Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115693] |
Mon, 20 September 2004 14:49   |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Do you really need an Ak-47 or an M16 to protect yourself from a robber? What about hunting?
|
Once again, the ban in question did not have anything to do with the M-16 or the AK-47.
| Quote: |
And speaking of the second amendment, what do you think the mindset of our country's founders was? Does it make sense in this day and age?
|
Their mindset was that people should be able to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes- defense of country, defense of community, defense of family, and defense of self. And you're damn right it makes sense in this day and age. I don't know if you realize it, but it is NOT the duty of a police force to watch over every individual in their jurisdiction; they are only required to act after they have seen a crime comitted or recieve a report of a crime that has been/is being comitted. Self defense is still up to the private citizen, and yes, that does include a need for firearms.
And yet again, this should not even be an issue, since the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, which should never be changed in any way, shape, or form. If you don't like the beliefs and ideals on which this country was founded, you don't have to live here; you can move to some country that has banned firearms- I think you'd quickly find out that crime is a bigger problem there than here.
| Quote: |
If all guns were illegal for all civilians, do you think law enforcement would be a lot easier? The same?
|
Harder. Harder because criminals would know beforehand that their victim would not be armed, so they would become more bold and violent than ever.
In many cases, the mere possibility that a potential victim could be armed is enough to prevent a crime. Why don't you hear about those cases? Simple- because no crime took place. It was diffused before it could happen because the victim had the firepower to defend themself against a criminal.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115713] |
Mon, 20 September 2004 16:20 |
 |
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Okay, but which gives you a better chance of survival from a robber: a rifle or a pistol?
| Quote: |
If you don't like the beliefs and ideals on which this country was founded, you don't have to live here; you can move to some country that has banned firearms- I think you'd quickly find out that crime is a bigger problem there than here.
|
Umm...not only was telling me to leave my own country uncalled for, the point you are trying to make is dead wrong. Other countries don't have anywhere NEAR the amount of gun related deaths or general crime as the US--even countries with comparable populations.
Please stop bringing up the 2nd Amendment. We have the right to bear arms...I GET IT. I'm trying to bring up the logic behind it all.
Say there is a country X. X has a population of around 100 million, and civilians are not allowed guns in any way, shape or form. Only X's military and police are allowed to have guns. Anyone caught with a firearm serves 20 years in prison. And people selling guns would be given life in prison (harsh, eh?  ). Because X's goverment is so strict about guns, buying a simple .45, for instance, can cost thousands and thousands of dollars.
Would you predict that crime would be higher or lower than that of the US?
(I ask these questions not to push a point, but I really want to know what you guys think)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115742] |
Mon, 20 September 2004 17:41 |
|
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)
Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.
|
Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Ah, so it appears that gun control has little to no effect on the number of gun related deaths. And that no gun control doesn't translate to more gun related deaths. So why does the US have any gun control laws at all? Why does the US have so many more murders than other countries? Micheal Moore thought it was fear, although I've always wanted a more concrete answer...
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115749] |
Mon, 20 September 2004 17:56 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SEAL |
| Quote: |
The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)
Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.
|
Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Ah, so it appears that gun control has little to no effect on the number of gun related deaths. And that no gun control doesn't translate to more gun related deaths. So why does the US have any gun control laws at all? Why does the US have so many more murders than other countries? Micheal Moore thought it was fear, although I've always wanted a more concrete answer...
|
Criminals.
Welfare.
No Education.
Drugs.
Many other things lead to murder, but these are the main ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115860] |
Tue, 21 September 2004 11:25 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Add to that jealosy, greed, ambition, revenge...there's a zillion reasons why a person would kill someone, and very few of them can be justified.
My answer still stands. If John Q. Public were not allowed to have guns, it would be harder to enforce the laws. Using the prohibition of alcohol in the 20's as an example- people will keep doing what they have always done, and they will continue to buy firearms for their own private use. All a full ban would do is turn every citizen who refused to give up their weapon into a felon overnight- that alone makes law enforcement more difficult, because it increases the number of criminals astronomically by banning their posessions. Of course, most of those gun owners have no malicious intent whatsoever- they would simply feel too vulnerable without that firearm for protection. However, by keeping such a weapon under a complete and total ban, they would forfiet their freedom, possibly their life, if they ever had to use it in defense. I know that is not the reasoning behind gun control- most of the people who support it mean well, but it simply does not work.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115879] |
Tue, 21 September 2004 12:27 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
Welfare.
