HeyYou Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 So, because some whack job goes and buys a gun, and shoots up a theater, mall, whathaveyou, we should ban them for everyone?? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 So, because some whack job goes and buys a gun, and shoots up a theater, mall, whathaveyou, we should ban them for everyone?? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 deprive me of my constitutional rights?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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 deprive me of my constitutional rights?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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K00L Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) I have to say I'm in agreement with Vagrant0 here. There is no reason people need those kinds of guns. And like he said, its not to deter crime lords, its to prevent crazy people from being able to unload hundreds of bullets into large gatherings of people. Sure they could still use a pencil or a different gun, but its going to cause a lot less harm. Edited July 25, 2012 by K00L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) I have to say I'm in agreement with Vagrant0 here. There is no reason people need those kinds of guns. And like he said, its not to deter crime lords, its to prevent crazy people from being able to unload hundreds of bullets into large gatherings of people. Sure they could still use a pencil or a different gun, but its going to cause a lot less harm. 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. Edited July 25, 2012 by HeyYou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 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?You seem to be mistaking something here. I'm not talking about gun crimes, I'm not suggesting that you give up a constitutional right. I'm suggesting that the restrictions related to weaponry and ordinance that is legally allowable to civilians be reviewed and changed. An assault weapon, aside from it's technical connection to being a gun, is no more practical for someone who is not in the military or security industry to own than high explosives, rocket propelled grenades, artillery pieces, or high yield automatic weapons (chainguns and similar mufti-barreled designs) (all of which currently being either illegal outside of military use or requiring special certifications and permissions from the government). Rather than come up with a logical or practical reason why any civilian would need to own one of these weapons, you go on about how only one in several thousand happens to be a lunatic. Just because something doesn't normally cause harm to others doesn't make it good and proper, nor does it make it practical for most of the population. 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?I'll look past the paranoid gun-nut angle... And approach this from a logical point of view... They won't run around collecting weapons from people. It is both logistically impossible, and only works to make those that are actually paranoid gun-nuts to be more inclined to take their guns to some public place and protest with as much gunfire as they are allowed before the standoff comes to a bloody conclusion. What they would do instead is block sales of weapons or ammunition for those weapons, and after a certain period of time make it so that if these sorts of weapons are found in your home or property, you will be fined or be looking at jail time. Making it much more difficult for people to use these weapons does a good deal better at encouraging people to destroy or turn in the weapons they have (and can no longer legally shoot in any range, or get ammunition for) willingly. I am well aware that there are those who make their own ammunition, or have private ranges who would essentially be unaffected by any of this. But the best laws are typically ones who only affect a portion of a population and give the notion that something is being done about the issue... But compromise is too rational... We like our guns and we'll kill anyone who tries to take them from us... and such :facepalm: . And you wonder why people think this whole issue is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited July 25, 2012 by HeyYou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 There is no reason for folks to collect greeting cards. But they do.And for that reason we tolerate the tend of thousands of greeting card–related deaths every, oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts