Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 87

Thread: "Assault weapons" ban may return

  1. #51
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Egads Women! With Guns! In California!

  2. #52
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    whine country
    Posts
    812
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 253 Times in 139 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Will took me to task for just giving my opinion, while he provided data and historical fact.
    Sorry Will, but quoting historical figures isn't providing "data and historical facts", it's just giving me well known people's opinion.

    I could drudge up murder rates per 100,000 for the U.S., Japan, Britain, France, and Canada, but you're probably familiar with them. And while you like to quote dictators and heads of totalitarian states, if your argument of strict gun control leads to despots rising to power, how do you explain the failure to do so in the largely democratic countries I've listed?

    How about we look at a country where virtually every home had an automatic weapon. IRAQ. Somehow 20% of the population oppressed 80%, despite the fact everyone owned an AK-47. Again these facts seem to indicate your premise is invalid.

    This is why the Hitler argument doesn't work. He didn't have to work within the frame of our Constitution. He didn't ban guns, he banned Jews from owning guns. You can't legislate that in this country without violating a couple of other amendments first. Besides, I'll let you in on a little secret. The Hitler argument wasn't intended for use in debate with those that disagree with you, it was intended to whip the believers into a froth and increase NRA coffers. It's fearmongering at it's finest and it works.

    (EDIT) OMG your greatest fear has been realized. I have found an example of the Hitler analogy that appears to be happening in a democracy and share it in fairness. At the behest of this administration, and with the backing of our military, house to house searches and weapon seizures are now occuring in the newly free and democratic Iraq. Where is the outrage? I listen for your outcry and I hear...silence. And, in my book, silence equals consent. Unless you're all too busy organizing an assault on Washington. J/K But seriuosly, I would like your thoughts on this.

    Frankly, I'd be a little disappointed with an organization that claims the resources and political clout of the NRA, that tells it's membership, despite all they give, that they are so ineffective that the sole thing they stand for constantly teeters on the brink. How 'bout that DC circuit court decision. Oh wait. That was good for you guys. Still better send another check, cuz Hitler's waiting in the wings.

    Are any of you willing to fight against infringements on any amendment or just the 2nd? While not despotic, this administration has shown itself as wanting to be monolithic. Backdoor recess appointments and politicization of the judicial branch and regulatory commissions are as close to a despot this country has seen. But, he's your guy, so as long as he doesn't mess with the only amendment that concerns you, you're content with the status quo.

    I'm a little disappointed that a group that is as patriotic as gun owners are, has so little faith in our system of government that they believe an entire amendment of our Constitution is in danger of being...what? Repealed? Not gonna happen. Removed? Again No. If some despot were to get ahold of the country (please provide me with a plausable scenario in which this could happen, I can't think of one) by the time he got around to banning guns, the democracy will have already failed, and I will be lined up next to you guys. Of course, I'll need to borrow a gun.

    Anyway, this is written by a guy in the middle with a HS education who feels blessed to have been born in this country, and believes it works best under the guise of three co-equal branches of government. I'm sorry some of you feel differently.
    Last edited by Dirty Ernie; 04-03-2007 at 07:46 AM.

  3. #53
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    [quote=Dirty Ernie;1024490] Are any of you willing to fight against infringements on any amendment or just the 2nd? While not despotic, this administration has shown itself as wanting to be monolithic. Backdoor recess appointments and politicization of the judicial branch and regulatory commissions are as close to a despot this country has seen. But, he's your guy, so as long as he doesn't mess with the only amendment that concerns you, you're content with the status quo.[/guote]

    Yes, I defend ALL the amendments. Bush administration is not MY administration. "Backdoor recess appointments and politicization of the judicial branch and regulatory commissions" have been occurring long before this administration.

  4. #54
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    whine country
    Posts
    812
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 253 Times in 139 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Criz, my replies were aimed more torward those using the NRA talking points and even then I made an assumption about those posters that I shouldn't have. I'm also a little guilty of falling into the trap of polarizing this discussion, but I don't want to discourage any replies, so i'll try to leave any rhetoric out of it, going forward.

    I would like the thoughts of the well armed citizens of this thread on the prospect of stepping into the booth in '08 having to pull the lever for Hillary or Rudy. Not a pleasant thought, I suppose.

  5. #55
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Why not make mortars, rockets, bazookas, and howitzers available to a public whose right is to bear arms? That way turf wars won't last very long, and they will be spectacular.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  6. #56
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Also while they are at it why not make it legal to own and use bio and chemical weapons too? Because gee, isn't banning those type of weapons also a violation of the "right to bear arms" too

  7. #57
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Oooh and how bout legalizing tank ownership?! And hydrogen bombs!! This way, if I want to overthrow my government or neighborhood thugs, I am adequately equipped, despite the complete fallacy of that argument in the first place.

  8. #58
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    BTW article two of the constitution referes to a "REGULATED militia"...

  9. #59
    God/dess
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,218
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 209 Times in 142 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Congratulations, you have just created the perfect police state... Statistically, you are FAR more likely to be murdered by your own government than you are by a criminal or an invading army.
    So, do (for example) the US, UK, French, German, Japanese, or Australian governments kill more of their own citizens than criminals do?

    Please post the links to reputable websites substatiating this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    After World War II, the "international community" determined that the most important goal of the new international system created for the post-war era would be the prevention of genocide.

    Among the nations who signed were Cambodia (1950), the Congo (1962) and Rwanda (1975)...These three nations, of course, went on to become the greatest sites of genocide in the second half of the 20th century.
    Are you seriously drawing a parallel between these countries and the US and suggesting that the only thing stopping the US goverment commiting genocide on its own citizens is the 'right to bear arms'?

    Doesn't say much for your political process.

    Sorry to be cynical, but when extreme arguements are advanced to support a position, I begin to wonder if the arguement is being conducted more on emotional than logical grounds.

    Phil.

  10. #60
    God/dess
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,218
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 209 Times in 142 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.

    A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.

    The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on

    In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI’s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.
    Whoa.

    Lets look at the statistics first. A gun used 5 times more to prevent a crime?

    Can you give me the statistics in the US for:

    (a) The number of armed crimes in the US annually. [i.e. the number of times guns are used when crime is committed].

    (b) The number of times police, other law enforcement or citizens used their guns to prevent a crime.

    Got a feeling there will more crimes commited by guns than prevented. On your statistics, if guns are used to prevent a crime 2.5 million times, they are only used to commit a crime 500,000 times - seems unlikely.

    Some verifiable numbers please.

    Lets also look at the pyschology behind killing. This is a subject of much interest to the military and criminal pyschologists, and there's been a fair body of work published on the subject.

    (a) There is a clear correlation between distance and the psychological ease of killing. The larger the distance, the easier it is to kill. Killing a man with a knife is personal, because you see his face as he dies. Killing a man with a rifle at a hundred yards is easier, because he's just a shape than crumples. (And killing a man with artillery is easiest, because you never see him).

    Possession of a rifle makes is psychologically easier to kill.

    (b) We are (as a species) largely reluctant to kill - but this can be overcome by the correct conditioning. Amongst other things it's why armies train in the way they do.

    [The US army had a big wake-up after WW2 when their official historian, S.L.A Marshall, found that only 10% of riflemen deliberately fired at an opponent.]

    Most armies have now designed their training such that >90% of riflemen will fire deliberately at a human target if so legitimately ordered.

    There are pyschological parallels between this training and (say) violent video games, television programs and films.

    So, we've made available a weapon that takes away some of the psychological hurdles against killing away, at the same time, as we've allowed society to impose an impromptu conditioning further removing some of the other pyschological hurdles.

    Not good.

    Certainly in the UK, I would trace the rise we have in gun crime to the increase in social acceptability of gun.

    When they were not socially acceptable in the 50's and 60's in the UK, few criminals carried them and there was little gun crime. As it became more socially acceptable, more criminals caried them and gun crime rose.

    As more criminals carried guns, so more police started to need guns, and so a vicious spiral has been set up.

    Nope, I'll back anything that in general takes society away from the position where
    guns are socially acceptable.

    Phil.

  11. #61
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    BTW article two of the constitution referes to a "REGULATED militia"...
    Exactly!

    Clearly the founding fathers realized the need for limitations.

  12. #62
    God/dess Lysondra's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Another Country
    Posts
    18,664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 148 Times in 100 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Check out the murder rates in the gun-banned Australia and tell me this isn't a good idea.

    PS: They said you had the right to bear arms... that doesn't mean you can bear an AK47 all the fricken time. A handgun? Yes. A WoMD? No.


    Look like a woman
    Think like a man
    Act like a lady
    Work like a dog

    - My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success

  13. #63
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    BTW article two of the constitution referes to a "REGULATED militia"...
    Historically a "Well Regulated Militia" is made of Private Citizens who provide their own Rifle, Powder, Shot, Knife, Hatchet, and other acoutrements as neccessary to be summoned at a moments notice without supply.

    Regulated. This refers to Major General Fredrich Von Steuben's "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States"(1780), which became the army's standard drill manual.

    Since Wars of the Period were fought in close Order Drill, (Ranks and Files).

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    Exactly!

    Clearly the founding fathers realized the need for limitations.
    Clearly the Founding Fathers did expect Limitations, and the Limitations would be placed upon Government

  14. #64
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    The Murder breakdown by State for 2005


    Agg Assault by State 2005


    The expanded Homicide Data page. Here is the Statistical break down of who was killed by whom with what. Private Citizens account for 192 Justifiable Homicides. Data on crimes prevented because an attacker was incapcitated but, not killed was not included. Crimes prevented because the Victim was Armedand the criminal ceased, fled, or apprehended was not included.


    This is the last (only time) the DOJ compiled data on the number of firearms used in Self defense. The Data is from 1992. Did Janet Reno order further reports discontinued?

  15. #65
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    While I loathe Wikipedia as a source. Out of pure laziness and the need to get on with my Entrepreneurship class homework. Militias and the present National Guard.

  16. #66
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    To those who want assualt weapons to be legal to own and use-

    Do you really oppose ANY limitations on the type of weapons that should be legal?

    Do you want all the various types of weapons to be legal and available? Even bio and chemical weapons too?

    If not, then you support limitations on weapons just like those of us who support a ban on assualt and semi assualt weapons. The only actual difference would be the type of weapon.

  17. #67
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    To those who want assualt weapons to be legal to own and use-

    Do you really oppose ANY limitations on the type of weapons that should be legal?

    Do you want all the various types of weapons to be legal and available? Even bio and chemical weapons too?

    If not, then you support limitations on weapons just like those of us who support a ban on assualt and semi assualt weapons. The only actual difference would be the type of weapon.
    That's a fringeworthy opinion and shows your lack of reasonable or mature ability to "debate". So if you can't debate you will substitute with wild accusations and hystrionics. Where ever you are going to University. Stop, get a refund, go to a better school.

    Then there is the impracticalities of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare.

    Lets examine Biowarfare? Well theoretical Captain Tripps or Real world Hemmorraghic fevers do not work in a timely enough manner for me, with Meth heads kicking in doors, car jackers now fequenting grocery store parking lots, and other places People once felt safe. Just can't wait hours for it to work on that crackhead. The one hitting you with a broken piece of concrete.

    Chemical Warfare- well Sarin B would be highly effective in the very right now. Sarin B could even be in a spray like OC pepper Sprays. With Sarin B's lethal dosage of only .00001mg;hard not to kill your attacker and everyone else in a six block radius. Good news! It is enviromentally friendly. After Sarin kills everything with a central nervous system it degrades it a nitrogen rich fertilizer. Blood agent could work too and it works on contact! Don't even need to breathe it. Course your attacker has a few minutes to lazily kill you before his red corpuscles lose the ability to transmit oxygen. Blister agent stops people right in there tracks but its corrosive nature makes that to difficult to carry. Blister agent would sure make would be rapists easy to identify at the hospital. Blisters the size of oranges! Just don't break that jar in your pocket.

    A nuke? Naw everbody would just leave it at home. Damn steel case to make it work right is just too heavy. Smallest I have seen was a 155mm Artillery shell a something like .5 KT. who wants to carry a 200lb shell? Everybody would need a Treaty with Russia and the Lawyers get rich.Then you gotta change the motherboard that controls the firing circuit regularly. That requires a clean room. Can you see the bother.

    Now my Glock 17 is simple, effective, unobtrusive and easy to handle. heck I just went took a CCW class to brush up and to get a Range Safety Certification. I let three women that were using borrowed guns try it and they all loved it.


    Lets be reasonable then. Everyone has the Right to go about peaceably and safe in their own pursuits. Criminals see it as their right to take your possesions or to take possesion of you. Therefore it should go without debate that everyone has a reasonable right to effective means of self defense.

    So lets say Phil's Idea worked a machine is built and every firearm disappears. So what. In a very short time criminals who already don't give a fuck about the Laws will build or import more. So by banning firearms you make the law abiding defenseless to criminal predators and create more criminals out of People who never had intentions of harming anyone else. Now you can ask Phil or LillithMorrigan who live in countries with highly restrictive gun laws and they can tell you. Criminals are still commiting crimes with illegal firearms. Why? Because their criminals its what they do. afer for them too with the general populace disarmed.

  18. #68
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    whine country
    Posts
    812
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 253 Times in 139 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Well, we manged to get 2 pages of civil discourse before this began to spiral down, as this debate tends to do. I was hoping to return to this thread and maybe dabble into the construct and context of the 2nd Amendment, particularly the latter half, because I didn't think anyone concerned about it would still be unaware of the historical definition of "well regulated".

    Anyway, I think I'll just slip out the door now.

  19. #69
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by crizgolfer View Post
    "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons" are not much different than your standard hunting rifle. Fully Automatic is a different story.
    Not true - and the proof of same lies in the fact that no none uses 'semi-auto assault weapons' for hunting. Know why? Because hunting rifles were designed to kill by making a hole, thereby killing animal. In contrast, assault weapons were purposely designed to cause maximum amount of tissue/organ damage in victim.

    Beyond that, modifying virtually any semi-auto assault weapon to be fully automatic is a piece of cake. That's how they were originallly designed, the blue-prints, parts, etc., exist and are readily available and, if you know what you're doing, it takes all of $15 in parts and an afternoon in your garage to do so. In contrast, the typical hunting rifle was never designed and/or intended to be full-auto and, given their typical base design, would be very difficult (if not impossible) to convert to a fully automatic weapon that functioned with any kind of reliability and consistency.

    There's only one reason to own an assault rifle - whether it be semi or full auto... to HUNT PEOPLE. That's what they've been specifically designed/built for, that's all they're good for, and outside of same, there's no legitimate use for them.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  20. #70
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by GnBeret View Post
    There's only one reason to own an assault rifle - whether it be semi or full auto... to HUNT PEOPLE. That's what they've been specifically designed/built for, that's all they're good for, and outside of same, there's no legitimate use for them.
    Agreed. I support the right to personal protection but that can be done without having to resort to using a semi or full assualt weapon. Imho, the purpose of a semi or full assualt weapon is NOT personal protection. Therefore I feel those weapons have absolutely no legal purpose outside of the active military.
    Last edited by T-10; 04-04-2007 at 10:32 AM.

  21. #71
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    That's a fringeworthy opinion and shows your lack of reasonable or mature ability to "debate". So if you can't debate you will substitute with wild accusations and hystrionics. Where ever you are going to University. Stop, get a refund, go to a better school.
    Incivility on these issues is why we have Member Boards for political discussions.

  22. #72
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by GnBeret View Post
    Not true - and the proof of same lies in the fact that no none uses 'semi-auto assault weapons' for hunting. Know why? Because hunting rifles were designed to kill by making a hole, thereby killing animal. In contrast, assault weapons were purposely designed to cause maximum amount of tissue/organ damage in victim.

    Beyond that, modifying virtually any semi-auto assault weapon to be fully automatic is a piece of cake. That's how they were originallly designed, the blue-prints, parts, etc., exist and are readily available and, if you know what you're doing, it takes all of $15 in parts and an afternoon in your garage to do so. In contrast, the typical hunting rifle was never designed and/or intended to be full-auto and, given their typical base design, would be very difficult (if not impossible) to convert to a fully automatic weapon that functioned with any kind of reliability and consistency.

    There's only one reason to own an assault rifle - whether it be semi or full auto... to HUNT PEOPLE. That's what they've been specifically designed/built for, that's all they're good for, and outside of same, there's no legitimate use for them.

    Well intentioned but untrue. Since semi auto rifles specifically AR-15's the are used for predator elimination, and varmint elimination here in Colorado and I believe most western States.

    Modifying a Semiauto like an AR-15 to fire full auto? Not so likely unless your a talented machinist able to make auto sears and disconnectors from blue prints. By the way BATFE regulations are interpreted by the Agency to mean; if you own the parts and an unmodified AR-15, you intend to build a machinegun. Felony conviction right there. I think you were considering those old STEN gun kits? Yeah those are much simpler to build. If you buy one of those kits expect a visit from the BATFE. If you have the kit, the kit has the auto sear, you have a tube even uncut. Intent to build a machinegun and it is off to the Federal pen. Don't play with the BATFE. They have the Attorney General on speed dial and you may never see the light of day again.

  23. #73
    God/dess
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,218
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 209 Times in 142 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    ArmySGT,

    Thanks for the links to the data - in the one link which compared data from different years, gun crime was going up. I guess part of this debate is to whether freely available guns protect people from the threat or contribute to it.

    I'd agree with GreenBt about the assault weapons - I believe the Armalite round is designed to tumble as it goes through the human body to cause the tissue damage he mentioned.

    As I said in an earlier post, I think the key to gun crime is social accepability. If it's not socially acceptable to own or carry a gun people won't do it.

    It's not (normally) legal to own or carry a gun in the UK, so I would rigidly enforce a law that said you if you were caught in possession of a gun while carrying out a crime that added an automatic 10 years to your sentence. (With mandatory life for a seond offence). I would also ensure that there were sufficient prison places to enforce the policy.

    I would like to think that (although it might take a number of years) people would eventually realise that carry a gun to commit a crime could cost them the best years of their lives in jail. Hopefully then, the number of guns carried by criminals would start to fall.

    If the number of guns carried by criminals starts to fall, you would need less armed police officers.

    With enough similar measures you might actually start up a virtuous cycle of less and less guns in circulation.

    There is (sort of) a test precedent being tried on smoking at the moment in the UK. Taxes on cigarettes are being steadily raised and smoking is to be banned in public places from July of this year. My money say's that enough compulsion to to put smoking into decline and eventually make it socially unacceptable.

    And if it works with cigarettes, why not guns?

    Phil.

  24. #74
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Here is some info on public opinion on gun restrictions which I found while looking up some polling information on another topic. I thought it might be of some interested to those following this thread.

  25. #75
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    ArmySGT,

    Thanks for the links to the data - in the one link which compared data from different years, gun crime was going up. I guess part of this debate is to whether freely available guns protect people from the threat or contribute to it.
    There are two things hat would skew the data. The rise and change in the American population for one. The US reached a population of 300 million just last year. So without looking back at the data represented does it show violence as a percentage of population? in conjunction with this is the explosion of Latino gang violence such as MS-13; which are highly violent groups. Second the Katrina effect of 2005 where low income and impoverished families were driven out of their areas by the affect of the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These families with a high risk for becoming criminal are in new territory and probably stripped of all material possesions by the disaster. So crime rises as criminals fight over territory, respect, and market.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    I'd agree with GreenBt about the assault weapons - I believe the Armalite round is designed to tumble as it goes through the human body to cause the tissue damage he mentioned.
    Now a bit of irony. The Geneva conventions that outlined the conduct of War after World War I mandated bullet construction. Bullet wounds of the day were grievous. The bullets were large, ofthen soft lead, usually with blunt round noses. Each side accused the other of intentionally deforming bullets to cause greater wounding with a design to maim. So one of the things was bullets were mandated to be pointed. No flat, blunt, hollow point, dum dum, etc type bulets were to be used by signatories Regular Armed forces engaged in conflict with a similar foe. No for the ironic part. A pointed bullet is lighter at the front than the back. Being more or less coneshaped the majority of bullet weight is in the base. What happens when a bullets strike an object such as a human body? The front poit being lighter of mass slows very rapidly such as a Volkswagen Bug slamming on their brakes. The rear of the bullet has the majority of the mass like a large truck (Lorry) and can't stop instantly. So they switch places. The bullet yaws turning over to travel rear first through tisue. So the geneva Convention to mandate bullet manufacture to reduce grievous wounds and maiming has actually made this increase. The bullet wasn't designed for that effect but is a consequence of the design.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    As I said in an earlier post, I think the key to gun crime is social accepability. If it's not socially acceptable to own or carry a gun people won't do it.
    I don't think peer pressure is going to reduce crime. One criminals are commiting crimes and that is socially unacceptable. Two if the illegal firearm makes commiting a crime easy or even convenient criminals are just not going to give them up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    It's not (normally) legal to own or carry a gun in the UK, so I would rigidly enforce a law that said you if you were caught in possession of a gun while carrying out a crime that added an automatic 10 years to your sentence. (With mandatory life for a seond offence). I would also ensure that there were sufficient prison places to enforce the policy.
    What's ten years with a life sentence? You might find your Prison places are full at the moment. The UK is already famous for her fleet of prison barges. With your prisons full of illegal aliens and drug users like ours. The UK like the US is going to have to really rethink what is a criminal act and what needs to be punished with incarceration.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    I would like to think that (although it might take a number of years) people would eventually realise that carry a gun to commit a crime could cost them the best years of their lives in jail. Hopefully then, the number of guns carried by criminals would start to fall.

    If the number of guns carried by criminals starts to fall, you would need less armed police officers.

    With enough similar measures you might actually start up a virtuous cycle of less and less guns in circulation.
    One would hope they were thinking that now. Doesn't however appear to be the case. What's the culture now? Get rich or die trying. Their not talking about starting in the mail room and working to CEO. Few if any appear to be thinking in the long term;so even considering what are their best years would be a stretch for some. To start a virtuous cycle We, as in our respective cultures would have to emphasize value for virtue and virtuous acts. Has Chivalry died? Look at those we glorify, are today's celebrities virtuous?


    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    There is (sort of) a test precedent being tried on smoking at the moment in the UK. Taxes on cigarettes are being steadily raised and smoking is to be banned in public places from July of this year. My money say's that enough compulsion to to put smoking into decline and eventually make it socially unacceptable.

    And if it works with cigarettes, why not guns?
    Just to dissimilar to be a precedent. A cigarette is a vice. A cigarette doesn't produce more cigarettes. While in prison and some other situations cigarettes are barter; an amount has to be surrendered to gain the barter. An illegal firearm in the hands of a criminal is their profit tool. Step in to your walk up point the gun at the Clerk, demand cigarettes, clerk gives you cigarettes, and away you go. Nothing lost but time. So while a criminal can make immense profit in no time with little risk the opinion of the public will matter not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Phil.
    Good talking to you, by the way do you think those English Lords gave up the Holland & Holland or Purdey's Shotguns worth a 100,000 pounds each. I think the Laws are for you and not the Royals. Course As an American I have no use for Royals.

    Paul

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Complying with the "Politics" Ban
    By Eric Stoner in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-13-2011, 01:34 PM
  2. "Little dick comment" prompts assault
    By tempest666 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 09:24 AM
  3. California "Home-School" Ban
    By Tauries in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 10:30 PM
  4. UN Weapons Inspectors doing their "usual" job ...
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2005, 05:10 PM
  5. "The Return of Curves"-Yeah Right!
    By Katrine in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-02-2004, 10:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •