assault weapons ban!!

[Big P13]

More people would have died, not less.

Your crystal ball told you this I'm sure...

 

[Big P13]

no you didnt. please state it again. i dont read between the lines.

Of course not. I was referring to people with CCWs. I thought that was obvious. But, as I didn't bring that part up, I can see why it wasn't.

No need to read between the lines, just more carefully.

 

[Iamforever]

No need to read between the lines, just more carefully.

im sorry. i thought you were referencing the post that i quoted at first.

but, even concealed guns are right to be outlawed. i know its off topic.:2 cents:

 

[futuresurfer]

Personally I grew up in an area around some Piru Bloods and some GD (Gangsta Disciples) They had AR-15's and HK's, Ak's as well as shotguns and pistols. You can buy an AK for $700 on the streets. It doesn't keep them out of the hands of the thugs. I think they should be legal. Our country was founded on fucking the Govt and not taking shit from it. You cant say much to a Govt when you dont have a real gone and a .22 just isnt the same as a carbon 15

 

[Torre82]

Semi-automatic weapons can be converted to automatic.
Feeds can be changed to take very large magazines.
All this law does is prevent law abiding citizens from doing such.
The people the law is trying to stop have no such interest in abiding by it.

Indeed. The legitimate end user gets screwed, always. If someone wants to bring an M249 to the ghetto, they will. If someone wants a LAW to fire-and-forget on a mall crowd, they'll do that. Without the government's help. Unless you can control thoughts, you cant control what people will do. If they want to mod their gun into a hand cannon, they will. Done deal.

 

[calpoon]

more people shooting at each other is not going to make people safer. just spend about one second really thinking about it.

that being said, I really don't care. I think everyone should have guns, guns, guns, and machine guns and grenade launchers, and tanks. all of it. and we'll see what happens. pretty fast way to level the playing field. we're all gonna die someday, might as well see who's got the cajones.

however, I do think that the person who brought up this thread should be banned from owning a gun on principle, as well as anyone who uses a gun for hunting because that is not provided for by the constituion and these people clearly like blowing up bambi and thumper and defensless animals and they clearly have small genitals and they can only be aroused by death, destruction and carnage and brain splatter. in other words, unbalanced deranged individuals that shouldn't be trusted with the public good and decency.

 

[Torre82]

more people shooting at each other is not going to make people safer. just spend about one second really thinking about it.

that being said, I really don't care. I think everyone should have guns, guns, guns, and machine guns and grenade launchers, and tanks. all of it. and we'll see what happens. pretty fast way to level the playing field. we're all gonna die someday, might as well see who's got the cajones.

however, I do think that the person who brought up this thread should be banned from owning a gun on principle, as well as anyone who uses a gun for hunting because that is not provided for by the constituion and these people clearly like blowing up bambi and thumper and defensless animals and they clearly have small genitals and they can only be aroused by death, destruction and carnage and brain splatter. in other words, unbalanced deranged individuals that shouldn't be trusted with the public good and decency.

Hey dude, you got sand in your vagina?

You're buying into this pretty hard. Just because something is on the market doesnt mean people are going to buy it and start using it religiously.

'Sir, should we release Herbal Essences shampoo? Women might wash uncontrollably, having orgasm after orgasm until their scalp is raw, bloody and bald!'

Naw bro, guns arent cheap. Working up the insanity and hate to go on a killing spree takes YEARS. Even then, if everybody was shooting at everybody else.. you dont realize how difficult it is to actually hit somebody with anything short of a submachine gun and a full clip. People are small. One shot one kill is luck. You can go through 100 rounds in a semi auto handgun in 10 minutes if you're pretty miserly with that ammo.

In other words, I better not let you get a safety razor or nailclippers with the file. YOU MIGHT KILL SOMEBODY WITH YOUR NEWFOUND WEAPON! Get a grip, my good man.

 

[calpoon]

I was going to say something but I changed my mind. nevermind. where's the delete button?

 

[Roughneck]

however, I do think that the person who brought up this thread should be banned from owning a gun on principle, as well as anyone who uses a gun for hunting because that is not provided for by the constituion and these people clearly like blowing up bambi and thumper and defensless animals and they clearly have small genitals and they can only be aroused by death, destruction and carnage and brain splatter. in other words, unbalanced deranged individuals that shouldn't be trusted with the public good and decency.

My! Such vitriol!

You have problems with people using guns to kill animals and hunt - but nowhere do I see you lamenting the fact that so many criminals use guns to kill others (you know, human beings?) every day.

Strange set of principles you have.

cheers,

 

[calpoon]

hey man, animals don't kill people, people kill people. so what are you saying, that people shouldn't have guns so that there would be no criminals shooting each other? or just for non-criminals to be shooting each other? or for people to shoot unarmed criminals? that doesn't sound very fair. who's the one with the strange priciples here?

 

[Philbert]

Jeez...first you have everyone running for their life, then you have people standing around to get shot in a crossfire...which one is it?
I have a gun; I have had several...never touch one when I'm angry or high. EVER!
I have been gunless when 3 bad boys decided to fuck with me heavy duty; I am many times out with my daughter , or even with someone else, and how defenseless I feel is relative to the threat I face without warning...and really, gun laws, by and large, restrict access to retail acquisition. I know that if many 15 round Glocks are owned by law abiders, they will be stolen from the owners and gun shops much easier than if they had to go through the black market, so that is a problem.
Illegal guns are bought for higher prices than retail, so a good Baretta would be high Dollar in the ghetto.
The whole point of gun control should be to restrict access by illegal owners, not the legal. One feeds the other, at this time. I see most often the easiest path taken by most rule makers, from self-interest in looking effective.
Example:Are too many people getting shot during armed robberies? Make it harder to buy a high capacity mag (???).
I prefer to make gun sales and gun possesion a severe felony, enforced, when said activity is done by non-legal possessors.
A good start, like 1000 lawyers on the ocean bottom.
Tell the victims of the Lubys shooting about not wanting guns legal to carry; you know lots of fools, too bad. They probably wouldn't pass the gun cert program to get a concealed weapons permit.
I would, and I hope more ways are found to restrict bad guys from operating so freely in our society.
Believe me, if Heroin, speed, coke, and whatever is so easy to find and score, how in God's name can weapons be kept from determined buyers by excessive legal restrictions on law abiding owners?
No question that a cheating spouse is in danger of being murdered by a firearm, or from any reason that might send someone over the edge; this is a dilema I can't see a solution to. We all know someone who has acted out of character when under some unusual stress, and I think a fast victim has a better chance outrunning a baseball bat than a 1029fsp 9mm bullet.
Do I want everyone exposed to random violence defenseless to make it easier for the occasional victim of irrational behavior?
Sad to say, no.
Do I want to allow any gov't rep or system to have control of all effective violent response? No.
You couldn't vote Spirow Agnew or Richard Nixon out of office very fast way back when, and they were beginning to toy with stadium-detention and military population control during the mad '70s; an armed populace kept some bad ideas from being implemented then and at other times, I'm sure.
Not the basis for all political discourse (if you displease us, we will revolt ), but I like the implied ability to resist over zealous gov't officials when they overstep their authority.
When population density makes explosive projectile weapons impractical, I will give up on gun ownership; failing to control effectively the lawless side of society doesn't make me feel my weapons are not needed, or yours if you so desire.
I don't want to address sport shooting or hunting, that is something that needs to be worked out by those involved. The NRA doesn't exist in a vacuum, it represents millions of constituants and wouldn't be effective without them.
:2 cents:

hey man, animals don't kill people, people kill people. so what are you saying, that people shouldn't have guns so that there would be no criminals shooting each other? or just for non-criminals to be shooting each other? or for people to shoot unarmed criminals? that doesn't sound very fair. who's the one with the strange priciples here?

You.

 

[calpoon]

what's to stop people from commiting illegal activities with legal guns? it's not like I'm unsympathetic to crime, but I don't see a way to stop it without restricting peoples abilty to buy and sell and own guns.

it's not like once you shoot a gun there's a big sign that says "this bullet was fired by joe blow's dirty harry and he lives on abbey road." all they can do is match up the bullets and that's if you use it for two seperate crimes. they can only match it to the gun if they have the gun. if they see that a gun was stolen last week and it's the same kind that was in the shooting, that's a big clue. if they go look up how amny residents of LA purchased .38 caliber hand guns in the last twenty years, there's about fifteen thousand people on that list. and if they don't have anything else to tie you to the crime, then they won't be able to find you and get the gun. if they were able to find out, then it wouldn't really matter whether you used an illegal or legal gun or ice pick or whatever.

another thing is that the anti-gun legislation was considerably due on the part of organizations consisting of citizens getting together and brandishing guns as a means of self-policing and anti-government activity.

so do the bad guys really have the guns? or is it just that the people with guns are now the bad guys?

 

[Roughneck]

Great. First of all, you have a whole mall screaming and running for the exit. Then you have a bunch of Stallone wannabes pu<snip>

I personally stopped two crimes and made "citizen's arrest" using my old Army Colt 1911. No one was shot, no one was killed, two criminals were sent to prison and two families were saved from trauma.

Oh and statistics say that, eh?

Myth: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1

2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5

3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.

* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11

* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:

a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12

b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13

c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14

* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15

* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

References:
1 Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
2 Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).
3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.
4 "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
5 "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
6 "Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says," Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
7 See BJS study, supra note 6 at iii.
8 John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," (2000). This study can be read at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm. The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.
9 Ian Henry and Tim Reid, "Crime figures a sham, say police," The Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996).
10 Tim Reid, "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," The Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997).
11 John Steele, "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent," The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000).
12 See supra note (Crime figures a sham...)
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 See supra note (fiddling).
16 Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," NewsMax.com (March 22, 2001).

I've got some more if anyone is interested - especially about the 'killed by family member or friend in moment of anger".

There are my statistics, references and links Fox. Sure would like to see some of yours...

The concept of "we will decide what is illegal when we see it" seems to be popping up more and more recently (and no, I don't have specific instances, I just know that I've been hearing it a lot on various topics) and that's a completely bullshit concept for legal matters.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, apparently I did misunderstand you the first time around...

cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

but the constitution didn't say we have the right to bear arms for fun, or for killing animals for sport or meat, it said for protection, and that was in a different world. Really, who cares if it said we had the right to do one thing or not, that was hundreds of years ago and our rights are changed annually. Should we be allowed to own guns? I say hell no, but sure, let the people decide. Just don't decide for us, oh-ye-representative-gods.

1. The Constitution doesn't say anything about privacy - should we do away with privacy? If that were the case, you have no business protesting about the PATRIOT Act.
2. The Right to Free Speech was also set in the Bill of Rights at the same time, yet I don't see you arguing in favor of it's demise.
3. "The people" include people who want to own and keep guns for whatever it is they feel like. Or do you mean "people" as in "people who in general agree with me" ?

cheers,

PS: If something isn't in the Constitution, does that mean I don't have that right? What's the difference between a Right and a Privilege?

 

[Philbert]

more people shooting at each other is not going to make people safer. just spend about one second really thinking about it.

that being said, I really don't care. I think everyone should have guns, guns, guns, and machine guns and grenade launchers, and tanks. all of it. and we'll see what happens. pretty fast way to level the playing field. we're all gonna die someday, might as well see who's got the cajones.

however, I do think that the person who brought up this thread should be banned from owning a gun on principle, as well as anyone who uses a gun for hunting because that is not provided for by the constituion and these people clearly like blowing up bambi and thumper and defensless animals and they clearly have small genitals and they can only be aroused by death, destruction and carnage and brain splatter. in other words, unbalanced deranged individuals that shouldn't be trusted with the public good and decency.
PT. 2:
another thing is that the anti-gun legislation was considerably due on the part of organizations consisting of citizens getting together and brandishing guns as a means of self-policing and anti-government activity.

so do the bad guys really have the guns? or is it just that the people with guns are now the bad guys?

I stand by my one-word response.

 

[Torre82]

I stand by my one-word response.

I stand erect. Often and with great intensity! This is my rifle! This is my gun! One is for shootin' and the other's for fun! And although I might want to fire my gun into my chick, and I have the G_d-given right to, it doesnt mean that I can ever actually do so as much as I want. So just cuz they think they know that shooting rampages will happen overnight and all hell will break loose, IT WONT! Their reasoning is skewed and thusly: DENIED!

 

[Roughneck]

... and Fox ends with his classic "... but this is only a porn board and none of this matters anyway but I'll still type 6 paragraphs stating the exact same thing" response.


Hey Fox, you're the one who brought up the "statistics clearly show that guns cause..." yadda yadda.


Don't complain when you're hoisted by your own petard.

cheers,

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Personally, I think ANYONE that doesn't want to live in a country that has guns...IS FREE TO GET THE FUCK OUT! Planes leave here daily, SEE YA!! I own guns, I will always own guns...and I firmly believe if our founding fathers had foreseen the way this country was going to turn out...the 2nd Amendment would have been the 1st...they are written in order of importance after all. I'm real fucking tired of hearing all the whiny gun grabbing tree hugger's snivel about poor defenseless animals...and how the world would be a much better place if NO ONE had guns...except the police and Government of course. Quit trying to interpret the Second Amendment and read it...it's SELF EXPLANATORY!! On a parting note...quit trying to tell me what I do and do not need...the last time I looked, it was called THE BILL OF RIGHTS...NOT the bill of needs.

 

[Slitranger]

It is unfortunate that the Dems have control of everything now. This is why this issue has re-surfaced again. But for those people who live in the PRK - "Peoples Socialist Republik of Kalifornia" have been living this for quite sometime now. California is the perfect example of why $#!t like this doesn't work! These "lawmakers" take their fight to law abiding citizens saying crap like guns kill. Yet criminals are still able to get their hands on assault weapons and kill those law abiding citizens that are force to follow the law.

Komrade Pellosi, Komrade Boxer, Komrade Feinstein, Komrade Kennedy, and the rest of the Socialistic Freedom Party of the People's Repubilik of the New Russia. I pose this simple mathematical question:

In imposing such laws on the ban of such "large capacity" firearms. How many well placed bullets does it take to kill a person? 100? 1000? Just because it takes you that many rounds to hit the broadside of your uncle's, mother's, sister's cousin (twice removed) - doesn't mean the rest of us need to suffer for it! :thefinger
One shot one kill = doesn't matter what gun you are using, or how many rounds are in the mag.
Truth is people kill people...and the Dems are the stupidest bunch or retards - again the proof lies in Kalifornia and her "saintly" restrictions on firearms. :nannerf2: :nannerf2:

I'd say let's take it to the highest extreme. Since guns don't necessarily kill people - for example the Japanese in Nanking, the Nazis with their gas chambers, the Saddam regime on the Kurds, and let's not forget the Soviets in their Afghan Wars = most of these PEOPLE on PEOPLE wars saw chemical attacks as being the biggest killer. "Where am I going with this?" you ask. If people kill people with whatever means they have available - LET'S OUTLAW PEOPLE!

Take away an inalienable right to own a firearm. No! Let's do this in a much more absolute sense and prevent things from happening BEFORE it gets to that level - let's stop the source of all killings - let's kill of the killers! Make much sense???

FUCK those who impose their will on others and hide behind a shroud of "I'm a benevolent person looking to make the world a utopia" for everyone, just as long as you send me enough money to fund my project for saving the hermaphrodite tree frogs of Venezuela.

Just remember - Kalifornia - the "safest" place in the nation - where laws, like the ones we see in this post, are already the law of the land. Where we the law abiding folks see more violent crimes against us - by criminals who use these weapons anyway - despite the laws of the land.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I'd say let's take it to the highest extreme. Since guns don't necessarily kill people - for example the Japanese in Nanking, the Nazis with their gas chambers, the Saddam regime on the Kurds, and let's not forget the Soviets in their Afghan Wars = most of these PEOPLE on PEOPLE wars saw chemical attacks as being the biggest killer. "Where am I going with this?" you ask. If people kill people with whatever means they have available - LET'S OUTLAW PEOPLE!

You missed one. " The US used a chemical defoliant, Agent Orange, in Vietnam throughout the 1960s, which proved to have harmful effects on people as well as the plants it was intended to clear." Source

And don't forget about Napalm Bombs.