View Full Version : Debate: - Should Assault Weapons be banned in the USA?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
02-17-2009, 17:59
Assault weapons should be banned. People in the US will be made safer by this law. No one needs one of these weapons. They are used by the Military and by Law Enforcement, and not supposed to be used by civilians. Civilians have no need to use the same guns as Law Enforcement. Why? Would it be fair if a patrol cop has a 12 gauge shotgun, but a bugluar, instead of having a similar gun, has a AK-47 or a AR-15 or a similar gun? Please tell me who would win and why.
I am not for banning all guns, just assault weapons. People can still protect their houses with hunting guns and they do not need to outclass the police/ military in doing so. And, if someone breaks in your house and you use a AK-47, anyone knows that the bullet will most likey pass though the intruder and exit your house and maybe go into another house and kill someone else, while a shotgun shell would not. Do you wish to take that chance?
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-17-2009, 18:12
Define assault weapon.
You may mean assault rifle, which is a much more clear term.
If you are going to ban assault rifles from civilian hands, they should also be removed from the police armouries. Military only, or available to all.
Regarding your examples, defending your home with a hunting rifle has just the same risk for hitting an innocent bystander. A .30-06 will penetrate walls just as well as a 7.62x39. Both are poor weapons for home defense anyway, the close quarters are not very well suited for them. The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun.
A firearm is just a tool. You can't remove a bolt with a hammer, you want a wrench for that. There are specific tools for the situations, an assault rifle is not always the best tool.
No need to ban them. Perhaps a more thorough background check might be in order, but an outright ban would be excessive.
Crazed Rabbit
02-17-2009, 18:55
Assault weapons should be banned.
First - what definition are you using? The actual definition (rifles with selective fire, ie you can fire fullly or semi-automatic) or the gun control hysteria definition (any gun that looks like a scary military rifle, even though it's only semiautomatic). The real definition will hereby be referred to as 'real assault weapons' while the gun grabber's definition will be referred to as 'Evil black rifles' (EBR).
People in the US will be made safer by this law.
No, actually they won't. Legally owned real assault weapons are few in number and have been used in crimes less than five times in the last five decades. EBRs are used in very few crimes (<3%) as well, and as such the 1994 'assault weapon ban' (which banned or affected only semiautomatic rifles) had no effect on crime. I can provide numerous quotes of supporters of that ban saying it was merely a step to greater regulation of guns.
Also, prohibition never works.
No one needs one of these weapons.
Yes, we do. The whole point of the second amendment is to enshrine the right of people to have military grade firearms so that they can, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical state.
Furthermore, in a free society a person should never have to prove to the government they need anything. It is not the government's place to decide what people need, at least in a free country.
They are used by the Military and by Law Enforcement, and not supposed to be used by civilians. Civilians have no need to use the same guns as Law Enforcement. Why? Would it be fair if a patrol cop has a 12 gauge shotgun, but a bugluar, instead of having a similar gun, has a AK-47 or a AR-15 or a similar gun? Please tell me who would win and why.
Now when you say 'AK-47' do mean the actual fully automatic, selective fire, rifle? Or just a semiautomatic clone that functions the same as pretty much any other semiautomatic rifle but is used by fear mongering gun controllers capitalizing on the public's ignorance?
Now, as to their use by civilians, I refer you to my response to your previous quote. I don't care if criminals use them, that is no reason to ban me from owning one. A law banning me won't cause criminals to stop using such weapons.
As for EBRs or real assault weapons not being meant for civilians - says who? So what?
I am not for banning all guns, just assault weapons. People can still protect their houses with hunting guns and they do not need to outclass the police/ military in doing so. And, if someone breaks in your house and you use a AK-47, anyone knows that the bullet will most likey pass though the intruder and exit your house and maybe go into another house and kill someone else, while a shotgun shell would not. Do you wish to take that chance?
Why don't you give real life examples of several instances of your scenario - a bullet from an EBR or real assault weapon passing through a house where it was fired in defense and killing somebody outside?
And you do know hunting rifles cartridges are almost universally more powerful than the cartridges an AK-47 fires? So wanting people to use hunting weapons instead of those evil AKs for that reason doesn't make much sense.
And shotgun shells do penetrate walls.
CR
Wait, possession of assault rifles isn't forbidden in the USA? Oh my god. Are tanks also allowed to be privately owned?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-17-2009, 19:40
Wait, possession of assault rifles isn't forbidden in the USA? Oh my god. Are tanks also allowed to be privately owned?
Yes--there's an episode of mythbusters where they are trying to pull apart two phonebooks that have had their pages interweaved. Cars don't work so they go to somebody who has a private tank collection, about 20 tanks as I recall.
Banquo's Ghost
02-17-2009, 19:52
Yes--there's an episode of mythbusters where they are trying to pull apart two phonebooks that have had their pages interweaved. Cars don't work so they go to somebody who has a private tank collection, about 20 tanks as I recall.
Not just in the US either - IIRC English Assassin owns a Ferret.
Yes--there's an episode of mythbusters where they are trying to pull apart two phonebooks that have had their pages interweaved. Cars don't work so they go to somebody who has a private tank collection, about 20 tanks as I recall.
...Tanks are actually allowed to be possessed? What about Apaches? Nuclear missiles? Is there any restriction to a weapon/war vehicle someone can have?
Man, one person can gather legally enough material to supply an army in the USA. If there is serious social unrest in the USA, it will surely be the bloodiest civil war anyone might see in a while.
KukriKhan
02-17-2009, 20:17
I draw the line at personal nukes. I want in-depth vetting of their owners, and constant and thorough reportage.
-edit-
and in fairness, I'm willing to abide by the same protocols.
Wait, possession of assault rifles isn't forbidden in the USA? Oh my god. Are tanks also allowed to be privately owned?
Fully automatic weapons are very heavily regulated in the US by the federal government, you need licenses and permits and all kinds of hassle to acquire them. Semi-automatic (pistols and rifles) and single action weapons are not, they are generally regulated at the state or municipality level, and generally only require a background check and maybe a waiting period.
Tanks, being vehicles, would be regulated by the Department of Transportation. Weight limit restrictions will probably keep them off most roads, so getting a street-legal M1 Abrams is a long shot. The cannon (and shells) on the tank falls under ordnance, that's explosives so it's a whole other set of regulations. The FBI frowns on explosives. A machine gun mounted on the tank would again be a automatic weapon and regulated as such.
I don't see why an Apache would be out of bounds. As long as it meets FAA regulations and is flown by a licensed pilot, it should be fine. The Hellfire missiles and chain gun, however, would again be a completely different story.
Before we go down this path, try to remember the infrastructure required by the military to keep these vehicles operational. The average person can drive a tank down the street, but will not be able to service the vehicle properly and will be stranded the first time it throws a track. Keeping an Apache airborne would cost some serious money.
And tank ownership in the UK is legal, here's a modded FV432 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PEU_201IfI) made to look like a Warhammer 40K Rhino. Road legal, complete with MOT. Driving through London for the DoW II release. :yes:
This is for the OP and not for Crazed Rabbit although I concede he will have a wonderful answer. Lets assume you get your ban, now what happens to all those good folks (myself included) who legally own an assault rifle?
I followed every law on the books, complied with multiple regulations, permitting and usage laws that the state, federal and local legislatures could throw at me. I still have my AK-47, do I need it ? Perhaps I dont but thats not the question.
How would you ban my ownership of the weapon? Would you come and force me to give it up? How exactly do you apply a "ban" to those who have done everything required by law to lawfully have that item?
thus the paradox in the statement, when you ban things you negate the ability of human to manage thier own affairs. You essentially impose a moral or ethic on them which might represent the majorities will but flies in the face of human rights or endangerment argument. How is it that you, or anyone can impose and ethic or moral standard on someone who has displayed no inclination to abuse the right already extended?
