Assualt Weapons Ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter 87chevy
  • 163 comments
  • 4,343 views
Anderton
Let me get this straight, did you say that in Canada and the UK they banned gun ownership and things got worse? I don't follow you.


Ghost C
Fact: England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past
dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times
as fast as the rise in the U.S.
I'm sure the numbers behind this statement can be found easily enough.
 
Anderton
Let me get this straight, did you say that in Canada and the UK they banned gun ownership and things got worse? I don't follow you.

Yes, I do think the 30,000 people who are killed each year but didn't need to die in your country is bad.
Ask Louise Russo if the ban on assault weapons is working? Ask the citizens of Malvern if they think Canada's strict firearms laws are making the streets safer. I want to stress the point that it's not the firearms enthusiasts that are dangerous. It's the gang members, criminals, and people who are ignorant about gun safety that are dangerous.
 
Anderton
Let me get this straight, did you say that in Canada and the UK they banned gun ownership and things got worse? I don't follow you.

You don't follow me because you don't have the brain capacity to understand that anyone willing to commit a crime, whether it be robbery or murder or otherwise, with a gun, is NOT going to hand over their weapon once the ban comes into effect. I'm sorry if that's too tough for you, next time I'll use those cute little wooden blocks with letters on them to spell it out.

Yes, I do think the 30,000 people who are killed each year but didn't need to die in your country is bad.

Twice as many people die in automobile accidents each year. Are you saying they need to die? Twenty five times as many people die each year from heart disease, do they need to die? A life is not something to be taken for granted, I'll agree with you - But there are MANY more things that cause alot more deaths than firearms, why not outlaw those as well?
 
I think assault weapons only purpose(s) is War, and leisurely fun. As in leisurely fun I mean property that is far away from the public and animal life. My father's brother used to own property like that and we would shoot shot guns at planks of wood very far away.
 
Anderton
But a person who owns a gun is always potentially dangerous.
This may or may not be true; however, it cannot be used to prove that a person who doesn't own a gun is not dangerous.
 
Anderton
But a person who owns a gun is always potentially dangerous.
Even if they didn't own a gun they could instead use a knife, something that is easily acquired. Crossbows are apparently easy to make too, and a well made one has vastly more penetrating power than a 9mm bullet (and many other bullets for that matter). It's just that finding an illegal gun is exceedingly easy if you know the right people.
 
Anderton
But a person who owns a gun is always potentially dangerous.

Potentially, you could slip on a banana peel, break your neck, and die. Potentially you could spontaneously combust. I hate to break it to you, bub, but potential does not mean it will come to fruition. And in fact, law-abiding citizens with firearms have more than demonstrated their capability to refrain from shooting people at random, despite what you seem to believe.

Tell the Swiss that they don't need their assault weapons in their home - Their entire adult male population is their military, and they all have battle rifles in their home. What's their gun-related crime rate? I bet it doesn't exist.

I'll once again point out the city in the south where it's mandatory to have a firearm in every home, and there's a TOTAL crime rate of less than one percent.

Also, I'd like to point out something interesting. "A Department of
Justice-sponsored survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to
commit at least one specific crime for fear their victims were armed, and
34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims."

But, Anderton, you're right - Guns serve no purpose but to injure and kill, and only violent, uneducated masses of mouth breathing idiots would even consider owning one.
 
Anderton
But a person who owns a gun is always potentially dangerous.

That depends on what way the owner uses his or her gun. If he or she uses it as display or for protection or for recreational use like I posted posts earlier it's not dangerous. If he or she is using it to rob seven-elevens then yes they are dangerous.
 
The problem is that you can't have a situation where guns are legal OR no-one has guns - as can be seen by the UK's example. Guns exist. Banning guns only means that the people who have them are criminals - since the guns are banned, by owning one, you're a criminal. Since the only people who'd want them are criminals anyway, you're left with guns in the hands of the very people you don't want them to be in the hands of.

If banning guns meant the total eradication of them worldwide for ever more, then some of this thread might make sense. But it doesn't, so it doesn't.

You cannot ban guns and expect there to be no guns any more. Personally I hate them and would never own one, no matter what. Doesn't mean I'd want stop my next-door neighbour having one to protect herself and her 4 year old daughter from a gun-wielding criminal.
 
Everytime a country had a serious gun ban, the crime rate shot through the roof. Canada, England and Australia are good examples. In parts of Australia, violent crime went up 1300% from the previous year. In Canada, the land of Anderton, violent crime went up 30% while armed robbery went up 50% after gun bans. The cities had to battle back by hiring more cops, and by doing more police work, but the crime only leveled off. It didn't go back down, so people there are less safe forever. Why any city or country would be stupid enough to go out of their way to make that happen makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Anderton Listen to Famine, he just made a fairly bullet proof observation.

But lets all step back, and not look at this as if we were in it. Look at America's history, and tell me private Firearm ownership did not play a major role in why i'm talking to you now???? Even if I wasn't a gun enthusiast, I would still see why guns are still important in American Society. And ok, what if the majority decided that all guns are bad and no-one needs them.....Who's gonna come get mine from me? You Anderton??? No, I didn't think so. Once you take my ability to defend myself, what's to stop you from taking other things away from me? That is the mindset of a whole ton of people in America.

I'm going to use something in a competely unrelated thread: On a thread in the UN, we (anti UN'ers) asked to show us one war that was prevented by the UN. well in hinsight that's sorta stoopid :dunce: and the reply was, 'we can't, because they didn't happen'. Well, imagine the things that private Gun Ownership in America Has Prevented?? Who would dare invade us? My gun ownership makes whinny bleeding heart liberals hesitate when they get the urge to take my rights away. And even 30,000 deaths out of a 280something Million population isn't that bad. is bad, yes, but it's all relative.


AS TO MY SIGNATURE: You do not have the right (if your American, i don't know about you canadians and britts) to NOT be offended, so Screw You!!! My signature does not attack anyone on GTP personally, so i'll leave it until told otherwise. Should we criticize Ledhed because his sig may offend terrorists????
 
Eventually, the constitution will be changed, because that is the way of things. I can garuntee you the gun thing will be one of those things. It will probably just be a very long time, but it will happen.
 
ShobThaBob
Eventually, the constitution will be changed, because that is the way of things. I can garuntee you the gun thing will be one of those things. It will probably just be a very long time, but it will happen.

They've tried it, many times, and failed every time. With seventy million registered gun owners, they'd have an extremely tough time trying to ban guns in the US.
 
Ghost C
I'll once again point out the city in the south where it's mandatory to have a firearm in every home, and there's a TOTAL crime rate of less than one percent.
You have to tell me the name of that city, that's a prime example of good gun ownership! Who the hell is going to try and rob a home if the burglar knows the people living there are armed? Keep in mind though that guns for home protection only works if you're allowed to shoot at the intruder (burglar, kidnapper, or whatever scum trespasses). And to all the idiots who fear that the intruder could die, well ask yourselves this. Why is the intruder intruding on someone else's property in the first place?
 
Keep in mind though that guns for home protection only works if you're allowed to shoot at the intruder (burglar, kidnapper, or whatever scum trespasses).

Thats why I love TX. We have all the good laws. And you can still hang a man for trying to steal your cattle in a few of the southern counties. Its great stuff.
James-
 
Gun control is for power hungry leaders/politicians to disarm citizens so they can have more control over the citizens. Look what has happenned over human history more innocent people have died through gun control. It's a proven fact just look at the fine world leaders that loved gun control like Stalin, Hitler, The Kahmar Rouge, and Saddam Hussain.
 
A GUN IS NOT A CAR. A CAR IS NOT A GUN.


Sure it is. you could blow a piston beside a semi on the highway and the piston could take off the drivers' arm.

Technically, every thing could be an assault weapon. me telling someone to f### off is verbal assault . I could use a wrench as an assault weapon. a .22 is an assault weapon in the sense that someone could use a .22 to kill someone. is killing not a form of assault? is bashing a guy over the head with a frying pan not assault? everything would be alot clearer is it was a "military grade fully automatic firearm ban" instead. "guns dont kill people, people kill people." not always, some actually beleived what the little green monkeys told them. or, some had corrupted chemicals in their brains.
have I hunted? yes. Is there a firearm in my household? yes. do I know how to be safe around it? yes.

anderton, anyone is potentially dangerous. anyone ted kennedy was. hell, you or I could be potentially dangerous, even though neither of us own a gun. Everyone is potentially dangerous.
Just because 87Chevy and BlazinExtreme own multiple firearms doesn't mean they are a menace to society.

to quote Loudmusic: "think before you speak." (or in gtp's case being a forum, type.)
 
The reason goverments ban firearms is because it should reeduce the number of fire arms in the country.
Look at it like this. If a robber or two breaks into a house, and takes or enters your gun safe then they have, in some cases, 10 more guns on the streets. If a gang breaks into a gunstore, that could be 30 more guns on the streets.
It is undoubtedly easy to get a gun if you know the right people. Can I ask if the statistics divide between guns and shotguns?
What laws are there for gun storage?
 
Ghost C
Twice as many people die in automobile accidents each year. Are you saying they need to die? Twenty five times as many people die each year from heart disease, do they need to die? A life is not something to be taken for granted, I'll agree with you - But there are MANY more things that cause alot more deaths than firearms, why not outlaw those as well?

Because you can't outlaw heart disease, and automobiles serve another, much more necessary purpose in modern society.
 
87chevy
I'm going to use something in a competely unrelated thread: On a thread in the UN, we (anti UN'ers) asked to show us one war that was prevented by the UN. well in hinsight that's sorta stoopid :dunce: and the reply was, 'we can't, because they didn't happen'.

That's because the US basically controlled the UN when it was created, and manipulated it to serve the interests of America. Nowadays, when the UN doesn't want to go to war, case in point the second useless war in Iraq, America just does what it wants anyway. What's the UN to do? Get all the countries together and try to stop America with force? That would just create WWIII. At least when America first attacked Saddam, they were able to convince everyone they were doing it to "liberate" the people of Kuwait.

I'm going to point you to a particular sequence in the movie Three Kings. It's the part where the Iraqi soldier is trying to talk sense into Mark Wahlberg about the "great" land of freedom he comes from. Watch it again and again. And that's an American director criticizing his own country.
 
frestkd
Gun control is for power hungry leaders/politicians to disarm citizens so they can have more control over the citizens. Look what has happenned over human history more innocent people have died through gun control. It's a proven fact just look at the fine world leaders that loved gun control like Stalin, Hitler, The Kahmar Rouge, and Saddam Hussain.
:lol: :lol:

Saddam Hussain's idea of gun control was to make sure every citizen carried an assault rifle...don't know if you've seen any pics of Iraq, but they all carry AK47's its their "right" and they still do today.

Chevy your sig does not violate any terms of the AUP, in fact I used to laugh about it myself years ago, along with "I love the smell of napalm in the morning", its just in todays climate you can be taken for a trigger happy redneck. (I'm sure youre not :) ) Ledhed's sig is fine, because lets face it NOONE has any sympathy for terrorists.

I thought Assault riflles meant things like the M16, AR15, and are "offensive" weapons, not "defensive", and I can't think of any legitimate reason for owning one. 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 :lol:

Well you guys who own guns seem to have a more responsible attitude than most, but you have to admit there are alot in the US that don't share that with you.
 
Well, like it's been said, things such as rocks or rope, or bare hands could be used as a weapons to kill someone, and the same goes for cars. But an assault rifle's sole purpose is to be able to kill at a rate of X people per seconds/minutes... who needs that to protect themselves or their family?

You say that you're enjoying it as a hobby?

fair enough. let's get back to car examples. As for myself, I do enjoy very much driving my cars at 80mph+ in school zones. Narrow streets and jumping on speed bumps make it a quite enjoyable experience, a good thrill... Oh, and don't worry, I do it pretty safely, I have very sharp reflexes. I honk and flash high beams too. In fact I never hit a single kid in 5 years!!

But now stupid government sissies are trying to infringe on my rights, my freedom to do whatever pleases me by strictly enforcing 15 mph limits in school zones.

I'm telling you, i'm sick of that kinf of intrusions in my private, my individual life!

As someone said...

FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOM!!

*dies as a hero*


And to whoever said that at some points he had so many guns in his house that he didn't even knew where some of them were: Dude, that many? you're so cool. Were they loaded too?

If you let one, just one kid enter your house during that period, you're the living proof that gun regulations do have a purpose...
 
I think there should be a place to legally use firearms that shouldnt be on the street. If you want to enjoy your hobby, that's fine, but just like racing, you get to do it in an area where nobody can get hurt and it's being regulated and watched. You should not be allowed to carry your assault weapons on the streets, just like you can't drive your race car on the streets. People like to be stupid about things, and this is one of those things people get stupid about. And remember, as long as you are allowed to carry a firearm, your 2nd ammendment rights are not being violated.
 
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 ?
 
Anderton
Because you can't outlaw heart disease, and automobiles serve another, much more necessary purpose in modern society.

This is where you're wrong. There's no constitutional right to eat McDonald's, however, there IS one to own firearms. Automobiles get you from point A to point B, you can walk, or take a horse, a train, etc.

Did you know that military assault weapons have been either illegal or strictly regulated since 1968 ?

1934, actually.

And to whoever said that at some points he had so many guns in his house that he didn't even knew where some of them were: Dude, that many? you're so cool. Were they loaded too?

If you let one, just one kid enter your house during that period, you're the living proof that gun regulations do have a purpose...

It was a joke, I knew were they all were. 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.

The reason goverments ban firearms is because it should reeduce the number of fire arms in the country.
Look at it like this. If a robber or two breaks into a house, and takes or enters your gun safe then they have, in some cases, 10 more guns on the streets. If a gang breaks into a gunstore, that could be 30 more guns on the streets.

You act like gun safes are easy to get into. It takes an hour or more to get into a good one with a high quality drill and a diamond tip drill bit. And if you drill in the wrong place, you get to start all over again - Most likely with a new bit.

And it's been proven time and time again that taking guns away from citizens makes a huge increase in gun-related crime.

It is undoubtedly easy to get a gun if you know the right people.

Knowing "the right people" isn't as easy as people make it sound. Trust me.

Can I ask if the statistics divide between guns and shotguns?

Handguns and shotguns? Handguns are used in 60% of gun-related crime, rifles are used in less than 3%, that leaves shotguns with a hefty 37% or so, I'd guess.

What laws are there for gun storage?

None, BUT if you're careless and your gun is used in an accident, you'll be seeing some reckless endangerment charges, or something similar.
 
Ghost C
This is where you're wrong. There's no constitutional right to eat McDonald's, however, there IS one to own firearms. Automobiles get you from point A to point B, you can walk, or take a horse, a train, etc.

My computer just exploded from stupidity overload, directly caused by this post.
 
Anderton
My computer just exploded from stupidity overload, directly caused by this post.
My computer just exploded from give-up-and-resort-to-insults-because-you're-losing overload directly caused by this post.
 
Anderton
My computer just exploded from stupidity overload, directly caused by this post.

Obviously you missed the sarcastic undertones - Satire directly aimed at your hypocritical stance towards the issue of death. And if your computer exploded from stupidity, I assure you it was because of your own.
 
None, BUT if you're careless and your gun is used in an accident, you'll be seeing some reckless endangerment charges, or something similar.

That would explain why I found nothing while searching the net.
Surely a large percentage of lives could be saved if there was a law saying you had to keep them under lock and key. The lack of storage also means that if anyone beaks into your house your gun collection is at their disposable (when I say 'your' I don't mean anyone in here.)
 
Back