Assult Weapon Ban

[TheOutkastDev]

....
You could die right now from spontaneous human combustion doesnt mean you need to always have a pale of water handy

Outkast you have a very paranoid point of view

No I couldn't. I don't exhibit the symptoms nor is my current physical state ripe for my body to spontaneously combust.

That is a very poor analogy. Please don't attack me without sufficient logic to back it up.

 

[malgrimace]

Spontanious Human Combustian was almost certainly prooven to be a process where an external flame source such as a candle lit the persons clothing and their body fat acted like a wick. That's why in all cases, the legs are left due to the poor fat>ratio.

But - I live in the UK where guns are illegal PERIOD. You cannot own any firearm unless you have a specific need for one (farmers and park rangers). There're also only parts of the country where armed police are being TESTED.

The problem though is that guns are getting imported from other countries for use in Drug/Gang related crime

My friend is from Michigan and he once said to me that he was suprised and alarmed that people weren't allowed guns and that he mis-trusted our government for not letting us carry them. As he put it "An armed community is a polite community" but if you've ever been to Birmingham - the community consist of a large amount of armed gangs that frequently war with one another.

But I personally feel safer knowing that some of the people I know don't have commercial access to weapons - and probably won't ever make the connections needed to import weaponary of this state - where-as I hear it's relatively easy to purchase, or inherit by other means, a firearm in the US

 

[Cmonkey123]

My friend is from Michigan and he once said to me that he was suprised and alarmed that people weren't allowed guns and that he mis-trusted our government for not letting us carry them. As he put it "An armed community is a polite community" but if you've ever been to Birmingham - the community consist of a large amount of armed gangs that frequently war with one another.

Who the hell told you Bermingham's community had a bunch of armed gangs fighting eachother?! I live about an hour away from there, and I'm happy to inform you it's a very high class community with very little crime...

 

[Maynza]

...if my father hadn't had his weapon around. I don't really want to know what would have happened...

Exactlly
Weapons in the home dont solve anything if your father didnt have a gun then the guy would have gotten away and could have been arrested later. Guns are not necessary. What we should do is increase the police presence instead of fund the gun companies.

 

[Sep102]

Exactlly
Weapons in the home dont solve anything if your father didnt have a gun then the guy would have gotten away and could have been arrested later. Guns are not necessary. What we should do is increase the police presence instead of fund the gun companies.

I agree with you there, completely, but until that happens, exactly what would you suggest the populace to do? Because, apparently you are against us defending ourselves when there is not enough of a police presence to do so.

 

[Cmonkey123]

I say keep the old ban in place until a better one can be formulated. But instead of doing that, the NRA is pushing against it because they want money for their guns; all the Reps and Senators--and even Bush--are obviously highly influenced by the NRA.

It's better to have a ban on some weapons than allow all weapons on the street.

 

[TheOutkastDev]

Exactlly
Weapons in the home dont solve anything if your father didnt have a gun then the guy would have gotten away and could have been arrested later. Guns are not necessary. What we should do is increase the police presence instead of fund the gun companies.

What a waste of taxpayer money. You must like paying taxes hu? You'd rather not do anything and let him rob you then hope the police use your tax money to find this guy? What happens if the robber doesn't want to just rob you, what if he wants to kill you? Guns are necessary. If someone with malicious intent has one and you don't, you lose, they win. I guess you prefer to be dead.

 

[Santaria]

Your retort lacks merit.

Assault weapons are certain types of rapid firing rifles that are ment for military use. Just because the definitions of the individual words say otherwise doesn't mean that every weapon is an assaut weapon. All weapons are ment for assaults but that doesn't make all weapons assault weapons.

You have completely missed my point. I can do as much harm to you with a colt .380 government pocket lite, (not listed as an assault weapon) as I can with say an AK47. (listed on the ban list) My point being, that both will kill and so the ban is pointless. We would do better to enforce existing laws against violent crimes and either executing or locking up the animals responsible. No rehab!

So the Constitution should let everyone have military assault weapons? No! Some weapons shouldn't be in the hands of the citizens, namely these assault weapons.

Uh, duh! That is EXACTLY what the constitution guarantees. "...right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Of course it does not specifically guarantee assualt weapons. Nor does it guarantee swords. But both are arms. You do not seem to be overly familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America. May I suggest you spend some time reading and comprehending it. I will not hold it against you if you were educated in a public school as they tend to not teach these things well.

Maybe the crimes are related to something else. Just because they have those bans in place and the crime rates are high doesn't mean the crime is directly related to the bans.

Depending on who you quote for research, the high crime rates are directly related to the bans. Criminals know that resistance will be close to nill since the only party with a gun is the criminal himself!

England and Australia still have an overall very, very low crime rate. So some criminals there are well armed; that's how it goes everywhere, it's inevitable. But just because those few criminals are well armed doesn't mean all the citizens should be well armed.

Overall crime rate is low in those countries. However, per capita, violent crime in those countries is higher than in the U.S. and growing at unprecedented numbers. And quite frankly, if we should all be concerned about the laws internationally as the UN is working to bring these types of laws to bear on the US.

You need assault rifles to protect your family? Are you afraid the Mafia is going to come and attack your family or something? Even in protecting your family, there's no need for an assault weapon! The majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are done with pistols and semi-automatic rifles anyways.

I never said I need assault rifles. I just said it is no ones business about what type of weapons I keep as it is my constitutionally guaranteed right. Even the Mafia is smart enough to know that the gun ban is not good for anyone! And you seem not to know much about firearms as well. Semi-automatic simply means the next round is chambered and the weapon is ready to fire with out further action after the first shot. This includes revolvers, magazine fed pistols and rifles.

And unless you live in a very, very high crime area you shouldn't need a weapon in your house at all. Statistics say guns in the home kill more family members than they do criminals.

If you keep fire arms in your home, you need to train your family members about firearm safety. The NRA has several programs in place. All free of charge. For younger citizens they even have a very friendly program involving Eddy Eagle. Who teaches, Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the area Immediately, Tell an Adult.
As far as needing a weapon in my home, it is a well documented fact, criminals choose to enter homes they believe have no weapons at all!! Homes they believe to be well protected are typically not invaded.

 

[SkyMonkey]

No I couldn't. I don't exhibit the symptoms nor is my current physical state ripe for my body to spontaneously combust.

That is a very poor analogy. Please don't attack me without sufficient logic to back it up.

Actually the logic is sound.

you DON't exibit simptoms...

...thats whay it's called 'spontaneous'.

..but anyway I degress.

Any person in law inforcement will tell you that gun controle is just a cash grab for the government. (more registration means more user fees). Gun control DOESN'T keep guns out of the hands f criminals because they won't bother to worry about if a gun is 'banned' or not nor will they bother to 'register' their guns....

 

[malgrimace]

Who the hell told you Bermingham's community had a bunch of armed gangs fighting eachother?! I live about an hour away from there, and I'm happy to inform you it's a very high class community with very little crime...

Where the hell do you live kiddo?? If you don't live in the centre of the city then how can you say this? I've been to Birmingham MANY times and everytime I go, I witness a mass street brawl.

I live 20 minutes from Sheffield - nutorious for its stabbings and random crimes, but the area i live in is frigging beautiful. There're some areas INSIDE sheffield that look like the bloody monarchy could live there - then if you walk 15 minutes you're surrounded by illegal immigrants and dodgy dealings.

Don't be so nieve about the world there matey - just cause you're priviliged to not witness the crime doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[silverwolfe]

All I am going to say is if you can not hit what you were shooting at in 10 shots and you are not on a battle field then you might want to reconsider owning a gun.

 

[sidsid]

The funniest thing to me is how when Bush doesnt jump on something folks want, he must be "in league" with that industry.
Currently he is in league with,
1- Arms contractors
2- Big Oil
3- NRA
4- The elitist rich
5- Terrorists
6- Anti terrorist firms
7- Big Tobacco
8-Christians
9- Anything else we hate
[font=&quot][/font]
yet John Kerry who condems John Edwards for using 100% trial lawyer funds for a campaign, then teams up with him and uses all those same massive amounts of money for himself. Yet when have a heard someone accusing him of being in league with trial lawyer? Never, even though its obvious he is now. Whoever becomes president just by association becomes this massively corrupt conspiratorial demon who is "in league" with every satanist and alien we can dream up.

 

[DraconisDesBois]

eh..

I dont think this vote will be very succesfull and is kinda foolish.

 

[Cmonkey123]

If you keep fire arms in your home, you need to train your family members about firearm safety. The NRA has several programs in place. All free of charge. For younger citizens they even have a very friendly program involving Eddy Eagle. Who teaches, Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the area Immediately, Tell an Adult.
As far as needing a weapon in my home, it is a well documented fact, criminals choose to enter homes they believe have no weapons at all!! Homes they believe to be well protected are typically not invaded.

How are criminals suppose to know if you have a gun in your house or not...

Where the hell do you live kiddo?? If you don't live in the centre of the city then how can you say this? I've been to Birmingham MANY times and everytime I go, I witness a mass street brawl.

I live 20 minutes from Sheffield - nutorious for its stabbings and random crimes, but the area i live in is frigging beautiful. There're some areas INSIDE sheffield that look like the bloody monarchy could live there - then if you walk 15 minutes you're surrounded by illegal immigrants and dodgy dealings.

Don't be so nieve about the world there matey - just cause you're priviliged to not witness the crime doesn't mean it's not there.

The average house value in that area is $318k; the average house value wouldn't be that high if there was as much crime as you speak of. I seriously doubt you've been to Birmingham, and if you have you're a dirty liar about the crimes you've seen. Of course there are bad areas in Birmingham, but nothing as bad as what you described.

 

[TheOutkastDev]

Actually the logic is sound.

you DON't exibit simptoms...

...thats whay it's called 'spontaneous'.

..but anyway I degress.

It isn't logical at all. SHC is still classified as a rare phenomenon that the medical community is not certain as to what causes it. How can you even say I am a candidate for SHC when we don't know what the prime conditions for it are? All we know is that somehow a spark inside your body ignites and your fat acts as a wick.

Any person in law inforcement will tell you that gun controle is just a cash grab for the government. (more registration means more user fees). Gun control DOESN'T keep guns out of the hands f criminals because they won't bother to worry about if a gun is 'banned' or not nor will they bother to 'register' their guns....

lol. How is that possible? Why would they say that? Law enforcement officials ARE government officials. Honestly that conspiracy makes as much sense as the "We didn't land on the moon" conspiracy. The amount of money they make from gun registration is a mere dent into our TRILLION dollar national debt.

 

[Cmonkey123]

Any person in law inforcement will tell you that gun controle is just a cash grab for the government. (more registration means more user fees). Gun control DOESN'T keep guns out of the hands f criminals because they won't bother to worry about if a gun is 'banned' or not nor will they bother to 'register' their guns....

Are you on drugs? Without gun registration everyone could easily get any gun they wanted whenever they wanted. Gun control makes it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns.

The government doesn't get THAT much money from registration anyways...

 

[bean56]

I would like to say I agree with what sidsid said. I also would like to add that the national debt is actually more to ourselves than other countries. If you take a good basic economics class probably college level you may learn a little about it.

 

[Captain The First]

In all honesty I fail to see the relevance in this debate.

It is not guns that kill people it's people that kill people.


Whether or not a ban of weapons is a suitable solution for a situation can only be decided in the light of the social-political climate of a country/nation.

There's a substantial amount of countries that have complete bans on weapons and have extraordinarily high crimerates. Other countries are very 'easy' on weapon distribution and have crime rates that are practically negligable (as far as crime can be disregarded that is).

For any nation counts: any form of tension left unchecked can form the basis of an increase in crime.
If you create a situation where (racial/class/religion/creed/ideological) differences are emphasized rather than properly addressed by appropriate integration planning then you create a situation where groups with opposite 'ideologies' form (time is a factor of course).

If these opposing groups are consequentially not tought to get along and are given weapons then eventually they will decide to start shooting each other over their 'ideas'.

Banning or not banning weapons seems to make very little difference in terms of deaths per year for most countries, it most likely only determines the way people get killed rather than how many people get killed.
To some extend the debate about banning weapons strikes me as an attempt at a quick fix for problems that have been around for far longer.

Since this is a fairly sensitive topic: Please note that my comments are not directed specifically at the US, many nations bring back the ban on weapons debate every couple of years and even the Netherlands is as yet undecided on the topic (although we are only considering equipping our police force with better weapons every x years).

 

[Jarrod]

I think its simply time to comb over the constitution and update all the out-of-date information.

The founding fathers never saw an assault rifle. They had 1 shot muskets and pistols, knives and swords. In those times, Guerilla warfare and Urban Combat were all but non-existant. Children were not shooting at others with semi-automatic 9mm handguns for name-brand shoes and clothing.

The 2nd Ammendment is fundamentally good, but there was no way to know what kind of advanced "arms" would be available today. New categorization would be needed for weapons. Its fairly simple:

1. Hunting
2. Personal Protection
3. Law Enforcement
4. Military (Assault)

Then modify the ammendment to specify that the arms are to include types 1 and 2 for private citizens.

but..... as simple as that is, it will never happen.

 

[bean56]

The founding fathers never saw an assault rifle. They had 1 shot muskets and pistols, knives and swords. In those times, Guerilla warfare and Urban Combat were all but non-existant. Children were not shooting at others with semi-automatic 9mm handguns for name-brand shoes and clothing.

They couldn't have won w/o the Guerilla warfare tactics that they used most of the time. I think there were quite a few children also fighting.