Ban is a strong term and a strong application. Perhaps we can go for the banning the bible next? Historically its caused many individuals to kill and on that precedent the U.S. would be safer if, the bible was banned. :logic:
Ban is a strong term and a strong application. Perhaps we can go for the banning the bible next? Historically its caused many individuals to kill and on that precedent the U.S. would be safer if, the bible was banned. :logic:
I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate here so bear with me. In truth I've not made up my mind on the firearms issue, though Assault Rifles should probably be military only in most countries. I would say that if you apply the same logic to the bible, or automobiles, or chainsaws as you apply to guns then you're missing a crucial point: Firearms are designed primarily to take life, they don't contain any holy scriptures, they're certainly not transport and they're not much good at cutting wood. Assault rifles are designed to take human life - I won't get into the industrialisation of warfare - but that's pretty much fact.
:bow:
Sasaki Kojiro
02-17-2009, 21:36
I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate here so bear with me. In truth I've not made up my mind on the firearms issue, though Assault Rifles should probably be military only in most countries. I would say that if you apply the same logic to the bible, or automobiles, or chainsaws as you apply to guns then you're missing a crucial point: Firearms are designed primarily to take life, they don't contain any holy scriptures, they're certainly not transport and they're not much good at cutting wood. Assault rifles are designed to take human life - I won't get into the industrialisation of warfare - but that's pretty much fact.
:bow:
Swords are designed to kill people too...
You'll have to pry this sword from my cold dead hands... :beam:
Sasaki Kojiro
02-17-2009, 21:50
Swords are awesome! I could never think of an excuse for buying one though. And I'd probably do foolish things with it while intoxicated.
come to think of it, that's a good excuse...
Vladimir
02-17-2009, 22:02
...Tanks are actually allowed to be possessed? What about Apaches? Nuclear missiles? Is there any restriction to a weapon/war vehicle someone can have?
Man, one person can gather legally enough material to supply an army in the USA. If there is serious social unrest in the USA, it will surely be the bloodiest civil war anyone might see in a while.
Truth is, the state of Alabama is more heavily armed than most European countries (with the exception of Germany, of course).
LOL at the outrage! :laugh4: Is 600,000 dead bloody enough?
...Tanks are actually allowed to be possessed? What about Apaches? Nuclear missiles? Is there any restriction to a weapon/war vehicle someone can have?
Man, one person can gather legally enough material to supply an army in the USA. If there is serious social unrest in the USA, it will surely be the bloodiest civil war anyone might see in a while.
Of course, there are restrictions. Ammo for example. 50 Caliber BMG is the highest caliber ammo legally available to civilians in 49 states with the sole exception of the People's Republic of California that has banned that caliber.
I doubt Mrs Asai would allow a sword in the house... such an unreasonable woman. :no:
Swords are awesome! I could never think of an excuse for buying one though. And I'd probably do foolish things with it while intoxicated.
come to think of it, that's a good excuse...
Strike For The South
02-17-2009, 22:15
Truth is, the state of Alabama is more heavily armed than most European countries (with the exception of Germany, of course).
LOL at the outrage! :laugh4: Is 600,000 dead bloody enough?
O Rly? O RLY?
Uesugi Kenshin
02-17-2009, 23:57
How would you ban my ownership of the weapon? Would you come and force me to give it up? How exactly do you apply a "ban" to those who have done everything required by law to lawfully have that item?
I'd like to start by saying that I don't think the Feds should be banning everything completely as that's a bit of a ham-handed approach to the issue and from my experience and the statistics Vermont for example certainly doesn't need stricter gun laws, and we have some of the laxest around. In general I see very little reason for people to be owning assault weapons though. If it is true that legal assault weapons are pretty much never used in crimes I would say that should stay legal and be more heavily regulated than other guns just to make it a little bit tougher to acquire them because they are far more deadly than other guns.
If a ban were to be instituted I assume it would be like other bans and exclude guns legally owned before the ban. This is for example why there are somewhere around six legal miniguns owned by civilians in the US.
“It is not the government's place to decide what people need, at least in a free country.”
I thought, I was sure, I saw it on TV so it is true, you had elections, so the government in power represented the people, and that you had a Parliament and separation between the 3 powers, and all these things… Was I wrong?
“The whole point of the second amendment is to enshrine the right of people to have military grade firearms” Debatable. Right to have weapons and a militia, or right to have an armed militia?
“Now when you say 'AK-47' do mean the actual fully automatic, selective fire, rifle? Or just a semiautomatic clone that functions the same as pretty much any other semiautomatic rifle but is used by fear mongering gun controllers capitalizing on the public's ignorance?”
The one making holes in a body and explode internal organs creating massif haemorrhages…
“A law banning me won't cause criminals to stop using such weapons” Nope. It will ban innocent people to kill innocent people. There are more killed by accident than by criminals…
“And you do know hunting rifles cartridges are almost universally more powerful than the cartridges an AK-47 fires? So wanting people to use hunting weapons instead of those evil AKs for that reason doesn't make much sense.
And shotgun shells do penetrate walls”:
Range of an Assault rifle and a hunting gun: A 5.56 mm around 1.5 km, still dangerous. Hunting gun, dispersion and low speed, about how much meters?
One of the first things they show me (and the rest of the platoon) when I joined was the effect of a 7.5 mm bullet (we’ve got the 5.56 mm later) on a helmet at a range of 200 m (usual battle range), 400 m, and 600 m. Same result. A hole in, a hole out and the usual joke about your head in between would make no difference.
Try this with a shot gun, and we will find out that the helmet won’t be touch at this distance. You need to be much close, much much closer…
You accused the anti-gun lobby of manipulation but it is what you are doing right there.
Military weapons are not design to kill. Hunting guns yes.
When the French got the FAMAS they had to inverse the rotation of the bullet because it was too fatal.
A dead enemy is dead, done.
An injured enemy have to be carried, cured. He immobilises a lot a people.
4 personnel to carry one man, plus the entire platoon in protection, helivac, demoralisation of his platoon members...
Animal have to be killed. That is what a good hunters will tell you. That why their ammunitions are more lethal…
Shotgun shell do penetrate walls? Err, wooden one, perhaps. Concrete forget it.
That is why you can use them in urban fight. You won’t kill your mate who just go by the back yard, which you can do with a 5.56 mm…
“How would you ban my ownership of the weapon? Would you come and force me to give it up? How exactly do you apply a "ban" to those who have done everything required by law to lawfully have that item?”
Easy: A period of time when you can hand over your weapons without having problems with the law, them if you don’t, you have to pay a fine if you are caught with one… Was done in all post war rehabilitation programme and it more or less work. Al least, no body die because a stupid forget he put a bullet in presentation, safety off before to play with it to impress the local barwoman…
Of course, you always will have the smart one who will sell to the authorities a LAW full of potatoes (to make up the weight) but…:beam:
I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate here so bear with me. In truth I've not made up my mind on the firearms issue, though Assault Rifles should probably be military only in most countries. I would say that if you apply the same logic to the bible, or automobiles, or chainsaws as you apply to guns then you're missing a crucial point: Firearms are designed primarily to take life, they don't contain any holy scriptures, they're certainly not transport and they're not much good at cutting wood. Assault rifles are designed to take human life - I won't get into the industrialisation of warfare - but that's pretty much fact.
:bow:
Respectfully I think its you that missed the crucial point of my post. One can argue that "holy scripture" based on intrpretation is designed to take life but thats a side argument....
My point isnt that firearms are or are not designed for killing but rather who determines what individual gets to practice what right? Again, I own an assault weapon, I have adhered to every law that pertains to them and thus have demonstrated over years that I infact earned the right to posses them.
This op supposes they should be banned. There was no affordance to those of us who chose to own them within the confines of the current laws and statues. Thus, if they are banned, under these circumstances then someone has imposed an ethic to me that I dont agree with. The religion/bible quip was to illustrate that by this logic we can impose this thought process on anyone or anything which some determine to be dangerous.
Also, more people have been killed in the name of religion then assault rifles owned by law abiding citizens in the U.S. We have strict laws and for those of us who obey them we shouldnt be penalized for a fear that is unsubstantiated. Perhaps the "ban" would be better translated if one were to say "Should law enforcement recieve better funding to remove illegal assault weapons from the U.S.?"
This is far to encompassing, as was my point with the bible. Not everyone who owns a bible is a murderer even though the religion they choose to support has advocated and prosecuted the deaths of millions in its history. If someone is lawfully owning a bible and isnt using it as an insturment to kill, I should be able to own an assault weapon if I use it lawfully.
AS you point out with cars etc, Banning is a slippery slope and what you might consider dangerous or nonsensical dosent mean I feel the same way, nor does it make either of us correct. However the op didnt seem intrested in the application at all, but rather the justification of what is morally correct in thier view. One can conject, bibles, korans, cars, gum you name it as dangerous, and in the same conversation someone else can justify thier safety. Its when you use the absolution of a "ban" that slip down the slope begins.
Then anything goes.
Crazed Rabbit
02-18-2009, 00:50
“It is not the government's place to decide what people need, at least in a free country.”
I thought, I was sure, I saw it on TV so it is true, you had elections, so the government in power represented the people, and that you had a Parliament and separation between the 3 powers, and all these things… Was I wrong?
Yes you were, we don't have a parliament or parliamentary system. But assuming you meant legislature - so what?
“The whole point of the second amendment is to enshrine the right of people to have military grade firearms” Debatable. Right to have weapons and a militia, or right to have an armed militia?
No, it's not debatable. It is the right of individuals to have weapons. The made-up right to an armed militia is absurd - it means only a group of people have rights, and that individually they have no rights.
“Now when you say 'AK-47' do mean the actual fully automatic, selective fire, rifle? Or just a semiautomatic clone that functions the same as pretty much any other semiautomatic rifle but is used by fear mongering gun controllers capitalizing on the public's ignorance?”
The one making holes in a body and explode internal organs creating massif haemorrhages…
What purpose does vagueness serve? That's what all guns do, but the details are important.
“A law banning me won't cause criminals to stop using such weapons” Nope. It will ban innocent people to kill innocent people. There are more killed by accident than by criminals…
What, exactly, are you referring to? More killed by accident with real assault weapons or EBRs than by criminals using those weapons or more killed by accident with guns in general? In either case, you're wrong.
“And you do know hunting rifles cartridges are almost universally more powerful than the cartridges an AK-47 fires? So wanting people to use hunting weapons instead of those evil AKs for that reason doesn't make much sense.
And shotgun shells do penetrate walls”:
Range of an Assault rifle and a hunting gun: A 5.56 mm around 1.5 km, still dangerous. Hunting gun, dispersion and low speed, about how much meters?
One of the first things they show me (and the rest of the platoon) when I joined was the effect of a 7.5 mm bullet (we’ve got the 5.56 mm later) on a helmet at a range of 200 m (usual battle range), 400 m, and 600 m. Same result. A hole in, a hole out and the usual joke about your head in between would make no difference.
Try this with a shot gun, and we will find out that the helmet won’t be touch at this distance. You need to be much close, much much closer…
By hunting weapon I meant specifically hunting rifles, which (mostly) use more powerful cartridges than the 5.56 and 7.62.
You accused the anti-gun lobby of manipulation but it is what you are doing right there.
Military weapons are not design to kill. Hunting guns yes.
When the French got the FAMAS they had to inverse the rotation of the bullet because it was too fatal.
A dead enemy is dead, done.
An injured enemy have to be carried, cured. He immobilises a lot a people.
4 personnel to carry one man, plus the entire platoon in protection, helivac, demoralisation of his platoon members...
Animal have to be killed. That is what a good hunters will tell you. That why their ammunitions are more lethal…
I am aware of the idea that a wounded enemy neutralizes more people as one of the reasons for the 5.56 NATO round. But how exactly am I manipulating people? I said hunting rifles were more powerful, and you agree. Why we should ban semiautomatic rifles because of that doesn't make sense.
Shotgun shell do penetrate walls? Err, wooden one, perhaps. Concrete forget it.
That is why you can use them in urban fight. You won’t kill your mate who just go by the back yard, which you can do with a 5.56 mm…
Most houses over here are made of wood or similar material.
In general I see very little reason for people to be owning assault weapons though. If it is true that legal assault weapons are pretty much never used in crimes I would say that should stay legal and be more heavily regulated than other guns just to make it a little bit tougher to acquire them because they are far more deadly than other guns.
Real assault weapons (with fully automatic fire) are already quite strictly regulated.
It shouldn't matter if people have reason to own weapons. If we want to embrace liberty for everyone, we must accept that people will do things we don't see the reason for. But that should be allowed as long as they aren't harming anybody else.
CR
Strike For The South
02-18-2009, 00:52
I want an Ar-15. Alas they are expensive and my shillings seem to run out to quickly.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-18-2009, 01:42
I'm going to ignore the Brenus-CR quote tag (CR probably has this handled) and just address Jolt's comments.
Who is going to commit a crime with a tank? Gangs and criminals have nothing to gain by it because it's not concealable. It's a tank. Start driving it to gang fights and the local constabulatory (and National Guard) are going to deactivate your vehicle very quickly. And if you're concerned about whackjobs getting their hands on one and killing people, that can happen without a tank - the killdozer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer#Bulldozer_modification) for instance. Or just walk onto a military base and commandeer one (didn't that happen within the last 2 years somewhere - though the guy just took it for a spin?). 99.9% of tank owners are collectors who have no interest in arming for some sort of civil war scenario (which will be bloody no matter where you have one).
Sasaki Kojiro
02-18-2009, 02:06
I'm going to ignore the Brenus-CR quote tag (CR probably has this handled) and just address Jolt's comments.
Who is going to commit a crime with a tank? Gangs and criminals have nothing to gain by it because it's not concealable. It's a tank. Start driving it to gang fights and the local constabulatory (and National Guard) are going to deactivate your vehicle very quickly. And if you're concerned about whackjobs getting their hands on one and killing people, that can happen without a tank - the killdozer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer#Bulldozer_modification) for instance. Or just walk onto a military base and commandeer one (didn't that happen within the last 2 years somewhere - though the guy just took it for a spin?). 99.9% of tank owners are collectors who have no interest in arming for some sort of civil war scenario (which will be bloody no matter where you have one).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIun536HFo
Of course! It's a classic! He seems to make an effort to crush bmw's and fire hydrants...
VV Works for me, think it's just youtube doing maintenance
KukriKhan
02-18-2009, 04:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIun536HFo
Of course! It's a classic! He seems to make an effort to crush bmw's and fire hydrants... They yanked that vid. Here's another : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1203730021721681764
1995 incident
rotorgun
02-18-2009, 05:19
I am in favor of a ban on Assault rifles, or at the very least extremely tight restrictions. Let me first tell everyone a little story:
I have a freind who recently had his home broken into while we were at work. My freind owns many weapons, one of which was an AR-15 (Maybe Strike can now buy it on the balck market), he also owned some sort of exotic European made semi-automatic rifle, the make of which I don't recall. The theives also got three other automatic pistols, but it is the rifles we're concerned with. These two weapons, either of which have a goodly rate of fire in the semi-automatic mode, can easily be conerted to fire in full auto. Kits are available for sale which have instructions for a person of average knowledge of firearms. Now these weapons are in the hands of who knows whom; an unsuspecting police officer is surely in danger should those persons be violent criminals.
Does anyone remember the bank hiest in California some years ago by several such armed individuals, who also wore ballistic armor? The average police officers, responding with their service revolvers and bullet-proof vests were absoulutely stymied in their pitiful attempts to take these individuals out. Not only that, but one officer was killed and many more wounded by these assault rifle armed individuals. Even the SWAT police could not easily stop them. I remember seeing film of the firefight-round after round fired at one of the gunman failed to penetrate his armor. All the while he was spraying hundreds of rounds back at the out-gunned police officers. It was a gotterdamerung of epic drama. Finally the gunman were killed , one by a police sniper, and the other commiting suicide when he knew the game was up. What a monstorous demonstration of the "liberal" argument against the ownership of assualt rifles. The amount of rescourses used to just take out these two individuals could surely have been better utilized in making the streets all that much safer.
I am a weapons enthusiast, although I own no weapons at this time. I certainly support the second amendment. I cannot personally justify owning such a weapon just for personal enjoyment or even self protection. I feel that such a law is not only needed, but morally and ethically sound. I would not consider it a breach of my right to own and bear firearms, but rather my concious decision to accept some restraints in interest of the public good.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-18-2009, 05:31
So you're willing to accept anecdotes as justification of laws?
rotorgun
02-18-2009, 06:10
So you're willing to accept anecdotes as justification of laws?
No, but they are illustrative of some of the arguments for a ban of assault rifles. The only justification in this country is that the majority of the people decide what is in or not in their best interests. I am only trying to point out what any average police officer would tell you-assault rifles in the hands of criminals are very dangerous to the prosecution of their office. I was offering a moral dilemma for all to consider as just one of the reasons we should consider passing such a law. The public good certainly should override one's personal feelings if one takes an honest look at the situation.
I'll have to get back with you tomorrow to discuss it further. I have to be at work early, but thanks for your intruiging response. I shall consider it in more retrospect on the morrow.
What do you consider justification for laws, if not the public good?
Does anyone remember the bank hiest in California some years ago by several such armed individuals, who also wore ballistic armor? The average police officers, responding with their service revolvers and bullet-proof vests were absoulutely stymied in their pitiful attempts to take these individuals out. Not only that, but one officer was killed and many more wounded by these assault rifle armed individuals. Even the SWAT police could not easily stop them. I remember seeing film of the firefight-round after round fired at one of the gunman failed to penetrate his armor. All the while he was spraying hundreds of rounds back at the out-gunned police officers. It was a gotterdamerung of epic drama. Finally the gunman were killed , one by a police sniper, and the other commiting suicide when he knew the game was up. What a monstorous demonstration of the "liberal" argument against the ownership of assualt rifles. The amount of rescourses used to just take out these two individuals could surely have been better utilized in making the streets all that much safer.
The important question is: did they own those assault weapons legally? They had both been arrested on weapon charges 3 years before the heist, not sure of their status at the time of the shootout. Regardless, their weapons were illegally modified to be fully automatic, so their possession of same was already against the law. The biggest problem with the incident was the body armor, not the weapons. Without the protection, they would have been brought down in minutes.
“so what?” So, you are not living in under despotic rules, so the government and bodies represent the will of the population, so you obey the law. If you disagree, next time you vote against, and/or try to convince others to do so.
“No, it's not debatable.” Well, some lawyers and US citizens think it is.:beam:
“That's what all guns do, but the details are important” Yeap, it is what weapons do.
“What, exactly, are you referring to? More killed by accident with real assault weapons or EBRs than by criminals using those weapons or more killed by accident with guns in general? In either case, you're wrong”
So a good reason to ban weapons because in all others western countries where fire arms are banned people killed by accidents vastly outnumber the ones killed by gun and even by knives…
I am quite surprise because if you think that the number of killed in Iraq is around 3,000 for what, 5 years of war, in a country where people are actively trying to kill your soldiers, I can’t believe you have more than 5,000 accidents in US soldiers in the same period of time.
The French army is still claiming that accident killed more people during the Algerian war (weapons and road) than the enemy action… True or not, I don’t know…
“Why we should ban semiautomatic rifles because of that doesn't make sense” Range.:inquisitive:
“I am aware of the idea”
It is not an idea. The logistic needed to secure a injured is absolutely phenomenal… And I did the training when you have to evacuate a injured comrade: 4 men to carry him, and protection, in a medium mount landscape, took as 2 hours for one kilometre. And the guy was trying to help as, was not bleeding, was not crying, and was not calling for his mother…
“Most houses over here are made of wood or similar material.” Even in towns?
I carried weapons. I was train to do so. And one think I was trained for was to respect and fear the weapon. The danger is not the weapon, but the people carrying the weapon. A criminal can kill with a nail clipper if he is determined enough. He will be ready, honest bypassers not, even if they carry weapons. Plus the fact they probably have no clue how to use them anyway...
But the easy access to instrument design to kill creates for otherwise honest and nice people a opportunity to injured themselves, or their family/neighbours.
Major Robert Dump
02-18-2009, 09:30
CR has pretty much summed up everything about the "assault weapons ban."
I liked clinton, but the one under his administration was purely cosmetic. Using that laws definition of assault rifle I could buy a cheap .22 rifle for 100 dollars, add some cosmetic features to it to make it look scary, and suddenly it meets the criteria for being an assault rifle.
When people hear assault rifle they think machine guns. Well, those are already banned for the most part. Keep in mind also that these bans usually apply to new purchases, if you already own one they are not gonna come kick in your door. Yet.
And on a similar note that my european friends will totally be agast of: The OSBI finally answered my request to have my conceal and carry permit cover the new resurrected model 5-shot revolvers which fire 410 slugs. Current CC law caps caliber at .45. I requested clarification since it was a guage and not a caliber. They toldz me no. waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Major Robert Dump
02-18-2009, 09:32
“so what?”
“What, exactly, are you referring to? More killed by accident with real assault weapons or EBRs than by criminals using those weapons or more killed by accident with guns in general? In either case, you're wrong”
So a good reason to ban weapons because in all others western countries where fire arms are banned people killed by accidents vastly outnumber the ones killed by gun and even by knives…
Not true dude. It's just not true. I would like for you to do a little research to prove this, which you probably can't because it/s not true, especially since you added knives even
rory_20_uk
02-18-2009, 12:36
What is the rationale for the weaponry that is banned in the USA? Why not have it all legalised?
~:smoking:
Fisherking
02-18-2009, 13:03
I only wish to give you two quotes. Many more fine examples my be found by other founding fathers. The right to arms was never for sport and military arms is what was intended.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
George Washington
Sir Moody
02-18-2009, 14:53
I only wish to give you two quotes. Many more fine examples my be found by other founding fathers. The right to arms was never for sport and military arms is what was intended.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
George Washington
Quoting people from a bygone age is really not very useful - the guns of that day and age were slow and inaccurate with very poor range. It doesnt compare to what you could buy these days.
Fisherking
02-18-2009, 15:19
Quoting people from a bygone age is really not very useful - the guns of that day and age were slow and inaccurate with very poor range. I doesnt compare to what you could buy these days.
:laugh4:
Read what it says. The language has not changed so much as to mean a different thing.
The Arms are the teeth of Liberty. It does not mean that people are only entitled to a musket and a saber.
The reason it was in the bill of rights is so that government could not interfere with it and further more the courts that have upheld the governments right to do so are far beyond their own limits.
If you research what the founders intended you find something completely different. Those decisions were to be made by the people and not the courts. Laws were to be abolished by Jury Nullification and not by Supreme Court Review.
I know that today Jury Nullification is an evil thing to say and if they think that you even know of it you will never serve on a jury but as I said, do the research.
As to the arms; people were to be armed to fight a foreign foe or the troops of their own government should it become corrupt or a threat to liberty. So what type of arms is that?:smash:
Sir Moody
02-18-2009, 15:37
As to the arms; people were to be armed to fight a foreign foe or the troops of their own government should it become corrupt or a threat to liberty. So what type of arms is that?
And this is exactly my point - back at the time of your quotes the government was armed the same way as its people - with slow inaccurate guns. The people outnumbered the governments troops therefore they could overthrow the governement.
Fast forward to today and having guns isnt really helping the Iraq insurgants overthrow their governement so why do you think your guns would stop your own governement? do you think owning an assault rifle will help against a Cruise missle? using 200 year old legislature to justify something when the context is all gone is pointless - if you want to argue the 2nd Ammendmant gives you the right to own Assualt riffles you may as well argue it gives you the right to own cruise missiles...
Modern Weapons are massivly more dangerous than "Muskets and sabres" and the public owning some of them is too much of a risk - a line has to be drawn somewhere and personally my line would be as close to no-one owning any guns as possible (but im lefty Euro so ignore me)
And if you're concerned about whackjobs getting their hands on one and killing people, that can happen without a tank - the killdozer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer#Bulldozer_modification) for instance.
True but a bulldozer has windows and other openings which the police can use to eliminate a guy quickly. If two nutjobs get themselves on a tank they bought, who's to stop them from strolling through the town, blowing some stuff up? Only with an RPG will those guys be stopped (Assuming they shoot at anyone who opens the tank's hatch)
EDIT: My point being that anyone with enough support can gather sufficient weapons and ammunition legally, so they and 200 guys can try to form the Republic of Carlsbad, or teh Republic of Springfield.
Fisherking
02-18-2009, 15:49
And this is exactly my point - back at the time of your quotes the government was armed the same way as its people - with slow inaccurate guns. The people outnumbered the governments troops therefore they could overthrow the governement.
Fast forward to today and having guns isnt really helping the Iraq insurgants overthrow their governement so why do you think your guns would stop your own governement? do you think owning an assault rifle will help against a Cruise missle? using 200 year old legislature to justify something when the context is all gone is pointless - if you want to argue the 2nd Ammendmant gives you the right to own Assualt riffles you may as well argue it gives you the right to own cruise missiles...
Modern Weapons are massivly more dangerous than "Muskets and sabres" and the public owning some of them is too much of a risk - a line has to be drawn somewhere and personally my line would be as close to no-one owning any guns as possible (but im lefty Euro so ignore me)
Ah! Didn’t you see the second quote?
That was exactly why I included it.
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
George Washington
They are too dangerous for the public…
That premise is an overused straw man which works best on the risk averse…
That could be why so much emphasis is placed on risk today, don‘t you think?
If it is too dangerous for the public to own, it is also too dangerous for governments to own.
Sir Moody
02-18-2009, 16:12
Ah! Didn’t you see the second quote?
That was exactly why I included it.
They are too dangerous for the public…
That premise is an overused straw man which works best on the risk averse…
That could be why so much emphasis is placed on risk today, don‘t you think?
If it is too dangerous for the public to own, it is also too dangerous for governments to own.
I agree entirely - lets disarm everyone :beam:
I dont trust my governement to own Weapons (they are constantly screwing up with there application) so i dont see why i should trust the public to own them...
Seriously tho Guns are tools that should be given to those who actually need to use said tools. Soldiers and (certain branches of) the Police. These people are paid to use these tools and trained to use them responsible and even then they screw up sometimes - giving these tools to the public is asking for accidents and abuse on a far greater scale - just look at cars, we can barely get the public to use them responsibly and they arnt designed to kill and maim...
Seriously tho Guns are tools that should be given to those who actually need to use said tools. Soldiers and (certain branches of) the Police. These people are paid to use these tools and trained to use them responsible and even then they screw up sometimes - giving these tools to the public is asking for accidents and abuse on a far greater scale - just look at cars, we can barely get the public to use them responsibly and they arnt designed to kill and maim...
Perhaps in your country, but the U.S. has 200+ years of private firearm ownership and the abuse and accidents on a "far greater scale" you mention is a relative concept. In your country it might be true, in mine it is not and thats why its hard to take seriously blanket claims like yours in application. As a society the U.S. has millions of responsible gun owners who obey the laws and dont abuse the privilege thats a fact that simply cant be denied. That alone defeats your "greater scale" argument because its been tried here and it hasnt materailized.
im talking about legal gun owners who obey the law. In addition to that "banning" or dictating that this right should be taken away, in the states would require a constitutional amendment a process that would certainly be defeated in my view. But hey, in the EU/UK by all means have it your way, at least you'll know when you see someone with a firearm or weapons and they arent police or military your face to face with a criminal!
Maybe you can talk your way out of it? :logic:
Fisherking
02-18-2009, 16:30
Seriously tho Guns are tools that should be given to those who actually need to use said tools. Soldiers and (certain branches of) the Police. These people are paid to use these tools and trained to use them responsible and even then they screw up sometimes - giving these tools to the public is asking for accidents and abuse on a far greater scale - just look at cars, we can barely get the public to use them responsibly and they arnt designed to kill and maim...
The general argument is unchanged. Not trusting the individual and depriving them of their rights is exactly what is to be avoided.
It is equally dangerous to have certain information. So the public at large is denied.
But power is the most dangerous and likely to be abused and that rest primarily with the governments.
You argument would eventually lead all of us back to being servants or slaves of the government which oversees them.
When people hear assault rifle they think machine guns. Well, those are already banned for the most part. Keep in mind also that these bans usually apply to new purchases, if you already own one they are not gonna come kick in your door. Yet.
They do here. Some 80 yearold WW2 vet had his door knocked in by the RCMP for his owning of various WW2 assault weapons. I'm talking machine guns, sub-machine guns, and other such things.
Even in towns?
90% of single unit homes and duplex homes under two stories are made wholly of wood (save a cinder block dividing wall in duplexes) timber frames in North America. Any where, rural or urban it doesn't matter. Some homes have brick facade that faces the street. Although in tornado alley in the US some homes are now built from a styrofoam and concrete sandwich so as to not blow away.
I've always been of the opinion that guns should be treated like cars. That is if you want to own and operate them you personally have to lisenced, and the gun registered with the man. With a class system to the lisences. The lowest being basic hunting rifles and shotguns and high licenses for pistols, semi auto rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and so on.
Sir Moody
02-18-2009, 19:05
The general argument is unchanged. Not trusting the individual and depriving them of their rights is exactly what is to be avoided.
It is equally dangerous to have certain information. So the public at large is denied.
But power is the most dangerous and likely to be abused and that rest primarily with the governments.
You argument would eventually lead all of us back to being servants or slaves of the government which oversees them.
Ah then we plainly have different views on Governments - you see your government as your enemy - I see my government as my servant (after all I took part in the voting process) now they may not always do as I want but thats because they are the servants of everyone not just me.
You dont stop a government from going rogue by arming the populace - news flash when governemnts go rogue its with the support of portions of the public (or worse when portions of the public overthrow them) - you do so with proper checks and balances - one of which is the Military who are armed - no need to add more people with guns to those they allready have
Perhaps in your country, but the U.S. has 200+ years of private firearm ownership and the abuse and accidents on a "far greater scale" you mention is a relative concept. In your country it might be true, in mine it is not and thats why its hard to take seriously blanket claims like yours in application. As a society the U.S. has millions of responsible gun owners who obey the laws and dont abuse the privilege thats a fact that simply cant be denied. That alone defeats your "greater scale" argument because its been tried here and it hasnt materailized.
im talking about legal gun owners who obey the law. In addition to that "banning" or dictating that this right should be taken away, in the states would require a constitutional amendment a process that would certainly be defeated in my view. But hey, in the EU/UK by all means have it your way, at least you'll know when you see someone with a firearm or weapons and they arent police or military your face to face with a criminal!
Maybe you can talk your way out of it?
oh dear someone failed Logic 101 didnt they
X = number of legal guns in circulation
Y = chance of accident/abuse of a legal gun
therefore X * Y = Total chance of Accidents or Abuse
Y is totally relative as you say - with some cultures it will be low with others high BUT so long as X > 0 the Total chance of Accidents or Abuse is higher than if all guns are banned (X = 0)
Now we are talking LEGAL guns here since thats the debate - whether assault rifles should be legal so lets not bring illegal guns into it - even if guns are banned there will still be gun crime which results in death I wont deny that
anyway im done now, arguing for the sake of arguing is silly
Fisherking
02-18-2009, 21:43
Sir Moody
Logic…
Checks and balances?
The last time I checked Governments control all of the Armies! Sometimes (usually) when a government falls it does fall the army…but that so far as I am aware is not something that usually benefit’s the people of such a land. It most typically signals an end to their liberties.
I may love and admire many things about my country, including its system of government. That does not mean that I give its representatives my absolute trust and admiration, however. Like every other government on earth, they enjoy growing their power, and that comes at the expense of the people.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-18-2009, 22:10
....if you want to argue the 2nd Ammendmant gives you the right to own Assualt riffles you may as well argue it gives you the right to own cruise missiles...
It does.
...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. [emphasis added]
Though not the document with which we govern ourselves, this does accurately state a basic framework under which the USA was founded. The ultimate power rests, and should rest, with the citizens of the polity.
Amendment II
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 phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is quite clearly set off as a subordinate clause advanced as justification for, but NOT superseding the main phrase of the ammendment.
Also note that the founders referred to "arms." That made no restriction as to class, function or lethality. From this it follows that any delineation of permissable or impermmisable type of armament is not Constitutional. If you have the pelf, you can put that cruise missle on your shelf. It is precisely the ownership of state-of-the-art weapons of war that is protected, because the ultimate need for self defense is from the tyranny of government.
Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
A people who mean to be free must be prepared to meet danger in person, and not rely upon the falacious protection of armies.
And what country can preserve it's liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
The Constitution should never be construed to prevent the people of the United States...from keeping their own arms.
At the last, it is not simply a means of personal defense. It is the tool by which, however difficult and improbable it may be and however unlikely the necessity may seem, the people of the United States of America may "alter or abolish" their own government should it pass over into tyranny.
“Not true dude. It's just not true. I would like for you to do a little research to prove this, which you probably can't because it/s not true, especially since you added knives even”.;
There you have dude:
First cause of the 29 573 dead by firearms in 2001 in USA:
SUICIDE (16.348). The same people in favour of the proliferation weapons of small destruction will rightly object to sell some drugs which may harm a human health without prescription but have no objection about tools of death…
Then homicide with 11.348, accident 802, legal intervention 323 (hey guys, the bad guys are winning). Non Lethal injuries around 200 000/years.
Compared with:
Tobacco kills about 390,000. (legal)
Alcohol kills about 80,000. (legal)
Side stream smoke from tobacco kills about 50,000. (legal)
Cocaine kills about 2,200.
Heroin kills about 2,000.
Aspirin kills about 2,000.
All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century.
(Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse
But drugs are illegal, not firearm. A kid can’t smoke, can’t drink, but have access to weapons… Make sense…
In 1996 9,390 Americans were killed with guns alone while only 153 were killed with guns in Canada, England, Japan and New Zealand combined (in Burton Report).
I think he was saying the ratio of deaths by EBRs/"Assault Weapons" vs "normal" firearms. The legality of firearms as a whole in the US is not the point of the thread, it's the legality of military-style assault weapons.
Regarding the US death stats, we still kill more of ourselves through driving than through firearms. ~;)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-18-2009, 23:58
First cause of the 29 573 dead by firearms in 2001 in USA:
SUICIDE (16.348).
Wasn't it conclusively proven that suicide rates stay similar regardless of firearm proliferation?
153 were killed with guns in Canada
The gun crime rate in Canada stayed roughly the same after the long arm registry was introduced, and most of the firearms used to commit crime - at least in the Toronto area - are illegal anyway. Then there is this. (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/18/lorne-gunter-missing-the-target-on-gun-control.aspx) I don't entirely agree with the conclusion, as I don't see the need for any kind of long arm registry, but the first part of the article is excellent.
It does.
One could argue that it only refers to small arms.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-19-2009, 00:13
True but a bulldozer has windows and other openings which the police can use to eliminate a guy quickly. If two nutjobs get themselves on a tank they bought, who's to stop them from strolling through the town, blowing some stuff up? Only with an RPG will those guys be stopped (Assuming they shoot at anyone who opens the tank's hatch)
EDIT: My point being that anyone with enough support can gather sufficient weapons and ammunition legally, so they and 200 guys can try to form the Republic of Carlsbad, or teh Republic of Springfield.
That's true with or without a ban, and the killdozer was only defeated when the guy committed suicide. The cops couldn't stop it because he welded armor over the windows. Should welding material be banned?
No, but they are illustrative of some of the arguments for a ban of assault rifles. The only justification in this country is that the majority of the people decide what is in or not in their best interests. I am only trying to point out what any average police officer would tell you-assault rifles in the hands of criminals are very dangerous to the prosecution of their office. I was offering a moral dilemma for all to consider as just one of the reasons we should consider passing such a law. The public good certainly should override one's personal feelings if one takes an honest look at the situation.
I'll have to get back with you tomorrow to discuss it further. I have to be at work early, but thanks for your intruiging response. I shall consider it in more retrospect on the morrow.
What do you consider justification for laws, if not the public good?
My criticism would first and foremost go towards questioning just how damaging assault rifles are to the public good? How many crimes and deaths are caused by them? I'm willing to accept a bank robbery every once in a blue moon as the price paid for the freedom of owning AR's.
Furthermore, would a ban actually accomplish anything?
Yeh... There's no need to ban automatic rifles...
How would the drug dealers get their guns if the banned them...?
Besides... did you know that you can legally own a flamethrower AND a minigun :shocked2: (ask Lemur)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-19-2009, 04:57
Besides... did you know that you can legally own a flamethrower AND a minigun :shocked2: (ask Lemur)
Thermite is also very legal - and surprisingly easy to manufacture.
Major Robert Dump
02-19-2009, 05:16
“Not true dude. It's just not true. I would like for you to do a little research to prove this, which you probably can't because it/s not true, especially since you added knives even”.;
There you have dude:
First cause of the 29 573 dead by firearms in 2001 in USA:
SUICIDE (16.348). The same people in favour of the proliferation weapons of small destruction will rightly object to sell some drugs which may harm a human health without prescription but have no objection about tools of death…
Then homicide with 11.348, accident 802, legal intervention 323 (hey guys, the bad guys are winning). Non Lethal injuries around 200 000/years.
Compared with:
Tobacco kills about 390,000. (legal)
Alcohol kills about 80,000. (legal)
Side stream smoke from tobacco kills about 50,000. (legal)
Cocaine kills about 2,200.
Heroin kills about 2,000.
Aspirin kills about 2,000.
All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century.
(Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse
But drugs are illegal, not firearm. A kid can’t smoke, can’t drink, but have access to weapons… Make sense…
In 1996 9,390 Americans were killed with guns alone while only 153 were killed with guns in Canada, England, Japan and New Zealand combined (in Burton Report).
I was responding to the statement that guns accidents kill more people than anything else. You gave total gun death tallies. I don't need to be shown that we have more gun deaths than nations with firearms bans, thats a no-brainer. I need to be shown that more people are killed in gun accidents than gun homicides, any homicides,any accident....you get my point I'm sure. The key word here is accident, not death, and if you do your research properly you will find the number 1 and 2 causes of accidental death in the US are not firearm related, but auto accidents and fires. Gun accidents are near the bottom of the list. Don't change the parameters of the debate now.
Arguing total gun death totals (which, I might add, is still a little lame because the totals include police shootings and suicides, usually) is not going to change the mind of pro-gun people. The figures, while unfortunate, are something that we are willing to accept and deal with. Violence begets violence.
What chaps me is when people try to throw in the accidental shooting argument and make it sound like someone is killed every 5 minutes by a gun accident, and when the national media and anti-gun groups make it a point to never, ever report guns used in self defense. The local media does, and 2-bit local and state gun-rights groups do, but not the national media.
What chaps me even more are the unscientific studies that prove gun violence is more likely in a home with a gun. One major one was revealed a couple years back to have included the gun the criminal brought into the home invasion in the figures (no ****, right?) and did not account for local crime trends where the study was done or whether or not the gun was legally owned to begin with.
****after re-reading your earlier posts it appears I misunderstood what you were saying and our arguments are like two ships passing in the night. I won't delete my original post, though, because I still think you are pointing out the obvious. Legalise guns=more guns deaths, and to most of us arguing for guns, we know this already and we don't care. The horse is dead****
Pannonian
02-19-2009, 05:31
Not just in the US either - IIRC English Assassin owns a Ferret.
The band Super Furry Animals owned a tank, which they drove to various music festivals. Another famous privately owned tank is the Mandela Way T-34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank).
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-19-2009, 05:41
Yeh... There's no need to ban automatic rifles...
How would the drug dealers get their guns if the banned them...?
Through the black market, as they mostly do now. If we somehow cracked down on everyone in America and convinced them to give up their firearms, we'd just give the drug dealers south of the border a new source of income - illegal firearms.
Besides... did you know that you can legally own a flamethrower AND a minigun :shocked2: (ask Lemur)
How many crimes have been committed with either in the history of the US? How many deaths has either caused?
Major Robert Dump
02-19-2009, 06:01
I think people pointing out the exotic weapon ownership may have no idea what kind of horrors one has to go through to get a firearms license of that capacity. Think Top Secret security clearance application. And everytime anything happens with a weapon of that nature, the ATF and the sheriff come banging on your door to find out if you were involved.
Silencers are legal, too, at least in this state, but you have to pay a tax of like 400 dollars, and thats just for a 22 cal. I don't think they are legal for high cals. A friend of mine bought one for a 22 caliber for small game hunting, and so far he has been contacted 8 times in 2 years regarding shootings with a .22 where no one heard the shot. whats funny about that is that no one hears a .22 when there's not a silencer
That's as it should be. Far as I'm concerned.
The gun crime rate in Canada stayed roughly the same after the long arm registry was introduced, and most of the firearms used to commit crime - at least in the Toronto area - are illegal anyway. Then there is this. I don't entirely agree with the conclusion, as I don't see the need for any kind of long arm registry, but the first part of the article is excellent.
I believe in a gun registry. Even if all it really does is make people feel safer. But yeah most guns used in crime all over the country are smuggled in. If you want a gun to rob a store here you go find a Hells Angel and buy one.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-19-2009, 08:55
Even if all it really does is make people feel safer.
Free drugs would be more entertaining.
Through the black market, as they mostly do now. If we somehow cracked down on everyone in America and convinced them to give up their firearms, we'd just give the drug dealers south of the border a new source of income - illegal firearms.
It rather misses the point of banning guns - if that logic was taken for example with cars, i.e. we shouldnt enforce driving with liscences, because people just drive without them anyway, or we should legalize dangerous drugs because of the black market they produce - if something is too dangerous etc. then it should be illegal, and that way at least someone with a gun is immediately culpable
- much better arguing guns are not as dangerous/ a right
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-19-2009, 09:39
we should legalize dangerous drugs because of the black market they produce
But that's true.
LittleGrizzly
02-19-2009, 10:56
But hey, in the EU/UK by all means have it your way, at least you'll know when you see someone with a firearm or weapons and they arent police or military your face to face with a criminal!
Only seen a firearm twice in the UK. Once to police officers and once to army personal. That to me is a result, especially with the amount of drugs round my area could be pretty dangerous, i have heard about a glassing every weekend up my local town last few weekends. I can only imagine the bloodbath if we made guns available to these nutters, thats why i rest easy knowing i wont meet anyone with a gun while im out and about...
Edit: drugs should be legalised, partially because of the market they create, guns doesn't have anywhere near the same draw over here, with a little work (and enough money) i think i could get hold of practically any recreational drug relatively easy, ask to me get a gun and well.... i don't even think i could...
But that's true.
arguable, I'm as of yet undecided, although I would probably legalize some, such as marijuana, but not others.
and yes, like LittleGrizzly i have never seen a gun in any hands but police or army here, so no large black market
:2thumbsup:
KukriKhan
02-19-2009, 14:18
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p
5 minute vid clip of a Texican woman describing how her parents died. If you have the patience, watch to the very final 30 seconds, where she explains her understanding of the US Second Amendment.
Instructive.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p
5 minute vid clip of a Texican woman describing how her parents died. If you have the patience, watch to the very final 30 seconds, where she explains her understanding of the US Second Amendment.
Instructive.
Was that about the Luby's shootout in Killeen?
Strike For The South
02-19-2009, 19:57
Was that about the Luby's shootout in Killeen?
Sounds like it.. I don't think it's a felony to carry in your purse anymore.
Crazed Rabbit
02-19-2009, 20:12
True but a bulldozer has windows and other openings which the police can use to eliminate a guy quickly. If two nutjobs get themselves on a tank they bought, who's to stop them from strolling through the town, blowing some stuff up? Only with an RPG will those guys be stopped (Assuming they shoot at anyone who opens the tank's hatch)
You obviously didn't read the killdozer article. The guy had welded shut every opening on the bulldozer. It was like a tank, unstoppable.
All the while he was spraying hundreds of rounds back at the out-gunned police officers.
How many did he kill? None. Not one single person other than the robbers died. The gun banners cry hysterically about the dangers of spraying and praying with 'assault rifles' (semiautomatic rifles) and that's what those guys did - and they killed noone. That suicidal teen with a pump shotgun who attacked a mall in Utah (?) killed more people.
So, you are not living in under despotic rules, so the government and bodies represent the will of the population, so you obey the law. If you disagree, next time you vote against, and/or try to convince others to do so.
That doesn't mean the situation won't change in the future, that our democracies might become oppressive. What silliness to not prepare for future problems because right now we don't have any.
giving these tools to the public is asking for accidents and abuse on a far greater scale
All this gloom and doom foretold by gun controllers never materializes. It has no basis in fact.
Modern Weapons are massivly more dangerous than "Muskets and sabres" and the public owning some of them is too much of a risk - a line has to be drawn somewhere and personally my line would be as close to no-one owning any guns as possible (but im lefty Euro so ignore me)
The founders of this nation knew what they were doing. The People Who Wrote The Constitution Knew Firearms Would Improve.
They knew firearms would improve, as they had done before they wrote the bill of rights. And the founders wrote the bill of rights as we know it today all the same. It was not about protecting people's right to own muskets, but to own modern firearms. When the government gets more powerful with newer weapons, so must the people.
I see my government as my servant (after all I took part in the voting process) now they may not always do as I want but thats because they are the servants of everyone not just me.
You dont stop a government from going rogue by arming the populace - news flash when governemnts go rogue its with the support of portions of the public (or worse when portions of the public overthrow them) - you do so with proper checks and balances - one of which is the Military who are armed - no need to add more people with guns to those they allready have
So your plan is to have the government kept in check by the military? Because of course they'd never work against the people, would they? There haven't been cases of military coups around the world, have there? And certainly no places where the government used the military to oppress the people? It's mind boggling.
An armed populace is not at the mercy of the government. Even a minority of well armed people can defend themselves.
Sorry, this post is somewhat sporadic.
CR
rory_20_uk
02-19-2009, 20:21
An armed populace is not at the mercy of the government. Even a minority of well armed people can defend themselves.
So speaks every gun nut living in the desert...
The Iraqi army had a million men with light weaponry. And thousands of tanks / missiles / small ships. They were decimated in days and annihilated in weeks. The populace's only hope is the army refusing orders. Else civilians with guns isn't going to stand more than a few seconds against infantry and light APCs. Fuel / air bombs / hellfire rockets / Tanks... get a grip on reality.
~:smoking:
Strike For The South
02-19-2009, 20:23
So speaks every gun nut living in the desert...
The Iraqi army had a million men with light weaponry. And thousands of tanks / missiles / small ships. They were decimated in days and annihilated in weeks. The populace's only hope is the army refusing orders. Else civilians with guns isn't going to stand more than a few seconds against infantry and light APCs. Fuel / air bombs / hellfire rockets / Tanks... get a grip on reality.
~:smoking:
You have never been to my little state.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-19-2009, 21:12
So speaks every gun nut living in the desert...
The Iraqi army had a million men with light weaponry. And thousands of tanks / missiles / small ships. They were decimated in days and annihilated in weeks. The populace's only hope is the army refusing orders. Else civilians with guns isn't going to stand more than a few seconds against infantry and light APCs. Fuel / air bombs / hellfire rockets / Tanks... get a grip on reality.
~:smoking:
The point would not be to fight conventionally. We're still tied up in Iraq 5 years later, and it's an entirely different situation. In Iraq, a smallish highly technologically advanced defeated a larger (though older) conventional force, and then had to deal with a bloody insurgency for 5+ years (and counting).
If there was a rebellion or civil war in the US, there would be no conventional battle (or at least, that's unlikely). It would also be reasonable to expect some military hardware and personnel to defect to the rebels. Furthermore, the US is even larger than the US, with much higher personal gun ownership. Rebels wouldn't need to defeat tanks - as it would be easy to slip into any pro-government area and hit soft targets. Ambush a fuel convoy here, blow up a government building there...
