to snub the libs, though.

While it's on my mind, this whole phenomenon of snagging up notorious weapons like that before they get banned is nothing different from what's being described in this movie clip....

and it annoys me. I mean, it's your money, I'll shut up and take it, but still strikes me as vapid to want a firearm just for it's news infamy or movie role.

GunsmithKitten:
While it's on my mind, this whole phenomenon of snagging up notorious weapons like that before they get banned is nothing different from what's being described in this movie clip....

and it annoys me. I mean, it's your money, I'll shut up and take it, but still strikes me as vapid to want a firearm just for it's news infamy or movie role.

That movie lies. Tec-9's are semi-auto, but the one they had in the video-in-a-video was full auto. Blasphemous.

Anyway, consider them collectables as opposed to actual firearms. The people who buy a gun because of it's notability probably don't even plan on going to a range with it, they just want it to have it. So even if they did try and use it, it would probably end up jamming because of them limp-wristing it.

Revnak:
And you should be ashamed! Or do you not understand why shooting at bear cans is not dangerous and quite fun

...he typed, while a day later a child would walk past and be struck by a bullet from his completely innocent can-shooting, as has happened at least a thousand times before.

After which he'd exclaim "But that could never happen!" and blame the child for walking there, instead of himself for firing lethal weaponry for no reason, as has also happened at least a thousand times before.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
And you should be ashamed! Or do you not understand why shooting at bear cans is not dangerous and quite fun

...he typed, while a day later a child would walk past and be struck by a bullet from his completely innocent can-shooting, as has happened at least a thousand times before.

After which he'd exclaim "But that could never happen!" and blame the child for walking there, instead of himself for firing lethal weaponry for no reason, as has also happened at least a thousand times before.

Ooh, do you live in the middle of fucking nowhere? I certainly do! Do you know the chances of a kid wandering behind a bullet I shoot? Roughly the same chance as Santa doing the same. And I put them in front of a tree or piece of wood. Seriously, people just love to assume the worst.

Revnak:
Ooh, do you live in the middle of fucking nowhere?

Been there a few times yes, and I found several people there. People who aren't bullet-proof I might add.

Revnak:
Do you know the chances of a kid wandering behind a bullet I shoot?

Yes: Too high to consider it a safe thing to do.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Ooh, do you live in the middle of fucking nowhere?

Been there a few times yes, and I found several people there. People who aren't bullet-proof I might add.

You must have looked pretty hard. My backyard is a hillside leading to nowhere. My grandparents backyard (where I would do this) is about a hundred yards of slope approaching a cliff face.

Revnak:
Do you know the chances of a kid wandering behind a bullet I shoot?

Yes: Too high to consider it a safe thing to do.

Zero is too high for you? Because that is essentially what it is. I could throw hand grenades back there and end more Sasquatch than people.

And I see you cut out the part about my redundant precautions. How like you.

Revnak:
Zero is too high for you? Because that is essentially what it is. I could throw hand grenades back there and end more Sasquatch than people.

Uh, no. There's over 350 million people in your country, and the chances that one of them ends up on your supposedly empty hillside is quite present.

Point is that you think it's safe, while it's not, so you take risks that may kill others eventually. May? Let me rephrase myself: Risks that *will* kill others, because accidental shootings are a fact, so it's statistical law that you will kill someone sooner or later.

Which all goes to show how wrong your earlier argument about using guns for 'safe' purposes was.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Zero is too high for you? Because that is essentially what it is. I could throw hand grenades back there and end more Sasquatch than people.

Uh, no. There's over 350 million people in your country, and the chances that one of them ends up on your supposedly empty hillside is quite present.

Point is that you think it's safe, while it's not, so you take risks that may kill others eventually. May? Let me rephrase myself: Risks that *will* kill others, because accidental shootings are a fact, so it's statistical law that you will kill someone sooner or later.

Which all goes to show how wrong your earlier argument about using guns for 'safe' purposes was.

Then we are left with two options. Either you are against jogging because I could fall on a child or into the road, pleasure driving for obvious reasons, fireworks, and any other number of ridiculous things that are far more dangerous than firing at a soda can in front of nothing but a tree and a cliff face, or you define unsafe as it suits your absolute view of the world. It is almost certainly the latter.

TechNoFear:

Gergar12:
No of course not, but an Ar-15 is a rifle, and an Ak-47 is too unless if it's
So you cannot call a semi-auto Ak-47 an assault rifle because it has no burst or automatic fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

You are not entirely correct...

There are the colloquial (common), technical and legal meanings of 'assault weapon' in the US.

The FOPA (1986) legally defines 'automatic weapons' to include most firearms that are colloquially and technically called 'assault weapons'.

The AWB (1992) legally defined 'assault weapon' to include many semi-auto firearms. The AWB also legally defined the features required to determine if a firearm was an 'assault pistol', 'assault shotgun' or 'assault rifle' (and so banned).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

But the Op said assault rifle vs assault weapon. Those are two different things, that share many qualities, but not the same. I know what an assault weapon is which is pistol grips, and etc, but assault rifles need to have burst, or auto fire to be called assault rifles. Even thro I don't think people should have fully automatic guns, those that do have them would never use them on people because they cost huge amounts of money, and mainly use them for fun, and shooting lakes, and making youtube videos.

TechNoFear:

Gergar12:
No of course not, but an Ar-15 is a rifle, and an Ak-47 is too unless if it's
So you cannot call a semi-auto Ak-47 an assault rifle because it has no burst or automatic fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

You are not entirely correct...

There are the colloquial (common), technical and legal meanings of 'assault weapon' in the US.

The FOPA (1986) legally defines 'automatic weapons' to include most firearms that are colloquially and technically called 'assault weapons'.

The AWB (1992) legally defined 'assault weapon' to include many semi-auto firearms. The AWB also legally defined the features required to determine if a firearm was an 'assault pistol', 'assault shotgun' or 'assault rifle' (and so banned).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

Assault weapon, as defined by the ban, and assault RIFLE are not one in the same.

Assault weapon technically is any weapon that fell under the "assault weapon ban" you mentioned. For example, I put a 30 round clip, a forward stalk, and other things on the rifle I own, under the ban even a .22 semi-automatic is legally considered an "assault weapon."

An Assault RIFLE, as defined by the military as a rifle capable of either burst or fully automatic fire with a mid sized cartriege. Fully automatic rifles with full sized rounds are called "battlerifle" and ones with pistol caliber rounds are SMGS.

"Assault Weapons" was most chosen as a buzzword by Congress (like fiscal cliff, murder simulator, military style, etc.) to make people assume that these guns can only be used in AGGRESSIVE WAYS and preying on ignorant people mixing up the terms.

xDarc:
Just thought I'd share a picture of my new gun. I ordered it the day after the shooting when all the gun control headlines started eating up the google news aggregator. The next morning they were sold out.

Nice AR-15.

I live in California, so I cannot have half the features I see on your gun. We may even lose the "bullet button" versions for the 30 round clips soon. >_<

This does bring up a good point.

Even the fear of more gun control spurs people to buy as many guns they can afford. Since here in the US the government cannot take property without putting a person to trial/giving them compensation for it, all levels of government allow the transfer and allow people to keep the bought objects. So, in short term at least (barring expensive confiscation or amending the constitution to void all gun rights/the right to compensation when the government takes property, good luck with the latter) will lead to more guns in people's homes.

Revnak:
Then we are left with two options. Either you are against jogging because I could fall on a child or into the road, pleasure driving for obvious reasons, fireworks, and any other number of ridiculous things that are far more dangerous than firing at a soda can in front of nothing but a tree and a cliff face, or you define unsafe as it suits your absolute view of the world. It is almost certainly the latter.

Ah, it's time for ridiculous comparisons that you too know are invalid again... A veritable recurring theme in the gun lobby. You know quite well that jogging serves a purpose, and if you stumble you get a bruise. Shooting firearms has no purpose, and if it goes wrong people die.

For the same reason you can't buy and play around with explosives. They're dangerous just like guns and you don't need explosives. Better yet, you need to prove you need to use explosives professionally and go through an extensive permit process before you're allowed to handle some of them. Why not the same with guns?

I do hope you're not going to claim that not being allowed to blow up the hillside and local highschool is an intolerable restriction of your freedom....

Blablahb:
I do hope you're not going to claim that not being allowed to blow up the hillside and local highschool is an intolerable restriction of your freedom....

I consider the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention a restriction of my freedom.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Then we are left with two options. Either you are against jogging because I could fall on a child or into the road, pleasure driving for obvious reasons, fireworks, and any other number of ridiculous things that are far more dangerous than firing at a soda can in front of nothing but a tree and a cliff face, or you define unsafe as it suits your absolute view of the world. It is almost certainly the latter.

Ah, it's time for ridiculous comparisons that you too know are invalid again... A veritable recurring theme in the gun lobby. You know quite well that jogging serves a purpose, and if you stumble you get a bruise. Shooting firearms has no purpose, and if it goes wrong people die.

For the same reason you can't buy and play around with explosives. They're dangerous just like guns and you don't need explosives. Better yet, you need to prove you need to use explosives professionally and go through an extensive permit process before you're allowed to handle some of them. Why not the same with guns?

I do hope you're not going to claim that not being allowed to blow up the hillside and local highschool is an intolerable restriction of your freedom....

My friend you are obviously unaware of the four holy writs of shooting.

I am more likely to kill myself and someone else driving to buy bullets then to kill/harm anyone while following these rules. Why? Because following these rules takes guessing out of the equation. If you decide to not follow the rules while driving you will harm others. If you do the same with shooting you will harm others. I and millions of other people shoot and go to public ranges regularly. I have never seen an accident that even nearly harmed someone, much less killed anyone.

Compare that with firecrackers which constantly take peoples fingers off.

Always love to see the gun-nuts need to compare their death-sticks with cars.

Haha. But no, really, cars are made for transportation, guns are weapons made to kill. There is a difference. One is needed to get to work, the other isn't.

TheBelgianGuy:
Always love to see the gun-nuts need to compare their death-sticks with cars.

Haha. But no, really, cars are made for transportation, guns are weapons made to kill. There is a difference. One is needed to get to work, the other isn't.

Actually I typically compare my death sticks to alcohol which has absolutely no use besides intoxicating oneself and it kills thousands every year. Banning that went quite well.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Then we are left with two options. Either you are against jogging because I could fall on a child or into the road, pleasure driving for obvious reasons, fireworks, and any other number of ridiculous things that are far more dangerous than firing at a soda can in front of nothing but a tree and a cliff face, or you define unsafe as it suits your absolute view of the world. It is almost certainly the latter.

Ah, it's time for ridiculous comparisons that you too know are invalid again... A veritable recurring theme in the gun lobby. You know quite well that jogging serves a purpose, and if you stumble you get a bruise. Shooting firearms has no purpose, and if it goes wrong people die.

So I can do donuts in my parking not fire my gun there, despite the former being far more dangerous? Seems odd to me. I can drive around the countryside for kicks, endangering more lives in the process, or I can shoot at a pop can. I honestly think none of these things are particularly dangerous, nor are they particularly necessary. You can jog at home if you must, you never need to pleasure drive, and there is no need to shoot at pop cans. All of these have largely negligible degrees of danger involved as long as you know what you are doing, but for some reason only the latter is wrong in your opinion. This puzzles me.

For the same reason you can't buy and play around with explosives. They're dangerous just like guns and you don't need explosives. Better yet, you need to prove you need to use explosives professionally and go through an extensive permit process before you're allowed to handle some of them. Why not the same with guns?

I do hope you're not going to claim that not being allowed to blow up the hillside and local highschool is an intolerable restriction of your freedom....

I can play around with explosives. I own an abundance of fireworks. If I had a permit, I could get stuff that literally could blow my leg off. I can own guns, though currently I own none (I actually don't particularly care for them and have fired nothing more powerful than an airsoft rifle in my life). If I get a permit, I should be allowed to get stuff that literally could blow my leg off, but only if. I am consistent here. I have made it abundantly clear that I believe virtually every gun should require a licensing process, except those deemed to not be extensively dangerous. If I attain that permit, I should be allowed to use that gun as I wish as long as I do not harm myself or others. The activities I am describing are not particularly dangerous.

TheBelgianGuy:
Always love to see the gun-nuts need to compare their death-sticks with cars.

Haha. But no, really, cars are made for transportation, guns are weapons made to kill. There is a difference. One is needed to get to work, the other isn't.

And cars can be used for pleasure drives, for doing donuts and the like, and for generally goofing off, just like guns can be used for silly things like target shooting and serious things like fucking up bears.

Revnak:
Do I can do donuts in my parking not fire my gun there, despite the former being far more dangerous?

I imagine nobody would die if you ate donuts in a parking lot. Unless there was a few hundred donuts at once or something.

Revnak:
Seems odd to me. I can drive around the countryside for kicks, endangering more lives in the process, or I can shoot at a pop can.

I don't see how driving is more dangerous than firing deadly weapons.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Do I can do donuts in my parking not fire my gun there, despite the former being far more dangerous?

I imagine nobody would die if you ate donuts in a parking lot. Unless there was a few hundred donuts at once or something.

Revnak:
Seems odd to me. I can drive around the countryside for kicks, endangering more lives in the process, or I can shoot at a pop can.

I don't see how driving is more dangerous than firing deadly weapons.

Hes referring to driving in very tight circles repeatedly. Commonly referred to as doing doughnuts.

As for driving being more dangerous then shooting that all depends on how you do it.

Revnak:
So I can do donuts in my parking not fire my gun there, despite the former being far more dangerous? Seems odd to me.

Because you are comparing using an object in its 'normal' way to using an object in an 'extreme' way.

If I juggle my chainsaw while it is running it is more dangerous than shooting my firearm at a can.

But if I use my chainsaw as intended it is not more dangerous (to the operator) than shooting my firearm at a can.

TechNoFear:

Revnak:
So I can do donuts in my parking not fire my gun there, despite the former being far more dangerous? Seems odd to me.

Because you are comparing using an object in its 'normal' way to using an object in an 'extreme' way.

If I juggle my chainsaw while it is running it is more dangerous than shooting my firearm at a can.

But if I use my chainsaw as intended it is not more dangerous (to the operator) than shooting my firearm at a can.

Donuts aren't extreme really (and honestly should be legal if they aren't), and I also referenced pleasure driving, but hey, let's all ignore my stronger points and just reaffirm our biases why don't we.

And juggling a chain saw? You're comparing that to doing donuts? And people say my comparisons are crazy. At least what I'm comparing are two things of negligible degrees of danger which are not necessary or the intended use but most people are very capable of. The vast majority of people don't even have the upper body strength to juggle chainsaws, let alone the talent. Yet at the same time you just made my point. Juggling chainsaws is legal. For those that can do it, it is an entertaining thing to do which most people would be fine with them doing on their own free time despite how crazy dangerous it may seem. Yet we're all calling a guy out for shooting pop cans.

Revnak:
[snip]

Your entire argument is that 'other objects are dangerous, so why don't we ban them as well'.

It is illogical, you equate driving dangerously to target shooting, a false equivelency and nothing to do with the actual topic.

You then pretend that 'pleasure driving' has the same risk as doing 'donuts' (which is clearly wrong).

