Ban Assault Weapons

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

That is the only thing he has.
No majority in the senate even, according to Reid, for even an "assault" weapons ban- http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/reid_downplays_chances_for_assault_gun_ban_filibuster_changes-220713-1.html?popular=true&zkPrintable=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1
 
Dam it use these weapons for our military and police and that is it.Ordinary citizens do not need these guns for protecting themselves.
 


All I will say is that our leaders need to go first with this disarmament- have them lead by example! Have them rely on the regular police instead of always-present armed bodyguards like the average Joe has to. And don't let our politicians concealed carry like Barbara Boxer does, especially since she's so much in favor of letting us little people do what she does herself. I'd have Obama go first, since he is our most powerful leader. I will bet he'll dislike giving up his small army of military bodyguards, the armored personnel carrier of a Cadillac limo he rides around in, and not to mention the chain-gun equipped Suburbans that follow him around.
 


There are more people who want Obama dead than marv.

After I've said that, I recommend marv find some protective police custody - invariably someone will try and prove me wrong 😛.
 
SAN DIEGO—Following the events of last week, in which a crazed western lowland gorilla ruthlessly murdered 21 people in a local shopping plaza after escaping from the San Diego Zoo, sources across the country confirmed Thursday that national gorilla sales have since skyrocketed.

“After seeing yet another deranged gorilla just burst into a public place and start killing people, I decided I need to make sure something like that never happens to me,” said 34-year-old Atlanta resident Nick Keller, shortly after purchasing a 350-pound mountain gorilla from his local gorilla store. “It just gives me peace of mind knowing that if I’m ever in that situation, I won’t have to just watch helplessly as my torso is ripped in half and my face is chewed off. I’ll be able to use my gorilla to defend myself.”

“Law enforcement and animal control can only get there so quickly,” Keller added. “And you never know when you’ll need to use a gorilla to save your life.”

Reports confirmed that gorilla sales have historically risen sharply in the immediate aftermath of a major gorilla attack, most notably after the 2010 tragedy in the small town of Logan, NM, where 14 people, including two 5-year-old children and a 92-year-old woman, were viciously beaten to death by a 12-year-old gorilla who spontaneously attacked patrons of a crowded grocery store.

The latest attack marked the fifth of its kind in the United States within the last six months and has reignited the explosive national debate over gorilla control, with thousands of outraged Americans reportedly demanding that their government representatives act immediately in order to prevent further bloodshed.

“We’ve had to deal with too many gorilla-related tragedies, and we’ve had to bury too many innocent, feces-covered victims,” said Nicole Simmons, president of the Mothers Against Gorillas coalition, who herself lost her 16-year-old son in the infamous Baker High School gorilla rampage of 1997. “It’s time to put an end to this. We need to get gorillas off the streets once and for all. Enough is enough.”

“The answer to this systemic problem is not more gorillas,” Simmons continued, her eyes welling with tears. “The answer is fewer gorillas.”

As evidence, Simmons pointed to a 2011 University of Maryland study, which found that 98 percent of Americans who own a gorilla have never used them for defense against a home invasion. Simmons also cited widely reported studies confirming that people who keep gorillas in the home are 12 times more likely to have their arms torn off, and children in those households are 19 times more likely to be picked up by the legs and bashed repeatedly into the ground.

Furthermore, many gorilla control advocates have reportedly called for statewide limits to the number of gorillas one can purchase and a federal ban on the ownership of silverbacks, referencing as an example the tight gorilla laws in countries such as Japan, England, and Australia, where the annual rate of gorilla crimes is virtually nonexistent.

“There is absolutely no reason—not for hunting, protection, or otherwise—that an ordinary citizen would need to possess a 600-pound silverback,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), one of the most outspoken gorilla control advocates in Congress. “The general public frankly has no business owning apes of this size, and the only people who do are zookeepers who are trained to properly handle them. Otherwise, they are nothing but a threat to society and only serve to perpetuate more violence.”

Opponents to gorilla control legislation, however, appear to be fervent in their defense of their gorilla possession rights. A spokesperson for the powerful yet controversial national gorilla lobby told reporters that a ban on gorillas would not end incidents such as that in San Diego, as those who want the large primates could simply buy them from illegal dealers who smuggle them into the country from the jungles of sub-Saharan Africa.

Many gorilla owners also told sources that the creatures are primarily used for legal hunting purposes and that the overwhelming majority of gorilla enthusiasts are completely responsible with their apes.

