The new push for an assault weapons ban...

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d26-The-new-push-to-ban-socalled-assault-weapons


This being the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, I have so far looked only at what is going on right at the local level. Starting now, though, I am going to expand the focus. Gun rights in St. Louis are, after all, seriously impacted by state and federal gun laws. This is not to say that I will abandon local gun rights issues--as they come up, I'll discuss them, but to focus on local events exclusively would be to ignore many of the most pressing gun rights issues facing St. Louisans and others.

One type of proposed federal law that incessantly comes up for discussion is a new federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." The last such ban, of course, expired in 2004, after which, suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.

This time, it's Miami that has provided fodder for the citizen disarmament advocates, with a shooting involving an "AK-47" (I suspect that it was a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47, rather than a real, fully automatic one--real AK-47s have been, and continue to be, regulated under laws much more restrictive than the AWB).

Miami police issued a plea for information Saturday after at least one person with an assault rifle opened fire on a crowd of people on a streetcorner Friday night, killing two teens and wounding seven other people.

Certainly a horrible and tragic event, but I would argue that such violence is more an indication of the amount of work that needs to be done in repairing the badly frayed social fabric of this country, than it is an effective argument for restricting peaceable citizens' access to certain popular firearms, in a doomed attempt to keep those firearms out of the hands of criminals.

That, however, is exactly how some would use this incident.

"These are weapons of war, and they don't belong on the streets of Miami or any other street in America," Mayor Manuel Diaz said.

Like Mayor Slay, Mayor Diaz is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the fallacy of that group's claim that they're only interested in stopping illegal guns is exposed by the number of now legal guns they would like to make illegal (the AR-15, for example, generally considered an "assault weapon" by the prohibitionists, is now the biggest selling centerfire rifle in the U.S.).

In their drive to ban so-called "assault weapons," the mayors have powerful allies in the federal government, including a president and vice president who have made no secret of their wish to do so.

They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Vice President Biden, by the way, was one of the original sponsors of the now expired ban. Eric Holder, whom President Obama has chosen, pending Senate confirmation, as the Attorney General, has stated that he believes the Supreme Court's Heller decision poses no obstacle to such a ban.

And I had mentioned, I think, closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I would also think that making the assault weapons ban permanaent wold be someting that would be permitted under Heller, and I also think would be good for my law enforcement perspective.

President Obama seems already to have abandoned even the pretense of honoring his campaign promises to "respect the Second Amendment," and we can expect the agenda of smotheringly restrictive gun laws to get underway in earnest any time now.

Are you ready for it?

-----------------


As a gun owner, I have to say this is just baffling to me. With a 30.06 at a distance of 2000 yards I would be able to take down 10-15 people even if they all had a "deadly assault rifle" before they were anywhere near me. Not to mention that I would MUCH rather be shot with an AK-47 at 300+ meters than ANY hunting rifle. But I guess that's not for people who know absolutely nothing about guns to argue about.

[ChumpDumper]

So why would you want an AK-47 in the first place?

If it's so shitty, there's no reason to be against its regulation.

[ratm1221]

So why would you want an AK-47 in the first place?

If it's so shitty, there's no reason to be against its regulation.

Duh, to protect ourselves. I carry an AK with me to the grocery store and I've never been robbed.

Man has had an infatuation with weapons and killing people since we discovered rocks and sticks.

[ratm1221]

President Obama seems already to have abandoned even the pretense of honoring his campaign promises to "respect the Second Amendment," and we can expect the agenda of smotheringly restrictive gun laws to get underway in earnest any time now.

Anyone that has taken a government class knows that the Second Amendment is vague and up for debate. Those that take it literally either haven't read it or ignore the context that it's used in.

[The Reckoning]

Anyone that has taken a government class knows that the Second Amendment is vague and up for debate. Those that take it literally either haven't read it or ignore the context that it's used in.

have you heard the recent supreme court ruling?

[Wild Cobra]

Does it matter why someone would want a replica AK-47? Your lack of understanding does not give you the right to deny others there personal choices, does it?

I also would not want an AK-47 for any practical reason. There are other weapons I would choose first.

Stand back from the more extreme examples and ask yourself if you want the government trampling on our constitution.

Liberals love to redefine words over time. At the time of our constitution, 'militia' did not mean any organized group of men. It meant any able bodied man that can be called into service. To take away any rights to bear arms is a clear violation of the first amendment.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Liberals love to redefine words over time. At the time of our constitution, 'militia' did not mean any organized group of men. It meant any able bodied man that can be called into service. To take away any rights to bear arms is a clear violation of the first amendment.

so militia meant any "able-bodied man?"

A well regulated "able-bodied man" being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

:lol

[Bartleby]

Stand back from the more extreme examples and ask yourself if you want the government trampling on our constitution.

Where was all your outrage while Bush was shitting on the constitution the last eight years?


Liberals love to redefine words over time. At the time of our constitution, 'militia' did not mean any organized group of men. It meant any able bodied man that can be called into service. To take away any rights to bear arms is a clear violation of the first amendment.

:lol treating the constitution as a living document--how very liberal of you.

[LnGrrrR]

I say, if people want to buy a tank, let them. Though I guess I could be persuaded to make licenses mandatory for those who want weapons of mass destruction...

[Shastafarian]

Does it matter why someone would want a replica AK-47?Um, yes.

Your lack of understanding does not give you the right to deny others there personal choices, does it?So you must be for the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth, etc.


I also would not want an AK-47 for any practical reason. There are other weapons I would choose first. Like yer mind!


Stand back from the more extreme examples and ask yourself if you want the government trampling on our constitution.I wonder what any of the founders would say if we told them every citizen would be allowed to have a weapon that fires off 700 rounds a minute.


Liberals love to redefine words over time.Conservatives love to ignore definitions they don't agree with.


At the time of our constitution, 'militia' did not mean any organized group of men. It meant any able bodied man that can be called into service. Maybe you should look at the context of the...


To take away any rights to bear arms is a clear violation of the first amendment.second amendment.

[Sec24Row7]

Shasta you have to get a federal permit and have a background check by the feds in order to have any full auto weapon and it has been that way since the Chicago Gangster days.

They are now trying to outlaw guns that "look mean" because they are the easiest marks...

[Shastafarian]

They are now trying to outlaw guns that "look mean" because they are the easiest marks...

Not because they're more dangerous than others

[ratm1221]

To take away any rights to bear arms is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Since you are such an expert on the constitution, tell us where it says anything about bearing arms in the FIRST amendment.

[ratm1221]

have you heard the recent supreme court ruling?

The decision was 5-4. Therefore it's debatable. Ever hear of separate but equal?

[FreeMason]

Do what you want to do. If you want to never touch a gun and rely on the safety of this great nation, do so.

There are billions of guns in the world. They will always be around. It's all good.

[Wild Cobra]

Where was all your outrage while Bush was shitting on the constitution the last eight years?



:lol treating the constitution as a living document--how very liberal of you.

Where does it say a 'reasonable right to bear arms' We flat out have that right! You are talking about the fourth amendment, right?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I say what the Bush administration did was perfectly reasonable!

Why can't people at least acknowledge this is a possible correct interpretation?

[Sec24Row7]

Not because they're more dangerous than others

Hahah... typical. The person using the gun causes the danger factor.

Ask military who they are more afraid of. Are they more afraid of untrained militants with AK's or a mercenary sniper.

[Sec24Row7]

The decision was 5-4. Therefore it's debatable. Ever hear of separate but equal?

No... the decision was 5-4 therefore it's law.

[ratm1221]

No... the decision was 5-4 therefore it's law.

Separate but equal was law as well. Agree to disagree.

[ratm1221]

I'll stop now. No use arguing with gun toting gangster wannabes that want to carry AK's.

[Shastafarian]

Hahah... typical. The person using the gun causes the danger factor.

Ask military who they are more afraid of. Are they more afraid of untrained militants with AK's or a mercenary sniper.

Ask a crowd at a mall who they're more afraid of. A guy with a sniper rifle or a guy with an assault weapon.

[SnakeBoy]

Not because they're more dangerous than others

No they're not more dangerous. Real assault rifles are already regulated. It really is about guns that look mean. Here's a good video, at the 6:00 mark a perfectly acceptable hunting rifle becomes a scary assault rifle with a few cosmetic changes.

HTjBxW6Df_A

[ratm1221]

Do what you want to do. If you want to never touch a gun and rely on the safety of this great nation, do so.

There are billions of guns in the world. They will always be around. It's all good.

Great safety? What's safe about psychos with guns?

You have an idiot that has a bad day that owns a gun and he goes to a mall and starts shooting people and turns the gun on his self.

You have an idiot has a bad day that doesn't have a gun he goes in the bathroom and slits his own throat. I'll take the latter.

Sorry, it's not your safety I'm worried about. It's mine.

[ratm1221]

From the way it sounds, guns are what... some kind of personal statement? You get a gun to look cool or mean?

http://www.arthurshall.com/images/custom_images/guns_girl.jpg

[Sec24Row7]

Great safety? What's safe about psychos with guns?

You have an idiot that has a bad day that owns a gun and he goes to a mall and starts shooting people and turns the gun on his self.

You have an idiot has a bad day that doesn't have a gun he goes in the bathroom and slits his own throat. I'll take the latter.

Sorry, it's not your safety I'm worried about. It's mine.

Or takes his car and drives through a crowd of people... Or sets an office building on fire...

[Sec24Row7]

From the way it sounds, guns are what... some kind of personal statement? You get a gun to look cool or mean?

http://www.arthurshall.com/images/custom_images/guns_girl.jpg

Guns only look "cool" or "mean" to people who haven't used them their whole life. To me... A gun is like a hammer... you don't see carpenters out their waiving their hammers around and spouting off how cool they are.

Education is the key... not making it criminal to own them.

I really don't think that people will go quietly into the night and have their guns taken away. Ask any cop if he would volunteer to be a guy going door to door and take guns away from the populace of this country. They are scared to do it.

Why? For exactly the reason that the second amendment contended. An armed general populace can keep THEIR OWN government accountable.

[micca]

The men who framed the bill of rights and the constitution were subjects of the king of england,most of them of english descent.They were well aware of both the history of england as well as the methods by which the monarchy maintained power.The people of both scotland and ireland were not allowed to own arms, without the abilities to own, and become familiar with arms it made it much more diificult to mount insurections against the english.These were men who were actually living under the heel of oppresion,and so they knew about what they spoke, unlike ourselves.
It is ridiulous to suppose these men added to the consitution and bill of right anything that was superfolous, the right to bear arms must have been something they felt was absolutely vital to the preservation of freedom.The foremost thought among them was to distribute power in as wide a base as possible in order to keep power from the hands of to few. their over riding fear was goverment itself.
It is also interesting to note that if the right to bear arms was for milita use only. why none of the founding presidents ordered militias formed and maintained. One of the reasons the english long bow was such an effective weapon was that the king of england ordered each common englishman between the ages of 16 to 60 to go to the village shooting range and practice weekly. Our founders did no such thing.Weapons were to protect us from the state as well as to protect the state.

Hitler,Stalin,Mao, Mussolini, all made it their first priorities to disarm the people through gun control, in order as they told the people to bring about a safer, more just, more human society blah blah blah.

[SnakeBoy]

Sorry, it's not your safety I'm worried about. It's mine.

Must suck to go through life scared of everything.

[ChumpDumper]

Must suck to go through life scared of everything.You tell us how that feels. Republicans love being afraid.

[DarkReign]

I knew there was a reason I put off buying a Winter Classic Wings jersey.

Well, off to the soon-to-be-last gunshow to get what I want before its illegal.

[LnGrrrR]

Look, anyone who wants to cause mass destruction can do so, guns or not. I am for letting people buy whatever they want, mainly to dissuade government from ever taking over a la a military coup.

I think the chances of this happening are probably 10 mil to 1. However, I wouldn't mind having the guns, just in case.

I'm for reasonable regulation of weapons like assault rifles and whatnot.

[Cry Havoc]

So why would you want an AK-47 in the first place?

If it's so shitty, there's no reason to be against its regulation.

It's cheap, it's efficient, and it almost never breaks down. You can run the thing over, throw it in water, and it will still shoot.


Anyone that has taken a government class knows that the Second Amendment is vague and up for debate. Those that take it literally either haven't read it or ignore the context that it's used in.

Nice generalization. I completely disagree with you, and I've taken more than enough history and government to feel justified in doing so.


Man has had an infatuation with weapons and killing people since we discovered rocks and sticks.

Yep. I own guns for the exclusive purpose of killing people.


I say, if people want to buy a tank, let them. Though I guess I could be persuaded to make licenses mandatory for those who want weapons of mass destruction...

ALL firearms are regulated and need permits to own and use. Especially those that are fully-automatic.


I wonder what any of the founders would say if we told them every citizen would be allowed to have a weapon that fires off 700 rounds a minute.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Nice try. Perhaps you should attempt to understand a little bit about what you're talking about before you say anything about this.


Great safety? What's safe about psychos with guns?

What's safe about a psycho behind the wheel of an F-250 Ford pickup truck? You walk into a crowded area with an AK-47 and I'll drive into it at full speed with a truck, and we'll see who can take out more. Because CLEARLY a gun (assault rifle! It sounds scarier!) is the only way to kill someone and therefore it needs to be banned.


Not because they're more dangerous than others

Did you READ what I said in the original post? Probably not, because it's easier to just wave your hands and jump around about the evils of guns instead of actually being educated.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw

Now, since you are so adverse to listening to what I have to say on the issue, I've even time indexed this for you.

:50 seconds onward is the AK-47.

1:25 onward is the hunting rifle. Please note that it's a SMALL rifle, nothing compared to a modern day 30.06 or .300 Win Magnum.

2:25 is a common deer cartridge.

4:15 is a 30.06 round, which is by no means the most powerful hunting rifle.

Also keep in mind that the hunting rifles have an effective range of around four to six times that of the AK-47. You could be standing 8000 feet away from me, and if I'm holding a good hunting rifle with a calibrated scope, I still have kill power.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Great safety? What's safe about psychos with guns?

You have an idiot that has a bad day that owns a gun and he goes to a mall and starts shooting people and turns the gun on his self.

You have an idiot has a bad day that doesn't have a gun he goes in the bathroom and slits his own throat. I'll take the latter.

Sorry, it's not your safety I'm worried about. It's mine.

Talk about ignorance. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and more weapons used in violent crimes originate there than any other state in the U.S.

If you take weapons out of the hands of the good guys, only the bad guys will have them.

England completely banned firearms, and guess what - since doing it, the number of people killed by firearms has actually gone up.

Additionally, because guns aren't readily available to the public over there, more people are getting killed by knife than at any point before in the country's history, and now they're considering banning knives all the way down to steak knives. What's next? Forks?

And going back to the Constitution, the real intent of the 2nd Amendment was a check on the government. If you take away the firearms of all Americans, you know what you have? Subjects.

If someone wants to kill coworkers, they will find a way. They'll drive a car into a crowd of people, set the building on fire, whatever. Your arguments are so asinine it's not even funny.

You don't want psychos with a gun because they can kill people, so you want to ban all guns? Fine, ban all cars too. People get behind the wheel drunk and kill other people, therefore cars are evil and should be banned to prevent idiots from killing people with them.

I could go on and on. It's so comical though, any assault rifle that you can go out and buy today fires just as many rounds at a time as a shotgun, rifle, or handgun (i.e., one trigger pull, one bullet).

Such ignorance and idiocy on this thread from the anti-gun folks, but it is almost the end of January - we were overdue for another thread on this.

[Bender]

good post, AHF. Being a gun owner, and pro-gun, I was aware of all of that already.

however, trying to discuss gun stuff with most of the people here, is like...

:bang

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

ALL firearms are regulated and need permits to own and use. Especially those that are fully-automatic.

You're a little off on the first part. Permits aren't required unless you're going concealed carry, or local laws require. In Texas, I can go out to my uncle's ranch without a permit and shoot anything I want. I guess if you mean hunting that's a little different, but I digress...

On the second part, I wonder if any of the gun haters here understands what it takes to acquire a full auto weapon. You pretty much have to submit to a proctological exam by the BATF, and you better have a damn good reason for wanting one (and a couple of grand for the application, let alone the firearm itself).

You're looking on the order of about $30K for the permit and purchase of a full auto weapon, and that's if BATF even agrees you have a need for one. Otherwise, the only folks with full autos are the police and military.

And for perspective, AK-47s, AR-15s, etc. that you can go out and buy at gun stores/shows these days are NOT full auto weapons. They are one shot, one bullet. The Miami shooting referenced in the above auto was carried out with a semi-auto. One could have done the same damage with a handgun and 2-3 magazines depending on the weapon used.

For a final perspective, and one I like to repeat here whenever the anti-gun douches start bitching.... Switzerland requires a gun in every home as part of a national militia.

Germany skipped invading them because of this during WWII, and they have a substantially lower violent gun crime rate than here in the U.S. If you listened to some of the Brady Ban bunch, idiots like ratm on this thread, you'd think the streets of Switzerland would be awash in blood...

You really want to put a dent in the crazy shootings here in the U.S.? Get the media to quit romanticizing them. Don't put their names and pictures on the TV, in the newspaper. Bury them with a tombstone that reads asshole #1, asshole #2, etc. Many of those folks want to leave a name for themselves, and they get it by ending their pathetic lives only after taking others with them. Fuck that. Don't give them any credit, hell make them a bigger bastard in the public's eye for doing it. That's what many hated prior to committing mass murder.

[ratm1221]

Talk about ignorance. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and more weapons used in violent crimes originate there than any other country in the U.S.

If you take weapons out of the hands of the good guys, only the bad guys will have them.

England completely banned firearms, and guess what - since doing it, the number of people killed by firearms has actually gone up.

Additionally, because guns aren't readily available to the public over there, more people are getting killed by knife than at any point before in the country's history, and now they're considering banning knives all the way down to steak knives. What's next? Forks?

And going back to the Constitution, the real intent of the 2nd Amendment was a check on the government. If you take away the firearms of all Americans, you know what you have? Subjects.

If someone wants to kill coworkers, they will find a way. They'll drive a car into a crowd of people, set the building on fire, whatever. Your arguments are so asinine it's not even funny.

You don't want psychos with a gun because they can kill people, so you want to ban all guns? Fine, ban all cars too. People get behind the wheel drunk and kill other people, therefore cars are evil and should be banned to prevent idiots from killing people with them.

I could go on and on. It's so comical though, any assault rifle that you can go out and buy today fires just as many rounds at a time as a shotgun, rifle, or handgun (i.e., one trigger pull, one bullet).

Such ignorance and idiocy on this thread from the anti-gun folks, but it is almost the end of January - we were overdue for another thread on this.

An idiot calling people idiots? Amusing.

[td4mvp21]

Talk about ignorance. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and more weapons used in violent crimes originate there than any other country in the U.S.

If you take weapons out of the hands of the good guys, only the bad guys will have them.

England completely banned firearms, and guess what - since doing it, the number of people killed by firearms has actually gone up.

Additionally, because guns aren't readily available to the public over there, more people are getting killed by knife than at any point before in the country's history, and now they're considering banning knives all the way down to steak knives. What's next? Forks?

And going back to the Constitution, the real intent of the 2nd Amendment was a check on the government. If you take away the firearms of all Americans, you know what you have? Subjects.

If someone wants to kill coworkers, they will find a way. They'll drive a car into a crowd of people, set the building on fire, whatever. Your arguments are so asinine it's not even funny.

You don't want psychos with a gun because they can kill people, so you want to ban all guns? Fine, ban all cars too. People get behind the wheel drunk and kill other people, therefore cars are evil and should be banned to prevent idiots from killing people with them.

I could go on and on. It's so comical though, any assault rifle that you can go out and buy today fires just as many rounds at a time as a shotgun, rifle, or handgun (i.e., one trigger pull, one bullet).


:tu :tu :tu :tu

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

An idiot calling people idiots? Amusing.

Mature, rational, well thought out response.

You have no problem calling me an idiot under some fucked up logic of 'AHF likes guns, guns kill people, therefore he's an idiot' so you'll excuse me if I don't cite a bunch of actual facts regarding the discussion and call you a fucking idiot for not understanding or recognizing any of them.

You want to know what's idiotic? Not wanting people to have guns. There's no check on the government (and given the substantial nationalization going on right now, this is even more dumbfounding), and let's be honest - if someone breaks into your home the cops will get there in enough time to investigate a crime scene, not prevent one.

Sorry chump, but I deserve the right to defend myself and my family if someone enters my home. And you're an asshole for arguing that I should only be able to use a golf club, baseball bat, whatever, when the bad guys are likely to be packing a firearm of some sorts.

If you don't like guns, move to England. They're banned there, so you can feel better knowing that, even though they have a higher murder rate now than before they banned firearms. :toast

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Now I think about it, ratm is right. So here's a list of things to ban. Keep in mind the following (these are all CDC numbers from 2005, the last year available for all statistics on their web site):

* given the numbers, a person is ten times as likely to die by accident (vehicular, home, or workplace) than be murdered by firearm

* given the numbers, a person is twice is likely to die an alcohol related death than be murdered by firearm

* given the numbers, a person is six times as likely to die from diabetes than be murdered by firearm

* given the numbers, a person is more likely to die from falling than be murdered by firearm

* given the numbers, a person is five times more likely to die from the flu than be murdered by firearm

* given the numbers, a person is twice as likely to die from an STD than be murdered by firearm

So, to prevent idiots from getting killed, before we ban firearms, we need to ban:

* vehicles (#1 cause of fatal accidents)
* alcohol (twice as likely to cause death as being murdered)
* electricity (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
* backyard pools (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
* recreational vehicles (ATVs, motorbikes, etc.) - (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
* food (people get overweight, get diabates, can't have that!)
* sex (without sex, you can't get STDs)
* mandatory flu shots (to prevent flu from killing people)
* any structure over four feet tall, all stairs (to prevent people from falling to their deaths)

We'd be so much safer doing all the above!

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think a more fitting argument would be to compare the number of "gun-related" homicides and assaults to "non-gun-related" homicides and assaults.

[The Reckoning]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


to me, this sentence really boils down to the notion that the People, in our entirety, are a reserved militia, and our ability to possess weapons to fight back against corrupt govt shall not be infringed.

how is it saying that we shouldn't own weapons?

[ChumpDumper]

So there is constitutionally stopping an American who happens to be an Islamic fundamentalist from possessing a nuclear missile.

[Cry Havoc]

I think a more fitting argument would be to compare the number of "gun-related" homicides and assaults to "non-gun-related" homicides and assaults.

Note: All statistics provided by the CDC at cdc.gov.

Deaths by type: Guns

Year - 2005 Deaths - 30,964 (all)
Year - 2005 Unintentional Deaths - 789
Year - 2005 Suicides - 17,002

Notice, over half (17,002/30,964 = 54.9%) were self inflicted. 789 were unintentional, such as kids playing with guns, accidental shootings.

Death by Transportation:

Year - 2005 Deaths - 47,894

Death by Poisioning:

Year - 2005 Deaths - 32,691

Death by Alcohol:

Year - 2004 Deaths - 21,081 (excludes accidents and homocides)

Now, how about the following:

Number of deaths in the US in 2004: 2,397,615

The leading causes?

Heart disease: 652,486
Cancer: 553,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
Diabetes: 73,138
Alzheimer's disease: 65,965
Influenza/Pneumonia: 59,664
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,480
Septicemia: 33,373


So, let take this into context. Guns killed 1.29% of the people who died. If you want to count just unintended gun deaths, it represents 0.03% of all deaths. If you count unintended and other gun deaths (homocides, etc) you get 0.58% of all deaths each year caused by guns.

So, lets count the the leading cause of gun deaths. Suicide. It accounts for over 50% of all deaths. And while each and every murder is a crime, you want to take someone's right to own a gun away for less than one half of 1% of all death causes.

According to reconsider.org http://www.reconsider.org/issues/public_health/est ...
tobacco accounted for 110,640 deaths in 1996. Non-Suicide related deaths (from 2005) compared to 1996 Alcohol deaths is not even 8%.

According to the same website with data collected from Canadian Researchers indicates 30,575 people died of adverse reactions to prescription drugs.

16,926 people died from all licit and illicit drugs in 1998. That's nearly 600 more than homicides using guns.

Note, 0 deaths were caused by marijuana.

With this being said, what if they outlawed smoking. It kills many more people (by sheer number, much less percentage) that guns. Including suicides, it is nearly 4 times as many. Excluding, it is nearly 8 times the amount.

Let's look at diabetes. What if the government regulated food intake (to control obesity, which is a leading fact in diabetes) and forced physical activity. Would you also agree with the government. Diabetes kills twice as many people as all gun deaths and nearly 4 times the homicides and unintentional combined.

What about those big, bad assault rifles? Well, according to Wikipedia, "An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the DOJ found that "Assault weapons (AW) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles."

If you focus on the numbers, you could extrapolate that roughly 2% to 8% of all homicides were caused by assault weapons (2% of 13,962 = ~280, 8% = ~1,117). This is an assumption, because not all crimes cause deaths, but the implied correlation of crimes used with assault weapons (including assault pistols and rifles) versus all crimes.

By that measure, we should outlaw anything that causes more deaths than that.

Are you willing to give up your freedoms of choice for something that causes so few fatalities compared to other causes of death?

What about dying by the following causes? (source http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm )
Pedestrians: 5976
ATVs and Off-road vehicles: 951
All Falls: 18,807
Drownings: 3,308
Accidental Poisonings: 20,950

Even if you don't agree with firearm ownership, considering the number of deaths and those that are actually committed against other people, are you willing to give up your freedom for anything that causes 0.03% of all deaths nationwide?

--

FYI, I did not write this.

[balli]

Assault Weapons should be banned. Everything else is cool.


* vehicles (#1 cause of fatal accidents)
Womem and old people should face much stricter yearly testing if they want to drive.


* alcohol (twice as likely to cause death as being murdered)
Should be illegal until marijuana is made legal.

* electricity (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death) That's just not feasible. We need electricity to live. Nobody needs a full on assault rifle to stay alive.


* backyard pools (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
Are a bourgeoisie waste of freshwater resources and shouldn't be allowed under any zoning regulations anywhere.

* recreational vehicles (ATVs, motorbikes, etc.) - (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
Are the worst motorized vehicles on the planet. Not only should they be illegal, anybody who rides them should be shot on general principle.

* food (people get overweight, get diabates, can't have that!)
I wouldn't mind stricter regulations in terms of what goes into our food.

* sex (without sex, you can't get STDs)
Only liberals should procreate, lest we end up with an Idiocracy type of situation. Besides, we (liberals) know how to use condoms as we have not brainwashed ourselves into the delusion of abstinence only education.

* mandatory flu shots (to prevent flu from killing people)
Does the flu kill people? Maybe old people. Fuck em.



We'd be so much safer doing all the above!
Let's do it.

[braeden0613]

Talk about ignorance. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and more weapons used in violent crimes originate there than any other state in the U.S.

If you take weapons out of the hands of the good guys, only the bad guys will have them.

England completely banned firearms, and guess what - since doing it, the number of people killed by firearms has actually gone up.

Additionally, because guns aren't readily available to the public over there, more people are getting killed by knife than at any point before in the country's history, and now they're considering banning knives all the way down to steak knives. What's next? Forks?

And going back to the Constitution, the real intent of the 2nd Amendment was a check on the government. If you take away the firearms of all Americans, you know what you have? Subjects.

If someone wants to kill coworkers, they will find a way. They'll drive a car into a crowd of people, set the building on fire, whatever. Your arguments are so asinine it's not even funny.

You don't want psychos with a gun because they can kill people, so you want to ban all guns? Fine, ban all cars too. People get behind the wheel drunk and kill other people, therefore cars are evil and should be banned to prevent idiots from killing people with them.

I could go on and on. It's so comical though, any assault rifle that you can go out and buy today fires just as many rounds at a time as a shotgun, rifle, or handgun (i.e., one trigger pull, one bullet).

Such ignorance and idiocy on this thread from the anti-gun folks, but it is almost the end of January - we were overdue for another thread on this.
+500

[baseline bum]

I don't get the campaign against the AK at all. Is it just because a 30-round clip is pretty standard? Should we ban banana clips to cure all of society's problems?

[ratm1221]

Mature, rational, well thought out response.

You have no problem calling me an idiot under some fucked up logic of 'AHF likes guns, guns kill people, therefore he's an idiot' so you'll excuse me if I don't cite a bunch of actual facts regarding the discussion and call you a fucking idiot for not understanding or recognizing any of them.

You want to know what's idiotic? Not wanting people to have guns. There's no check on the government (and given the substantial nationalization going on right now, this is even more dumbfounding), and let's be honest - if someone breaks into your home the cops will get there in enough time to investigate a crime scene, not prevent one.

Sorry chump, but I deserve the right to defend myself and my family if someone enters my home. And you're an asshole for arguing that I should only be able to use a golf club, baseball bat, whatever, when the bad guys are likely to be packing a firearm of some sorts.

If you don't like guns, move to England. They're banned there, so you can feel better knowing that, even though they have a higher murder rate now than before they banned firearms. :toast

Amusing still. You call people idiots and then call them immature for calling you an idiot, and then add asshole to it. Please tell me your joking.

How many people have you had to fend off with a gun? Having a gun or two is fine. Having a rifle to hunt with is fine. Hell, I'd buy a gun just to have in case someone broke into my house if I felt I needed it. It's the extreme that bothers me. If you have a dozen guns, buy gun magazines, find it necessary to pose in a picture holding a gun, etc, then you need to see a shrink. Guns are not toys, even for adults. Guns are not a fashion statement or a measurement of how much of man you are. Having a hand gun for defense, having a rifle to hunt with... Ok, I'll buy it. Trying to rationalize having an AK-47 for defense... I'm not buying it. :rolleyes

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I don't get the campaign against the AK at all. Is it just because a 30-round clip is pretty standard? Should we ban banana clips to cure all of society's problems?

Somewhere I once saw a youtube vid of a guy tearing down a hunting rifle and putting an AK stock and grip on it and turning it into an AK lookalike. Ban all hunting rifles :lol

[SnakeBoy]

we need to ban:

* vehicles (#1 cause of fatal accidents)
* alcohol (twice as likely to cause death as being murdered)
* electricity (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
* backyard pools (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
* recreational vehicles (ATVs, motorbikes, etc.) - (listed by CDC as a common cause of accidental death)
* food (people get overweight, get diabates, can't have that!)
* sex (without sex, you can't get STDs)
* mandatory flu shots (to prevent flu from killing people)
* any structure over four feet tall, all stairs (to prevent people from falling to their deaths)




Can we add bears to the list? I'm going hiking in yosemite this spring and I would feel safer if they killed all the bears first.

[SnakeBoy]

Having a rifle to hunt with is fine.

Semi automatic hunting rifle?

[ratm1221]

Semi automatic hunting rifle?

If it's for hunting, sure. Sorry but I can't help you with judgment snakegirl. Forget gun control, what we need is idiot control.

[Shastafarian]

It is amusing watching people go batshit crazy when someone says they shouldn't be allowed to own a lethal weapon that kills things. I'm havin a good ole time!

[Oh, Gee!!]

FYI, I did not write this.

you also didn't answer the question. the question was how many homicides and intentional acts of violence are committed with the use of gun vs the number of homicides and intentional acts of violence that are committed by other weapons. I'm wondering about crime, not death by natural causes or accident.

[Cry Havoc]

It is amusing watching people go batshit crazy when their constitutional rights are being taken away. I'm havin a good ole time!

FTFY. Now, are you going to bring anything of substance to this discussion, or just snipe away (pun intended) from a standpoint of complete ignorance?

[Shastafarian]

FTFY. Now, are you going to bring anything of substance to this discussion, or just snipe away (pun intended) from a standpoint of complete ignorance?

No I'll just sit back and laugh at you getting so worked up about the govt taking away something that isn't necessary. That's all. Thanks for pointing out that you intended that pun btw. Tell me, are you for the legalization of marijuana? Cocaine? Methamphetamine?

[Cry Havoc]

you also didn't answer the question. the question was how many homicides and intentional acts of violence are committed with the use of gun vs the number of homicides and intentional acts of violence that are committed by other weapons. I'm wondering about crime, not death by natural causes or accident.

If you really want to know, I'm sure you could find it on the internet.

[Cry Havoc]

No I'll just sit back and laugh at you getting so worked up about the govt taking away something that isn't necessary. That's all. Thanks for pointing out that you intended that pun btw. Tell me, are you for the legalization of marijuana? Cocaine? Methamphetamine?

So the defense of constitutional rights isn't something to get worked up about?

If that's the position you take, I'm not going to bother responding to you any further.

[Shastafarian]

If you really want to know, I'm sure you could find it on the internet.

hahah the old, "I won't do your homework for you" aka I know if I look for it, it will make me look stupid.

[Shastafarian]

So the defense of constitutional rights isn't something to get worked up about?

If that's the position you take, I'm not going to bother responding to you any further.

I missed the part in the constitution where it says citizens should be allowed assault weapons. Thanks for not answering my question. I'll just take it that you aren't and that you're a huge hypocrite along with being a prissy bitch.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If you really want to know, I'm sure you could find it on the internet.

I wanted AHF to tell us since he's so big on numbers. Seems to me like the government might have some interest in regulating tools/weapons/objects that are used in the commission of crimes.

[balli]

So the defense of constitutional rights isn't something to get worked up about?
To be fair. There does have to be a line somewhere. Arguing that the 2nd amendment should protect any and all weaponry is, IDK... not right.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

To be fair. There does have to be a line somewhere. Arguing that the 2nd amendment should protect any and all weaponry is, IDK... not right.

But the line isn't being drawn on any type of substance. There is no grounds for banning 'assault weapons' other than they look evil. You can fire just as many rounds in a second from a revolver or a semi-auto handgun as the big bad semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47 that are so villified.

A good hunting rifle with a scope would let you pick off anyone sporting one of the aforementioned evil assault weapons well before they'd be in range to do anything harmful to you.

[balli]

But the line isn't being drawn on any type of substance. There is no grounds for banning 'assault weapons' other than they look evil. You can fire just as many rounds in a second from a revolver or a semi-auto handgun as the big bad semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47 that are so villified.

A good hunting rifle with a scope would let you pick off anyone sporting one of the aforementioned evil assault weapons well before they'd be in range to do anything harmful to you.

Hey, I agree. I seriously doubt that the allowance of assault rifles is making America more dangerous. As I understand as a layman, they're so heavily regulated it's not even funny. Like you subject yourself to an ATF search whenever they want, etc. And I'm sure, 99.9% of the people who own them are just good ol' boys out for a fun time.

I'm just saying there has to be a line somewhere. I personally think that line should allow assault rifles, but if it doesn't, so what, why get so bent? That line has to exist somewhere and if it arbitrarily bans assault rifles, tough, there's not enough bolt-action, lever action, semi-auto, over under, side by side and revolver guns out there to get by with?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I wanted AHF to tell us since he's so big on numbers. Seems to me like the government might have some interest in regulating tools/weapons/objects that are used in the commission of crimes.

Roughly speaking, 12K homicides by guns, 6K by other weapons.

Some other numbers that you will probably ignore because it doesn't fit the guns are evil mantra:

* England passed nearly complete bans of guns in 1997. In the two years after that, violent crimes committed with firearms rose 40%.

* A DOJ study completed in 2004 found that a person was more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in England than in America, adjusted for incident per 100,000.

That gun ban sure is working out well over in England. And they're getting ready to ban kitchen and steak knives next :lol

[Shastafarian]

Roughly speaking, 12K homicides by guns, 6K by other weapons.

Some other numbers that you will probably ignore because it doesn't fit the guns are evil mantra:

* England passed nearly complete bans of guns in 1997. In the two years after that, violent crimes committed with firearms rose 40%.

And in the 10 years since that what have the numbers looked like?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Hey, I agree. I seriously doubt that the allowance of assault rifles is making America more dangerous. As I understand as a layman, they're so heavily regulated it's not even funny. Like you subject yourself to an ATF search whenever they want, etc. And I'm sure, 99.9% of the people who own them are just good ol' boys out for a fun time.

I'm just saying there has to be a line somewhere. I personally think that line should allow assault rifles, but if it doesn't, so what, why get so bent? That line has to exist somewhere and if it arbitrarily bans assault rifles, tough, there's not enough bolt-action, lever action, semi-auto, over under, side by side and revolver guns out there to get by with?

Part of the concern is once you start banning weapons, where does it end? First the evil assault rifle, then next it's 'well, crimes committed by semi-auto hand guns went up, so we need to ban those.' Then it goes to revolver, then shotguns, etc. and pretty soon all you can have to defend yourself with is a slingshot and a marble.

Earlier in this thread someone posted the stats that showed less crimes are committed with assault weapons than other firearms.

It's not about what's enough. There's just no reason for the ban other than the gun control ninnies wanting to start down the path of banning everything.

As to what's enough to get by with... it's not about getting by. They're just fun to shoot, too. We don't have a ban on alcohol, or sex, and more people die due to either of those every year than all gun-related homicides, much less semi-auto assault weapons.

And let's not even get into what it would cost the government to add another layer of bureaucracy to deal with registration, bans, tracking, etc. There's better things that money can be spent on than this.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And in the 10 years since that what have the numbers looked like?

The last numbers I saw were through 2005 (so another five years of runtime), and the numbers had held relatively constant. They (England) had an initial spike, and then the number plateaued (give or take 100-200 a year).

I guess you could argue that they reached elasticity as far as the violent subset of their population...

[Shastafarian]

The last numbers I saw were through 2005 (so another five years of runtime), and the numbers had held relatively constant. They (England) had an initial spike, and then the number plateaued (give or take 100-200 a year).

I guess you could argue that they reached elasticity as far as the violent subset of their population...

What % drop is 100-200?

[Bender]

And let's not even get into what it would cost the government to add another layer of bureaucracy to deal with registration, bans, tracking, etc. There's better things that money can be spent on than this.yeah, you would think the gov't has better things to do than harass honest law-abiding citizens like me & you...

edit: I'm sure they're already registering everything. When they get their background check call when we buy a pistol or rifle, they are supposed to destroy the info when it is OK'd... but they don't, they keep it.

[balli]

There's just no reason for the ban other than the gun control ninnies wanting to start down the path of banning everything. I don't think that's true at all. Especially for the vast majority of the general public. I think it has to do with what you alluded to earlier, pre-conceptions about the dangerous looking AR's. I seriously doubt the motivation is to start chipping away at gun rights over-all and if so, nothing will ever happen to people's shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns and you know it. The gun lobby ain't no bitch.

We don't have a ban on alcohol, or sex, and more people die due to either of those every year than all gun-related homicides, much less semi-auto assault weapons.

But we do ban some other things fairly arbitrarily, don't we? The product I use kills nobody and it's a felony every time I smoke it. And I'm not saying people should lay down and get complacent, but fuck, it's not the end of the world. You'll get by.


And let's not even get into what it would cost the government to add another layer of bureaucracy to deal with registration, bans, tracking, etc. There's better things that money can be spent on than this.
Like I said, all things being equal, I agree, I just don't get the motivation for making it into such a big issue. It smacks of paranoia.

[Bender]

look...after banning EBR's (Evil Black Rifles), do you think the gun-control maniacs will be happy? What will they do with themselves after that... sit around and say "ok I'm happy". No.
Hunting rifles, target rifles or whatever you call them, with scopes, will be "sniper rifles"...

then it will be shotguns...

... and so forth...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Roughly speaking, 12K homicides by guns, 6K by other weapons.

so, in the area of homicides guns are by the far the most commonly-used weapon? perhaps the governent has some interest in regulating guns, no?



* England passed nearly complete bans of guns in 1997. In the two years after that, violent crimes committed with firearms rose 40%

* A DOJ study completed in 2004 found that a person was more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in England than in America, adjusted for incident per 100,000

That gun ban sure is working out well over in England. And they're getting ready to ban kitchen and steak knives next :lol

I'm not advocating a ban on all guns--or most guns for that matter.

[balli]

look...after banning EBR's (Evil Black Rifles), do you think the gun-control maniacs will be happy? What will they do with themselves after that... sit around and say "ok I'm happy". No.
Hunting rifles, target rifles or whatever you call them, with scopes, will be "sniper rifles"...

then it will be shotguns...

... and so forth...

You're fucking scared and paranoid bro.

[Bender]

I'm just not a blissninny...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

so, in the area of homicides guns are by the far the most commonly-used weapon? perhaps the governent has some interest in regulating guns, no?

England banned guns and their firearm homicide rates went up. Same thing for France and Germany after they enacted similar measures. Canada didn't see a decrease either when they enacted their gun laws. There's a trend there, no?

[Oh, Gee!!]

England banned guns and their firearm homicide rates went up. Same thing for France and Germany after they enacted similar measures. Canada didn't see a decrease either when they enacted their gun laws. There's a trend there, no?

I didn't say we should ban guns. I said the government has an interest in regulating them, and part of that regulation can and should include classifying certain types of guns as illegal.

[Bender]

along the same lines... Washington DC with its excessive gun restriction laws, had a very high violent crime rate. Next door, Virginia, with lax gun laws, had a much lower violent crime rate.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

But we do ban some other things fairly arbitrarily, don't we? The product I use kills nobody and it's a felony every time I smoke it. And I'm not saying people should lay down and get complacent, but fuck, it's not the end of the world. You'll get by.

On your 'product', I think they should legalize and regulate it. The drug war (at least on MJ) is stupid.

The reason pro-gun types like myself are concerned is that the anti-gun movement, even some folks like Rahm and others in Congress have stated in the past that the next weapons ban won't be about assault weapons in and of itself. They want to go after everything save single-shot shot guns. That means semi-auto handguns, revolvers, shotguns with multi-shot magazines, hunting rifles with multi-shot mags, etc.

They don't want the surgical shot on assault weapons, they want the whole fucking thing.

[Winehole23]

As a gun owner, I have to say this is just baffling to me. With a 30.06 at a distance of 2000 yards I would be able to take down 10-15 people even if they all had a "deadly assault rifle" before they were anywhere near me. Not to mention that I would MUCH rather be shot with an AK-47 at 300+ meters than ANY hunting rifle. But I guess that's not for people who know absolutely nothing about guns to argue about.The aftermath of Heller outside of DC is far from clear yet. While it establishes an individual right to bear arms, following US v Miller the SC states (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/helleronfedlaw.htm) that the "carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Mean lookin' guns *might* fall into that category.

OTOH, see this recent vindication of the gun rights of an accused pervert:

http://volokh.com/posts/1231712651.shtml

[Bender]

They want to go after everything

balli called me scared and paranoid up above for saying the same thing...

[SnakeBoy]

And in the 10 years since that what have the numbers looked like?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I didn't say we should ban guns. I said the government has an interest in regulating them, and part of that regulation can and should include classifying certain types of guns as illegal.

Great, I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why something that looks evil should be banned relative to other firearms with identical rate of fire (hand guns, etc.).

California even banned all weapons down to 10 round clips, and they still have more guns used in more crimes than any other state in our country.

Do you think that criminals are going to be going out to the local Academy to purchase their firearms if the government regulates weapons further? Come on...

England banned all firearm sales, the bad guys still found a way to get them and increase the firearm homicide rate. The government already does a thorough (FBI) background check on everyone purchasing a firearm from a dealer. The only thing that needs tweaked is for the FBI to have access to medical records when performing this check. It would have, for example, prevented the VT massacre kid from buying a weapon through an authorized dealer.

Anything other than that is unnecessary and one step closer to the federal government banning all firearms, going against the very grain of the Constitution.

[balli]

balli called me scared and paranoid up above for saying the same thing...

Because winehole was level headed enough to include the word "might" rather than jump to conclusions about what will happen.

Edit: Nevermind, this makes no sense as you've since quoted someone else. But actually, it still makes sense.

[Bender]

Sarah Brady and her ilk HATE all guns. They will not stop after an AWB... Do you think she is gonna retire?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

yeah, you would think the gov't has better things to do than harass honest law-abiding citizens like me & you...

edit: I'm sure they're already registering everything. When they get their background check call when we buy a pistol or rifle, they are supposed to destroy the info when it is OK'd... but they don't, they keep it.

The FBI got their heads handed to them back in the late 90s over keeping the records, and Congress passed a law at the time that said all records must be destroyed after 24 hours for the NICS checks. If someone isn't abiding by those rules, they're breaking a law enacted at the federal level. (yeah, I get what you're saying though)

[balli]

Who's Sarah Brady? Is she more powerful than the NRA? I doubt it.

[johnsmith]

Because winehole was level headed enough to include the word "might" rather than jump to conclusions about what will happen.

Edit: Nevermind, this makes no sense as you've since quoted someone else. But actually, it still makes sense.

See what happens when you type angry?

[baseline bum]

Can we add bears to the list? I'm going hiking in yosemite this spring and I would feel safer if they killed all the bears first.

Off-topic, but that place is incredible. Have fun man; amazing place to get away from the world.

[Cry Havoc]

And in the 10 years since that what have the numbers looked like?

Are you going to contribute one SINGLE fact or relevant piece of information to this thread, or are you just going to sit back, ask questions that you yourself could find the answers to, and call people names?

A lot of people here are at least offering substantive arguments for or against. You are doing neither, probably because you've made it incredibly clear that you know absolutely nothing about firearms.


I don't think that's true at all. Especially for the vast majority of the general public. I think it has to do with what you alluded to earlier, pre-conceptions about the dangerous looking AR's. I seriously doubt the motivation is to start chipping away at gun rights over-all and if so, nothing will ever happen to people's shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns and you know it. The gun lobby ain't no bitch.

I have a problem with it because they are making assault rifles out to be a scapegoat. Attempting to instill a fear of guns that look exactly like what the terrorists use on TV (despite drastic differences in ammunition and firing rate) is exactly the type of abuse of power that starts small and then DOES gradually eat away at your rights. If they REALLY cared about gun violence, they would be focusing on the culprit in ~80% (I'm heavily estimating here) of all crimes committed with a firearm -- the handgun, most typically a .45-.50 caliber or a 9mm.

Instead of focusing on gun safety and encouraging proper use, the government is drawing an arbitrary line that has no concrete definition and then attempting to enforce that upon the populace. Banning assault rifles is NOT going to help gun violence in this country. It's not going to make people safer at all. Isn't that WHY you enact a law in the first place -- to ensure the safety of citizens? Aside from the famed North Hollywood Shootout (in which case the perpetrators had FULLY automatic weapons that were not legal in the first place), when is the last time you heard about a major crime or robbery being committed with an "assault rifle"? They are loud, they are usually relatively heavy, and aside from bullpup designs, are incredibly unwieldy to just swing around. A criminal doesn't want to be running from 40 cops holding an AR-15 -- it just doesn't make any sense.

The problem isn't that they're banning guns, is that they're making a bad choice on the type of gun to ban, and to a greater extent very poorly defining that kind of weapon to ban.

[Bender]

Sarah Brady, wife of politician James Brady, who was shot.

President of Handgun Control, Inc. But she doesn't stop at handguns...

[balli]

See what happens when you type fast?
Fixed. :lol I'm not angry at all. In case you haven't noticed I'm more or less on the pro-gun side of this argument.

[johnsmith]

Fixed. :lol I'm not angry at all. In case you haven't noticed I'm more or less on the pro-gun side of this argument.

This is the one argument that I'm pretty much down the middle on. I own two shotguns that I use for bird hunting and that's it. If they want to ban them, whatever...........if not, I understand that too.

And for the record balli, I'm just fucking around in this forum. I used to get all worked up in here until I recognized that no one will ever change their minds in here...........ever.

[Shastafarian]

Are you going to contribute one SINGLE fact or relevant piece of information to this thread, or are you just going to sit back, ask questions that you yourself could find the answers to, and call people names?

The second one.

[Cry Havoc]

Mean lookin' guns *might* fall into that category

Thanks for supporting the point I'm making.

Does this look like a nice looking gun?

http://home.comcast.net/~45man/misc_images/454Casull.jpeg

That's a .454 Casull. Completely legal, no objections from Congress about anyone owning one as long as you have a firearm permit (state dependent).

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/showcase/files/6/7/2/454_casull.jpg

The discharge from a .454 Casull.

Nice looking gun here?

http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/AI-AWP/small/154_5416_img.jpg

That's a .300 Winchester Magnum, something almost every hunter owns or has shot.

How about this?

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/SwissRavenman/4Bore4.jpg

4 Bore shotgun, firing a ~1900 grain round with a 16 dram black powder charge.

http://www.corbins.com/images/gatl-5a.jpg

The shell and bullet from a 4 bore.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd233/heatseeker64/rem23s.jpg

A Remington 700 definitely does not look dangerous.

In fact, please show me a gun that does not look "mean", if it's pointed at you. I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't like any of them. You can't tell me that we need to ban a gun that looks like this:

http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/ak47.jpg

Simply because we're used to seeing it shot in the air at full auto on TV by the guy with the rag on his head. Because that's the ONLY way I think you could define the above rifle from looking meaner than the others. It doesn't look mean to me. It looks like what it is, a much more cheaply made gun that's just not as sleek as a high power scoped weapon.

[Cry Havoc]

hahah the old, "I won't do your homework for you" aka I know if I look for it, it will make me look stupid.

He asked the question. I didn't claim to site facts or statistical information to him and then tell him to go look it up to verify it. He's the one who wanted to know. I'm not his personal Google service, and if you'll notice, I doubt he's going to take offense to me telling him to go search around for information that he wants to know.

Again, keep displaying your lack of knowledge on the subject by such transparent attempts at pissing me off. It's actually quite humorous.

[Shastafarian]

He asked the question. I didn't claim to site facts or statistical information to him and then tell him to go look it up to verify it. He's the one who wanted to know. I'm not his personal Google service, and if you'll notice, I doubt he's going to take offense to me telling him to go search around for information that he wants to know.

Again, keep displaying your lack of knowledge on the subject by such transparent attempts at pissing me off. It's actually quite humorous.

I think it's funny that me trying to piss you off seems to be working.

[Cry Havoc]

I think it's funny that me trying to piss you off seems to be working.

Yes. It's you. Not the fact that I feel my constitutional rights might be gradually being taken away. Do you realize how self-centered that sounds, or do you care?

[Cry Havoc]

The second one.

Welcome to my ignore list, then.

[Shastafarian]

Yes. It's you. Not the fact that I feel my constitutional rights might be gradually being taken away. Do you realize how self-centered that sounds, or do you care?

I just said it seems to be working. :lol Perception is everything

[Shastafarian]

Welcome to my ignore list, then.

Thanks, it's an honor. I love it when people think others are interested in who's on their ignore list.

[The Reckoning]

shit if 17 year old recruits are able to shoot and carry assault rifles out of basic training, why cant i?

as a unit of the People/Militia, i should be able to outfit myself in defense - provided that i am licensed and have proven responsibility with a weapon

[FreeMason]

From the way it sounds, guns are what... some kind of personal statement? You get a gun to look cool or mean?

http://www.arthurshall.com/images/custom_images/guns_girl.jpg

If you don't understand now, you will never understand. There is no use for you continuing to ask sarcastic questions. You will never get it so just be content with never getting it. :toast

Maybe one day you will understand. However, even then no one will care that you have finally gotten it and people will go on possessing guns in the meantime.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Anything other than that is unnecessary and one step closer to the federal government banning all firearms, going against the very grain of the Constitution.

paranoid much?

[Winehole23]

paranoid much?It's the same slippery slope argument that gets trotted out whenever expression is limited. It's just as valid or invalid, depending on your view.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's a link about gun usage as opposed to other crimes... looks a bit old though. It's tough to find info, it seems, to compare gun usage in crimes to other kinds.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

paranoid much?

Nope, just have the ability to see the big picture.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Nope, just have the ability to see the big picture.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115146