You ignore that 'cars' are much more regulated in the US than firearms.

Driving requires a licence, vehicles have to be registered, insured, have safety equipment and security equipment.

If firearms had the same level of regulation as 'cars' in the US then firearms would have trigger locks and microstamps as standard.

Revnak:
And juggling a chain saw? You're comparing that to doing donuts?

You fail at reading comprehension.

Revnak:
And people say my comparisons are crazy.

I picked an extreme example to show how illogical your argument is.

Revnak:
At least what I'm comparing are two things of negligible degrees of danger which are not necessary or the intended use but most people are very capable of.

No you did not, as I explained in my previous post.

You might as well have said that shooting a firearm in a war zone is safer than doing donuts (because it is being shot AT by a firearm that is most dangerous, not shooting a firearm).

TechNoFear:

Revnak:
[snip]

Your entire argument is that 'other objects are dangerous, so why don't we ban them as well'.

It is illogical, you equate driving dangerously to target shooting, a false equivelency and nothing to do with the actual topic.

You then pretend that 'pleasure driving' has the same risk as doing 'donuts' (which is clearly wrong).

You ignore that 'cars' are much more regulated in the US than firearms.

Driving requires a licence, vehicles have to be registered, insured, have safety equipment and security equipment.

If firearms had the same level of regulation as 'cars' in the US then firearms would have trigger locks and microstamps as standard.

Revnak:
And juggling a chain saw? You're comparing that to doing donuts?

You fail at reading comprehension.

Revnak:
And people say my comparisons are crazy.

I picked an extreme example to show how illogical your argument is.

Revnak:
At least what I'm comparing are two things of negligible degrees of danger which are not necessary or the intended use but most people are very capable of.

No you did not, as I explained in my previous post.

You might as well have said that shooting a firearm in a war zone is safer than doing donuts (because it is being shot AT by a firearm that is most dangerous, not shooting a firearm).

Uhm, I'm not really talking about gun control here. I'm honestly just talking about why shooting pop cans is not unreasonably dangerous, that guns can be used for entertainment, and that doing so is not unreasonable. That has been nearly all I've commented about this thread. My stance on gun control is actually that it should be more heavily regulated than cars. That has been my stance through virtually all gun control thread as of late. What I'm doing here is defending backyard target shooting as a hobby. Apparently you didn't realize that. At no point was I intending to make it sound like I was comparing the legality of the actions, rather the degree of acceptableness. I apologize if I confused you.
You know what, I don't think either of us have a clue about what the other is intending to talk about here.

TechNoFear:

Driving requires a licence, vehicles have to be registered, insured, have safety equipment and security equipment.

If firearms had the same level of regulation as 'cars' in the US then firearms would have trigger locks and microstamps as standard.

Well, firearms already are tested, ballistics recorded, all have a register number and all sales are recorded in some form or another.

Microstamping is expensive, unreliable (they wear out after 2,500 rounds, which is about a dozen visits to the range) require the gun to leave behind casing (revolvers and double barrel shotguns don't) and can be easily abused (go to range, collect shells, pick up the ones you used, dump the rest at crime scene).

Trigger locks, unlike the lock on a car, make it harder to use a gun in one of it's legal roles (self defense) at best adding time you may not have to readying a gun. Cars have keys mostly so they are harder to steal. Also, this was already shot down by the Supreme Court in Heller.

What your suggesting is like adding finger print and eye scanners to all cars by law, it would only cause trouble.

Here's a thought relevant to this whole issue, aren't the vast majority of crimes with a gun done by handguns? Sure rifles might hit harder and in many cases carry more bullets but they're harder to conceal which is why criminals rob places with pistols.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm

So in that case why are rifles being targeted by legislation and not handguns?

Xan Krieger:
Here's a thought relevant to this whole issue, aren't the vast majority of crimes with a gun done by handguns? Sure rifles might hit harder and in many cases carry more bullets but they're harder to conceal which is why criminals rob places with pistols.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm

So in that case why are rifles being targeted by legislation and not handguns?

Because rifles are scary and an easier target.

That's the core of almost all anti-gun legislation; fear. (Note: I didn't point to the gun control crowd as a whole, just the legislation that's put forth)

Kopikatsu:

Xan Krieger:
Here's a thought relevant to this whole issue, aren't the vast majority of crimes with a gun done by handguns? Sure rifles might hit harder and in many cases carry more bullets but they're harder to conceal which is why criminals rob places with pistols.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm

So in that case why are rifles being targeted by legislation and not handguns?

Because rifles are scary and an easier target.

That's the core of almost all anti-gun legislation; fear. (Note: I didn't point to the gun control crowd as a whole, just the legislation that's put forth)

I figured that'd be the answer I'd get. The guy who shot up Virginia Tech killed 33 people with a pair of handguns, more than the 2 guys at Columbine who had at least one fully automatic weapon and the latest Sandy Creek shooting where the guy had a semi-auto rifle.

Xan Krieger:
Here's a thought relevant to this whole issue, aren't the vast majority of crimes with a gun done by handguns? Sure rifles might hit harder and in many cases carry more bullets but they're harder to conceal which is why criminals rob places with pistols.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm

So in that case why are rifles being targeted by legislation and not handguns?

Another thing is that people'e perception of "danger levels" of guns put pistols at the very bottom.

A pistol is just this little thing, unless your shot in the heart or head you won't die! How many times in Hollywood have you seen people shot with a pistol and get up from the "flesh wound"? More people are more likely to know people with a pistol than a "nut job" with an "assault rifle". Also, most non-gun owners can't tell the difference between semi-automatic AR-15 compared to a fully auto M16.

Sandy also got more people angry because it was children. It is like why slasher films have teenagers as the victims, because they "deserved it" while the child always lives.

Xan Krieger:
So in that case why are rifles being targeted by legislation and not handguns?

Because Heller vs DC already rejected a ban on handguns in the FACA 1975 as unconstitutional.

Heller vs DC found that just about any form of safety measure (trigger lock etc) or restriction (no handguns) is unconstitutional.

This gives the US little to no chance of actually reducing firearm violence.

Not G. Ivingname:
Microstamping is expensive,

Between US$0.50 to US$8 per firearm is not exactly 'expensive'.

That is NOTHING compared to the cost of a car airbag, ABS, etc.

That is nothing compared to the ~US$40,000 in just medical expenses each of the over 100,000 gunshot wounds per year cost the US.

Not G. Ivingname:
unreliable (they wear out after 2,500 rounds,

Only the least reliable type of microstamp wear out at this rate, many microstamps (ie ceramic) last for well over 50,000 rounds and are very hard to tamper with (as they are placed on multiple points and microscopic).

Not G. Ivingname:
and can be easily abused

So can DNA or fingerprints, so should we throw these technologies away?

We do not expect air bags and seat belts to save 100% of lives in all accidents, but still legislate that these safety equipment is required.

We do not expect DNA, fingerprinting etc to solve all crimes, but still these technologies are useful and worth the expense.

Microstamping is an effective deterent to straw sales.

Microstamping is law already in California and is proposed in other states.

EDIT: BTW re-read my original post. You have taken me out of context.

My point was that comparisons between firearms and 'cars' are invalid

This is because 'cars' are already heavily regulated to be legally required to have very expensive safety features built in.

If firearms were subject to the same level of regulation then firearms would all be required to have trigger locks and microstamps.

Kopikatsu:

Xan Krieger:
Here's a thought relevant to this whole issue, aren't the vast majority of crimes with a gun done by handguns? Sure rifles might hit harder and in many cases carry more bullets but they're harder to conceal which is why criminals rob places with pistols.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm

So in that case why are rifles being targeted by legislation and not handguns?

Because rifles are scary and an easier target.

That's the core of almost all anti-gun legislation; fear. (Note: I didn't point to the gun control crowd as a whole, just the legislation that's put forth)

Funny, the pro firearm lobby uses fear to keep firearms unregulated;

they are going to take ALL your guns,
criminals will all have firearms and prey on the unarmed civilians,
safety measures / licensing is too EXPENSIVE,
we need firearms to over throw the US government...

TechNoFear:

Kopikatsu:

Xan Krieger:
Here's a thought relevant to this whole issue, aren't the vast majority of crimes with a gun done by handguns? Sure rifles might hit harder and in many cases carry more bullets but they're harder to conceal which is why criminals rob places with pistols.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm

So in that case why are rifles being targeted by legislation and not handguns?

Because rifles are scary and an easier target.

That's the core of almost all anti-gun legislation; fear. (Note: I didn't point to the gun control crowd as a whole, just the legislation that's put forth)

Funny, the pro firearm lobby uses fear to keep firearms unregulated;

they are going to take ALL your guns,
criminals will all have firearms and prey on the unarmed civilians,
safety measures / licensing is too EXPENSIVE,
we need firearms to over throw the US government...

If the gun control crowd wanted to put forth legislation that would actually make a difference, they're welcome to it. But attacking guns that are very rarely used in crimes, such as longguns, then yeah, they're making it seem like they just want to take everything away. The Assault Weapons ban (and Updated Assault Weapons Ban proposed by the California Senator) want to tighten the ban on things like telescopic stocks and pistol grips (Things that do nothing but make the rifle more comfortable to use) because they look and sound scary. I literally cannot think of any other reason for it. No mass murderer is going to put off a killing spree because he's worried he might get a blister on his hand after the 80th kill.

I can't really comment on this one, but I will say this; it's unconstitutional in the US to make a retroactive law. So if a gun ban is put into place, it cannot affect guns that were legal prior to the ban. The US currently almost has a 1:1 ratio of people to guns. Even if a total gun ban went into place and zero guns were made or smuggled into the country starting tomorrow, there will still almost be a gun for every person in the US. That's part of the reason why people are against legislation; because it's largely pointless even in the long run.

Saying something is too expensive/impractical to implement isn't a fear tactic...

Nobody seriously says that last one. I mean, nobody who really thinks about what they're saying. If it came down to it, the military would wreck civilian shit regardless of what guns the civvies have.

Kopikatsu:
But attacking guns that are very rarely used in crimes, such as longguns, then yeah, they're making it seem like they just want to take everything away.

The DC FACA 1975 included a ban on handguns and was found to be unconstitutional.

So you are wrong when you say that the gun control only wants to restrict firearms that are rarely used in crime.

Kopikatsu:
The Assault Weapons ban (and Updated Assault Weapons Ban proposed by the California Senator) want to ban things like telescopic stocks and pistol grips (Things that do nothing but make the rifle more comfortable to use) because they look and sound scary. I literally cannot think of any other reason for it.

Why don't you inform yourself of the reasons, instead of regurgitating NRA propaganda / misinformation?

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

Kopikatsu:
it's unconstitutional in the US to make a retroactive law.

Funny how the US convicted an Australia citizen David Hicks using retroactive laws...

Kopikatsu:
Saying something is too expensive/impractical to implement isn't a fear tactic...

It is if it is not more expensive. Pro firearm people do not consider the actual cost of their sport.

Firearms wound well over 100,000 Americans each year and medical expenses are ~US$40k each victim. Add in law enforcement, legal, lost productivity, etc.

Now explain why a dollar or two per firearm is TOO expensive....

Kopikatsu:
Nobody seriously says that last one. I mean, nobody who really thinks about what they're saying. If it came down to it, the military would wreck civilian shit regardless of what guns the civvies have.

Yet it appears in every one of these threads and is not said in jest.

Even your politicians talk about '2nd ammendment remedies'...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked