Assualt Weapons Ban

[ShobThaBob]

I guess you never heard of a rifle range, or a pistol range. Do you even have a clue what an assault weapon is ? Did you know that military assault weapons have been either illegal or strictly regulated since 1968 ? DO YOU HAVE A CLUE ?

You numbnuts. Read what I said. Rifle and pistol ranges are for legal weapons. You wanna mess with your assault weapons cuz you're a gun nut that likes to shoot them? That's cool, there should be a range for it. I'm talking about ranges for ILLEGAL WEAPONS.

 

[Duke]

...but they're illegal, or were. That's like saying there should be special streets where you can drive when your license has been suspended.

 

[ShobThaBob]

...but they're illegal, or were. That's like saying there should be special streets where you can drive when your license has been suspended.

There are. They're called race tracks. Slightly different though. The using the gun thing is assuming that you're of legal age to own a firearm. Special ranges for illegal guns : race track :: illegal guns : race cars.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Most people who own cars need them for transportation. Walking is not a viable option when you have to commute from, say, a suburb to the city. Public transportation is one alternative, but where I live it takes just as long and costs almost as much as taking your own car, and it's not as convenient. These problems don't arise with the issue of gun ownership because no citizen NEEDS a gun, so there are no alternatives to having a gun since it serves no purpose for the average civilian save for leisure and "sport" shooting.

You said more people are killed from heart disease than guns, and asked whether we should outlaw heart disease as well. Since the stupidity of this comment didn't register with you as you typed it, I decided to respond by telling you you can't outlaw heart disease. Your retort had something to do with eating at McDonalds, which is not heart disease. It may be one of many contributing factors to heart disease, but it's not the disease itself. So how can you outlaw heart disease?

Eating at a restaurant, even one that makes you fat and clogs your arteries, DOESN'T HURT ANYONE BUT YOU. It's not like a gun, because it has no potential to harm anyone else. So why the hell would you want to try to restrict where people eat?

What you're using to back up your argument is frustrating to say the least because it makes no sense and that is why I responded in the way I did.

By the way, it wasn't a personal attack or an insult. I said my computer exploded because of the stupidity of the post, not the person making it.

 

[king jame II]

King Jame II... you eat what you kill That is the only reason for killing an animal...but good luck picking out those little lead balls from the dove

Right on! As for picking out the lead, you get used to it. I did once accidentally have slug shells loaded instead of pellet shells. Needless to say, there wasnt much of a bird left after 1 shot. Did make for a good laugh though.

Anderton,

My computer just exploded from stupidity overload, directly caused by this post.

Dont try to say that you werent insulting anyone. Stop trying to twist your words around so you dont seem like an a**. If you dont have a valid opinion to argue, dont resort to insults.

And the statement "kids shouldn't be around guns" is a moot point. I've had plenty of kids around my guns, and I was around guns when I was a kid. You know what my accidental firearms death rate is? 0. Injury rate? 0. You know why? Because I'm quite capable of teaching responsible use to people who come around my guns, in a few hours at most.

Damn right. I was introduced to guns when i was 6 yrs old. I was taught safty first. Never have had any accidents or close calls in over 16 yrs. Im the oldest of the grandchildren, and ive taught almost all of them (my cousins) how to shoot a gun and how to be safe w/ it. I believe if you want people to be safe w/ guns, you need to teach them when they are younger. If you show a younger kid what can happen w/ a gun, it will leave a lasting impression on them. Therefore causing them to be alot more careful w/ them.

What laws are there for gun storage?

There arent, but any responsible gun owner will have one. However, safes can get really expensive. Gun locks are a really cheap alternative. You should be able to pick up some free at the local gun shop. In the town im from, the gun shops give away gun locks to promote safety. They also do all the hunter safetly courses aswell. Its pretty fun stuff. You meet alot of new people and can find out some nice tricks of the trade. Just some FYI for those interested.
James-

 

[Ev0]

Anderton, stop hiding from the actual issues at hand instead of attacking someone's statistical comparison.

Responsible gun owners almost never injure themselves or another person when using a gun (this has never happened to a gun owner on this forum), and they don't go around killing people, (including family members in domestic disputes).

Banning guns only raises the crime rate and takes guns out of the hands of responsible hobbyists and people who want to protect their homes and families. Criminals as a result feel less intimidated and are more free to commit their crimes.

No matter how strict gun laws are, criminals and gangs will always find a way to get guns and ammunition, even if it means making a homemade gun.

 

[Joey D]

Right on! As for picking out the lead, you get used to it. I did once accidentally have slug shells loaded instead of pellet shells. Needless to say, there wasnt much of a bird left after 1 shot. Did make for a good laugh though.

Dude buck shot is just like the prize at the bottom of the Cracker Jack box.

But any ways, looks like you guys have it covered, I don't think I can honestly keep beating the same opinion over and over again. If it hasn't sunk in by now, I don't think there is much hope.

I can use my guns, so I will continue to do so in a responsible way. I will go hunting every season and kill my game. I'll eat my kill and do it all over again come the next fall.

 

[Ghost C]

Most people who own cars need them for transportation.

Most people who own rifles need them for hunting.

Walking is not a viable option when you have to commute from, say, a suburb to the city.

Stabbing deer in the head with a knife is not a viable option for hunting.

Public transportation is one alternative, but where I live it takes just as long and costs almost as much as taking your own car, and it's not as convenient.

Renting firearms is an alternative, but costs more than buying your own gun, and it's not convenient.

These problems don't arise with the issue of gun ownership

I believe I just pointed out how they do.

because no citizen NEEDS a gun, so there are no alternatives to having a gun since it serves no purpose for the average civilian save for leisure and "sport" shooting.

This is the biased opinion of some misinformed childish-mannered fool who thinks he's high, mighty, and knows everything.

You said more people are killed from heart disease than guns, and asked whether we should outlaw heart disease as well. Since the stupidity of this comment didn't register with you as you typed it, I decided to respond by telling you you can't outlaw heart disease.

You can outlaw the causes of heart disease.

Your retort had something to do with eating at McDonalds, which is not heart disease. It may be one of many contributing factors to heart disease, but it's not the disease itself. So how can you outlaw heart disease?

I believe I said "outlaw everything but Cheerios and eggs", that's how you can outlaw it.

Eating at a restaurant, even one that makes you fat and clogs your arteries, DOESN'T HURT ANYONE BUT YOU.

Oh no, so the children, family, friends of people who die from heart disease, they're not hurt?

It's not like a gun, because it has no potential to harm anyone else. So why the hell would you want to try to restrict where people eat?

Because, people die from heart disease. Your argument is people die from guns, so guns should be outlawed. People die from heart disease, so shouldn't bad foods also be outlawed? Or are you just brainwashed to think "guns are bad, GUNS ARE BAD, NO MATTER WHAT, GUNS ARE BAD"?

What you're using to back up your argument is frustrating to say the least because it makes no sense and that is why I responded in the way I did.

My argument about outlawing vehicles and heart disease makes alot more sense than your argument for outlawing guns.

By the way, it wasn't a personal attack or an insult. I said my computer exploded because of the stupidity of the post, not the person making it.

And I drop logs made of 24kt gold.

 

[87chevy]

You numbnuts. Read what I said. Rifle and pistol ranges are for legal weapons. You wanna mess with your assault weapons cuz you're a gun nut that likes to shoot them? That's cool, there should be a range for it. I'm talking about ranges for ILLEGAL WEAPONS.

My computer just exploded from stupidity overload, directly caused by this post.

YOU DON'T NEED A CAR!!! It just makes your life easier. We could outlaw cars, and vastly improve public transportation, and you'd be fine. maybe slightly inconvienced compared to how you used to live, but you don't need cars. oh, and cars also contribute to killing the planet, if you care about that at all.

 

[Vasco]

In parts of Australia, violent crime went up 1300% from the previous year

Whoever came up with that load of crap, I am laughing at. Unless they mean in a rural town 13 people committed a crime in one year instead of 1 due to a population increase?

Anyway, I like Australia's gun laws, you can own a gun here. However! It has to be locked up at the firing range I believe, and you must pass a test to be able to shoot that gun at the firing range.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Whoever came up with that load of crap, I am laughing at. Unless they mean in a rural town 13 people committed a crime in one year instead of 1 due to a population increase?

It came from a shooting industry magazine I still get sometimes. I used to be in the biz, but not anymore, but they still send me one every once in a while. Since it's a "pro gun" magazine, I'm sure it was from a small town that probably had very little crime the previous year. lol But hey, people believe in the all mighty %. God knows the anti gun morons like to use them.

Anyway, I like Australia's gun laws, you can own a gun here. However! It has to be locked up at the firing range I believe, and you must pass a test to be able to shoot that gun at the firing range.

Good, now only hope you need to have a gun for portection for when you're at the shooting range.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Oh Ghost C, such a stubborn person you are! I guess there's no way I can say you do NOT "need" to hunt, especially when you live in the US. But from this conclusion stems a much more pertinent one: that of not NEEDING a gun.

Will SOMEBODY please give me a hand in showing how stupid this argument of outlawing heart disease by restricting what people eat actually is? How can you compare people who are friends and relatives of a person who dies of a heart attack to those friends and relatives of a child who was shot in a classroom by a fellow student bringing his parents' gun to school, or a man who accidentally shoots his friend while hunting, or a burglar who breaks into a gun owner's house and in a standoff where the homeowner thinks he's Clint Eastwood, he is shot and killed, along with his family? Sure, come back with your "I am a responsible gun owner" argument that you have been relying on the entire time. Well guess what Ghost? Thousands of gun owners are IRRESPONSIBLE. Take, for example, the guy who said he owns so many guns he doesn't even know where they all are?

When Henry Ford designed his Model T, it wasn't to kill people. It was to help move the people of America across their vast territory. But the first gun, I can assure you, was designed to take life. Please don't forget this, since there's no real threat of anyone taking your gun collection away from you. A gun is not a car no matter how you try to compare the two.

 

[milefile]

Thousands of gun owners are IRRESPONSIBLE.

And who's problem is this? Mine? Then I'll go buy a gun. The last thing I need are a bunch of guys in suits deciding I am a criminal for protecting myself when the real criminals will get guns regardless of what the laws are.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The constitution gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated Militia". The Federalist Papers go into greater detail on this subject, specifying that this Militia is to be under the control of the government. Additionally, it specfies arms, not any arm. So ordinary citizens are not granted this constitutional right.

However, that does not mean we should not be allowed to own weapons. I'm a big fan of firearms myself, and I hope to buy my first one in the near future. Additionally, while certain weapons should be regulated, like those that are fully automatic, and those that are unnecessarily destructive, and that there should be regulations pertaining to who can obtain them, keeping them out of the hands of children and felons.

However, idiotic laws like the AWB accomplish nothing. The ratio of handguns to shotguns in gun murders is is 10:1. Rifles are a distant third. Additionally, most murders (excepting some forms of gang violence) only involve 1-2 shots. So why ban hicap magazines that contain 10-12 more bullets than are used in violent crimes, and why ban weapons that are some of the most impractical, and uncommon, crime devices in existance?

 

[Ghost C]

Oh Ghost C, such a stubborn person you are! I guess there's no way I can say you do NOT "need" to hunt, especially when you live in the US. But from this conclusion stems a much more pertinent one: that of not NEEDING a gun.

I've pointed out many different ways that people need guns. You seem to rebut with "you don't need a gun" every time. I'll take this to mean you're conceding defeat on the matter.

Will SOMEBODY please give me a hand in showing how stupid this argument of outlawing heart disease by restricting what people eat actually is?

Nobody is going to help you. Again I say, your argument is guns cause death, which is why they should be outlawed. Guns cause very little death compared to many more completely preventable things.

How can you compare people who are friends and relatives of a person who dies of a heart attack to those friends and relatives of a child who was shot in a classroom by a fellow student bringing his parents' gun to school

Of all the people I've known who lost someone, none of them seemed too concerned on HOW the person they cared about died. Rather, it just mattered that they were dead.

or a man who accidentally shoots his friend while hunting,

Show me how many times a year this happens in the US. Can't provide fact? Don't bring it up.

or a burglar who breaks into a gun owner's house and in a standoff where the homeowner thinks he's Clint Eastwood, he is shot and killed, along with his family?

Reminds me of all those crimes that were prevented by guns. Did you know that of all the defensive use of guns, only 0.1% of criminals are killed? And only 1% are wounded? Also, did you know that there are more than three million defensive uses of firearms each year in the US?

Sure, come back with your "I am a responsible gun owner" argument that you have been relying on the entire time. Well guess what Ghost? Thousands of gun owners are IRRESPONSIBLE.

Back the statement of "thousands of gun owners are irresponsible" up with fact, or don't bring it up again.

Take, for example, the guy who said he owns so many guns he doesn't even know where they all are?

That was me.

The constitution gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated Militia". The Federalist Papers go into greater detail on this subject, specifying that this Militia is to be under the control of the government. Additionally, it specfies arms, not any arm. So ordinary citizens are not granted this constitutional right

Wrong. The constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

"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."

The state means the US. A well regulated militia means all men of age to serve. The people means each and every citizen.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Read the federalist papers, it's in there somewhere. I'll see if I can find my copy and look it up.

 

[Ghost C]

I don't care about any federalist papers. Every US Supreme Court who's ever heard the issue has agreed with what I said.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I never said they didn't. I was specifically speaking of the intent of the original drafters of the constitution, not the interpretation of the USSC.

Note that I never said that I didn't think that the US people do not have the right to own firearms, just that it is not specified in the much-quoted amendment that they do.

Additionally, as I said, it does not say ANYONE can own ANY arm. If it did, the USSC would have never approved of any of the laws doing such things as banning fully automatic weapons, concealed weapons, and refusing weapons to those convicted of a Type I Violent Crime felony.

 

[Ghost C]

Fully automatic weapons aren't banned, nor are concealed weapons.

It does say anyone can own any arm. Again, "the people" means each and every citizen of the United States. EACH. AND. EVERY. The framers of the constitution didn't recognize a "collective right" which so many people seem to think of today, and used the word "state" when speaking of a collective meaning. The National Guard IS NOT the well regulated militia they spoke of, either, as some seem to believe.

 

[king jame II]

The National Guard IS NOT the well regulated militia they spoke of, either, as some seem to believe.

LMFAO! That gets bonus points on principle. Great job.
James-

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

If each and every citizen can own any arm, why can I not walk into the local gun store and buy an MP5 or and M16A3? It's because I'd need a Class III license, which is not something any person can get. Additionally, if I've been convicted of a crime, why can I not buy a gun? For that matter, why is it constitutional to restrict "assault weapons"

And, there arms that no person can own in the US. How about a nuclear weapon?

I shouldn't have said banned, I should have said restricted.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

LMFAO! That gets bonus points on principle. Great job.
James-

Well, of course the National Guard isn't that Militia. The NG is a part of the US Militaty, not a civillian force able to mobilize independently in an emergency situation.

In a way, I wish the spoken of Militia did exist. Make it so that, to own a Class III weapon, you have to be in the Militia. That way, you can own whatever you want, but you better be prepared to use it to defend your country if the time comes.

 

[Ghost C]

If each and every citizen can own any arm, why can I not walk into the local gun store and buy an MP5 or and M16A3?

That's A2. And if you had three thousand dollars for a Heckler & Koch MP-5, or two thousand for an M-16A2, you could buy them.

It's because I'd need a Class III license, which is not something any person can get.

You'd pay a $200 federal firearms tax on top of the other costs of the guns, and the gun would be yours to own, legally. And anyone can get one, so long as they're not a convicted felon.

Additionally, if I've been convicted of a crime, why can I not buy a gun?

Felony. Convicted of a felony. Why can't convicted felons buy weapons? I don't know.

For that matter, why is it constitutional to restrict "assault weapons"

It isn't.

And, there arms that no person can own in the US. How about a nuclear weapon?

If you had several billion dollars I'm sure you could get one. How many people in the US have a few billion laying around? Alright then, let's not try and be stupid here. (Nuclear weapons are also outlawed worldwide by some convention or another, and countries are disarming themselves of them as far as I know)

In a way, I wish the spoken of Militia did exist.

It does exist. The spoken of militia is every male in the United States of age. Do we really need to go through this again and again and again?

 

[Jpec07]

I agree with the assault weapons ban. Sure, people have the constitutional right to bear arms, but what need is there to bear a weapon of that power? In all honesty, I don't see why they haven't amended the amendment yet.

 

[Ghost C]

I agree with the assault weapons ban. Sure, people have the constitutional right to bear arms, but what need is there to bear a weapon of that power?

The new GTO has 350hp. Sure, people can drive whatever car they want, but what need is there for a car with that power? Thousands of people are killed each year in accidents related to speeding, but NOBODY has ever been killed by a legally owned fully automatic firearm (I looked up the McDonald's incident, it was a semi-automatic Uzi).

In all honesty, I don't see why they haven't amended the amendment yet.

In all honesty, I don't see why they make cars with the ability to go above 75mph.

 

[Jpec07]

The new GTO has 350hp. Sure, people can drive whatever car they want, but what need is there for a car with that power? Thousands of people are killed each year in accidents related to speeding, but NOBODY has ever been killed by a legally owned fully automatic firearm (I looked up the McDonald's incident, it was a semi-automatic Uzi).

That's because NOBODY has had the chance to kill anyone with a legally owned fully automatic firearm. Besides, fully automatic guns are a waste, it's hard to be completely accurate and they generally fire too quickly (I'd rather have a semi-automatic hand-gun than a fully automatic if I had to own a gun - it's more practical).

In all honesty, I don't see why they make cars with the ability to go above 75mph.

Because running an engine at its highest speed is bad for an engine. By having cars that have the ability to go twice as fast as they will probably ever have to, car companies are actually making their cars wear away slowerly (if it's not a word, I just invented it).

 

[Ghost C]

That's because NOBODY has had the chance to kill anyone with a legally owned fully automatic firearm.

Back that statement up with facts. Since you can't, don't bring it up again in an argument.

Besides, fully automatic guns are a waste, it's hard to be completely accurate and they generally fire too quickly (I'd rather have a semi-automatic hand-gun than a fully automatic if I had to own a gun - it's more practical).

Fully automatic guns are a waste? Who are you to decide that? And a lack of accuracy is because of the user, not the gun itself.

Because running an engine at its highest speed is bad for an engine. By having cars that have the ability to go twice as fast as they will probably ever have to, car companies are actually making their cars wear away slowerly (if it's not a word, I just invented it).

Speed limiters. They're on almost every car, except they're above 100mph. Why not make them at 70 or 75mph?

 

[Famine]

Regionalisation and cost.

Your speed limit may be "x" mph, but it's not the same the world over. They may be on "almost every car" in the US market, but only the BMW/Audi/Mercedes vehicles (155mph) and the Subaru Impreza WR1 (155mph) have them in Europe. Japanese cars "tend" to be limited to 112mph.

 

[Ghost C]

I don't really care about limiting the speed of cars, honestly. My point was, why ban something that has never hurt or killed anyone, but continue to allow something that kills thousands of people anually?

Stupid gun control advocates make my brain hurt.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Speed limiters. They're on almost every car, except they're above 100mph. Why not make them at 70 or 75mph?

Ha, we don't have speed limiters in the UK It's not big or clever, but I've ridden at some serious speeds on the roads here...smack my wrist.

Anyway I would prefer you use a different argument than cars being dangerous. I know what you're getting at, but there are better examples.

Take the year 2000 death rates, 43,000 people died in vehicle accidents, but 16,653 of those were alcohol related, so thats just 26,347 deaths due to the inherent danger of cars. Compare that to the 20,308 homocides (admitedly not all gun related) but its quite close...why not use Tobacco as your example as it killed 435,000 people in that year, and is far more dangerous than guns.

Edit these are USA figures