Many other things lead to murder, but these are the main ones.
|
Think that one through again, young padawan.
And for the record, I do not support a full ban on guns, regardless of whether or not anyone has questioned me on it. I just read NukeIt's last quote and WonderBugger's.
I only support banning assault weapons like M-16s, Uzis, and the kind.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115893] |
Tue, 21 September 2004 13:09 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Do you (Nodbugger) have anything to support your point?
Another thing is that America's old inner cities are often derelict, poverty-stricken, half-deserted places where noone who can avoid it wants to be (not all of them, probably, but quite a few are). Developments like that are dangerous, those inner cities are in a downward spiral difficult to get out of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #115962] |
Wed, 22 September 2004 07:26 |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
I'll just quote a friend, she got it nailed down perfectly.
| Quote: |
As most of you probably know, the Assault Weapons Ban expired last Tuesday, September 14th, and has been a pretty big topic of debate ever since. Including on the Deviant Art forums.
What scares me is not that there is so much debate over it, but how little those with very strong "feelings" on the subject actually know about the assault weapons ban. Everyone seems to have this notion that, all of a sudden, fully-automatic weapons can be purchased at Wal Mart, and that, for some reason, crime is going to go way up. Others - John Kerry, to be exact - have said that the expiration of the ban "makes it easier for terrorists to attack."
All I can do is shake my head about this, and maybe clear up some things. For example, while the ban was still in effect, if I put a 20 round trench mag into my bolt-action Mauser K98 rifle, it was considered an assault weapon. Also, I could always own an AR-15 (the civilian, semi-automatic equivalent of a military M-16), but if it was a post-ban weapon it could not have certain features such as a bayonet lug, or a telescoping stock if I wanted to turn it into an M4.
The ban was purely cosmetic, and that's what people don't understand. I have heard every silly argument in the forums, ranging from people thinking that assault weapons are somehow more powerful than your average bolt-action hunting rifle, to people thinking every Bubba and Junior will now have fully automatic AK-47s in their possesion as they drive down to the 7-11 for their six packs.
Little knowledge is, indeed, a scary thing. As always, I serve to enlighten, so I want to share the article below from the Texas City Sun newspaper. The Texas City Sun, and many other newspapers throughout the United States had good articles on this subject, so I'll share one of those rather than delve into the subject myself.
Consider This: Weapons ban not about safety
from the Texas City Sun
The so-called “assault weapons� ban expired this past week, and the resulting debate confirms what I have believed all along. The people who wrote the law don’t understand weapons or criminals.
The ban wasn’t on weapons, it was on cosmetic features of certain weapons. Basically, the writers and backers of the legislation believed that if a gun looked bad, it must be bad. So, a semiautomatic rifle that had a flash suppressor, pistol grip or collapsible stock was bad. The same rifle without those things was good.
I have listened to people complain about the poor police officers who will be outgunned by the criminals who are now rejoicing because they can legally purchase assault rifles. Well, here’s a couple of things any honest police officer will tell you:
First, criminals can’t legally buy firearms. That was the case before the ban, during the ban and it remains the case after the ban. Convicted felons give up various rights. Those include the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. The expiration of the ban does nothing to change that.
Second, criminals have always had the ability to buy assault rifles. Notice that I didn’t say the right, I said the ability. It really should come as no surprise that people who sell drugs and include among their hobbies rape, robbery and murder, aren’t impressed by yet another law. They generally ignore laws, preferring instead to do whatever they want, regardless of the law. That was true before the ban, during the ban and will remain true after the ban. The expiration of the ban does nothing to change that, either.
One of the things about this debate that really chaps me is the assertion by politicians that no one really needs assault rifles. Therefore, they say, they should be outlawed. That’s a double standard that should anger any law-abiding gun owner. Let me explain. I don’t own an assault rifle and have no intention of owning one. I have friends who own them, and I can honestly say that they don’t “need� them. I can also say that the high-school kid I see roaring down Palmer Highway doesn’t “need� the souped up street racer he is driving.
People are killed or injured in car wrecks each year, but no one is clamoring to ban high-performance cars. The same could be said for motorcycles, speed boats, skateboards, water skis and hang gliders. During eight years of service in the U.S. Coast Guard, I came to hate personal water craft. If you ever see a serious accident involving these waterborne death machines, you will understand why. I can’t think of a single reason someone “needs� such a device. But they are legal, and people have the right to own things they don’t “need.�
Technology being what it is today, no one “needs� to own a horse. Christopher Reeve is just one of the hundreds of people injured each year in equestrian accidents. If our government is going to get into the business of regulating our needs, I say there should be some legislation on the ownership of horses.
Why doesn’t the government ban these items and activities? I’ll tell you why. It’s because law-abiding citizens have the right, under our Constitution, to engage in legal activities that don’t hurt anyone else. And, those law abiding citizens shouldn’t be made to suffer a loss of their rights just because other people choose to be stupid, careless, criminal or unlucky. That is where the double standard comes into play.
The people I know who own assault rifles are collectors. They like to own the weapons because they are fun to shoot and many of them have some historic value. A good friend of mine owns a Thompson submachine gun, a British Vickers machine gun from World War I and various other historic weapons. He is properly licensed and obeys the laws of the state of Texas and the United States of America.
No police officer has to worry about facing my friend in a dark alley with his Thompson.
My friend obeyed the law during the ban and he will continue to obey the law now that the ban has expired. Taking away his right to engage in a hobby he enjoys doesn’t make anyone safer.
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #116138] |
Wed, 22 September 2004 19:26 |
 |
Aurora
Messages: 380
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| NeoX |
You will take that back soon enough. Once gang bangers are having m16s blazing from a car in LA.
|
You've never been to L.A.
--
And if you people would quit making yourselves look retarded over the 2nd amendment, that'd be fine. There are reasons it exists, trust me, I know. Just because something has never happened to you that makes you wish you had a gun doesn't mean it hasn't happened to someone else.
And about those graphs showing numbers of non-natural deaths in various countries:
Yeah, the U.S. looks like it has a lot of homicides. It does.
Know why?
I bet you can guess.
No?
We've got a shitload of people living here. DING DING! Who would have thought of such a thing! More people equals a greater chance of things happening?! NO WAY!
Seriously. Look at the fucking graph SEAL posted. It shows the United States, then right under it is... Finland? What the fuck is that? Finland has a population of FIVE MILLION. (source: http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/populat.html ) The United States has a population of 294,341,179. (source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock ) Round it up, that's 300 million.
According to SEAL's handy graph from the most enigmatic source of "google", We see that Finland has about, say, 4,500 homicides a year. Also according to this obviously correct random Internet page, the United States has about 95,000 homicides a year. (I believe the actual number is closer to 20,000.) Here comes the fun part.
Finland: 5,000,000 people
United States: 300,000,000 people
The United States has 60 times more people than Finland.
Do the math, people.
Proportionally, if Finland had as many people as the United States, it would have 270,000 deaths by firearm. each year.
Curse you, America, and your second amendment!
Administrator for n00bstories.com
(23/09/2004) (19:48:29) (SuperFlyingEngi) I need to brush up on my knowledge
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #116174] |
Thu, 23 September 2004 04:31 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| AuroraX0 |
And about those graphs showing numbers of non-natural deaths in various countries:
Yeah, the U.S. looks like it has a lot of homicides. It does.
Know why?
I bet you can guess.
No?
We've got a shitload of people living here. DING DING! Who would have thought of such a thing! More people equals a greater chance of things happening?! NO WAY!
Seriously. Look at the fucking graph SEAL posted. It shows the United States, then right under it is... Finland? What the fuck is that? Finland has a population of FIVE MILLION. (source: http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/populat.html ) The United States has a population of 294,341,179. (source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock ) Round it up, that's 300 million.
According to SEAL's handy graph from the most enigmatic source of "google", We see that Finland has about, say, 4,500 homicides a year. Also according to this obviously correct random Internet page, the United States has about 95,000 homicides a year. (I believe the actual number is closer to 20,000.) Here comes the fun part.
Finland: 5,000,000 people
United States: 300,000,000 people
The United States has 60 times more people than Finland.
Do the math, people.
Proportionally, if Finland had as many people as the United States, it would have 270,000 deaths by firearm. each year.
Curse you, America, and your second amendment!
|
The graph posted in this thread is per 100.000 children aged <15, so population is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That stupid "assault weapons" ban finally expired [message #116306] |
Thu, 23 September 2004 18:48 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Remember! False senses of security and guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 02 05:22:58 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01236 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
