Ban Assault Weapons

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Some of that may be true, but we're not talking about aircrafts, or car bombs, or concocting homemade explosives, we're talking about handheld, househeld guns that are manufactured by billion dollar companies, distributed to most every idiot; legally. Go to Walmart, or even just be aware of the general public you encounter throughout the day, and with each person you see ask yourself, "Would I trust that person with a gun?". 'No' will be the answer about 90% of the time.



Okay. The US has 315 million people, Japan has 1/3rd of that, yet Japan has a 1/120th of the guns death that we do. Similar finding for other countries as well. And we're not talking about suicides, we're talking about homicides. If someone wants to kill themselves, really, gravity can take care of that. Guns have nothing to do with the reason for suicide, yet guns are the reason why its so easily possible to walk into a school and masacre a group of people. How possible would that have been with any other, lesser lethal, weapon? A lot harder, and thus a lot less probable to happen. That's my point, guns make it easier, much[i/] easier to kill.



Tell me then, what were guns invented for? To kill. For war. Nothing more, nothing less. The chinese invented gun powder and it took off from there. It's not been until more recently that using guns have become a "past time sport". Target practice...practice, for what? To shoot a real target. Why do most of the paper targets have a silhouette of a person on them? Interesting.

The majority lifetime of guns have been used for the application of war and killing and hunting; all of which don't hold a place in civilian life (we've advanced beyond the average person needing to buy a gun to hunt their food. Hunting is a "sport" now, for most). What you're talking about is comparable to taking a Siberian tiger as a pet in a suburban environment; it's out of place for it's nature, and so is a gun in the hands of the average person. And it's not even like they're buying it knowing they're going to use it! Most people buy a gun for the "what if" scenario; meaning, they are buying out of fear, and companies are healthily profitting off of that fear.



You're right, most people shouldn't be on the roads. But a car and a gun aren't even close to comparable, and I'm not going to spend my time on that battle.



You're talking in extremes, whereas I'm talking about practical, everyday situations. And that's correct, I'm not defending my wireless network with a gun; I do it with AES 256 bit WPA2/PSK encryption, and that works just fine. And I lock my doors as well, and the dead bolt and lock works just fine. None of that has anything to do with buying a weapon so lethal all I have to do is point and squeeze. If you're that afraid of where you live or the people that live around you, maybe you should just move.
 
The biggest problem with the anti-liberty crowd is that they don't admit their own guilt, but the second biggest problem is that they have no grasp of reality. Take the Columbine kids as an example: They also built bombs, and would have simply built more bombs if they couldn't get guns. But reality is that those kids would have taken extraordinary measures to get both, because they were determined to gain infamy through mass casualties.

Where do they get these ideas? If it's mass-murder fan books, maybe a book burning is in order? If it's from movies, maybe a movie burning? Perhaps we should outlaw violent movies? We sue gun makers, how about if we hold movie makers responsible?

If it's from the news, maybe we should outlaw bad news? These people will find weapons no matter how many laws are in place, so maybe we should preempt that thought by removing these influences. Thought police anyone?

But it also occurred to me that most of these people are males between the age of 15 and 30. So maybe we should just lock up all males between the age of 15 and 30 in work camps?

Or, we could just blame guns...
 
I could probably crack your WPA 2 PSK with reaver-wps. 😛

8 hours.

That's what they say anyway. I have nothing to test this on.

And there's the part everyone forgets in Australian history. The part were Australians with guns massacre the native Aboriginal population.

The frontier settlements where settlers shoot Aboriginals.

Fun part of history nobody likes to remember.

I mean like we took their land, children and passed lovely pathogens to them.
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about 8 hours seeing as how my passphrase is 40 something characters long and each character was chosen for a reason. Anything past 25 characters and the chances become pretty impractical due to memory limitations and computing power. You'd be noticed anyway after sitting in front of my house for 20 something hours. Lol.

History seems to try and remain "untarnished" when it comes to these kinds of occurrences. Look at Columbus...he brought syphilis to Europe from S. America and has since it's killed about 100,000 people a year (with larger numbers at the beginning, I'm sure). But we don't want to talk about that, instead we should talk about how he 'discovered' what was already an occupied land and murked the indigenous peoples in sake of conquest, when he was really just looking for gold to begin with!

"No, I didn't find the gold I was looking for, but I did stumble upon some land and murdered a bunch of people for it!"...oh Columbus, you're so funny!

History is far from pleasant when spoken about in truths. For some reason we don't like the truth, i.e., reality.
 
Yeah, revolver fans won't be affected too much. They're following the UK path to banning firearms.

First it'll be large capacity magazines, then it'll be semi-auto style handguns.. and eventually it'll be revolvers.
Then they'll go back to targeting rifles..

Divide and conquer. Revolver fans may not really care if high capacity magazines are banned as they do not use them. Except in this country, a firearm is a firearm regardless and the people will stay united on this.
 


Sorry, I actually did overlook your posts. I don't pay as much attention to responses where I'm not quoted...

That's what I'm saying though, most people don't live in the woods, they live in the city. I reside in KY where I live in-city, but I also spend a large portion of my time on a farm. A lot of my time there is spent with the Amish, so I'm very aware and involved in a custom way of living and not being dependent on modern technologies.

So you're to say that a major reason why we need guns for the whole country is to kill the deer Iowa, because if not everyone will run into them with their cars? Come on... 200 deaths a year from deer < 12,000 deaths a year from guns. Your position seems like a stretch of sorts, and there are much more humanitarian ways of tackling issues like that. Take the Netherlands for example:

http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/ecoduct-in-the-netherlands-animal-bridge-overpass-wildlife-crossing.jpg

There are over 600 of these wildlife crossing in the Netherlands alone. I'm sure its made a very positive impact on the wildlife, as well as promote a better way of thinking. Iowa is just one state out of 50, so I don't see why just one state and their status of deer meat is equal to the whole country and the sanctity of human life.
 
Hey, guess what?
Deer populations are regulated, and if you had read my various links, you would know state after state is having problems with this, and that theyre actually upping the number of deer, or extending the hunting times, or allowing hunts in areas where they once werent available.
The Iowa link was one where hunters hunt for the poor, where they cant afford food, yes even today in this utopia we live in.
So, eliminate 500,000 jobs that rely upon hunting, however many that rely upon the factories that make guns, and the buffalo didnt die by guns, and people shouldnt live in Alaska
 


All of those stories are rare situations, which is why they make the news and gain such high exposure. You're basing the rule off the exception, and that's not proper logic.

Take the number of people that go unharmed, unthreatened in one day and multiply that by the number of days in a year those people go unharmed. Then, take the number of articles that are published, ones that share a similar nature to those posted in that link, and even combine it with the number of gun violence reports, and you still get a number that's extremely, extremely small number compared to the figure representing those unthreatened. Just guessing, but there are probably 200 million people that go unaffected by violence every day, and a much, much smaller amount where they "need" a gun. Times that by every day out of a year, times 60 years. It would be 100000000000:1. An exaggeration, I admit, but hopefully you can see point.

And these aren't even occurrences that you see or experience in real life! Most people just read about them on the Internet or see them on the news. And the Internet/media is very good at making the world seem smaller than it really is. I could fart here in KY, in the privacy of my home and post it on Twitter (if I had one) and someone in Australia can be made aware of that fart 5 seconds later. Again, most gun purchases are done so out of fear, but there's not as much to fear as one thinks.

I worked with a woman once who told me she was from Montana. Guns are a way of living there, so she says. She told me she gave her son a crossbow for his 4th birthday. There's no way you can tell me that there's nothing wrong with that...
 
Now, since they were granted by the government the right to own guns, hunt with them, then why the change?
Oh thats right, people are using guns outside of those rights, even natives.
Whats the solution?
Ban the guns.
Sound logic there eh?
Dont go after those who use them illegally , since its something that cant be stopped, much like the drug war.
I think anyone riding in the same car as someone illegally carrying prescription drugs or plain ol illegal drugs should be held as responsible as those actually carrying the drugs?
Is this the right attitude?
 



Okay, 162 pages times, say, 12 articles per page. That's still under 2000 articles and those articles are over a 60 year time span. That's only 33 articles a year on average, 3 instances a month. so again, compare that number of people who go unharmed day to day, multiply that by 365, and then multiply that over a 60 year time span. Like I said, 1000000000:1.

Changes wouldn't happen overnight, and they wouldn't be "all or nothing". There would also be supporting legislature to assist that change in thinking/living. Again, I don't see why people are so supportive of a society that promotes violence and offers easier methods for killing other people in the every day life; as I'm walking to school, going into work, attending a baseball game, going to the mall, etc.
 
What ever happened to embracing what it means to be human and having a more sophisticated, humane way of living? The only thing that's changed over time is the technology we use, not how we use/think of it. We're still barbaric and simple in our ways of reasoning, and are very ego driven. It's much easier to be apart of the system than it is to fight it.

Of course I don't want people to get harmed, and of course I want people to feel safe, but you don't do that by bringing more weapons into the picture. The chances of your house getting broken into, or of you being a victim of random violence, is just the same as before you bought the gun as after you bought the gun. The only difference is that you "think" you're prepared and properly trained, and will be safe because of it. Well, that is a false sense of security.
 


So instead of just dealing with the situation, buying a gun, why not try to fix the problem? The problem stems from poverty, from drugs, and from a lack of education. People don't normally steal if they're content with themselves. People don't normally lose control of their anger and shoot someone they love when they're been properly educated to control their emotions, or aren't on serious drugs.

Yes, I'll stop crime by shooting the criminal. How does that make any sense at all?
 



Okay, but how many are caused by firearms? A hell of a lot more...
 
Yes, the planet is conquered.
There are no wild beasts, governments are all civilized now, and not 1 wants to take advantage of people.


Nunavut Tunngavik may drop gun registry lawsuit
External Links
Judge extends Inuit gun law exemption
MPs vote to abolish long-gun registry
IN DEPTH: Implementing the Firearms Act
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites - links will open in new window)
Recent gun crimes have two judges in Nunavut questioning the Inuit exemption from the federal firearms registry, including the judge who granted the exemption.

But a lawyer with Nunavut Tunngavik, which launched the legal challenge of the gun registry's application to Inuit people, said it is unlikely anything will change, especially since there is currently a bill before Parliament that would abolish the long-gun registry.

Under a court injunction, Inuit are not required to register their guns until the resolution of the legal challenge by Nunavut Tunngavik, the Nunavut land claims organization.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2010/07/26/north-gun-registry-inuit-exemption-questioned.html

So, take away their rights as well.
 
If there are no firearms at all, there's no chance for anyone to die from firearms! Don't you all get that? The average person isn't going to make their own gun. The average person isn't going to make a homemade explosive. What matters is the average, the majority people. There will always be outlying situations, but they're just that, and you can't base a rule off the exception.

JAYDEEJOHN, you're posting articles that are almost 3 years old about places that have a total population of 30,000 people, who live all the way up in northernmost Canada, and is defined as "one of the most remote, sparsely settled regions in the world".

How is this article at all related to the United States and the immediate danger of you walking out your front door and getting shot for no reason?
 
Some people would say that the decline of soceity and the lack of embracing a more humanre way of living died when the laws of Man superseded the laws and morality of religion. Some would say that a more humane way of living went away when the federal government legally sanctioned the killing of unborn children i.e.; popularizing abortion. Some people would say that we abandoned the road to being more humane when the People stopped being reliant on themselves and became more dependent on the federal government to provide their subsistence.

Look a the the statistics themselves rather than expressing your opinion as fact. I will agree that your chances of having your home broken into are more or less the same whether you have a gun or not. However, what the FBI statistics show is a significant reduction in the number of violent crimes after any given State passed concealed carry laws, i.e.; Florida, Wisconsin, Alabama, Louisiana, and many more. If allowing more guns did not result in making people feel safe, then please explain why the number of States with concealed carry laws increased from 9 States in 1986 to 41 States in 2011. In fact, there have been numerous international studies that have proven that the availability of firearms does NOTHING to reduce murder, rape, and suicide and that banning or limiting firearms in any way does NOTHING to address the basic social, economic, and/or cultural factors that cause violent crime.

While I respect your opinion, your rational is flawed. The statistics and reality of the laws are in direct conflict with how you feel and what you think should be done in America to curb violent crime.
 
OK, heres some parallels
They were granted by a Eoropean type government the right to carry and use guns.
For US, the 2nd amendment.
They didnt have guns before, but a major part of their subsistance is from hunting.
We have always had the right to own guns, and most here in their lineage did own them, for protection and the hunt.
Is this fair to to whom here?
The Inuits need to hunt, but they now have guns, its a tool, but, now that theyre being used against their fellow man, the government seems its OK to step in and put more regulations on them, where they were there forst, albeit without guns, unlike here.

Oh, as an asside, Alaska, which Ive mentioned many a time here, well, like I said, go for a walk, collect your firewood, because you need it, no gas pipeline for you.
Oh, dont bring a gun, just reason with the bears, and Alaska can be miles north of this hinterland you give no credence to, nor their native culture, which is part of one of your statements
 


Right, and now your daughter is corrupt with having someone's blood on her hands, and who knows how she'll turn out for the rest of her life. And that's another death from a gun, only increasing the problem.

But reverse that situation. You think that its logical for a 7 year old girl (though I'm guessing your daughter isn't 7) to hold the power to kill a 50 year old grown man? I don't. And what's the difference between someone who is older and more mature when compared to a child...? Understanding and awareness, which is what a gun owner needs to have.

That's my point exactly. It shouldn't be so easy to kill someone else...you can still carry a weapon. A taser gun, high impact pellet gun, etc. But why does it have to be life or death?

And you're taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm sure that strangulation has a decent amount of deaths a year too, but I'm not suggesting to ban people from having hands, or from making rope; whatever. Lol. That, just as you mentioning banning hammers, is absurd.
 
By the same logic, no one would be killed by drunk drivers if we stopped everyone from owning cars. Are you personally willing to give up owning or driving your own private property to save lives?

You're right, the average law abiding citizen will not make a gun at home or make an explosive. But this is just another example of why your rational is misdirected. Every one of the mass shootings that have occurred since Columbine have been perpetrated by mentally unstable persons who needed psychiatric help. Given that these mass shootings are the result of someone who is mentally unstable, and you even state in the above quote that there will always be outlying situations and that you can't base a rule off the exceptions, why do you deny your own admission and continue to push for banning all firearms for all people; that makes no sense!
 
Simply look at Australia and their gun ban. After it went into effect, violent crimes went up.

How about the UK? The Bobbies are now armed.. in a place where guns are banned. Why do they need to be armed? Because all the criminals with guns!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom