Printable View
I dont think taking away guns would make the crime rate go down. There are thousands of other ways to kill a man. Even if it did though we would never do it becasue of our love for guns.
Banning guns is pointless though. It would be the exact same thing as "The War on Drugs"
Dont need to ban guns, Just put the price up on bullets.. Like chris rock says in one of his stand ups, if you charged $5000 per bullet, people would think twice before pulling the trigger...
But on the real side, I think guns should be banned period.. Why the fuck do u need to own a gun for? Are you fighting a war? NOPE!
If less people had guns then less people would be getting shot and dying...
Put The Guns Down!:hippy:
but if everyone had a gun the criminal wouldent break in to your house or mug you if they knew that you had one.
Cars kill more people than guns ever did ....ban and confiscate all motor vehicles!!Quote:
Originally Posted by smok3y
That has about as much merit as your statement....
BTW... What branch of the military did you serve in?? how many years?? None?? I thought so. Do you have any firearms training?? No??? I thought so. Do you hunt?? No?? I thought so. Before you go off on a tangent and try to tell those of us who *volenteered* to serve, you might want to think twice.... and then walk a mile in our boots. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice so you have the freedom to speak your mind an not be persicuted or prosecuted for it. Freedom is *NOT* free. It comes at a terrible price.
Its best not to push a point unless your willing to take up arms to defend those freedoms.
Hunting is peachy, and perhaps one could stretch the hobby of target practice to possibly include handguns (not IMO, but at least I see the argument)
Now that being said, what in the world does Average John Doe need with an assult weapon?
Just curious... :rastasmoke:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smok3y
Same old logical problem. "We should ban all guns" followed by "if nobody had guns..."
SINCE WHEN CAN WE MAGICALLY MAKE ALL THE GUNS DISAPPEAR? They banned marijuana and it's use has exploded. Only in magical fairy la-la land can you legislate something out of existence.
Outlaw the guns, and only outlaws will have them.
So by that logic any area with easy gun laws should see less burglaries , robberies and gun crime than somewhere with tight gun laws. Doesn't seem to be working in the US. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by randomname4888
That is exactly the common sense that I agree with! Only the criminals will be the ones with guns. The only people being punished are the law abiding citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
And frankly I don't feel any safer where guns are illegal to have. Just think about it. If you were a criminal who would you target? A New Yorker? Where no one has a gun to defend themselves. Or Texas, where theres a pretty good chance the person your robbing is going to pull a gun right back at you. Just look at that vigilante down in Texas. His neighbors house was being robbed and he did the right thing. He called the cops, repeatedly told the criminals to stop, and when they didn't he shot them.
That's a damn good neighbor if you ask me.
He shouldnt have shot them though. He was being an irresponsible gun owner becasue they were no threat to anyone and he killed them as they were running away.
WHY DO YOU NEED AN ASSULT WEAPON??
it's not need...it's want...right now i live in the USA where i can, i will, and i do own assult weapons
I would like someone to explain this to me:
Less guns = more crime
More guns = less crime
That seems to be the belief of some people.
The statistics prove that belief to be completely wrong wouldn't you say ?
More guns just seems to make it even easier for criminals to get hold of them.
Read the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott and your questions will be answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
Unfortunately the actual crime figures show more guns just equals more violent crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguana
A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com
So...let me ask this... if all of the legal, registered guns are confiscated, then what are you going to do about all of the illegal guns that are still on the streets?? How are you going to tell folks that they family heirlooms that have been passed down for generations from the war of 1812, the civil war, etc are going to be taken away just because you say so???Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
I'm keeping my guns even if the gov't sayes they're illegal because my guns are the guarantee my rights as an American Citizen. Gov't can say i don't have those rights. Well come down here and try me.
I really don't want to live in the dorm rooms at college because you can't have any weapons. The reasoning behind this is that if no student has a gun no one gets shot. Well who is going to obey that rule students that want to protect themselves and others- YES Students that want to go on a rampage and need to kill lots of people- Probably NOt. All these shootings that have occurred at high school and college campuses could of been stopped before so many people died if someone anyone had had a gun. I feel safe where i go to school because I know that half the kids have rifles,shotguns,or pistols in their vehicle and I'd feel even more safe if they had them on person.
better stock up on bullets... I buy mine by the case... if Hillary makes it into office, bullets are going to be a real scarce commodity
[QUOTE=i find the idea of housewives wandering the supermarket aisles with uzis in their shopping carts perversely amusing.[/QUOTE]
Hillarious :thumbsup:
You just have that a little confused. This is how it really goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
less guns = more crime
more guns = less criminals
:thumbsup:
Here's an interesting little story about a good friend of mine:
My buddy lives in the outskirts of a VERY small town, in a little neighborhood out in the middle of nowhere. There are about 50 homes in this neighborhood. About a year ago, a lot of the homeowners in his neighborhood started moving out for various reasons. All at once, there were suddenly about 20 vacant houses scattered throughout the neighborhood. In less than THREE months, vandals broke into ALL 20 houses, and stripped all of the copper piping, wiring, and anything else that could be taken and sold for profit. The thieves were never caught, but it was suspected that they lived in the neighborhood.
Not long after, the thieves graduated from vandals to burglars and started coming into residents houses while they slept, stealing computers, stereo equipment, and the like. Months went by, they still were not caught. This was a nice quiet community, and most of the homeowners there didn't even own guns. But once their houses started getting broken into, many of them purchased small firearms for home protection. My friend took it upon himself to supply several homes in the neighborhood with cheap 9mm semi-automatic pistols that he got from a surplus dealer. I actually bought one from him, too... just to have a new toy to play with. They were Kel-Tec P-11s. Anyway, the whole neighborhood, minus a few houses, was now armed thanks to him. My buddy then began passing out fliers throughout the neighborhood indicating that the residents were now armed, and reiterated that our state recognized the "Castle Doctrine", because he was sure that the teenagers living in the subdivision had something to do with the break-ins. After those fliers were passed out, not one house has been broken into since.
In this instance, the action of firing a gun didn't play any part in criminal deterrence. Just knowing that these nice lil moms & pops were now packing heat was enough to frighten the criminals away. Just my thoughts on the subject.
Take care. :jointsmile:
That's all well and good, but define an "assault weapon"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve
Yep funny how they seem to only happen in "gun free" zones though...Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by netdog
I agree with Indicagrower completely. I read a quote somewhere, I think a military guy saying "pistols poke holes in things, rifles rip shit apart." A shotgun loaded with birdshot is actually nonlethal much of the time in a self defense setting, but it is certainly almost as effective as a pistol or rifle. Also, shotguns, at least in the US, are used for hunting deer, quail, dove, hogs, turkey, and used for recreational activities like skeet and trap shooting. Also, responsible citizens that take and pass a test in the US are allowed to carry concealed weapons(ie pistols) in their car for self defense. It is impossible to defend yourself out in public against a mugger or carjacker with a rifle, because you cant carry a rifle around with you!!! But I think we would all agree that their needs to be a strict enforcement of the requirements for owning and buying guns, so as to keep the guns out of criminals hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by indicagrower
Exactly, notice no clear definition of assault rifle exists even in that wiki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve
Then there's the definition the supposed assault weapons ban used, which in reality didn't define a weapon at all, and didn't actually ban a single weapon.
OK... lets make it simple... assault weapons are those that either have a fully automatic mode, or can be modified to be fully automatic and were designed strictly for military and/or law enforcement use.Quote:
Originally Posted by netdog
Any more questions??? or are you just trying to stir up sh*t??
easiest to express my gun-rights attitude this way: "take away my guns, you'll have to take away my knives and clubs, too ... and then, I'll beat you to death with my bare hands" :wtf: ... oh, shit, and here you thought taking away my guns would make us all sit down and love one another ... :jointsmile:
I used to believe assault weapons are unnecessary and should be banned, then a gun owning friend showed me how easily gun manufacturers and buyers can get around just about all of these silly gun laws. Silly laws such as removing the pistol grip from an AK-47, or not allowing 30 round magazines. You can legally own an AK-47, detachable pistol grip, and 30 round magazine, you just can't have them connected to the gun. (maybe the 30 round clip is illegal to own come to think of it, but I'm sure a lot of people still have them)Quote:
Originally Posted by netdog
Does this make any sense? No, and most gun owners ignore these laws but still remain peaceful, law abiding citizens. So my attitude is that I would rather have law abiding citizens free to arm themselves as much as criminals can. Criminals arm themselves so they can one-up the general public, so if we don't allow them that ability to one-up their targets, you take away their confidence to commit criminal activities.
I often joke with my friend that when China invades, I'm heading over to his house. I'm not afraid of my friend because he owns guns, I've known him all my life and know he would never use them for anything other than self defense, but mostly he just enjoys it as a hobby. If every law abiding citizen owned a gun, criminals would think twice before breaking into someone's house, or robbing a convenient store. Assault weapons are important because that gives our law abiding citizens better accuracy. ;)
My apologies for the delay in replying. Life is busy.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
While each of the items you list are tragedies, listing anecdotal incidents isn't listing crime figures. I can list just as many (if not more) cases where firearms were used to protect the innocent and save lives.
I can state that during the six years since Michigan joined the majority of states that offer citizens a shall-issue Right-to-Carry law the number of firearm-related fatalities has dropped. Criminal activity has dwindled while the number of Michiganders legally licensed to carry a concealed handgun has increased by about six times. Approx. 155,000 Michiganders are now so licensed. These results aren't surprising. John Lott, visiting professor at the University of Maryland, has spent years researching violence in the United States. 2/3rds of the studies he has seen show that Right-to-Carry laws reduce crime. The other 1/3rd show little effect on the status quo. No peer reviewed study has ever indicated that crime increased after passage of such laws. Michigan law requires that those seeking a permit must complete a strict training process and pay a licensing fee. People who comply with such requirements tend not to be offenders. Here are some studies for your examination: Prof. Hans Toch, "Research and Policy: The Case of Gun Control," in Psychology and Social Policy, edited by Peter Sutfeld and Philip Tetlock (NY Hemisphere, 1992); David B. Mustard, "Culture Affects Our Beliefs About Firearms, But Data Are Also Important," 151 U. Penn. L. Rev.1387 (2003) As a young researcher Toch believed that "reducing the availability of the handgun will reduce firearms violence." Thirty years of research later he repudiated that: "When used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturation of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." Prof. David Mustard wrote in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: "When I started my research in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms...My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms would create many problems. (But research has convinced me that)...laws that require [Right-to-Carry] permits to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths."
I hope you found this to be informative and consider this in an objective manner.
No just trying to educate and maybe get folks to think, the term assault weapons is a much misused and misunderstood term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve
Any weapon that has a fully automatic mode has been illegal since the 1934 national firearms act, when a tax act was passed. You can still own one, but you have to go through a thorough check and pay the ATF their tax.
This was in large part in response to the violent organized crime wave spawned by prohibition, Alcohol prohibition. Just as gun control now IMHO is a misguided effort to curb crime spawned by our current prohibition and the violent organized crime it has produced.
Most semi auto rifles can be converted to full auto easily, and most have never been in military use. They are just as lethal as any semi auto rifle that looks like it was made for military use.
Which is why congress passed a feel good law and called it an assault weapon ban to pacify the public, after they found out the only thing that differs on a military rifle are superficial things like a bayonet, a pistol grip, and a flash suppressor.
So they banned those "scary looking" parts because their is no functional difference between those rifles and say a the ruger 10-22 or mini 14 that dads buy for their kids at Walmart. The gun dealers just removed those parts and went about their business.
Even today most folks have no idea that any automatic weapon has been very highly regulated since 1934, and have no idea that the "assault weapons ban" didn't ban a single weapon at all.