Ban Assault Weapons

Page 13 - 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.
Australia implemented such draconian gun control measures (by American standards) that it had no choice but to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That report, which is very interesting and tells a compelling story, only confirms the obvious; if you remove firearms from society then less deaths will occur as a result. The same principle can be made for reducing deaths as a result of drunk drivers; if we remove cars from the road, then less deaths will result.

You can not compare gun ownership in Australia to gun ownership in America; our history, laws, and culture is too different. Might as well compare the history, laws, and culture of Japan to America when it comes to gun ownership.


 
So in effect you think that the Swiss have high gun ownership rates and low crime rates because of their culture?

The reason Switzerland has such a low crime rate despite the private ownership of weapons (which are banned in the United States) is because the Swiss mentality towards firearms can not be transposed onto the current reality of violence in America.
Click to expand...

You just said youself that the Swiss example is one that America cant follow as of now.... Therefore its not a great example considering our cultures are setup very differently.

The Swiss also have a great welfare system....
 
Again, you have found an @sshole teacher, not a progressive conspiracy.

And again I can not stress this enough, it would be very easy for me to post images and news stories of conservatives acting like loonies, but I dont. Not because it wouldnt take me more than a few minutes.... but because then the argument spirals into who can find a crazier example of the other party. All the while the people we cite dont really represent the party or the party ideals

AKA no one wins.

I mean its not like there havent been meltdowns and the wrong reactions by conservatives time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.


Also Chunks and OMG you both seem to think that adopting systems other countries have would work here, so is the status quo OK?

 
I don't think that, it's what has been proven.

No. I did not say that the Swiss example is one that America can not follow. You are taking that one sentence out of context from the whole.

What I also said was, please note there is no verbiage stating that America should follow the Swiss example,
Switzerland is an excellent example of a government that promotes and guarantees a culture of responsible gun ownership by law and perpetuates responsible gun ownership throughout their society.
Click to expand...
Yes, Switzerland does have a great welfare system, just keep in mind that their welfare system is also written into the Swiss Constitution; Section 8: Housing, Social Security, and Health.
 
That's your interpretation and reading into what I have written.

Also, your question is disingenuous. Of course the status quo is not OK! I might as well ask you, Do you think that it's OK for mentally unstable persons to commit heinous acts of violence against the most innocent in our society?

It's not a question of whether we think the status quo is okay. I do not think you would agree the status quo is ok. I think we can both agree on that something must be done.

But there's the rub. What and how to make the changes necessary to achieve the desired results.

So, if that's an agreeable commonality, what do you think needs to be changed to prevent mentally unstable person from committing mass shootings?

 
Are teachers smarter than a 5 year old?
Apparently not.
Who makes up the largest contingent in the dems conventions, year after year?
The teachers unions.
Do we actually need to send kids to councilors before a highly educated, decently paid, higher than the private sector pay anyways, person, an adult, can figure this out?
Are we so far away as to discerning such trivial things as this, and still wonder why there is a problem of good decent law abiding people wishing to retain their constitutional rights?
How is this not seen as an aberration, where 2 5year old girls, especially girls, want to go home and play, and the educated adult whos been educated in this superior, cure all fix all educated society, by cure all professors at great institutions, cant simply figure this out?
Are they just daft?
Or, possibly, now admit it if you can, there is a certain lack of understanding going on here, and the mindset is severe enough to create highly educated people that cant figure this out on their own, calls in a councilor for help?
You could normally blame a teacher here or there, or you could say it was only this one teacher, but you have to also follow thru.
Now, what happened?
The girls ended up being suspended.
OK, this eliminates only the teacher.
They are all adults at the school, mening the teachers, priciples, councilors etc.
Cant blame irrational singularity here, as it took more than one to solve the problem, with a wrong ending.
So, lets move to this educated group here.
Why as a whole were they unable to solve this?
Lets backtrack, they were all adults, all highly educated, and placed in care of our children.
OK, what and or who put them there?
They all failed, as a group.
One mindset.
Who taught them this mindset?
Why do they think this is OK?

People say they cant understand people wanting to own guns, and Im starting to believe them, no matter how mature, how educated they are, I believe that yes, they simply cant understand


PS

If I dont understand something, when I was young, I would tell people they didnt understand, and try to force my non experience upon them, basically, I was being imature.
Now, when I dont understand something, I try not to make people do as I think it should go, before I understand, being mature.
This isnt whats happening here.
 
Also, according to the counselor's letter, the girl had "no play guns or play knives," either in the bus line or at home, where her mother prohibited them.

"It would appear that (the girl) does not have those risk factors identified for violent behavior," the therapist wrote. "It would also seem that (she) had no harmful or predatory intent in the comments she made to her friends about the bubble 'gun' but did not recognize the heightened sensitivity and awareness of her friends and the response that may result from her comments."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pennsylvania-girl-suspended/index.html

Now, lets "learn" from the wisened councilor.
Risk factors?
Was the councilor refering to toy guns? Games? What "risk" factors?
In context with the preceding paragraph, it would seem toy play guns.
Oooops, its a Hello Kitty toy play gun, no risk there.
In todays world, Ive heard and read guns owners must be extremely desensitized by wishing to carry out their constitutional rights.
How about over sensitized?
From people that havnt a clue?
Like we were all teens again, and this was all new to us, and our world was ending because someone called out a trivial blemish?
Where, I ask again, is the education, the maturity, the common sense, and should we at least wait til it shows up before creating laws effecting law abiding citizens, and lett ing them have their say, with our ears, minds and maturity attached?
 


By no means is that "justice". Killing someone should be a last resort and not be honored, in any light. Yes, it's very fortunate the woman was able to protect her and her family, but it's still very unfortunate that she had to kill another human being to do so. This is a major reason why so many deaths occur; a neglect and unawareness of the sanctity of human life. :pfff:
 
In Australia, early on, did they hunt Elk?
Bear?
Moose?
Even rabbit?
Deer?
Mountain Lion?
Buffalo?
Wolf?
Coyote?
Big Horn sheep (careful here) ?
Caribou?
Fox?
Martin?
Otter?
Beaver?
to name some.
Were these or any indigenous animals paramount in the forming of Australia?
Was there subsistancy from doing so?

As for the sanctity of human life, sure, lets once again ignore the innocent, lets ignore a mother and her childrens right to not be threatened to their very life by a man carrying a deadly weapon.
Lets ignore his intentions, and while doing so, the world all goes to commercial, and the man realizes what hes doing is wrong and walks away, thus preserving the sanctity of human life.
If only.
Let the terrorist hit you against your head, turn away.
Let him stomp your feet, turn away, let him punch your child, turn away, let him cut your spouse, turn away with thst gun in your hand.
You can replace terrorist with thug, druggie and just a violent criminal.

Maybe that criminal had been thru "corrections, but was never corrected, by the failures of the justice system, just your bad luck, and let fate settle where it will.
Sorry, not for me and most of us.
Tho, most of us will fight and die for your very right to feel and say such things
 


Keep celebrating murder then.
 
I agree with you Gamer. I am all for "reasonable" restrictions. Living in New Jersey and living under existing law that subjects me to a mental health AND criminal background check, that is the "reasonable" extent I am willing to go under the current laws. To further explain New Jersey gun laws, you need a Firearms ID Card in order to buy any long-guns. In order to get this ID card, you must subject yourself to a one time mental health and criminal background check as well as supply two non-family character references. In order to purchase a handgun, you must separately apply for a Permit To Purchase A Handgun, one permit per handgun, the permit is valid for 90 days, and NJ has a one hand gun per calendar month purchase limit. The "Permit to Purchase" requires a separate mental health and criminal background check as well as again supplying two non-family character references. Then at the time of actually purchasing any firearms, I am subject to one more criminal background check, the Federal NICS database. WOW! In New Jersey alone, there are up to an including three separate instances where I am subjected to criminal background checks. And yet, somehow Camden NJ continues to rank tops in murders by handguns; whole lot good those background checks are doing to stop criminals!

If laws were to be changed, I would trade more a intrusive criminal and mental health check for the ability own and purchase firearms that are currently banned in New Jersey. I mean, if I am going to trade my 4th Amendment rights and willingly subject myself to more stringent checks into my private life, then I want that intrusion to be offset by less restrictions on the type and style of firearms I can own and purchase. After all, if I pass a more stringent background check, doesn't that prove that I am a more responsible citizen and able to handle the responsibility of owning an AR-15 with a flash suppressor and bayonet lug? See, that's reasonable, a little give and take on both sides.

But that's the joke Gamer, anti-gun progressives and liberals are unwilling to define "reasonable". They do not want give and take...they only want to take!
 
Its simply disengenuous to celebrate death.
When a man puts others in this no win situation, there is little to celebrate, other than the good survive, but doesnt mean our hands are clean, this I understand, but to do nothing, and take no steps is simply waiting for you own death to come, and the good fade into history

If people insist that this is a celebration of death, then I refer to a former general who said:
I want you to remember that no bas+ard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bas+ard die for his country.

 


If you get satisfaction from knowing that someone was shot and killed, that's sick; regardless of the context. Do you think that mother was happy to kill the intruder? I highly doubt it. But does she get happiness knowing that she was able to protect her family? Yes.

You're mixing the two together.
 


Not a conspiracy, just a fact? Haha, OMG you crack me up man. One video of a dumb*** principal and you construe that as a fact for educators throughout the country! God didn't create guns, why would he/she/it make it a right to have one? Its an American right to own one but not a God given right.
 


Thank you. That's all I'm saying.

So going from here, wouldn't it be more beneficial to try and find a solution that doesn't involve even more violence and death, as apposed to continuing this cyclical means of "dealing" with the situation through guns and violence?

Change has to start somewhere, and I think we all can agree that it won't be the criminals making positive change. I'm not saying to let people break into your house and steal your stuff, or to get away with crimes, but a restructuring of our nation's priorities and funding needs to happen if anything's to get better.

Like I've said before, people don't generally steal if they have enough money to provide for themselves and their family. And people don't generally kill if there's no threat to them or the ones they love. So...
 


If God didn't create guns, or at least the materials to make guns, how are they here? Are you implying that there's another God, or that man is just as powerful as God and can manifest new materials/minerals into existence, specifically for the purpose to make guns? I'm pretty sure God created aluminum, steel, plastic, sulfur, charcoal, etc.

You speak as if God is this tender, kind entity that doesn't do any harm...if that's the case, why are tornados? Or hurricanes? Or lightning that causes forest fires? Or diseases that wipes out hundreds of millions, even billions, over the course of time? Or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Why did God play games with Job and make him suffer so much if he's so pure? Job lost his family, friends, wealth, his health; everything he knew. And why did God do this? ...Just to prove a point to the devil (according to the Bible).

Guns seem to fit quite well within all this destruction.
 

I will give you another quote, read it carefully:
[Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flag and loyalty-parades…. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.

At every step in our history, theres been some leader, some group willing to chase this dream.
Its not for money, or lack thereof, its pure prejudice, or, I think/believe/deserve better than you.
So, to not expect people to change is simply not expecting people to change, whether they are good and poor, or rich and evil, and all points in between.
Its not why the Menendez did what they did because they were poor
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=menendez%20brothers&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLyle_and_Erik_Menendez&ei=KF4BUeb3GMfU2QW0yoCoBA&usg=AFQjCNGCAKDK98SuSUuKbCEmXxzo2NF0bw&bvm=bv.41524429,bs.1,d.b2I

The boys at Columbine werent poor.
Most if not all these people werent poor, so, this is not the issue, and to expect people to change, and have others still not be expected to be responsible for their actions is just continuing what theyve done their entire life.
These crooks/thugs/murderers arent children, and get no such free ride.

While I can agree with you that the morally correct can lift themselves to a higher ideal, often times they do, and this should be celebrated, but seldom is, because no good news is real news.
There are organizations all thruout our country that give a hand up to the morally weaker peoples of our society, and these too should be celebrated, but since often they dont want the noteriety, or theyre faith based, again, no good news is news.

So, the solution in an instance reaction isnt a long planned out scenario, its simply there to preserve life.
That the good survive is reason to celebrate, and by your admittance, there isnt much to be expected from the bad man, so then am I to believe that the loss then is minimized?
Neither you or I would agree with this, but to admit the good having the right to defend themselves is the beginnings of the right things to do is also a start
 
From the Washington Post, Lawmakers unveil new assault weapons ban
Democratic lawmakers formally reintroduced a bill Thursday that would ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, the most ambitious — and politically risky — element of proposals unveiled by President Obama to limit gun violence.
Click to expand...
The “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013″ is a much more far-reaching proposal than the federal ban that expired in 2004. The proposal would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing or importation of more than 150 specific firearms, including semiautomatic rifles or pistols that can be used with a detachable or fixed ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and have specific military-style features, including pistol grips, grenade launchers or rocket launchers.
Click to expand...
It excludes more than 2,250 firearms used for hunting or other sport, and assault weapons lawfully owned before the law’s enactment. But it would require background checks for the sale or transfer of grandfathered weapons and would bar the sale or transfer of large-capacity feeding devices owned before the bill’s enactment. Current assault weapon owners also would need to safely store their firearms. Unlike the original federal ban passed in 1994, the new ban would be permanent.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

From the Daily Caller, Feinstein calls for banning more than 150 types of firearms during dramatic press conference
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein staged a dramatic press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill with 10 weapons at her side and unveiled legislation instituting a government ban on more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Feinstein announced the introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein — who has long history of calling for gun bans — would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.
Click to expand...

Below is an image of the proposal listing the specific firearms to be banned. NOTE, this list is not all-inclusive as the proposed gun ban also calls for the ban of firearms that "are-like" those in the list as well as prohibit the manufacturing of weapons that "are-like" those on the list, i.e; it bans over 2200 individual models of firearms from various manufacturers.
Feinstein-Weapons-Ban-e1359047805173.jpg


Do you consider this "reasonable" legislation aimed at stopping criminals and the mentally unstable persons from committing heinous acts of violence? Or, do you consider it another Progressive/Liberal/Democrat gun grab that will have no effect on reducing crime and make law-abiding citizens into instant criminals?

Regardless of your opinion, pro or anti, I encourage you to contact you Federal and State representatives to exercise your rights in our representative Republic to support or oppose to making such a ban Federal law. Don't be one of the sissies who curses the darkness because the law failed or passed. If you don't know your Federal and State representatives, then FUC*I#G GOOGLE IT!
 
d00d, most of those weapons are collector's stuff. Heck, the Uzi Mini Carbine was once sold through an ad in Parade magazine, in a glass collector's case!
 
Here's the stupidity of this ban, specifically referring to the Colt Match Target Rifle. I own one of these that I use for the ODCMP shoots. The ODCMP is a program sponsored by the federal government that only allows you to use a "service rifle"; which includes AR-15 of which the Colt Match Target Rifle is. So, as a result, if this ban passed, the federal government would be condoning laws contrary to existing statute! Forget the fact that I would be out a rifle and unable to participate in the CMP shoots!

To further this stupidity, the Colt Match Target Rifle was originally banned in New Jersey as part of the 1994 AWB, solely because it met the cosmetic criteria for an "assault weaon" as defined by the 1994 AWB. But because Colt produces these mostly for the civilian and competitive shooting market, and the fact that the receiver is manufactured differently than military issue Colt rifles, New jersey lifted the ban on them and made the Colt Match Target Rifle legal to own in New Jersey. Now, the same rifle which was modified by the manufacturer to meet the 1994 AWB requirements and was proven to be "significantly different" than similar military issue Colt AR-15's, will now be wholly illegal for me to own.

Thank you anti-gunners for potentially turning me into a criminal or forcing me to give up my private property without due compensation!

God bless America!
 
North Korea has just announced its going to let off another nuke.
Now, some may ask, whats this have to do with guns, and people and ownership.

Let me explain.
Many of the arguments here go:
Only the military/police need these weapons.
OK, then lets put this into perspective as well.
A person is not a country.
Here, a person is allowed to have a gun, and even those that some have tried to corner and cut out.
Everything is equal, save those whod eliminate gun ownership.

Now, lets play real, fair and honest.
Country to country, not all countries have nukes.
Just like people, some countries dont with to have them, and wont go in this direction.
Just like people, some do have them, and respectfully kept them within a certain atmosphere of regulation.
Now we get to my North Korean bit.
They have/want nukes.
The responsible ones, those without nukes, they dont want North Korea to have them, at all.
Currently, I see no nation that has nukes saying to North Korea, we will get rid of ours if you stop trying to make yours.
Not one.
Yet, some people here are asking the other people here to give up their constitutional right, and tho they dont even have a gun, well some demand it.
Now, it would be nice to give up our nukes, but then, I would argue with good sense we cant simply do this with our guns.
I mentioned Alaska earlier, hunters, animal overpopulation etc for those reasons.
But the bottom line is, NK is trying to get them, nobody wants them to have them, as WE ALL recognize that NK is irresponsible, thuggish and aggressive.
Kinda sounds like all those numbers that make up gun deaths people except for suicides which somehow for political reasons are just included into the numbers, that its the sick, bad guys doing this, just as we fear NK would do the same.

Now, until those who would have us rid ourselves of our guns get up and say we need to rid ourselves of nukes first, in a show of good heartedness, or with good reasons of mans supposed consciousness risen, higher societal evolution has come, then they can come and ask for our guns, or, you first
 


No. You are talking about why an otherwise law-abiding person would be driven to steal and kill. However criminals aren't law-abiding. They are driven by any number of reasons to steal and kill, often involving theft for supporting a drug habit and theft/murder for increasing their social status in a gang. You can give a druggie a welfare check that's large enough for them to afford a nice house and plenty of food and they would still blow it all on drugs and then steal things to get yet more drugs. You can give a gang member a welfare check that's large enough for them to afford a nice house and plenty of food and they'll still kill opposing gang members and steal things to get even flashier jewelry/clothes/rims/etc. to improve their social status.

But nice "it's all the evil anti-socialist, gun-worshipping Republicans' fault" troll, though. You are certainly persistent...
 
Wake up people! Gun bans will solve nothing! Personally I don't think having more guns will make society as whole any safer, but neither will banning them. All it will do is deny law abiding citizens the means to an effective self defense. Help protect OUR rights by opposing any efforts to ban "assault weapons". Don't encourage anyone on the left or the right to enact any law which serves to further the erosion of our freedoms and liberties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom