HeyYou

Should I not defend myself when someone tries to take away my constitutional rights? Handgun bans have been struck down in most locations here in the US where they were implemented, as unconstitutional, how is an assault weapons ban any different? Hand guns are used in more crimes by a HUGE factor, yet, bans are not legal. I don't own assault RIFLES, I own assault WEAPONS. Assault Rifle: Selective fire. Assault Weapon: Semi-auto version of Assault RIFLE. I use one my my SKS rifles for rodent control. Woodchucks are NOT the size of baseballs, they are the size of a small dog. With my scoped rifle, I can hit them at 100 yards every time. One shot, one kill. The slug does not expand appreciably. (until it hits anyway.....) I originally used a .22, but, it didn't have enough stopping power to penetrate the skull, they would just basically bounce off, and mr. woodchuck would run back into his hole. I don't sit around, just waiting for an opportunity to shoot one..... I don't have the patience for that..... However, when I DO see one, it is a simple matter to grab my rifle, open a window, and shoot him dead. I am going to guess that Vagrant isn't a hunter either...... (nor am I.) I don't sit around drinking beer, waiting for something to stick it's head out...... I agree that assault weapons aren't the best for home protection. Too much penetration. You are just as likely to kill your neighbor, (or someone in the next room...) as you are anyone breaking into your home. (unless you have ammo specifically suited to the purpose......) When I lived out in the boonies though, my nearest neighbor was well out of range. I probably could not have hit one, even if I were trying to. (which I had no reason to.....) I am working on getting a place out in the country once again, and from there, I can't even SEE my nearest neighbors house. I like it. :) That's one possibility. Of course, the guy with the arsenal, and body armor.... is going to be the most obvious threat, someone pulling a pistol and aiming it at the most obvious threat, would be seen as an ALLY, not an opponent. If you can't make that distinction in the heat of combat, then you have no business pulling your weapon in the first place. Better that you leave it in the holster, and do your best to get out.

Consider that he was in a PHD program for behavioral neuroscience, and worked with somewhat less than sane folks on a daily basis. He is faking, looking for an insanity plea.

There is no reason for folks to have more than one car, but, a fair few folks do. (individuals) There is no reason for folks to collect coins, or stamps, or greeting cards, or scenic photographs, or a host of other things either. But they do. Not everyone that owns an assault weapon wants it for home protection. (in most cases, that's a bad idea anyway, for a variety of reasons.) I have mine because I LIKE having them. I enjoy collecting various weapons. I also use them to control the woodchuck population on my property. (well, not currently, that, that was the idea then, and more than likely will be again in the not so distant future, hopefully....) Could I use something else? Sure. But, I don't WANT to. It is a tool very well suited to the task at hand. I am a firm believer in having the right tool for the job. That, and I don't particularly trust our government. Allow them to ban one type of weapon this week, and next week, they will try and ban something else. After all, the precedent has been set, we did it once, we can do it again. It's happened in the past, and quite frankly, the way the government is today, I trust them about as far as I can throw them. They do NOT have my best interests at heart. All the hoopla about 'gun control' is just a knee-jerk reaction to a truly unfortunate incident. In my view, they are going the wrong way with this. Had there been other, LEGALLY armed citizens there, the body count would have been significantly less, and we would be short one whack-job.

So, because of what someone MIGHT do, you would deprive me of my constitutional rights? I VEHEMENTLY disagree. And good luck attempting to collect my collection of assault weapons. I will not surrender them willingly. Sure, I will eventually lose, but, I know I won't be the first to refuse to give them up, nor will I be alone. How many folks do you think will die in that scenario, played out across the US? With your line of thinking, you had better be confiscating ALL guns then. If you are going to ban one class of weapon, that is used in .2% of all gun crimes, then you had better go after ALL guns, because EVERY OTHER CLASS of weapon is used in crimes far more often. Terribly sorry, that logic doesn't fly.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms? Oh very well, sorry to bother you. Just present proof that you're a member of the National Guard and we'll be on our way. That particular aspect has been well covered, and there is a legal decision that civilians have the right to keep and bear arms, WITHOUT being a member of the militia, or the armed forces. Go back a couple pages, I am sure you can find it.

So the hot ticket would be, taking over a scheduled flight TO London, When it is already near Heathrow. If the approach is from the east.... give you a target rich environment, and they aren't going to be real willing to shoot you down out of hand.

Well, that's the trouble. You aren't going to prevent this sort of thing from happening. All banning guns will do is change their weapon of choice. If it isn't a gun, it will be a bomb. I can whip up a batch of plastic explosive just from the chemicals I have laying around the house. And NONE of them are controlled, or, all that unusual to find in any home. (cleaning supplies.....) The knowledge for how to make 'improvised' weapons is out there freely available on the web. And that's only one type. Tim McVeigh used fertilzer, and diesel fuel. Both also freely available just about everywhere..... although, if you AREN'T a farmer, and start purchasing large amounts of fertilizer, the fed DOES pay attention to that..... solution? Steal it from a farmer. Either that, or just set your sites a bit lower than taking out a building. Simply tossing about small bombs inside that same theater would also yield a good body count. He HAD bombs with him, they just didn't work. Be thankful for that. What we need to do, is work on changing folks behavior. Incidents of this nature were extremely uncommon even 40 years ago, when there were hardly any restrictions on weapons purchases at all. Why is that? Maybe because in this day and age, we have become so touchy feely, and oh so concerned about the 'possible psychological impact' of telling a child "no", or damn near any other form of discipline... and "no one ever fails" being taught in schools.....when no one is surprised when yet another politician is caught with his hand (or some other portion of his body) in the cookie jar, is it any wonder our society is going to hell in a handbasket? Go back even further, when there were NO restrictions on guns. Anyone and their cousin could have one.... and most of them did. Yeah, there were some bad folks, that did crimes with guns, but, you didn't see folks going into theaters, and seeing how many people they could kill before the cops got 'em, or they suffered a weapons malfunction. (they just killed presidents in theaters.....) Now, some may think I have a pretty cavalier attitude about the whole thing. Let me assure you, that is NOT the case. I just STRENUOUSLY object to having MY constitutional rights curtail, because someone else couldn't resist the urge to go on a shooting rampage. Giving up your rights to pretend you are safer, won't make you any more free, or safe for that matter.

We aren't talking about all guns. We're talking about one specific type for which there is no good practical reason why there should be civilian access to them. Disagree? Name 10 reasons that aren't more true for handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, or don't involve some sort of patriot fantasy, or aren't related to just wanting to shoot stuff with excessive firepower. Well, just for giggles, how about because they are used in less than one fifth of one percent of gun crimes? Pencils are used more often than that, should we ban pencils? Why don't you come up with 10 good reasons to deprive me of my constitutional rights?

I think you're missing something here... Nobody in their right mind is thinking that banning these sorts of weapons will reduce crime, or impact criminals who are already neck deep in the business. What it might do something about is the ability for some whack job who had a bad day to walk into a mall and just start opening fire on people just because those people are there. These sorts of people typically are not criminals before the event, nor are they likely to approach their local scumbag gun smuggler because your local scumbag gun smuggler isn't listed in the yellow pages and might just be tempted to report you to the police as soon as you walk away. So, because some whack job goes and buys a gun, and shoots up a theater, mall, whathaveyou, we should ban them for everyone?? Well, what about mr. Breivik? Seems that guns are extremely difficult to come by in Norway, yet, there he went, with 80+ dead. I would also point out, that it isn't just guns that are used by whack jobs to carry out there mass murders. Even cars have been used for such a cause. Do you think we should ban those as well? Alcohol kills tens of thousands every year, costs billions in damages, insurance rate hikes, medical costs, etc. Yet alcohol is legal... again..... It doesn't matter what legislation you pass, or what you take away from law abiding citizens, the whack jobs are STILL going to get what they want, and make use of it. Taking away my freedoms in the name of safety doesn't make me any freer, or safer.

I am real curious where folks get the misconception that even more legislation is going to make any difference at all. Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. Speeding, drinking and driving, drugs, illegally acquiring a weapon. (granted, in this case, all his guns were perfectly legal.) None of the measures stipulated here would have prevented this guy from getting guns. He had no police record, AT ALL, no history of mental instability. He was highly educated, extremely smart, and had an apparently highly productive life ahead of him. Making it more complicated to legally acquire a gun, of any description, would only achieve the affect of boosting the black market sales of guns. People will still want them, and if they are unwilling to do the hoop-jumping required by government regulation, they will simply bypass it, and get one anyway. Passing more laws, will only effect those that actually OBEY the laws. Criminals, by their very definition, do not. It would all just be worthless paper, knee-jerk reactions, and political grand-standing.

Yeah, I don't think enough people are reporting the issue for it to become important enough to use a different method. I have been unable to find a fix for it on my end. I am not going to change browsers, as I have one that I like, set up the way I like it. One site is not going to force me into something else as a workaround. Only ONE subforum here works properly.... which strikes me as REALLY odd. All the rest reset to all unread as soon as I navigate away.

I loved Morrowind, even with some of its issues. Oblivion, I played for about 45 minutes initially, and then left it for over two years, as I didn't care for what beth had done to the game. After some of the major overhauls came out, I got back in to Oblivion, and still enjoy playing it. (full FCOM install. plus others....) Skyrim? I REALLY don't care for the direction it has gone. Even further than Oblivion. I am not sure mods are even going to get me back into it. It just isn't the game that Morrowind was. It this trend continues, I won't even bother with TESVI..... Not everyone likes every game in a series, or even from the same publisher. As I see it, Beth has gone completely corporate, and profit is the only motive at this point. The put lots of nice bright shineys into the game, to attract the casual crowd, but, remove what, to ME, made the games good. Morrowind was an RPG. Oblivion was an action adventure game with heavy RPG elements. Skyrim is an action game with some RPG influence. See the trend? Doesn't bode well for the next iteration of Elder Scrolls.

True the aircraft comes down but would you prefer them to pick the point of impact? Secondly, after an aircraft is hit by a SAM of any sort it breaks into smaller pieces and most of the fuel explodes at the point of interception which will burn off quite a bit of it, admittedly a small consolation if you are directly in the path of the falling debris. I watched an automobile engine shred a crowd, and kill 20+ people...... I can't imagine what a jet engine going thru a crowd would do.... considering it is 10 times the size, and weight, not to mention it will be moving MUCH faster. Even without the rest of the jet, that's gonna make a mess. Also, consider the size of possible aircraft that may be used. It is going to take more than one air to air missile to knock down a 747... unless you get a lucky hit, and blow off a wing. Even without fuel, that is a LOT of metal bits coming down. SAM's are more than likely one-shot-kills, but still.... I am thinkin' if it gets to the point of having to fire a SAM, it's way too late in any event. Folks are gonna die. Lots of them. I am thinking a total exclusion zone, and if you fly into it, you are immediately shot down. No questions asked, no radio contact, no warning shots. Cross this line, and you die. End of story. Automated beacons transmitting a warning on a wide range of frequencies wouldn't hurt I suppose. Just out of idle curiosity though, where is Heathrow in relation to the Olympics? Is the village on the approach/departure path of any runways? That would certainly make life interesting..... @Jim_UK. That's just scary. One would think, that given how many YEARS they had to plan for this, they could have done a bit better than what those articles indicate. Interesting but unfeasible idea because a large part of the approach paths to Heathrow fly directly over London, I am keenly aware of that since the buggers fly directly overhead when I visit my mum in Chelsea (SW London) every damn morning starting at 5:00am. :verymad: Greater London is very large in geographic size, covering an area of 611 sq mi. Both Gatwick and Heathrow are necessary to handle just normal air traffic. http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3276/londont.gif Well. so much for that thought..... Yeah, you are quite correct... That's certainly going to make life interesting.....

I thinking vacating the victories was just a bit over the top. The coach is dead, sandusky is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, but, there are still other folks out there that knew what was going on, didn't report it, and are still free, un-charged, and making fat piles of cash. The fine? Sure, Ok. I can see that. But, taking the victories away from students, most of whom had nothing whatsoever to do with the situation, is, in my view, extreme, and uncalled for. You want to make sure this isn't repeated? (well, at least, give a good attempt at it....) PROSECUTE ALL that participated in the coverup. After the first victim was reported, and nothing was done, they all might just as well have been in the room with sandusky while he was molesting children.

Erm........ :ninja: At one time, I had over 4000 rounds of 7.62X39 for my pair of SKS Assault Weapons..... and almost 1000 rounds for my .45.... (an ATK Hardballer, long slide, based on the colt 1911. Very nice weapon, easy to handle, weighed enough that recoil wouldn't thump you in the head....) I haven't gone on any shooting rampages..... and I have put a serious dent in my 7.62 supply, just going out to the range and plinking. (having six 30 round magazines makes it easy to burn thru a bunch of ammo fairly quickly.) I ended up selling the .45 though... needed the money more than I needed the gun.

True the aircraft comes down but would you prefer them to pick the point of impact? Secondly, after an aircraft is hit by a SAM of any sort it breaks into smaller pieces and most of the fuel explodes at the point of interception which will burn off quite a bit of it, admittedly a small consolation if you are directly in the path of the falling debris. I watched an automobile engine shred a crowd, and kill 20+ people...... I can't imagine what a jet engine going thru a crowd would do.... considering it is 10 times the size, and weight, not to mention it will be moving MUCH faster. Even without the rest of the jet, that's gonna make a mess. Also, consider the size of possible aircraft that may be used. It is going to take more than one air to air missile to knock down a 747... unless you get a lucky hit, and blow off a wing. Even without fuel, that is a LOT of metal bits coming down. SAM's are more than likely one-shot-kills, but still.... I am thinkin' if it gets to the point of having to fire a SAM, it's way too late in any event. Folks are gonna die. Lots of them. I am thinking a total exclusion zone, and if you fly into it, you are immediately shot down. No questions asked, no radio contact, no warning shots. Cross this line, and you die. End of story. Automated beacons transmitting a warning on a wide range of frequencies wouldn't hurt I suppose. Just out of idle curiosity though, where is Heathrow in relation to the Olympics? Is the village on the approach/departure path of any runways? That would certainly make life interesting..... @Jim_UK. That's just scary. One would think, that given how many YEARS they had to plan for this, they could have done a bit better than what those articles indicate.

If they have to use those missiles then the defences have already failed, shooting down a large aircraft over London would be catastrophic. Anyway I doubt terrorists would use aircraft, the well publicised laughable security on the ground will give them more than enough opportunities. But, aircraft worked so well on 9/11...... and that is the perception that they are trying to defend against...... folks just don't seem to realize, that if you shoot down an aircraft, the key word there is DOWN. All that metal has to hit the ground somewhere......

Erm, not to make a big deal of it... But when you're trying to prove anything with bar graphs, you really need to make sure that they are ALL on the same scale. If the scale is different for any one graph, the interpretation can be misleading. It is also not exactly fair to compare crime statistics between two dissimilar places. Washington DC during the late 80's and early 90's was one of the cities with the highest crime in the country (Chicago and Detroit weren't much better). If you have high crime you have high crime related deaths regardless what gun policy is in effect since criminals couldn't care less about the law. Also. Unless I'm missing something in the OP, the argument is not about handguns or similar personal defense weapons. The argument is about allowing civilian access to military grade assault rifles (okay, they usually have to be converted to semi-automatic to be legal, but anyone who knows their way around a gun and can order parts can revert that). Yes, there is lots of reactionary opinions on the matter because of yet another idiot, but unless I'm mistaken, most sane people do not walk around with an assault rifle clipped to their jacket when they go out for groceries, or keep one in the back seat of their car should they suddenly happen to find a herd of deer that they want to massacre. Yeah, these weapons are fun to shoot, and there is a growing gun culture out there that is all about finding or building all sorts of ridiculous weapons. But it is excessive and in many cases ineffective when it comes to personal defense. Even from the standpoint of "Taking back our country", do you honestly believe that even a small group of armed civilians would last more than a few days against the U.S. military unless there was some interest in reducing collateral damage or apprehending you? Yes, you can be a patriot. Yes, you can be deeply concerned about the future of the country. But in this situation, at best, wherever you are making a base will be a crater or perpetual cloud of tear gas (hope you can drink water through that gas mask), or you end up barricading yourself in some public place with hostages... and just succeed in making yourself look like a lunatic as even other patriots distance themselves from your actions. It just does not work in reality, and you either end up dead or locked up as a terrorist. Meanwhile the country continues to go to crap because you're more personally invested in some sort of fantasy about taking a stand, than actually taking a stand against government figures who are only out for their own personal gain. If the country actually worked like it should, there wouldn't be a need to "take it back", nor would there be a need to kill or hold innocent ( "there are no innocent people, there are only those who are with us, and everyone else is against us" and you wonder why people look at you like a psychopath) people. The graphs were simply to illustrate that banning guns, has little to no effect on gun related crimes. The criminals STILL have guns, and are still quite willing to use them. I am going to do something I hate here.... I am going to mince some terms... So, bear with me. Assault Rifle: Defined as being selective fire. (capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull) Assault Weapon: Semi-auto rifle BASED ON and assault rifle. Folks seem to mix and match the terms, but, no matter which they use, we know to what they are referring. Also, I would point out that rifles are used in a very small percentage of crimes. Assault weapons in even fewer. Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. Source. Folks seem to want to present them as a scourge on the populace, but, the statistics (sorry...) don't support that conclusion.

Perfectly understandable, I remember the allies criticising Saddam Hussein for putting missile systems in residential areas, seems it's fine for our government to do it. Saddam was expecting to be defending against a nation, one that would hesitate to pound missiles into a civilian area...... The Brits are attempting to defend against terrorist, that are only interested in crashing a plane somewhere interesting. To me, it seems kinda strange that you would want to shoot at something over civilian, heavily populated, areas in any event...... Unless they identify the offending aircraft as hostile a good distance out, the death toll is going to be pretty high whether they shoot it down, or, it actually crashes into its target. Lesser of two evils?

How are the first 2 graphs following the national trend and Florida and Texas aren't doing that very thing? Alone those graphs would show quite convincingly that banning carry or allowing weapon carry does next to nothing in each of those places> each individual city/state shown pretty much just follows the national trend in homicides. I'm not seeing any case being made that either one does much, considering each implementation of those rights are staggered on about an average of 7 years from each other and thus individually can't be suggesting that would directly affect the national trend. If the graph was doing something that was inverse to the national trend, or all state no/carry laws were brought in on a single year, perhaps then some sort of conclusion could be drawn. The fact that the laws changed, yet the locations still followed the national trend, should tell you that whether you ban them or not, makes no difference. The folks that use guns in the commission of a crime, aren't going to care that the illegal weapon they are carrying, while committing an illegal act.... is, in fact, illegal. The criminals STILL have the guns. Ban or no.

Your second paragraph there speaks directly to what I see is one of the major issues in this country. The whole "my party, right or wrong, but, MY party." mindset has ensured that nothing gets accomplished in congress, or pretty much anywhere else for that matter. The bitter partisan divide is readily apparent wherever you look on the net. I note that online editions of newspapers that allow comments on articles is a PRIME example of this. My party is right, the other party is a bunch of drooling idiots, that don't have a clue....... It's scarey....... and does not speak well for the future of this nation. Problem being, the politicians are CULTIVATING this divide, to their own benefit. (and the expense of the nation as a whole) I don't see that changing any time soon..... Truly unfortunate. Really wanna get scared? So much so that you have to laugh? Read some of the comments in the Rants and Raves section of Ann Arbor Craigslist........ THOSE folks REALLY worry me. As for the article referenced in the opening post....... I might give it a bit more credence if it wasn't so obviously slanted to the anti-gun side. His statistics are WAY over-blown, making his conclusions suspect as well. What's really funny is, some of the correlations of severely restrictive gun control laws, and crime in various locations. For instance, have a look at this chart, showing the murder rate in Washington DC. http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc-full.png Please note the handgun ban really didn't do a thing for the murder rate in DC. It spiked anyway. The general national trend of murder rate has been declining steadily in any event. How about Chicago? http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago-full.png We see pretty much the same pattern here. Handguns are banned, there is an initial decline in murder rates, and then a serious spike..... followed by another decline, which also follows the national trend. And everyone remembers Florida, the Right to Carry, and Stand Your Ground? Well, how's this for an interesting tidbit: http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida-full.png Wow, would you look at that? Right to carry is enacted, and the murder rate plummets! Amazing. And Texas: http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/texas-full.png Wow, imagine that! Same trend....... Granted, the rates were on the way down in any event, but, where are all the murders that are supposed to come from everyone and their cousin being armed? Where are the shootouts on the streets? Mass Mayhem?? Could it be, that the folks that are actually LAW ABIDING CITIZENS obey the law? Wow. Whodathunkit. If you deprive honest citizens of the right to keep and bear arms, all your are doing is taking guns, and the protection they provide, away from the exact WRONG group you are attempting to target. Criminals, by their very definition are NOT "law abiding", banning anything isn't going to prevent them for possessing said item. In a society where the criminals are assured their victims are unarmed...... the criminals have the power. All information provided here, plus, a BOATLOAD more, is presented here.

Yep, that was it. :D Try setting it to -512, and see if that makes any difference.

wat He doesn't agree with him. :D

Faster download speeds. No ads. Some other perks.

Well, I would also point out that we have the highest incarceration rate in the 'civilized' world as well.... We are still a fairly young country, as these things go..... in the early days, if you WEREN'T armed, all manner of things were out there that wanted to kill you for one reason or another... firearms were the best protection available. To a degree..... there was a LOT of territory, that civilization had never touched, at least, not what we would consider "modern" civilization at the time. It was a great wilderness. Going unarmed into it was a sure bet that you wouldn't be returning. The whole idea behind the 2nd amendment is the fault of the British. :D The goal was, to have an armed populace, that if the government got 'out of control', the people would have the ability to do something about it. We have three options, the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, and the Cartridge Box..... Seems that one didn't work out quite as planned though, as our government is certainly out of control, but, we all just sit on our duffs, pretend that it isn't really happening, and content ourselves with partisan bickering..... but, that's a topic for another thread. :D