So, you are saying that it is a gun's fault that the dad doesn't lock up the gun correctly???
And if they did break in your home when you are there, would you rather have a gun as a deterent and defense or just get tied up or even killed, then robbed??
It doesn't take much to buy a gun off a guy that is too lazy to do a background check or anything.
So is it directly the fault of gun owners, of course not. But if gun owners and the NRA hadn't made such a big stink about it in the first place and instead tried to show some restraint and responsibility, we would have a safer America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I like how you place gun owners and the NRA in two separate groups. Blaming the NRA for gun violence is like blaming AAA for drunk drivers.
The NRA is not some front for gun manufacturers. The NRA is powerful because it has nearly 5 million active members. These members are not corporations but regular Americans who pool their resources to publicize their views. You take any group of 5 million politically active people and you better be damned sure that a politician is going to listen to them.
I find it odd that people on the left revile the NRA so much. They just can't handle the fact that so many people disagree with them that they try do demonize them.
If you decry the NRA then you must also deny all other equivalent groups. The American Association of Retired People(AARP). The American Automobile Association (AAA), and every other Political Action Committee in the world.
(If you want to throw stones then try AARP. Ever wonder why it is nearly impossible to get social security reform?)
My point is, attack the NRA and similar groups all you want but remember this: The NRA is democracy in action.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 16 2004, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 16 2004, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on the amount of deaths. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't need to cite statistics? Yes you do. The most dangerous person in the world is an uninformed citizen with the right to vote.
If you want to make claims about "amounts" or "effects" then you damned well better have some sound statistics to back up those statements.
Try that out with any employer and see how far they laugh you out the door.
You: "So by implementing my ideas I would save your company $10 million dollars per year. With an initial implementation cost of 5.6 million dollars."
Executive: That sounds good, but I would like to see your case studies and supporting information.
You: "It is a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics."
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 07:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 07:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All of these school massacres were the result of kids who got dealt a bad hand and made the wrong decision, they weren't hardened criminals. But the weapons ban at least made gun access to the typical gun owner more difficult and thus prevented such a scenario from occuring as often. It wasn't a perfect ban but at least it saved lives and was a step in the right direction. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--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-->Child Deaths in America in Context, 1997-98
40 -The number of people (including some adults) that were shot and killed in school during the academic year, 1997-98. 11 -The number of children shot and killed in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; and Springfield, Oregon.
11 -The number of kids who died in two days from family violence (child abuse or neglect, at the hands of their parents or guardians).(6)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"All of these school massacres" are a myth. Not only did school shootings INCREASE after the ban but they are such a small portion of child death that to pay attention to it in a lawmaking sense is laughable. Tragic? Yes. Enough to influence lawmaking decisions? Hardly.
Notice that 2 children die per day due to neglect or abuse from their own parents. Kind of puts school shootings into perspective doesn't it?
<!--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-->It wasn't a perfect ban but at least it saved lives and was a step in the right direction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I call BS. Lets see some facts relating the ban to a reduction in child deaths. Come back with that and then we can discuss.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 17 2004, 01:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 17 2004, 01:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "All of these school massacres" are a myth. Not only did school shootings INCREASE after the ban but they are such a small portion of child death that to pay attention to it in a lawmaking sense is laughable. Tragic? Yes. Enough to influence lawmaking decisions? Hardly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh hardly any children died so let's ignore it. I'd love for you to tell that to all the families who were victimized.
<!--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-->Notice that 2 children die per day due to neglect or abuse from their own parents. Kind of puts school shootings into perspective doesn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it doesn't. You can't just downplay the problem by comparing it with another statistic. Children died at the school shootings. Its wrong to compare the validity of that death count with another cause of death. It happened, period.
<!--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-->I call BS. Lets see some facts relating the ban to a reduction in child deaths. Come back with that and then we can discuss.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on the amount of deaths.
The solution is to reinstitute the ban and this time give it more teeth instead of gimping it like the NRA did last time.
In Australia we instituted bans on all semi-automatic weapons, and a whole stack of handguns. Firearms related deaths plummeted. The slack was taken up by knives, 2x4's, drownings, fatal beatings etc
I still am more suspicious of firearms than of knives - because a stabbing rampage only goes so far before someone overpowers you, whilst a fully automatic weapon ramapage doenst usually end till said nutjob puts it in his mouth.
Still - the problem there is sick, sick people. Deliberate homocide is a social problem - not a weapons manufacturing problem. The problem in Iraq isnt that the insurgents have guns, its that they're too stupid to realise they are destroying any chance of peace and freedom their country has.
I dont agree with the "human specific" firearms like glocks etc that are designed for dropping humans - but its naivety to just blame the guns for school massacres.
Some kids steal Dad's car keys from his wallet and go joyriding before smacking into your sister on her way home from work - and you dont blame the car. Its simply an abuse of tools, kids will always be stupid, with guns or cars, and the real challenge is to both educate them and keep them out of situations were they can get a hold of either.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 17 2004, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 17 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In Australia we instituted bans on all semi-automatic weapons, and a whole stack of handguns. Firearms related deaths plummeted. The slack was taken up by knives, 2x4's, drownings, fatal beatings etc
I still am more suspicious of firearms than of knives - because a stabbing rampage only goes so far before someone overpowers you, whilst a fully automatic weapon ramapage doenst usually end till said nutjob puts it in his mouth.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> See thats the ban we should have had, and it would have reduced deaths and been a step in the right direction.
<!--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-->Still - the problem there is sick, sick people. Deliberate homocide is a social problem - not a weapons manufacturing problem. The problem in Iraq isnt that the insurgents have guns, its that they're too stupid to realise they are destroying any chance of peace and freedom their country has.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree and I'm not blaming guns directly, there are definitely sick people behind those guns. What I disagree with is giving them even more tools with which to cause death.
<!--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-->I dont agree with the "human specific" firearms like glocks etc that are designed for dropping humans - but its naivety to just blame the guns for school massacres.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, not guns directly but access to them. I think thats what the ban was about and it did have an effect.
<!--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-->Some kids steal Dad's car keys from his wallet and go joyriding before smacking into your sister on her way home from work - and you dont blame the car. Its simply an abuse of tools, kids will always be stupid, with guns or cars, and the real challenge is to both educate them and keep them out of situations were they can get a hold of either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, I don't think we should ban cars just because they can be used as weapons, we gotta drive to work after all. But I wouldn't put guns and cars in the same category at all. They aren't the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 16 2004, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 16 2004, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on the amount of deaths. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My family has numerous guns, and none of them have been used to kill people.
So... more guns were purchased than if my family hadn't bought any, yet the number of deaths have been uneffected by the purchase.
I refuse to give up my freedom to make you feel safer.
In any case, Automatic Weapons have been banned to people who do not have a Class 3 license (someone pointed this out already). There are very few people who have possession of such a license, and using it to deal automatic weapons is unlikely, since your guns are easily tracked.
The ban simply made people unable to purchase certain parts for semi-automatic weapons and made the maximum clip size for a civilian weapon "10 bullets."
Once again, Automatic Weapons have been banned and extremely well controlled since the 1930's. Most of the automatic weapons on the streets today are circa-1950's or 1960's, some circa-Vietnam war. They are older military Rifles, SMG's, and Machine Pistols that have been brough to the streets through overseas arms dealers. Taking down clip size will not affect those weapons at all.
Also, in the case of a schoot shooting, you are blaming daddy's guns for the kid's stupidity. If those kids had parents who had taught them a decent moral base, that would not have happened. One of the major backfires of the Hippy movement was that parents lost their balls, meaning that kids never learned some important moral values. The parents screwed up early on, the ball never got stopped rolling, and there was a massacre.
The fact that they took daddy's guns says (to me at least) that it was also punishment for bad parenting. Kids know when their parents are bad parents, and typically the parent/child relationship is a bad one once this realization is made. Kids push more and more to find where the moral lines are. If they don't find any, they will keep going. At Columbine, these kids found the moral line too late as they destroyed themselves.
I will not have my freedoms taken away because of bad parenting and stupid kids. The world is a dangerous place, and I will not rely on the police for my protection.
I don't mean to gang up on you relsan, but your argument has many major flaws, which have been pointed out repetadly.
The thing that bothers me most about your argument is that it takes the responsiblity off of the criminal and puts it in the hands of society/gun manufacturers/guns/law makers/etc.
The fact of the matter is this: criminals will kill - hurt - maim whereever and whenever they want. <!--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-->In Australia we instituted bans on all semi-automatic weapons, and a whole stack of handguns. Firearms related deaths plummeted. <b>The slack was taken up by knives, 2x4's, drownings, fatal beatings etc</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is this - you have to make a convincing argument that taking away a "right" to guns will somehow affect the overall violence in a specific area - not just "gun violence" but "total violence". Otherwise, you will have to go on a crusade to ban kitchen knives, or 2x4's.
So there you have it in a nut shell. Either provide good statistics proving that removing guns reduces <b>both</b> gun violence and total violence, or we can have our "right to keep and arm bears"
Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I feel like I am talking to a 6 year old. I have pointed out statements that you made which were incorrect and you retort by repasting your original statement.
Since you wasted your opportunity to contribute any new information to the debate I'll pick up the slack for you.
You state that if it saves lives then it is a step in the right direction. Such a statement implies that saving lives is of paramount importance.
If we were to follow such a statement (and I will limit this to US history as the topic is so related to the US.) Each statement is independant of the previous statements to avoid long hypothetical situations.
1. The American Revolution would never have been fought. The colonies were only being taxed heavily and could have continued without shedding a drop of blood. (saving lots of lives)
2. Slavery would still exist. And the US would have been divided along the Mason Dixon line.
3. WWI Europe would be Germany or in ashes. (I do not imply that the US involvement alone won the war but that it was an integral part)
4. WWII I guess we could leave that be. Don't risk killing anyone. Hitler was just about finished killing people anyway.
I could go on. But saving lives cannot be your primary focus.
We had to memorize this quote while I was at the Academy. <!--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-->War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the last sentence is quite appropriate in this situation.
edit: I apologize for being a bit harsh. I would just prefer to discuss facts and figures and not debate 'common sense'
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 17 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 17 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One of the major backfires of the Hippy movement was that parents lost their balls, meaning that kids never learned some important moral values. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow.
I agree entirely with you that child deliquency is usually a result of poor parenting.
But you managed to blame liberal social development for every school massacre in the last 10 years! Wow.
Well Coil, bad parents have always existed, but what I'm saying is that what of the major cons of the Hippy movement was the removal of physical discipline as well as the downgrading of the parent to a more mentor and friend role.
Now, don't get me wrong here, parents that beat their children on a daily basis are worse parents than the ones who do not use any physical punishments at all. There have always been those kind of parents. For all we know, some of the school shootings may have been caused by kids who experienced that kind of horrible home life.
What I am pointing out is that the Politically Correct parent does not spank, which takes away an enormous amount of power from the parent to teach the child at an early age. A balanced parent should, for the first few years, utilize spanking as a method of punishment <i>for serious circumstances only</i>. However, this option has been being slowly but surely taken away all in the name of "protecting children." Interestingly, it does the exact opposite.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Sep 17 2004, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Sep 17 2004, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then call it PC parenting. There is no direct relationship between the social movements of the 60s/70s and PC parenting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, though i am willing to bet that anyone who named their daugher "Rainbow" or "Butterfly" probably hasn't practiced much corporal punishment <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
One of my English teachers changed her name to "Butterfly" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Sep 17 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Sep 17 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If this ban is really such a pointless joke, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would have prefered the ban slip away unheralded and without all of this media hype.
I comment when I feel that someone says something I disagree with or have a desire to correct. My problem was not with the ban but with the mentality and reasoning behind it.
I'm no gun expert, but isn't the reason police use pistols is because they're the most useful for close-range, such as is the case if a criminal was breaking in the house? Isn't a semi-automatic rifle the best for hunting because of its accuracy?
The only time I've seen police using automatic weapons is when they're guarding public interests like outside NYSE or in Times Square (presumably mostly for shock value). Whether or not the AWB was a success or failure is beyond me, but could someone explain why a citizen would need an automatic besides mass-murder?
<!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+Sep 17 2004, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent @ Sep 17 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm no gun expert, but isn't the reason police use pistols is because they're the most useful for close-range, such as is the case if a criminal was breaking in the house? Isn't a semi-automatic rifle the best for hunting because of its accuracy?
The only time I've seen police using automatic weapons is when they're guarding public interests like outside NYSE or in Times Square (presumably mostly for shock value). Whether or not the AWB was a success or failure is beyond me, but could someone explain why a citizen would need an automatic besides mass-murder? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Need or prefer?
I prefer a semi-automatic pistol [edit}: I take that back. I prefer revolvers. (though one of my revolvers can be classified as semi-auto) I prefer a pump action shotgun I prefer my k-98 for deer hunting but I have used an M1 before.
I don't need a car. But I prefer my car to the bus.
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:orange'>ATTENTION!!!! AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE LIMITED TO BEING PURCHASED BY THOSE WITH A CLASS 3 LICENSE ONLY!!!</span></span>
That's to everyone who didn't bother to read the previous posts about the Ban. Automatic weapons have been banned from regular use since the 1930's.
<!--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-->Then call it PC parenting. There is no direct relationship between the social movements of the 60s/70s and PC parenting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
PC parenting is a direct descendent of those social movements, just like most PC things today. Those social movements and their belief system include the abolition of corporal punishment being involved in the parent/child relationship.
And to Relsan, I do owe an apology for my thinly veiled personal insult. It was extremely unprofessional of me. Sorry man.
I still won though <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 17 2004, 11:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 17 2004, 11:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+Sep 17 2004, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent @ Sep 17 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm no gun expert, but isn't the reason police use pistols is because they're the most useful for close-range, such as is the case if a criminal was breaking in the house? Isn't a semi-automatic rifle the best for hunting because of its accuracy?
The only time I've seen police using automatic weapons is when they're guarding public interests like outside NYSE or in Times Square (presumably mostly for shock value). Whether or not the AWB was a success or failure is beyond me, but could someone explain why a citizen would need an automatic besides mass-murder? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Need or prefer?
I prefer a semi-automatic pistol [edit}: I take that back. I prefer revolvers. (though one of my revolvers can be classified as semi-auto) I prefer a pump action shotgun I prefer my k-98 for deer hunting but I have used an M1 before.
I don't need a car. But I prefer my car to the bus. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, need, I think, considering the deadly nature of what we're talking about.
I sort of get your argument, although unless I'm missing something pistols are not really the mass-transit alternative to automatics <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I should also probably have said "citizens using automatics for mass-killing" instead of "mass-murder" considering the connotations of that word.
What I'm really looking for is a reason citizens should have automatic weapons besides "well, they're cool" (not that pistols are not cool).
<!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+Sep 17 2004, 03:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent @ Sep 17 2004, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, need, I think, considering the deadly nature of what we're talking about.
I sort of get your argument, although unless I'm missing something pistols are not really the mass-transit alternative to automatics <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I should also probably have said "citizens using automatics for mass-killing" instead of "mass-murder" considering the connotations of that word.
What I'm really looking for is a reason citizens should have automatic weapons besides "well, they're cool" (not that pistols are not cool). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever go hunting?
What happens if you need a quick second shot? I have.
I just hit a whitetail using my mauser but this happened to be one of the times that I needed a second shot. I normally aim for the rear of the front shoulderblade when hunting deer. The bullet shatters the shoulder before penetrating into the lungs and heart (all three if you hit correctly.) This prevents the deer from running and makes tracking much easier.
My shot was a bit more to the back than I would have prefered and did not hit the shoulder of the deer and only penetrated the lungs. A killing shot, but not an instant kill.
The deer started running towards a fairly busy highway. It was way off but the deer might have made it there. (but at a legal distance) I chambered a new round (bolt action) and prepared to put down the deer before it could run onto the highway. However, the deer was getting close to the area where I would not legally be allowed to shoot by this time.
I had a decision, do I fire another shot into an illegal area or do I risk letting the deer run onto the highway? Thankfully the deer collapsed a few yards later and I did not have to make the decision.
However, with a semi-automatic rifle I would have had more than enough time to put a second bullet into the deer the instant I saw that my first one did not drop it. I can reload a bolt action pretty damned fast but I am no LH Oswald.
I still prefer to hunt with my mauser simply because I prefer its accuracy.
<!--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-->What I'm really looking for is a reason citizens should have automatic weapons besides "well, they're cool" (not that pistols are not cool).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would like a reason as to why politicians feel that I cannot be trusted with a firearm.
Some of you guys say you have guns and you haven't killed anyone so there's no problem. But there are families out there that have guns that were used to kill so I say yes there is a problem. We need to have some kind of restraint to keep foolish children from causing exponential damage. I feel the ban was a step in the right direction.
Some of you guys say you refuse to give up your freedom to make me feel safer. But what of the freedoms of all the dead children in those school massacres? Didn't they have a right to go to school, grow up, and experience life? And what about their victimized families who have forever broken lives?
Some of you guys say that children killing children is a punishment to the parents who neglected to teach their kids not to play with guns or kill with them. But why should other families be punished with the deaths of their children?
Some of you guys say that my argument takes responsibility out of the hands of criminals, and puts it in the hands of law makers and I say OF COURSE! Criminals aren't very responsible people are they? We can't depend on them to follow the rules. That is the very definition of a criminal! They commit crimes!
Some of you say that the police aren't good enough and you need your gun to protect yourself. I ask you, from WHAT? What is it exactly that ONLY a semi-automatic weapon will protect you from?
Some of you say that saving lives is not of primary importance and that there are times where lives must be sacrificed for the greater good. I'm in full agreement with that. But WHY do you NEED a semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself? What's wrong with a plain ol' hand gun, a tazer, a house security system? Why do you need a weapon that can potentially kill dozens of people in a few seconds? That's overkill, no pun intended.
The ban, as many people have said many times, does not ban semi-automatic weapons... but it sure made it more difficult to own and use one, and thats why I say it was a step in the right direction. I think we should have revisited it and made tweaks so it was even more effective.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 17 2004, 05:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 17 2004, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We need to have some kind of restraint to keep foolish children from causing exponential damage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You meeannnn... liiikeee... parenting? Let's stop people from being raised by the tv before saying guns are somehow inspiring children to go out and kill just by their very existence.
And what's wrong with a plain ole handgun? A lot going by your logic. The vast majority of them now are semi automatic.
I think that if parenting is not preventing children from killing scores of people then the law should step in. What are the police going to tell the victimized families? Don't blame the system, blame the parents? The victimized parents are going to say "FIX THE SYSTEM!"
And I'm not a gun expert but when I say plain ol' handgun, just to be clear I mean a weapon that is not capable of killing dozens of people in a couple of seconds.
to kill dozens of people in seconds youd have to have something akin to a tank cannon or a minigun. Semi-auto = one pull of the trigger, one bullet flying through the air. If you don't know what it means you shouldnt press for illegalizing it.
And yes, I will blame the parents for letting their kid learn how to shoot without any real reason, when they're obviously anti social and possibly unstable. I will also blame the parents for not teaching their child the difference between virtual reality and reality.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 17 2004, 11:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 17 2004, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> to kill dozens of people in seconds youd have to have something akin to a tank cannon or a minigun. Semi-auto = one pull of the trigger, one bullet flying through the air. If you don't know what it means you shouldnt press for illegalizing it.
And yes, I will blame the parents for letting their kid learning how to shoot without any real reason, when they're obviously anti social and possibly unstable. I will also blame the parents for not teaching their child the difference between virtual reality and reality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The school massacres prove you wrong.
And I'm not saying it isn't the parents fault. What I'm saying is that if we can prevent these deaths with a real ban, we should, rather than solely depending on the parents because obviously that isn't working.
Comments
And if they did break in your home when you are there, would you rather have a gun as a deterent and defense or just get tied up or even killed, then robbed??
It doesn't take much to buy a gun off a guy that is too lazy to do a background check or anything.
So is it directly the fault of gun owners, of course not. But if gun owners and the NRA hadn't made such a big stink about it in the first place and instead tried to show some restraint and responsibility, we would have a safer America.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how you place gun owners and the NRA in two separate groups. Blaming the NRA for gun violence is like blaming AAA for drunk drivers.
The NRA is not some front for gun manufacturers. The NRA is powerful because it has nearly 5 million active members. These members are not corporations but regular Americans who pool their resources to publicize their views. You take any group of 5 million politically active people and you better be damned sure that a politician is going to listen to them.
I find it odd that people on the left revile the NRA so much. They just can't handle the fact that so many people disagree with them that they try do demonize them.
If you decry the NRA then you must also deny all other equivalent groups. The American Association of Retired People(AARP). The American Automobile Association (AAA), and every other Political Action Committee in the world.
(If you want to throw stones then try AARP. Ever wonder why it is nearly impossible to get social security reform?)
My point is, attack the NRA and similar groups all you want but remember this:
The NRA is democracy in action.
Don't need to cite statistics? Yes you do. The most dangerous person in the world is an uninformed citizen with the right to vote.
If you want to make claims about "amounts" or "effects" then you damned well better have some sound statistics to back up those statements.
Try that out with any employer and see how far they laugh you out the door.
You:
"So by implementing my ideas I would save your company $10 million dollars per year. With an initial implementation cost of 5.6 million dollars."
Executive:
That sounds good, but I would like to see your case studies and supporting information.
You:
"It is a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics."
Executive:
-_-
"You're Fired!"
All of these school massacres were the result of kids who got dealt a bad hand and made the wrong decision, they weren't hardened criminals. But the weapons ban at least made gun access to the typical gun owner more difficult and thus prevented such a scenario from occuring as often. It wasn't a perfect ban but at least it saved lives and was a step in the right direction. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Child Deaths in America in Context, 1997-98
40 -The number of people (including some adults) that were shot and killed in school during the academic year, 1997-98.
11 -The number of children shot and killed in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; and Springfield, Oregon.
11 -The number of kids who died in two days from family violence (child abuse or neglect, at the hands of their parents or guardians).(6)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"All of these school massacres" are a myth. Not only did school shootings INCREASE after the ban but they are such a small portion of child death that to pay attention to it in a lawmaking sense is laughable. Tragic? Yes. Enough to influence lawmaking decisions? Hardly.
Notice that 2 children die per day due to neglect or abuse from their own parents. Kind of puts school shootings into perspective doesn't it?
<!--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-->It wasn't a perfect ban but at least it saved lives and was a step in the right direction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I call BS. Lets see some facts relating the ban to a reduction in child deaths. Come back with that and then we can discuss.
Oh hardly any children died so let's ignore it. I'd love for you to tell that to all the families who were victimized.
<!--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-->Notice that 2 children die per day due to neglect or abuse from their own parents. Kind of puts school shootings into perspective doesn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it doesn't. You can't just downplay the problem by comparing it with another statistic. Children died at the school shootings. Its wrong to compare the validity of that death count with another cause of death. It happened, period.
<!--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-->I call BS. Lets see some facts relating the ban to a reduction in child deaths. Come back with that and then we can discuss.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. If there are less guns purchased then there are less people shooting guns, which means less deaths. That's all ANY gun ban could do or promise. Unfortunately this gun ban was not as effective as it could or should have been, but it most definitely had an effect on the amount of deaths.
The solution is to reinstitute the ban and this time give it more teeth instead of gimping it like the NRA did last time.
I still am more suspicious of firearms than of knives - because a stabbing rampage only goes so far before someone overpowers you, whilst a fully automatic weapon ramapage doenst usually end till said nutjob puts it in his mouth.
Still - the problem there is sick, sick people. Deliberate homocide is a social problem - not a weapons manufacturing problem. The problem in Iraq isnt that the insurgents have guns, its that they're too stupid to realise they are destroying any chance of peace and freedom their country has.
I dont agree with the "human specific" firearms like glocks etc that are designed for dropping humans - but its naivety to just blame the guns for school massacres.
Some kids steal Dad's car keys from his wallet and go joyriding before smacking into your sister on her way home from work - and you dont blame the car. Its simply an abuse of tools, kids will always be stupid, with guns or cars, and the real challenge is to both educate them and keep them out of situations were they can get a hold of either.
I still am more suspicious of firearms than of knives - because a stabbing rampage only goes so far before someone overpowers you, whilst a fully automatic weapon ramapage doenst usually end till said nutjob puts it in his mouth.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
See thats the ban we should have had, and it would have reduced deaths and been a step in the right direction.
<!--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-->Still - the problem there is sick, sick people. Deliberate homocide is a social problem - not a weapons manufacturing problem. The problem in Iraq isnt that the insurgents have guns, its that they're too stupid to realise they are destroying any chance of peace and freedom their country has.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree and I'm not blaming guns directly, there are definitely sick people behind those guns. What I disagree with is giving them even more tools with which to cause death.
<!--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-->I dont agree with the "human specific" firearms like glocks etc that are designed for dropping humans - but its naivety to just blame the guns for school massacres.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, not guns directly but access to them. I think thats what the ban was about and it did have an effect.
<!--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-->Some kids steal Dad's car keys from his wallet and go joyriding before smacking into your sister on her way home from work - and you dont blame the car. Its simply an abuse of tools, kids will always be stupid, with guns or cars, and the real challenge is to both educate them and keep them out of situations were they can get a hold of either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, I don't think we should ban cars just because they can be used as weapons, we gotta drive to work after all. But I wouldn't put guns and cars in the same category at all. They aren't the same.
My family has numerous guns, and none of them have been used to kill people.
So... more guns were purchased than if my family hadn't bought any, yet the number of deaths have been uneffected by the purchase.
Kinda kills your little theroy.
In any case, Automatic Weapons have been banned to people who do not have a Class 3 license (someone pointed this out already). There are very few people who have possession of such a license, and using it to deal automatic weapons is unlikely, since your guns are easily tracked.
The ban simply made people unable to purchase certain parts for semi-automatic weapons and made the maximum clip size for a civilian weapon "10 bullets."
Once again, Automatic Weapons have been banned and extremely well controlled since the 1930's. Most of the automatic weapons on the streets today are circa-1950's or 1960's, some circa-Vietnam war. They are older military Rifles, SMG's, and Machine Pistols that have been brough to the streets through overseas arms dealers. Taking down clip size will not affect those weapons at all.
Also, in the case of a schoot shooting, you are blaming daddy's guns for the kid's stupidity. If those kids had parents who had taught them a decent moral base, that would not have happened. One of the major backfires of the Hippy movement was that parents lost their balls, meaning that kids never learned some important moral values. The parents screwed up early on, the ball never got stopped rolling, and there was a massacre.
The fact that they took daddy's guns says (to me at least) that it was also punishment for bad parenting. Kids know when their parents are bad parents, and typically the parent/child relationship is a bad one once this realization is made. Kids push more and more to find where the moral lines are. If they don't find any, they will keep going. At Columbine, these kids found the moral line too late as they destroyed themselves.
I will not have my freedoms taken away because of bad parenting and stupid kids. The world is a dangerous place, and I will not rely on the police for my protection.
The thing that bothers me most about your argument is that it takes the responsiblity off of the criminal and puts it in the hands of society/gun manufacturers/guns/law makers/etc.
The fact of the matter is this: criminals will kill - hurt - maim whereever and whenever they want.
<!--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-->In Australia we instituted bans on all semi-automatic weapons, and a whole stack of handguns. Firearms related deaths plummeted. <b>The slack was taken up by knives, 2x4's, drownings, fatal beatings etc</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is this - you have to make a convincing argument that taking away a "right" to guns will somehow affect the overall violence in a specific area - not just "gun violence" but "total violence". Otherwise, you will have to go on a crusade to ban kitchen knives, or 2x4's.
So there you have it in a nut shell. Either provide good statistics proving that removing guns reduces <b>both</b> gun violence and total violence, or we can have our "right to keep and arm bears"
Its a no brainer. I don't even need to cite statistics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel like I am talking to a 6 year old. I have pointed out statements that you made which were incorrect and you retort by repasting your original statement.
Since you wasted your opportunity to contribute any new information to the debate I'll pick up the slack for you.
You state that if it saves lives then it is a step in the right direction. Such a statement implies that saving lives is of paramount importance.
If we were to follow such a statement (and I will limit this to US history as the topic is so related to the US.) Each statement is independant of the previous statements to avoid long hypothetical situations.
1. The American Revolution would never have been fought. The colonies were only being taxed heavily and could have continued without shedding a drop of blood. (saving lots of lives)
2. Slavery would still exist. And the US would have been divided along the Mason Dixon line.
3. WWI Europe would be Germany or in ashes. (I do not imply that the US involvement alone won the war but that it was an integral part)
4. WWII I guess we could leave that be. Don't risk killing anyone. Hitler was just about finished killing people anyway.
I could go on. But saving lives cannot be your primary focus.
We had to memorize this quote while I was at the Academy.
<!--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-->War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the last sentence is quite appropriate in this situation.
edit: I apologize for being a bit harsh. I would just prefer to discuss facts and figures and not debate 'common sense'
Wow.
I agree entirely with you that child deliquency is usually a result of poor parenting.
But you managed to blame liberal social development for every school massacre in the last 10 years! Wow.
Now, don't get me wrong here, parents that beat their children on a daily basis are worse parents than the ones who do not use any physical punishments at all. There have always been those kind of parents. For all we know, some of the school shootings may have been caused by kids who experienced that kind of horrible home life.
What I am pointing out is that the Politically Correct parent does not spank, which takes away an enormous amount of power from the parent to teach the child at an early age. A balanced parent should, for the first few years, utilize spanking as a method of punishment <i>for serious circumstances only</i>. However, this option has been being slowly but surely taken away all in the name of "protecting children." Interestingly, it does the exact opposite.
I agree, though i am willing to bet that anyone who named their daugher "Rainbow" or "Butterfly" probably hasn't practiced much corporal punishment <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
One of my English teachers changed her name to "Butterfly" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I would have prefered the ban slip away unheralded and without all of this media hype.
I comment when I feel that someone says something I disagree with or have a desire to correct. My problem was not with the ban but with the mentality and reasoning behind it.
That people need to be protected from themselves.
The only time I've seen police using automatic weapons is when they're guarding public interests like outside NYSE or in Times Square (presumably mostly for shock value). Whether or not the AWB was a success or failure is beyond me, but could someone explain why a citizen would need an automatic besides mass-murder?
The only time I've seen police using automatic weapons is when they're guarding public interests like outside NYSE or in Times Square (presumably mostly for shock value). Whether or not the AWB was a success or failure is beyond me, but could someone explain why a citizen would need an automatic besides mass-murder? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Need or prefer?
I prefer a semi-automatic pistol [edit}: I take that back. I prefer revolvers. (though one of my revolvers can be classified as semi-auto)
I prefer a pump action shotgun
I prefer my k-98 for deer hunting but I have used an M1 before.
I don't need a car. But I prefer my car to the bus.
That's to everyone who didn't bother to read the previous posts about the Ban. Automatic weapons have been banned from regular use since the 1930's.
<!--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-->Then call it PC parenting. There is no direct relationship between the social movements of the 60s/70s and PC parenting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
PC parenting is a direct descendent of those social movements, just like most PC things today. Those social movements and their belief system include the abolition of corporal punishment being involved in the parent/child relationship.
And to Relsan, I do owe an apology for my thinly veiled personal insult. It was extremely unprofessional of me. Sorry man.
I still won though <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
The only time I've seen police using automatic weapons is when they're guarding public interests like outside NYSE or in Times Square (presumably mostly for shock value). Whether or not the AWB was a success or failure is beyond me, but could someone explain why a citizen would need an automatic besides mass-murder? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Need or prefer?
I prefer a semi-automatic pistol [edit}: I take that back. I prefer revolvers. (though one of my revolvers can be classified as semi-auto)
I prefer a pump action shotgun
I prefer my k-98 for deer hunting but I have used an M1 before.
I don't need a car. But I prefer my car to the bus. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, need, I think, considering the deadly nature of what we're talking about.
I sort of get your argument, although unless I'm missing something pistols are not really the mass-transit alternative to automatics <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I should also probably have said "citizens using automatics for mass-killing" instead of "mass-murder" considering the connotations of that word.
What I'm really looking for is a reason citizens should have automatic weapons besides "well, they're cool" (not that pistols are not cool).
Well, need, I think, considering the deadly nature of what we're talking about.
I sort of get your argument, although unless I'm missing something pistols are not really the mass-transit alternative to automatics <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I should also probably have said "citizens using automatics for mass-killing" instead of "mass-murder" considering the connotations of that word.
What I'm really looking for is a reason citizens should have automatic weapons besides "well, they're cool" (not that pistols are not cool). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever go hunting?
What happens if you need a quick second shot? I have.
I just hit a whitetail using my mauser but this happened to be one of the times that I needed a second shot. I normally aim for the rear of the front shoulderblade when hunting deer. The bullet shatters the shoulder before penetrating into the lungs and heart (all three if you hit correctly.) This prevents the deer from running and makes tracking much easier.
My shot was a bit more to the back than I would have prefered and did not hit the shoulder of the deer and only penetrated the lungs. A killing shot, but not an instant kill.
The deer started running towards a fairly busy highway. It was way off but the deer might have made it there. (but at a legal distance) I chambered a new round (bolt action) and prepared to put down the deer before it could run onto the highway. However, the deer was getting close to the area where I would not legally be allowed to shoot by this time.
I had a decision, do I fire another shot into an illegal area or do I risk letting the deer run onto the highway? Thankfully the deer collapsed a few yards later and I did not have to make the decision.
However, with a semi-automatic rifle I would have had more than enough time to put a second bullet into the deer the instant I saw that my first one did not drop it. I can reload a bolt action pretty damned fast but I am no LH Oswald.
I still prefer to hunt with my mauser simply because I prefer its accuracy.
<!--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-->What I'm really looking for is a reason citizens should have automatic weapons besides "well, they're cool" (not that pistols are not cool).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like a reason as to why politicians feel that I cannot be trusted with a firearm.
Both require skill.
Both give enjoyment in different ways.
Some of you guys say you refuse to give up your freedom to make me feel safer. But what of the freedoms of all the dead children in those school massacres? Didn't they have a right to go to school, grow up, and experience life? And what about their victimized families who have forever broken lives?
Some of you guys say that children killing children is a punishment to the parents who neglected to teach their kids not to play with guns or kill with them. But why should other families be punished with the deaths of their children?
Some of you guys say that my argument takes responsibility out of the hands of criminals, and puts it in the hands of law makers and I say OF COURSE! Criminals aren't very responsible people are they? We can't depend on them to follow the rules. That is the very definition of a criminal! They commit crimes!
Some of you say that the police aren't good enough and you need your gun to protect yourself. I ask you, from WHAT? What is it exactly that ONLY a semi-automatic weapon will protect you from?
Some of you say that saving lives is not of primary importance and that there are times where lives must be sacrificed for the greater good. I'm in full agreement with that. But WHY do you NEED a semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself? What's wrong with a plain ol' hand gun, a tazer, a house security system? Why do you need a weapon that can potentially kill dozens of people in a few seconds? That's overkill, no pun intended.
The ban, as many people have said many times, does not ban semi-automatic weapons... but it sure made it more difficult to own and use one, and thats why I say it was a step in the right direction. I think we should have revisited it and made tweaks so it was even more effective.
You meeannnn... liiikeee... parenting? Let's stop people from being raised by the tv before saying guns are somehow inspiring children to go out and kill just by their very existence.
And what's wrong with a plain ole handgun? A lot going by your logic. The vast majority of them now are semi automatic.
And I'm not a gun expert but when I say plain ol' handgun, just to be clear I mean a weapon that is not capable of killing dozens of people in a couple of seconds.
And yes, I will blame the parents for letting their kid learn how to shoot without any real reason, when they're obviously anti social and possibly unstable. I will also blame the parents for not teaching their child the difference between virtual reality and reality.
EDIT: yay grammar!
And yes, I will blame the parents for letting their kid learning how to shoot without any real reason, when they're obviously anti social and possibly unstable. I will also blame the parents for not teaching their child the difference between virtual reality and reality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The school massacres prove you wrong.
And I'm not saying it isn't the parents fault. What I'm saying is that if we can prevent these deaths with a real ban, we should, rather than solely depending on the parents because obviously that isn't working.