Yoyoma1910
02-19-2009, 21:39
You have never been to my little state.
Uh, strike... Your state is the military.
2004 stats on recruits by state. (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for-recruits-army-navy-air-force)
Strike For The South
02-19-2009, 21:42
Uh, strike... Your state is the military.
2004 stats on recruits by state. (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for-recruits-army-navy-air-force)
Those guys left for a reason.
Yoyoma1910
02-19-2009, 21:47
Those guys left for a reason.
Let me guess:
Training...
Or maybe the educational opportunities offered.
Strike For The South
02-19-2009, 21:50
Let me guess:
Training...
Or maybe the educational opportunities offered.
Education? Pah. A Texan don't need no learnin everything comes Au naturaleeee.
There are also allot of crazy people here. Im pretty sure some of them still think hunting Mexicans is legal. Any normal person knows we got rid of that in 1982
Uh, strike... Your state is the military.
2004 stats on recruits by state. (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for-recruits-army-navy-air-force)
I find it humorous that California, with the highest population in the US, is 25th (and 53rd in per capita).
I wish that google vid had panned over the faces of the committee panel when she said her piece at the end. I'm sure there would have been some priceless expressions.
Crazed Rabbit
02-20-2009, 05:22
The Iraqi army had a million men with light weaponry. And thousands of tanks / missiles / small ships. They were decimated in days and annihilated in weeks. The populace's only hope is the army refusing orders. Else civilians with guns isn't going to stand more than a few seconds against infantry and light APCs. Fuel / air bombs / hellfire rockets / Tanks... get a grip on reality.
~:smoking:
And a bunch of fanatics with AKs, RPGs, and IEDs have kept us tied up there, even though the nation is relatively small and the fanatics had sporadic local support. Like AtPG said, you obviously wouldn't fight conventionally.
Is that so hard to get a grip on? I mean, what do you think we've been doing in Iraq? Sending soldiers to a R&R spot? Enjoying the local cuisine? The insurgency died away because it lost support from the populace.
CR
LittleGrizzly
02-20-2009, 12:18
I assume if the US goverment was trying to take over USA it would have obviously abonded alot of its moral stances, this would make it far easier to take over the country. Iraq is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, you have the whole 'Islam vs the west' fight going on, which means certain sections of Islam will throw thier weight behind Iraqi insurgency, you have a foriegn invader, domestic leaders turning authoritarian is much easier than invading foriegn countries. You basically have alot of factors which make the insurgency fight harder against the coalition... and other factors which means funding and weapons are delivered from friendly foriegn powers... US domestic population would have none of thewse factors going for it...
Any US authoritarian take over would be decided by the military, if the military decides to back the goverment then the remaining non goverment supporters wouldn't stand a chance...
KukriKhan
02-20-2009, 14:18
I find it humorous that California, with the highest population in the US, is 25th (and 53rd in per capita).
It's not always been that way. 25 years ago, Cali was neck-and-neck with Texas for recruits.
I wish that google vid had panned over the faces of the committee panel when she said her piece at the end. I'm sure there would have been some priceless expressions.
Me too. Jaws must have dropped. :beam:
Any US authoritarian take over would be decided by the military, if the military decides to back the goverment then the remaining non goverment supporters wouldn't stand a chance...
Purely speculation on my part: 90% of the Officer Corps would be pro-Government, 75% of the NCO Corps would be pro-rebel, 90% of enlisted ranks would follow their Sergeants. The whole question would turn on which side had best defined: "...enemies of the Constitution, Foreign and Domestic... " , from the oath they take.
Fisherking
02-20-2009, 14:25
I assume if the US goverment was trying to take over USA it would have obviously abonded alot of its moral stances, this would make it far easier to take over the country. Iraq is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, you have the whole 'Islam vs the west' fight going on, which means certain sections of Islam will throw thier weight behind Iraqi insurgency, you have a foriegn invader, domestic leaders turning authoritarian is much easier than invading foriegn countries. You basically have alot of factors which make the insurgency fight harder against the coalition... and other factors which means funding and weapons are delivered from friendly foriegn powers... US domestic population would have none of thewse factors going for it...
Any US authoritarian take over would be decided by the military, if the military decides to back the goverment then the remaining non goverment supporters wouldn't stand a chance...
Yes but how long would it take to break down into anarchy?
General A wants to be in charge and doesn’t care much for General C. General B is patriotic and opposes the others. 3/4ths of the National Guard sides with him, their wives and relatives.
Meanwhile someone has hopefully shot the jerk that started it all but now some other General wants power…Until everyone is weak enough for Canada and Mexico to come in and fight over what is left.
LittleGrizzly
02-20-2009, 14:34
The big assumption you have made there is that the goverment would have a big fight on its hands, previously democratic country's often fall into authoritarianism quite willingly in extreme circumstances, Nazi germany being the best example.
I think the the politicians letter would play a factor, not that republicans are more likely than democrats to favour authoritarianism but republicans usually have better support among the army so could more likely gather majority support from among the army...
I think the whole some of the army rebelling against the goverment partially invalidates the whole point of needing weapons to overthrow the goverment, the simple fact is its not the home owners with guns that would save the country but solidiers opposing the goverment that would preserve liberty... but if the army overwhelmingly sided with the goverment there is very little anyone else could do... you may be left with a few isolated rural places that require a little more effort but in the grand scheme of things these places matter very little to goverment control anyway...
English assassin
02-20-2009, 15:09
Not just in the US either - IIRC English Assassin owns a Ferret.
I do indeed. This is more or less exactly what it looks like: http://www.workingcars.com/media/pictures/source/Armoured%20Car.JPG (except mine looks a bit more "used")
The good thing about owning (and specifically working on, and very specifically changing the gearbox in) a Ferret is it rapidly cures any desire you might have had to get a tank :yes:
No? Only me then?
On the upside, it looks really evil in the supermarket car park.
KukriKhan
02-20-2009, 15:13
The big assumption you have made there is that the goverment would have a big fight on its hands, previously democratic country's often fall into authoritarianism quite willingly in extreme circumstances, Nazi germany being the best example.
I think the the politicians letter would play a factor, not that republicans are more likely than democrats to favour authoritarianism but republicans usually have better support among the army so could more likely gather majority support from among the army...
I think the whole some of the army rebelling against the goverment partially invalidates the whole point of needing weapons to overthrow the goverment, the simple fact is its not the home owners with guns that would save the country but solidiers opposing the goverment that would preserve liberty... but if the army overwhelmingly sided with the goverment there is very little anyone else could do... you may be left with a few isolated rural places that require a little more effort but in the grand scheme of things these places matter very little to goverment control anyway...
So your essential contention, LittleGrizzly, is that the underlying assumption behind the Second Amendment: that it is the right and duty of the civilian population to overthrow a tyrannical regime by means of arms - has been superceded by the massive superiority of the current standing military?
If we're talking the UK, western Europe, or Canada: I agree. It'd be a futile exercise, not adequately supported by the population.
But if we're talking about the US (and/or maybe Australia) : I disagree. Never underestimate the power of a people pissed, armed, informed, and organized - even with pitchforks and torches. (But I admit: we're a lo-o-o-ng way from that point currently in america).
ajaxfetish
02-20-2009, 23:29
Uh, strike... Your state is the military.
2004 stats on recruits by state. (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for-recruits-army-navy-air-force)
I'm surprised to see my state ranks below not only every other state in the union, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia. We're a conservative and pro-military state, but even looking at it per capita we come in over rank 50. What gives?
Ajax
Yoyoma1910
02-20-2009, 23:32
I'm surprised to see my state ranks below not only every other state in the union, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia. We're a conservative and pro-military state, but even looking at it per capita we come in over rank 50. What gives?
Ajax
All talk an no action.
My state was fighting in the U.S.'s wars before we were even part of the nation.
Edit.
If it makes you feel any better, apparently almost no one from Louisiana joins the Army.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.