No, it doesnt make it any more dangerous than the version without it. It just gives the Democrats (who obviously want the ban reinstated) a chance to rape US Citizens of their freedom a little bit more. I want the rights that the founding fathers of this country had. I want to be able to do what they did when they built the country. Everything must be morally correct, of course. And I dont think me owning a rifle with a couple of extra features on it makes me a dangerous person to be feared, if you break into my house...that's a different story.
But nonetheless, people just want reasons to complain, and the communists...er Democrats just want to strip people of a little bit more of their freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 13 2004, 07:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 13 2004, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Guns are made to kill people. Killing people is bad.
I could come up with some well reasoned argument, but americans killing other americans doesnt affect me here in the UK, were guns are banned. So keep on shootin boys. YEEE HAAAAA *bang* *bang* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, going gun free must be the reason violent crime shot way up after England instituted their handgun ban? While the U.S. crime rate is at it's lowest point since 1973, when they started compiling statistics?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This isn't the end though, Feinstein is going to try and push new leglislation that will update the ban. Seriously, there is no need for Assault Rifles in your modern day life. Don't use the second amendment on me either because that amendment was meant for people 200 years ago when their were threats of Native-Americans and the British invading neither of which exist today. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not the business of the government to tell me what I do and do not need. I'm perfectly capable of determining that for myself. Right now, myself is telling me that "assault weapons" are perfectly fine for people to possess.
Assault weapons =/= automatic weapons. Those are still restricted to class 3 firearms liscense holders in the 1934 National Firearms Act.
This ban, in both the statistical sense and in the effectiveness sense has no real merit. They made this ban as more of a symbolic kind of thing rather than anything really limiting your gun experience (other than a high-cap clip, if that matters to you at all). One useless ban down the drain, hopefully it stays there.
Take a look at this graph, published by the CDC, and then tell me we need to ban firearms. <img src='http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/images/death_causes1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
It is late, the same arguements are being used so I will post a few of my old posts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With basic machining tools (like the kind in many personal workshops) I could build a fully automatic rifle. In less than 24 hours.
Lets say we somehow ban all firearms. How long will it be until the Mafia sets up underground firearm factories? Nothing required to make a firearm is illegal (unless you banned metal lathes and drill presses) How would you stop this? Heck. The UK cannot stop organized crime from smuggling cars past customs and it is an island. How are you going to stop something the size of a wallet?
Once you drive a product to the black market, you lose all control of it.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
Those 2% gives their lives to satisfy your unnessary needs, for, as you said principles.. Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt..
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Sep 14 2004, 02:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Sep 14 2004, 02:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those 2% gives their lives to satisfy your unnessary needs, for, as you said principles.. Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Assuming guns majikly disapeared... those 2% would be killed by knives, swords, maces, arrows, ninja stars, shoes, chairs, and other assorted items in the area.
"Sure, Bush says, he would sign a renewal of the ban, which theoretically puts him on the side of the majority..."
However...
"...the NRA is planning to spend $400,000 a week until the election to condemn John Kerry's votes for gun control. Overall, the organization expects to spend $20 million on this election, mostly to help Republican candidates. Bush is not about to offend these guys."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Sure, Bush says, he would sign a renewal of the ban, which theoretically puts him on the side of the majority..."
However...
"...the NRA is planning to spend $400,000 a week until the election to condemn John Kerry's votes for gun control. Overall, the organization expects to spend $20 million on this election, mostly to help Republican candidates. Bush is not about to offend these guys." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like what you SHOULD be banning is people swaying political opinion with funds <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, about those 2% of firearm related deaths...you forgot to include suicides and accidents. And another thing, most crimes involving firearms probably arent with Assault Rifles, but small caliber, cheap handguns and shotguns.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Sep 13 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Sep 13 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Sep 13 2004, 05:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Sep 13 2004, 05:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Criminals do not register their guns. They would not even be able to register them if they tried (assuming that background check laws are somewhat intelligent and followed).
Nor will a law prevent criminals from getting guns. They're criminals. They'll work around it. If you're going to rob a bank or something, you might as well get an illegal firearm.
So yeah, making laws (particularly dumb and useless ones) won't make any difference to the crims, but could potentially make a difference to a hobbyist or whatever.
Things won't get any better until we reform the institutions that create violent gun-toting madmen out to get money, and stop selling guns to the ones who still exist at gun shows and whatnot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would as well get an illegal firearm? As I see it, it's kinda easy to get a friend to buy a firearm.. Most other nations doesnt suffer as much from gun related crimes, and dont have the same kind of gangwars
And please tell how it wouldnt matter not to ban them? An average criminal would get them how? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple. If you get a friend to buy you a gun, he'll have to register it in his name. He is now an accessory to crime, and he'll rot in jail with you.
And you make the punishments for not properly registering a firearm hefty. Triple them if the the firearm is involved in a crime. Whatever. You can throw the book at someone who commits a violent crime without punishing the innocent.
How will criminals get guns if they're illegal, you ask? Same way US citizens aquire drugs: smuggle them or grow their own (more smuggle than become a blacksmith, naturally, but people do build or heavily modify their own).
The other way guns used in crimes are procured is via crooked gun show/gun shop sellers, who do a little "under the counter" business. They get away with it pretty easily, since we spend our time making dumb laws instead of spending resources solving problems, and keep doing it because there's good money in it. Crack down on them.
The vast majority of violent criminals are repeat offenders (cue discussion of fundamental flaws in US punishment system in <i>another</i> thread), so not selling guns to people who are obviously trouble and have voided some of their rights via crime would go a long way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Sep 14 2004, 02:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Sep 14 2004, 02:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those 2% gives their lives to satisfy your unnessary needs, for, as you said principles.. Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First, you have yet to state why such needs are unnessecery. Remember that I do not have to prove why as you are the one who wants to change the law.
2% includes all deaths by firearms. That includes police, suicide, accidents, justifiable homocide(self defense). In addition, the vast majority of this 2% was not committed by so called assault weapons. In fact, less than 1% of firearm deaths are the result of assault weapons.
1% of 2% is 0.02%
So, less than 0.02% of all causes of death is related to 'assault' weapons. More people die from second hand smoke. Hell, more people die from their sexual behavior than by these firearms. Smoking is completely pointless so why don't we ban it? The reason is that cigarettes are not as scary as 'assault' weapons though they are far more deadly.
I can cut the number even further. Diane Feinstein(Gun ban champion) herself notes that 85% of all firearms used in crime are committed with illegal or stolen firearms. With this statistic, we can determine that only 0.003% of deaths are caused by legal assault weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin-Burncycle+Sep 14 2004, 12:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 14 2004, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Sure, Bush says, he would sign a renewal of the ban, which theoretically puts him on the side of the majority..."
However...
"...the NRA is planning to spend $400,000 a week until the election to condemn John Kerry's votes for gun control. Overall, the organization expects to spend $20 million on this election, mostly to help Republican candidates. Bush is not about to offend these guys." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like what you SHOULD be banning is people swaying political opinion with funds <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that's been happening for years, which I'm sure we all agree <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> What is interesting to me is the sides everyone is taking. Is pro-NRA also pro-Bush?
I think we Euros have to accept that owning a firearm is a tradition in the USA. Here in Germany we have very strict laws regarding firearms and after a school massacre we had also bans of so called non-sporting firearms but I wouldn’t care if I get killed by a Glock 18 or a USP Match (one of them is classified as non-sporting firearm and one not). I prefer not to get killed.
It’s a fact that banns are not very effective and you can’t easily prohibit a tradition. I don’t know the exact things you have to fulfil to get a firearm in the USA (and they may differ from state to state) but I see the problem of everybody can own a firearm and are not educated in using them. The secondary problem is that your police forces are facing more often more dangerous threats (or have to be prepared for it). German police officers wont faces the problem getting threatened by an assault rifle.
I think a good solution would be to have a forced education if you want to own one and that you get forced to own a secured storage for them like a lockable locker made of metal. As gun owner you have similar responsibility like as a driver and if you want to drive you have to go to driving school.
My personal opinion is that nobody should be allowed to own a firearm only if he’s a sport shooter, hunter or needs it for his job. If you want to shoot: go to the army.
But I respect your tradition <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+Sep 14 2004, 09:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ Sep 14 2004, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My personal opinion is that nobody should be allowed to own a firearm only if he’s a sport shooter, hunter or needs it for his job. If you want to shoot: go to the army.
But I respect your tradition <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is less about tradition and more about symbolism.
The right to own a firearm is symbolic of individualism and self-determination. Americans have a tradition of resisting external influences in their lives. While I have no plans on moving to Montana and living off the land, but I could.
I like being self-sufficient and do not want the government to take over any of my responsiblities.
(I do not wish to kill another individual. That is my choice and therefore I do not want to go to the army)
It’s a fact that banns are not very effective and you can’t easily prohibit a tradition. I don’t know the exact things you have to fulfil to get a firearm in the USA (and they may differ from state to state) but I see the problem of everybody can own a firearm and are not educated in using them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Education has little to do when it comes to people killing each other. Though it would reduce the number of firearm accidents. But again, that has nothing to do with the violent uses of such things.
Bans are ineffective because there will always be a venue for obtaining the banned item. Firearms are easy to produce, and easier to smuggle than drugs. They do not set off chemical detectors and dogs cannot sniff them out. They can be shipped in nonidentifying pieces to fool visual inspectors.
Bans didn't work with alcohol. It isn't working with drugs. And bans won't (and haven't) work with firearms.
Ban firearms and all you do is transfer control of firearms to the mafia.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 14 2004, 08:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 14 2004, 08:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Sep 14 2004, 02:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Sep 14 2004, 02:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those 2% gives their lives to satisfy your unnessary needs, for, as you said principles.. Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First, you have yet to state why such needs are unnessecery. Remember that I do not have to prove why as you are the one who wants to change the law.
2% includes all deaths by firearms. That includes police, suicide, accidents, justifiable homocide(self defense). In addition, the vast majority of this 2% was not committed by so called assault weapons. In fact, less than 1% of firearm deaths are the result of assault weapons.
1% of 2% is 0.02%
So, less than 0.02% of all causes of death is related to 'assault' weapons. More people die from second hand smoke. Hell, more people die from their sexual behavior than by these firearms. Smoking is completely pointless so why don't we ban it? The reason is that cigarettes are not as scary as 'assault' weapons though they are far more deadly.
I can cut the number even further. Diane Feinstein(Gun ban champion) herself notes that 85% of all firearms used in crime are committed with illegal or stolen firearms. With this statistic, we can determine that only 0.003% of deaths are caused by legal assault weapons.
0.003% That is the relevant statistic.
0.003%.
More people die by tripping over their own feet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There you go
So what is the catalyst that causes these particular weapons to be singled out?
The few times crimes ARE commited with the "assault weapons" (I use quotes becaue they base their definition on nothing but apperances) are all over the news and media. This pisses off and shocks the people, which in turn compels the politicians to look good by appeasing them. They try to "ban" them (course, they do a pisspoor job of it) in order to make it look like they're doing SOMETHING
There are some democrats admitting the ban is pointless because it doesn't do what it was intended to do, then there are some democrats that complain that the ban expired because "we need it"
wha? lol. Can't have it both ways, AND they can't decide on a stance to take, so yeah.
Clearly we should ban cars and sex, as those kill comparable amounts of people. Anything that's so inherently dangerous shouldn't be allowed in our country.
The only reason people cry so much about Assault Rifles is that key word, starts with an A and ends with a T. Assault, it makes the rifle, which is no different than its post ban cousin, save for some accessories, sound like the tool of the trade for a mass murderer.
I wonder if good old Feinstein knows that, even if they do manage to re-ban Assault Rifles, I can still go to the local gun store and purchase a rifle firing the exact same ammunition, at the same speed, the same distance. Even if it is something like a bolt action rifle, it can still do just as much damage.
I personally dont want some democrat-commie-traitor like Feinstein stripping myself, aswell as others of rights granted to us by the Constitution. If she had it her way, firearms PERIOD would be banned. Hell, she'd probably replace the Military arsenal with tea, peace sign bumper stickers, and a handbook on peacefully resolving situations involving armed and dangerous enemies through the use of fluffy kittens and happy-joy-joy words.
(Note: I don't regard all Democrats as communist-traitors.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Sep 14 2004, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Sep 14 2004, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only reason people cry so much about Assault Rifles is that key word, starts with an A and ends with a T. Assault, it makes the rifle, which is no different than its post ban cousin, save for some accessories, sound like the tool of the trade for a mass murderer.
I wonder if good old Feinstein knows that, even if they do manage to re-ban Assault Rifles, I can still go to the local gun store and purchase a rifle firing the exact same ammunition, at the same speed, the same distance. Even if it is something like a bolt action rifle, it can still do just as much damage.
I personally dont want some democrat-commie-traitor like Feinstein stripping myself, aswell as other of rights granted to us by the Constitution.
(Note: I don't regard all Democrats as communist-traitors.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wonder if Feinstein knows that with an extra $200 I can get an ATF tax stamp and purchase a "ma deuce".
What Ihate about Feinstein is that she is the quintessential rich-elitist-hipocrite. She has a concealed weapons permit and fights to have them outlawed. her excuse? She is a famous person and needs protection.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
i'm going to try my HARDEST not to get all fired up and flamey.. but i mean, clueless everyday people (like Soccer Moms Against Video Game Violence or whatever those organisations are called) can be REALLY f*ing annoying.. one of the things that anybody who knows ANYTHING is **** about is that these ignorant Naive-Liberal idiots comprising the "majority" that wants the AW ban renewed, thinks that the "assault weapons" restricted by the ban have ANYTHING to do with "assault" in general.. the fact that the weapons identified by name in the ban are popularized (the AK47, AR-15, UZI, etc) in film and music and popular culture does not make them any more conducive to assault than rifles of different names that serve the same purposes.
CERTAIN elements of the ban are understandable:
- grenade launcher attachments illegal: makes a lot of sense.. grenade launchers are.. dangerous.
um... well maybe one element.
but other than that, RENEWING THIS BAN DOES NOT PREVENT CRIME.
i mean, honestly, how are you going to tell me that a bayonet lug can be made illegal.. and duct tape not made illegal? they can perform the same purposes for the wielder of the evil babykilling AK47 UZI assault weapon of mass destruction.. this "assault weapons ban" is nothing but bureaucratic process for the sake of doing something to appease the aforementioned Naive-Liberal know-nothing dolts.
My SKS has a grenade launcher legally (even before the ban expired) <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I love how they make "exceptions" (doesn't that defeat the purpose?)
<!--QuoteBegin-Burncycle+Sep 14 2004, 05:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 14 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My SKS has a grenade launcher legally (even before the ban expired) <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I love how they make "exceptions" (doesn't that defeat the purpose?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm certain it's just the 37mm grenade launcher. And flares are the only things that come in 37mm.
The SKS in my household has a flash supressor, bayonet, and multiple 50 round banana clips.
They shouldn't have renewed the ban. They should've extended it. Private citizens do not need firearms for protection of self or surroundings. Nor do the americans need weapons to protect them from the King of England anymore, which was the case when the 2nd amendment was written.
I'm sorry to disappoint all you gun fetishists but that's military hardware. You shouldn't be allowed to toy with that.
Because of my country's rather strict laws on gun ownership firearms in private hands are rare. Granted, our criminals have weapons but that gear is bought from Russia at bargain prices and changing our gun legistlation in any way wouldn't change that, and there is of course the fact that they use the guns on eachother most of the time, which I am no way against. The rarity of firearms makes the surroundings safer for everyone. It is very rare here for a child to die in a gun-related accident, and the few fatalities can almost always be counted as hunting accidents. Also, because the gun market is so limited and small-time here the people most prone to random acts of violence or killing sprees are the least likely to get their hands on anything.
I'm sorry if I seem daft but the whole thread seems to be an NRA spokesperson's wet dream. The object of the debate is a gun. It was created to kill. People, animals, stuffed teddy bears, anything. Why should a private citizen be allowed to possess such a device? There are a million more productive uses for one's income than weapons, but I guess it has been ingrained too far into our subconscious that guns are cool, so its good they are on the open market.
The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services?
As for individualism, some morons need metal junk (ie. piercings) in their face to feel individual and really sure about themselves. Others need constant casual sex. Still others need funny mechanic devices that emit loud noises and make a terrible mess if something happens to be in the way. Really, to be able to make up your own mind about things and feel individual and sure about yourself you don't need any of the above. You just need some more self-confidence without the help of external accessories. Or can anyone really claim they need a gun to know who they are?
Tradition doesn't cut it either. The tradition of america up to the 1960s was that of genocide and racism, as anyone who knows even the basics of history can say. If it's tradition, it shouldn't be broken, is that what you are trying to say?
<b>Gadzuko</b>: According to your reasoning ("ban cars and such since they kill too") the ban on drugs should be cut too, since people can handle it, right? I mean, they can handle guns too.
<b>Perdition Flamethrower</b>: The communist traitors are right there, on your yard, between the lawn gnome and the pink flamingo. Beware, they are coming to take away your guns. Seriously, man, where do you come up with the rhetoric?
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...justifiable homocide...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know, I know, it's a typo. But for a moment there I thought it might've been a Freudian slip.
Diane Feinstein is the communist traitor, along with every other democrat/liberal that equals up to what she has become. Understand?
I personally don't care if your country wont let you own guns. The fact is, the United States...my country, will allow me to own a firearm. For sporting, personal enjoyment, self defense, hunting, flaunting on the internet, and waving in the faces of people like you.
I've liked firearms my entire life, i've always been smart with them too. My father taught me the basics when I was young, always check the gun before you handle it, etc. And, I have firearms in my household quite simply <b>because I freaking can.</b> It's not like taking away firearms is going to stop people from killing one another, or themselves anyway. Stop trying to justify the actions of ignorant fanatics like Feinstein with some "you don't need it because this isn't 200 years ago when the constitution was formed" crap. I have it because the Constitution says I can, im going to keep buying them because the Constitution says I can, i'm going to continue shooting them, maintaining them, and probably posting a picture or two of my pride and joy. The SKS.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Sep 14 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Sep 14 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for individualism, some morons need metal junk (ie. piercings) in their face to feel individual and really sure about themselves. Others need constant casual sex. Still others need funny mechanic devices that emit loud noises and make a terrible mess if something happens to be in the way. Really, to be able to make up your own mind about things and feel individual and sure about yourself you don't need any of the above. You just need some more self-confidence without the help of external accessories. Or can anyone really claim they need a gun to know who they are? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever think it could be a hobby? Guns aren't looked upon as a vile bringer of death by everyone. Yes, they're purpose of a gun is to kill. So what? The purpose of a car is to get you from point A to point B, put we fall in love with those too. It becomes more than the sum of its parts. Think of Gomer Pyle's love of his gun, but without the rabid frothing-mouth criminal insanity. Cars can have "personality", and so can a firearm. No two are alike, in quite a literal but also in a more symbolic sense.
I've no idea who this Fenstein person is but your rather inane tirade about her reveals quite much. You profess to be careful with weapons, yet write nonchalantly about shooting people in the neck. Does anyone else see a slight discrepancy here?
You are calling me ignorant for pointing out that the original law of gun ownership is over 200 years old and written for a very specific purpose. Is it not circular reasoning that you use the very same law as the basic premise of your argument? Is it not ignorance if you choose not to accept that the world has changed from those days?
It is a strange world indeed when tools of violence become objects of desire or pride.
[edit] <b>Bloodysloth</b>: No, I actually didn't think of it from a hobby's viewpoint, because as hobbies go, it's quite an odd one. I understand hunting, and requiring tools for that, and I understand people who collect weapons that have been made non-functional. I don't, however, understand why the weapons should be functional. If the functionality is an issue, wouldn't that mean that the intention is to use them?
Comments
But nonetheless, people just want reasons to complain, and the communists...er Democrats just want to strip people of a little bit more of their freedom.
I could come up with some well reasoned argument, but americans killing other americans doesnt affect me here in the UK, were guns are banned. So keep on shootin boys. YEEE HAAAAA *bang* *bang* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, going gun free must be the reason violent crime shot way up after England instituted their handgun ban? While the U.S. crime rate is at it's lowest point since 1973, when they started compiling statistics?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This isn't the end though, Feinstein is going to try and push new leglislation that will update the ban. Seriously, there is no need for Assault Rifles in your modern day life. Don't use the second amendment on me either because that amendment was meant for people 200 years ago when their were threats of Native-Americans and the British invading neither of which exist today.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not the business of the government to tell me what I do and do not need. I'm perfectly capable of determining that for myself. Right now, myself is telling me that "assault weapons" are perfectly fine for people to possess.
Assault weapons =/= automatic weapons. Those are still restricted to class 3 firearms liscense holders in the 1934 National Firearms Act.
<img src='http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/images/death_causes1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
It is late, the same arguements are being used so I will post a few of my old posts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With basic machining tools (like the kind in many personal workshops) I could build a fully automatic rifle.
In less than 24 hours.
Lets say we somehow ban all firearms. How long will it be until the Mafia sets up underground firearm factories? Nothing required to make a firearm is illegal (unless you banned metal lathes and drill presses) How would you stop this? Heck. The UK cannot stop organized crime from smuggling cars past customs and it is an island. How are you going to stop something the size of a wallet?
Once you drive a product to the black market, you lose all control of it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have to explain why I need anything. You have to explain why I shouldn't have it.
Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt..
Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming guns majikly disapeared... those 2% would be killed by knives, swords, maces, arrows, ninja stars, shoes, chairs, and other assorted items in the area.
Whats the difference?
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19109-2004Sep13.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep13.html</a>
"Sure, Bush says, he would sign a renewal of the ban, which theoretically puts him on the side of the majority..."
However...
"...the NRA is planning to spend $400,000 a week until the election to condemn John Kerry's votes for gun control. Overall, the organization expects to spend $20 million on this election, mostly to help Republican candidates. Bush is not about to offend these guys."
However...
"...the NRA is planning to spend $400,000 a week until the election to condemn John Kerry's votes for gun control. Overall, the organization expects to spend $20 million on this election, mostly to help Republican candidates. Bush is not about to offend these guys." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like what you SHOULD be banning is people swaying political opinion with funds <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Nor will a law prevent criminals from getting guns. They're criminals. They'll work around it. If you're going to rob a bank or something, you might as well get an illegal firearm.
So yeah, making laws (particularly dumb and useless ones) won't make any difference to the crims, but could potentially make a difference to a hobbyist or whatever.
Things won't get any better until we reform the institutions that create violent gun-toting madmen out to get money, and stop selling guns to the ones who still exist at gun shows and whatnot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would as well get an illegal firearm? As I see it, it's kinda easy to get a friend to buy a firearm.. Most other nations doesnt suffer as much from gun related crimes, and dont have the same kind of gangwars
And please tell how it wouldnt matter not to ban them? An average criminal would get them how? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple. If you get a friend to buy you a gun, he'll have to register it in his name. He is now an accessory to crime, and he'll rot in jail with you.
And you make the punishments for not properly registering a firearm hefty. Triple them if the the firearm is involved in a crime. Whatever. You can throw the book at someone who commits a violent crime without punishing the innocent.
How will criminals get guns if they're illegal, you ask? Same way US citizens aquire drugs: smuggle them or grow their own (more smuggle than become a blacksmith, naturally, but people do build or heavily modify their own).
The other way guns used in crimes are procured is via crooked gun show/gun shop sellers, who do a little "under the counter" business. They get away with it pretty easily, since we spend our time making dumb laws instead of spending resources solving problems, and keep doing it because there's good money in it. Crack down on them.
The vast majority of violent criminals are repeat offenders (cue discussion of fundamental flaws in US punishment system in <i>another</i> thread), so not selling guns to people who are obviously trouble and have voided some of their rights via crime would go a long way.
Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, you have yet to state why such needs are unnessecery. Remember that I do not have to prove why as you are the one who wants to change the law.
2% includes all deaths by firearms. That includes police, suicide, accidents, justifiable homocide(self defense). In addition, the vast majority of this 2% was not committed by so called assault weapons. In fact, less than 1% of firearm deaths are the result of assault weapons.
1% of 2% is 0.02%
So, less than 0.02% of all causes of death is related to 'assault' weapons. More people die from second hand smoke. Hell, more people die from their sexual behavior than by these firearms. Smoking is completely pointless so why don't we ban it? The reason is that cigarettes are not as scary as 'assault' weapons though they are far more deadly.
I can cut the number even further. Diane Feinstein(Gun ban champion) herself notes that 85% of all firearms used in crime are committed with illegal or stolen firearms. With this statistic, we can determine that only 0.003% of deaths are caused by legal assault weapons.
0.003% That is the relevant statistic.
0.003%.
More people die by tripping over their own feet.
However...
"...the NRA is planning to spend $400,000 a week until the election to condemn John Kerry's votes for gun control. Overall, the organization expects to spend $20 million on this election, mostly to help Republican candidates. Bush is not about to offend these guys." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like what you SHOULD be banning is people swaying political opinion with funds <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that's been happening for years, which I'm sure we all agree <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> What is interesting to me is the sides everyone is taking. Is pro-NRA also pro-Bush?
It’s a fact that banns are not very effective and you can’t easily prohibit a tradition. I don’t know the exact things you have to fulfil to get a firearm in the USA (and they may differ from state to state) but I see the problem of everybody can own a firearm and are not educated in using them. The secondary problem is that your police forces are facing more often more dangerous threats (or have to be prepared for it). German police officers wont faces the problem getting threatened by an assault rifle.
I think a good solution would be to have a forced education if you want to own one and that you get forced to own a secured storage for them like a lockable locker made of metal. As gun owner you have similar responsibility like as a driver and if you want to drive you have to go to driving school.
My personal opinion is that nobody should be allowed to own a firearm only if he’s a sport shooter, hunter or needs it for his job. If you want to shoot: go to the army.
But I respect your tradition <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
My personal opinion is that nobody should be allowed to own a firearm only if he’s a sport shooter, hunter or needs it for his job. If you want to shoot: go to the army.
But I respect your tradition <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is less about tradition and more about symbolism.
The right to own a firearm is symbolic of individualism and self-determination. Americans have a tradition of resisting external influences in their lives. While I have no plans on moving to Montana and living off the land, but I could.
I like being self-sufficient and do not want the government to take over any of my responsiblities.
(I do not wish to kill another individual. That is my choice and therefore I do not want to go to the army)
It’s a fact that banns are not very effective and you can’t easily prohibit a tradition. I don’t know the exact things you have to fulfil to get a firearm in the USA (and they may differ from state to state) but I see the problem of everybody can own a firearm and are not educated in using them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Education has little to do when it comes to people killing each other. Though it would reduce the number of firearm accidents. But again, that has nothing to do with the violent uses of such things.
Bans are ineffective because there will always be a venue for obtaining the banned item. Firearms are easy to produce, and easier to smuggle than drugs. They do not set off chemical detectors and dogs cannot sniff them out. They can be shipped in nonidentifying pieces to fool visual inspectors.
Bans didn't work with alcohol. It isn't working with drugs. And bans won't (and haven't) work with firearms.
Ban firearms and all you do is transfer control of firearms to the mafia.
Mind you, most of the people in your graph had their death coming by themselves.. But in firearms related cases it wasnt.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, you have yet to state why such needs are unnessecery. Remember that I do not have to prove why as you are the one who wants to change the law.
2% includes all deaths by firearms. That includes police, suicide, accidents, justifiable homocide(self defense). In addition, the vast majority of this 2% was not committed by so called assault weapons. In fact, less than 1% of firearm deaths are the result of assault weapons.
1% of 2% is 0.02%
So, less than 0.02% of all causes of death is related to 'assault' weapons. More people die from second hand smoke. Hell, more people die from their sexual behavior than by these firearms. Smoking is completely pointless so why don't we ban it? The reason is that cigarettes are not as scary as 'assault' weapons though they are far more deadly.
I can cut the number even further. Diane Feinstein(Gun ban champion) herself notes that 85% of all firearms used in crime are committed with illegal or stolen firearms. With this statistic, we can determine that only 0.003% of deaths are caused by legal assault weapons.
0.003% That is the relevant statistic.
0.003%.
More people die by tripping over their own feet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go
So what is the catalyst that causes these particular weapons to be singled out?
The few times crimes ARE commited with the "assault weapons" (I use quotes becaue they base their definition on nothing but apperances) are all over the news and media. This pisses off and shocks the people, which in turn compels the politicians to look good by appeasing them. They try to "ban" them (course, they do a pisspoor job of it) in order to make it look like they're doing SOMETHING
There are some democrats admitting the ban is pointless because it doesn't do what it was intended to do, then there are some democrats that complain that the ban expired because "we need it"
wha? lol. Can't have it both ways, AND they can't decide on a stance to take, so yeah.
I wonder if good old Feinstein knows that, even if they do manage to re-ban Assault Rifles, I can still go to the local gun store and purchase a rifle firing the exact same ammunition, at the same speed, the same distance. Even if it is something like a bolt action rifle, it can still do just as much damage.
I personally dont want some democrat-commie-traitor like Feinstein stripping myself, aswell as others of rights granted to us by the Constitution. If she had it her way, firearms PERIOD would be banned. Hell, she'd probably replace the Military arsenal with tea, peace sign bumper stickers, and a handbook on peacefully resolving situations involving armed and dangerous enemies through the use of fluffy kittens and happy-joy-joy words.
(Note: I don't regard all Democrats as communist-traitors.)
I wonder if good old Feinstein knows that, even if they do manage to re-ban Assault Rifles, I can still go to the local gun store and purchase a rifle firing the exact same ammunition, at the same speed, the same distance. Even if it is something like a bolt action rifle, it can still do just as much damage.
I personally dont want some democrat-commie-traitor like Feinstein stripping myself, aswell as other of rights granted to us by the Constitution.
(Note: I don't regard all Democrats as communist-traitors.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder if Feinstein knows that with an extra $200 I can get an ATF tax stamp and purchase a "ma deuce".
(and standard background checks)
<img src='http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m2_machine-gun.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
What Ihate about Feinstein is that she is the quintessential rich-elitist-hipocrite. She has a concealed weapons permit and fights to have them outlawed. her excuse? She is a famous person and needs protection.
CERTAIN elements of the ban are understandable:
- grenade launcher attachments illegal: makes a lot of sense.. grenade launchers are.. dangerous.
um... well maybe one element.
but other than that, RENEWING THIS BAN DOES NOT PREVENT CRIME.
i mean, honestly, how are you going to tell me that a bayonet lug can be made illegal.. and duct tape not made illegal? they can perform the same purposes for the wielder of the evil babykilling AK47 UZI assault weapon of mass destruction.. this "assault weapons ban" is nothing but bureaucratic process for the sake of doing something to appease the aforementioned Naive-Liberal know-nothing dolts.
I love how they make "exceptions" (doesn't that defeat the purpose?)
I love how they make "exceptions" (doesn't that defeat the purpose?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm certain it's just the 37mm grenade launcher. And flares are the only things that come in 37mm.
The SKS in my household has a flash supressor, bayonet, and multiple 50 round banana clips.
I'm sorry to disappoint all you gun fetishists but that's military hardware. You shouldn't be allowed to toy with that.
Because of my country's rather strict laws on gun ownership firearms in private hands are rare. Granted, our criminals have weapons but that gear is bought from Russia at bargain prices and changing our gun legistlation in any way wouldn't change that, and there is of course the fact that they use the guns on eachother most of the time, which I am no way against. The rarity of firearms makes the surroundings safer for everyone. It is very rare here for a child to die in a gun-related accident, and the few fatalities can almost always be counted as hunting accidents. Also, because the gun market is so limited and small-time here the people most prone to random acts of violence or killing sprees are the least likely to get their hands on anything.
I'm sorry if I seem daft but the whole thread seems to be an NRA spokesperson's wet dream. The object of the debate is a gun. It was created to kill. People, animals, stuffed teddy bears, anything. Why should a private citizen be allowed to possess such a device? There are a million more productive uses for one's income than weapons, but I guess it has been ingrained too far into our subconscious that guns are cool, so its good they are on the open market.
The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services?
As for individualism, some morons need metal junk (ie. piercings) in their face to feel individual and really sure about themselves. Others need constant casual sex. Still others need funny mechanic devices that emit loud noises and make a terrible mess if something happens to be in the way. Really, to be able to make up your own mind about things and feel individual and sure about yourself you don't need any of the above. You just need some more self-confidence without the help of external accessories. Or can anyone really claim they need a gun to know who they are?
Tradition doesn't cut it either. The tradition of america up to the 1960s was that of genocide and racism, as anyone who knows even the basics of history can say. If it's tradition, it shouldn't be broken, is that what you are trying to say?
<b>Gadzuko</b>:
According to your reasoning ("ban cars and such since they kill too") the ban on drugs should be cut too, since people can handle it, right? I mean, they can handle guns too.
<b>Perdition Flamethrower</b>:
The communist traitors are right there, on your yard, between the lawn gnome and the pink flamingo. Beware, they are coming to take away your guns. Seriously, man, where do you come up with the rhetoric?
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...justifiable homocide...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, I know, it's a typo. But for a moment there I thought it might've been a Freudian slip.
I personally don't care if your country wont let you own guns. The fact is, the United States...my country, will allow me to own a firearm. For sporting, personal enjoyment, self defense, hunting, flaunting on the internet, and waving in the faces of people like you.
I've liked firearms my entire life, i've always been smart with them too. My father taught me the basics when I was young, always check the gun before you handle it, etc. And, I have firearms in my household quite simply <b>because I freaking can.</b> It's not like taking away firearms is going to stop people from killing one another, or themselves anyway. Stop trying to justify the actions of ignorant fanatics like Feinstein with some "you don't need it because this isn't 200 years ago when the constitution was formed" crap. I have it because the Constitution says I can, im going to keep buying them because the Constitution says I can, i'm going to continue shooting them, maintaining them, and probably posting a picture or two of my pride and joy. The SKS.
Ever think it could be a hobby? Guns aren't looked upon as a vile bringer of death by everyone. Yes, they're purpose of a gun is to kill. So what? The purpose of a car is to get you from point A to point B, put we fall in love with those too. It becomes more than the sum of its parts. Think of Gomer Pyle's love of his gun, but without the rabid frothing-mouth criminal insanity. Cars can have "personality", and so can a firearm. No two are alike, in quite a literal but also in a more symbolic sense.
You are calling me ignorant for pointing out that the original law of gun ownership is over 200 years old and written for a very specific purpose. Is it not circular reasoning that you use the very same law as the basic premise of your argument? Is it not ignorance if you choose not to accept that the world has changed from those days?
It is a strange world indeed when tools of violence become objects of desire or pride.
[edit]
<b>Bloodysloth</b>:
No, I actually didn't think of it from a hobby's viewpoint, because as hobbies go, it's quite an odd one. I understand hunting, and requiring tools for that, and I understand people who collect weapons that have been made non-functional. I don't, however, understand why the weapons should be functional. If the functionality is an issue, wouldn't that mean that the intention is to use them?