Doom death and destruction in the US

[Peregrine]

You're joking, right? The police can file a report and maybe arrest your murderer, but that doesn't do you much good when you're already dead. Trusting police response time to save your life is extremely foolish.

[arkgamer1]

Yes, dummy. I was joking. But sereously, I don't think the lifting of the ban is bad. I mean, even if yourAK can now have a grenade launcher, you can't get ammo for it!

[tyjet3]

omg... did he really just call peregrine a dummy??!?!??!?!?

 

*runs and hides in bomb shelter* :nazgul:

[Dinin]

I just want to point out how devastating a gun accident can be in a community. First i want to point out that this accident happened in a town of around 3,000 people, so basically everyone knew almost everyone.

 

This happened a few years ago, but some highschoolers were harassing a man in the country near the town. They were driving around his house yelling and acting like highschool kids, this was wrong of them to do, but the man overracted to the problem.

 

The man pulled out a weapon that was similar to the AK-47, and fired a few rounds in the direction of the car. The kids were startled and drove off, after they were a good ways away, they were laughing and joking about what the man had done, then the driver of the car looked to the passenger seat, and saw that his best friend had been shot in the head.

 

The kid's death had affected everyone in the county. Everyone was shocked, the town wasn't used to news such as this. It was as if the whole county was in a state of mourning for a week. I know this sort of thing happens everyday in the slums of America, but in rural areas such as this, it's almost just as devastating. Everyone in the area knew the young man, and knew him to be a good kid despite his immature behavior toward the man. You should ask yourself if this would have happened if gun laws were more strict. I know there are cases that are 100 times worse than this, but this was something that i had experienced.

 

It seems as if people do not understand how dangerous these weapons are until someone close to them dies. I have stated before that i think hunting weapons are acceptable. Hunting rifles have, and can kill, but the odds of that kid getting hit by a rifle is very slim.

 

This accident really happened, i didn't use names for safety reasons.

[Peregrine]

I just want to point out how devastating a gun accident can be in a community. First i want to point out that this accident happened in a town of around 3,000 people, so basically everyone knew almost everyone.

 

Murder is not an accident.

 

You should ask yourself if this would have happened if gun laws were more strict.

 

Yes, it would have happened. If the AWB had banned his gun, he would have picked up his AK-47 without a bayonet and shot the kid exactly the same way. Except his gun wouldn't have looked as "evil" as he was doing it.

 

It seems as if people do not understand how dangerous these weapons are until someone close to them dies. I have stated before that i think hunting weapons are acceptable. Hunting rifles have, and can kill, but the odds of that kid getting hit by a rifle is very slim.

 

One victim was hit by one bullet. The fact that it was from an AK-47 made no difference. A common hunting rifle would have done exactly the same thing.

 

And since we're talking about the AWB in this thread, none of the "evil" features banned by the AWB would have made even the slightest difference in this crime.

[Dinin]

Murder is not an accident.

 

You know what i meant when i said accident. At least i hope you do. For those of you who don't, just replace accident with the word death.

 

One victim was hit by one bullet. The fact that it was from an AK-47 made no difference. A common hunting rifle would have done exactly the same thing.

 

Like i said, he fired a few rounds in the direction of the vehicle. See how many times you can hit a moving target with a rifle, and then try it with an assault rifle. I'm guessing you'll get different results.

[Abramul]

Explosives should be a complete NO!! I wouldn't classify explosives as a firearm. only fireworks stuff should be allowed. That's it.

 

Definitely a good idea. Let's see:

BAN LIST:

Aluminum, Iron Oxide (Thermite);

Dry Ice, soda bottles, and H2O;

Heart medicine (Nitroglycerin);

ANY fertilizer;

and lots more.

Even fission explosives are naturally occuring....

Apart from its formation in today's nuclear reactors, plutonium was formed by the operation of the natural reactors in a uranium deposit at Oklo in west Africa some two billion years ago.

If you can afford plutonium, and want to use it for your home's power...

[ImmortalSnafu]

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[1]

 

 

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.[2]

 

 

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.[3]

 

 

From 1987-1990, victims used firearms to protect themselves in fewer than one percent of all violent offenses.[4]

 

 

In 1998, there were only 134 justifiable handgun homicides by a private citizen compared with a total of 6,498 handgun murders in the United States.[5]

 

 

 

 

1) Kellermann AL. "Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes." JAMA 1995;273(22):1759-62.

 

2) Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 1084-1091.

 

3) Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-472.

 

4) McDowall D. "The incidence of defensive firearm use by US crime victims, 1987 through 1990." American Journal of Public Health, 1994; 84(12):1982-84.

 

5) FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2000; table 2.13, p.21 and table 2.17, p.23.

 

www.bradycenter.org

These figures are a bit dated, but still relevant.

 

http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.upd...date/index.html

Crimes like the North Hollywood shootout are why assault weapons should be banned.

 

For the record, I'm not opposed to gun ownership, as ludicrous as it is...

[Peregrine]

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.

 

Means nothing. WHY is a gun not used for protection? Is there no gun in the house? Is the owner unable to reach it? Are they not willing to kill someone in defense? Is the owner dead before they can get to their gun?

 

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.

 

That's nice, but even if it is true, it says nothing about "assault weapons" which is the topic of the thread.

 

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

 

That's nice, but even if it is true, it says nothing about "assault weapons" which is the topic of the thread. You don't need an assault weapon to kill yourself.

 

From 1987-1990, victims used firearms to protect themselves in fewer than one percent of all violent offenses.

 

That's nice, but even if it is true, it says nothing about "assault weapons" which is the topic of the thread.

 

And this is an argument in favor of more guns. I imagine you'll find that a lot of that 99% involves a case where the victim didn't have a gun to even try to protect themselves.

 

 

In 1998, there were only 134 justifiable handgun homicides by a private citizen compared with a total of 6,498 handgun murders in the United States

 

Key point: handgun homicides. This thread is about the AWB.

 

Crimes like the North Hollywood shootout are why assault weapons should be banned.

 

As unfortunate as that was, crimes like that are a tiny percentage of the overall crime rate. You're more likely to be struck by lightning with the winning lottery ticket in your hand than be killed in a crime like that.

[ImmortalSnafu]

Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun; 24% have a handgun.[1]

 

[1]National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago, 1997-1998 National Gun Policy Survey, September 1998.

 

 

 

Means nothing. WHY is a gun not used for protection? Is there no gun in the house? Is the owner unable to reach it? Are they not willing to kill someone in defense? Is the owner dead before they can get to their gun?

It means everything. 40% of households possess a gun, and yet only they are used for protection in only 2% of home invasions. If 98% of the time you are unable to use your gun to defend yourself, regardless of the reason, there really isn't a point to having the gun in your home for defense. You're more likely to have your gun wrestled out of your hand and used against you.

 

And this is an argument in favor of more guns. I imagine you'll find that a lot of that 99% involves a case where the victim didn't have a gun to even try to protect themselves.

A very large portion aren't even occuring in homes...should people carry guns everywhere?

 

Key point: handgun homicides. This thread is about the AWB.

I'm arguing against all guns here, assault weapons and handguns included ;).

 

As unfortunate as that was, crimes like that are a tiny percentage of the overall crime rate. You're more likely to be struck by lightning with the winning lottery ticket in your hand than be killed in a crime like that.

That doesn't change the fact that there is never a need to shoot that many bullets, that fast unless you want to kill a lot of people.