“Listen, it’s my God-given right as an American to have the freedom to own a gorilla to protect myself and my family,” said Nashua, NH resident James Harrington, 46, adding that he personally owns 12 different gorillas of various sizes, but keeps them “safely locked away in [his] home.” “And the government has another thing coming if they think they can come into my house and take away my gorillas.”

“What happened in San Diego was horrible, but that doesn’t mean all gorillas are bad,” Harrington added. “In fact, if every person at that mall had a gorilla, then the tragedy probably never would have even happened in the first place.”

At press time, following the increase in national gorilla sales, four isolated gorilla attacks had just been reported across the country, with the overall civilian death toll currently estimated at 37.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

Really highlights the absurdity of the whole debate.
 
I'll remember that the next time I read that a firearm pried itself out of its case, loaded itself, and started shooting people at random.

Even if you were trying to be ironic, you failed. Sorry.
 
Easy, 6 and 8 used to be the norm, they picked something in the middle to make 1/2 of the old handguns out there illegal 😛
 
Probably because more revolvers hold 6-7 rounds at max. But that isn't considered a magazine. Maybe it is time to invent a big revolver, or something more complex that isn't a magazine...

7 rounds. Hmm, does that include in the chamber?
 
Taurus makes revolvers in .357 and .44 that holds 8 rounds in the cylinder. There are a few gun makers that make revolvers in .22 LR that holds 10 round in the cylinder; the S&W 617 for example.

Are these illegal in NY or only firearms with detachable magazines?
 
Yeh, I was thinking of old-school revolvers, I've seen 8-round 22's. And if you're using a .22, you probably need all eight!
 
Considering I don't think that johnsonma understands the limitations and legal uses for Executive Orders, I would actually be interested in reading what skewed progressive logic is offered to justify further abuses of Executive power by Obama.

Considering Obama is supposed to come out with 17/19? Executive Orders, I am very interested to see what direction he is moving in. Using EO's to enforce existing federal gun laws is one thing, but using using EO's to change/amend/re-interpret/create laws is something I hope the House has the cojones to write the articles of impeachment about.

As a side note, here's a few tidbits; I was bs'ing with the Manager at a local gun shop and he said he's got a 3 day lead time on gun sales because NICS is getting BOMBARDED with requests for "instant" backgrounds checks. I was online last night looking to pick up some 5.56 for this summer's ODCMP shoots, but apparently everyone in the entire world is afraid of what Obama is going to do, not one round of 5.56 to found on 4 different websites. Last I heard, NRA membership has jumped by 100,000 people since the Newtown shooting.
 
The big tent attitude, hogwash.
Why is it, when I turn my TV on, whether its local or national news, its all about guns?
Why is it, that this has gained more attention in 1 day, 1 DAY, than Benghazi received in total?
Now that we can attiude?
Now that Obama is a lame duck we can.
Now that its been forever (in terms of conciousness, and refered to by the hippies running the joint) since the MSM has denied and poopoohed Obamas wish to limit gun ownership, and have greater controls, we can use this tragedy to deflect such old things, and progressively move forwards, and even with known recognition, just grin gowing forwards.
OK, rant over, people will win, this will hurt certain pols out there, mark my words
 
Here is a interesting read if you have the time to read it it's long but well worth it regarding the whole gun issue, I couldn't of said it any better than this guy did and this is how I feel about it being a gun individual myself.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/



 
I disagree, they hold a very important part of civilian life instead of being hopeless in a situation where someone means to do harm to me I wouldn't have it any other way but to own a gun for self defense when seconds count police are only minutes away, same goes for the recreational portion of its a hobby people have. A gun is simply a tool and nothing more, I have never come home to my guns going off on there own - people kill people simple as that.
 
By any measure, American hunters are among the most prominent and influential of all conservation demographic groups. Hunters throughout the U. S. spend about $23 billion annually on hunting-related expenditures such as hunting gear, fuel, and lodging. More than 500,000 American jobs are supported by hunters' purchases.
http://huntandfishregs.com/ks/850079-288/hunting-hunters-million-wildlife
HUSH: Help Us Stop Hunger

HUSH is a cooperative effort among deer hunters, the Food Bank of Iowa, meat lockers and the Iowa DNR. The two main goals of HUSH include:

(1) reducing the deer population while

(2) providing high-quality red meat to the needy in Iowa.

Whether you're a deer hunter, a locker owner or volunteer in your community, there is a vital role you can play.
http://www.iowadnr.gov/Hunting/DeerHunting/HelpUsStopHungerHUSH.aspx
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/cbdmp.htm

Theres many more, as each state has its use for hunting and hunters.

I ask anyone who thinks people shouldnt own guns 2 questions:
Where do you live?
How old are you?

These factors make a huge difference in peoples attitudes about gun ownership and hunting.
In lush areas, once more open, hunters kept deer populations down.
Not so anymore, and many people die each year hitting deer.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there are about 1 million car accidents with deer each year that kill 200 Americans, cause more than 10,000 personal injuries, and result in $1 billion in vehicle damage.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-31/deer-car-accidents-rise/51019604/1

Now, 200 each year, how many are killed by so called assault weapons, and the sickos who decide to break the laws of our land and use them against people?

If we stop hunting, we are truly in for it, or euthanasia and taxes will be going up

 
We never talked like this when Bush was the president about the 2nd amendment only when Obama became president. I wonder what the real truth is now with this charade on the right to bear arms. Something is up.
 
I wish my numbers added personal injury costs as well.
Im sure its more than the vehicle damage.

Unless we trun this whole country into an urban jungle, ridding ourselves of guns is a fools venture.
The revenues lost, the animal sufferage, and yet many people havnt a clue how nature works, as weve eliminated the natural order of things, as deer have nothing killing them but cars, as the wolves are long gone in most areas, and now the only thing keeping their numbers down, and people want to eliminate hunting as well?
Addressing the so called assault weapon, having just 1 cartridge in a gun once again weighs into the above arena of animal sufferage.
Oh, and then theres geese, coyotes, wolves, bear etc etc.

If people even knew what they were arguing here, it could possibly become a decent conversation.
 



Yes, people do kill people. And it's a lot easier to kill with a gun than it is with a sword or knife, or by using physical strength, or a household object, or most anything else. The fact that there are 300 million guns in the United States alone, and the fact that we have the highest death counts from gun violence, runner up only to Thailand, Columbia and South Africa, is very, very sad. Look at Japan, look at Canada, look at Australia - we have over 12,000 deaths a year from guns, whereas others are sitting under 1000, and even under 100 deaths a year, from guns.

Why should we as humans be supportive to the idea of the average public being able to easily obtain, own and be mentally trained to use a tool that is made solely for killing, and has a very high potential/success rate of doing so when used? This tool requires little to no training in order to use and can be purchased at most any sporting store or pawn shop. ...Walmart... The average person should not have access to a tool like that, because the average person isn't educated enough to understand its nature and the magnitude of its power. Period. You wouldn't put joe schmo in the cockpit of a spaceship, so why does joe schmo have a weapon so powerful?

By adopting the mindset of automatically assuming that you're going to get attacked and threatened so much to where you need to kill someone, you're accepting the idea that you're never going to live in a safe world, or even close to one, and nobody in the future will either. You ignore the idea of working towards a world where buying a gun for safety is a thing of the past and only focus on your ego and fears. Most people who own a gun never use it for self defense. Like, 97% of all people.

All it is is a business model that feeds off the media and continues to come out with cooler and cooler products as technologies advance. It's a money making industry, that's it. But the tragedy of it is that we're not talking about a smartphone, or a digital camera, we're talking about manufacturing hundreds of millions of guns and distributing them all over the country for anyone to buy and use and kill other people with; and they do! 🙁 🙁 🙁
 


The best way to put it is that this only came up as an issue now because Obama and the Democrats wanted it to. They doubtlessly were waiting for an event that they could use to push their agenda. Look at what happened in Australia- somebody went nuts in the mid-90s and that led to banning and outright confiscation of many types of previously legal firearms. I bet that Obama and the Democrats were hoping to replicate that to some degree in the U.S.

The reason gun control didn't come up during the Bush presidency is because Bush and the Republicans didn't bring it up. They didn't particularly want to violate the Constitution and infringe upon the rights of the citizens to bear arms. In fact, Bush and the Republicans quietly let the 1994 Bill Clinton and Congressional Democrat majority era "Assault Weapons Ban" expire quietly in 2004.
 


It is easiest to kill the greatest number of people with explosives, fire, and mass-transit kinds of vehicles. Our largest casualty count mass murders were committed with aircraft and a truck filled full of diesel fuel and fertilizer. The highest death count school attack was perpetuated with fire (arson.) You can't possibly ban any vehicle larger than a scooter or anything remotely flammable that's larger than a couple of ounces as it would reduce our standard of living to below that of cavemen (cavemen had sticks to burn to make fires.) So, people will be able to perpetuate high body count mass murders even if there are zero firearms on the face of the earth.

Your gun violence deaths are very misleading. You obviously did not correct for per-capita figures and the U.S. is one of the most populous countries out there which obviously skews the statistics. Luxembourg has virtually no deaths, what are they doing differently? Oh, right, it's because the entire country is about the size and population of a handful of city blocks. The figures also include suicides which are by far the most common cause of firearm-related death and this is not related to violent crime by one iota. Banning firearms will also not do much to lower the suicide rate. Trust me, suicidal people will use whatever is around. Expect deaths by other means to completely replace deaths by firearms if there are no firearms. I hope the suicidal jumper who would have shot himself in his own house doesn't land on your car and kill you too when he jumps off the overpass.

Why should we as humans be supportive to the idea of the average public being able to easily obtain, own and be mentally trained to use a tool that is made solely for killing, and has a very high potential/success rate of doing so when used? This tool requires little to no training in order to use and can be purchased at most any sporting store or pawn shop. ...Walmart... The average person should not have access to a tool like that, because the average person isn't educated enough to understand its nature and the magnitude of its power. Period. You wouldn't put joe schmo in the cockpit of a spaceship, so why does joe schmo have a weapon so powerful?

Firearms are not simply tools designed for killing other people. The vast majority of rounds are used for target practice, which is a generally harmless sport where nothing gets "hurt" besides a piece of paper or a little bit of compressed clay. They are also useful tools for wildlife and pest control.

We also do put people in charge of much more dangerous objects than firearms with very little training. They are called "automobiles" and kill many times more people annually than firearms do, even including the suicides which would have died by some other means. You can also buy automobiles nearly anywhere (there are hundreds just sitting out in the open in pretty much every town in the country!!) and you don't even need a background check of any sort to buy one!

By adopting the mindset of automatically assuming that you're going to get attacked and threatened so much to where you need to kill someone, you're accepting the idea that you're never going to live in a safe world, or even close to one, and nobody in the future will either. You ignore the idea of working towards a world where buying a gun for safety is a thing of the past and only focus on your ego and fears. Most people who own a gun never use it for self defense. Like, 97% of all people.

So I assume you are also a guy who never locks his doors, doesn't secure his wireless with encryption, and publishes all of his financial information and SSN on his Web page? If not, then what do you have to fear? We live in a *safe world,* don't we? Locking your doors and such is just an admission that you are assuming your property will get attacked!
 
Comparing Japan, Canada, and Australia is a straw man when it comes to gun control. While it makes for nice conversation to use them as a comparison, they are certainly not a standard in which to judge how well America performs in one metric or another. Japan had a rigid feudal system that never allowed the common person to have a weapon, that historical perspective has carried over into modern times. Australia was started as a penal colony and it's not like England was going to give an island full of prisoners the right to own firearms. And Canada, well, their government was born from the British and French Parliamentary system and the inherent influence of the aristocracy. Each of the countries you cite as models of gun control hold no common bonds with America's history of winning independence from their colonial overseers and none of those countries guarantees their citizens the right to bear arms. Incidentally, the FBI has consistently reported since 2006 that more people have been killed each year with hammers, clubs, and other such blunt objects than with guns. Do you think we should ban hammers and baseball bats?

I think you are overstating the public's sentiments towards firearms, recent polls indicate (especially since Newtown) that people want to restrict a mentally unstable person from being able to purchase firearms. I think you are also understating the existing laws, regulations, and background checks that are necessary for an individual to purchase a firearm. The idea that someone who has been untrained can go on a shooting rampage and have a very high success rate oversimplifies the reality of the amount of skill it actually takes to hit a target accurately. And, I also think that you underestimate the intelligence of "Joe Schmo", I think Joe knows exactly what a gun can do and is intelligent and educated enough to respect that, which is why you never hear of Joe Schmo going on a mentally imbalanced shooting rampage.

I do agree with you though that if you live with a victim's mentality that we can not progress as a society to a level where each of us can feel safe. But removing guns from society would be ineffectual unless you address the ego and the reasons a person is fearful to begin with. You have to first address the underlying causes and societal issues that creates rapists, murderers, and muggers before you remove the means for a person to feel secure or the only thing you will accomplish is just creating more victims. Personally, I would welcome such a utopia, but the reality is that human nature will never allow it. Humans have been fighting and killing since before we began walking upright and conflict is encoded into our DNA. Think if it this way, if homo habilis evolved around 2.3 million years ago and modern humans only migrated out of Africa 500,000 to 100,000 years ago, how many more years do you imagine it will take for humans to evolve to the point where buying a gun for safety is a thing of the past? Certainly not in our life time.

I'd be very curious to know if you've ever fired a pistol, shotgun, or rifle. If so, what kind of firearms was it? Have you ever purchased or attempted to purchase a firearm? If so, why did you want to buy one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.