The new push for an assault weapons ban...

[Sec24Row7]

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

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 cons ution 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 ty, 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 Cons ution, 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...

[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 s start ing.... 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. that. Don't give them any credit, make them a bigger bas 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 Cons ution, 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 Cons ution, 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).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

An idiot calling people idiots? Amusing.

Mature, rational, well thought out response.

You have no problem calling me an idiot under some ed 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 ing 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.

[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 cons utionally 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 cides)

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 ( cides, 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. 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 Cons ution, 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 ed 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 ing 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.

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. , 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.

[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

[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?