View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
3423. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,113 61.73%
  • No

    1,310 38.27%
  1. #4681
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Hard to say, the Blue Book of Gun Values was a book, back then, possible to find a digitial copy still floating around.
    Would like to see some source explaining how the TEC-9 sold for $491. Seems horribly overpriced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Like anything else, the issue is more folks ignoring the bias when it's for them and yelling about how biased the other side is. Like when Hillary used to yell about how the republican congress was being mean because of "bipartisan bickering". Well, that just means they disagreed with her. If the Clintons had simply agreed with them, there would be no bickering. It's not "bipartisan" on one side and not the other!

    Not that it matters.
    Bipartisan is definitely a two-way street. That is the "system," so to speak. Whether its the Great Society or Jim Crow laws. Using the press to sway public opinion is part of the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    How about if they don't let rabidly anti-gun folks like Feinstein write a bill? Maybe have a moderate draft something that makes sense and encompasses some knowledge about guns? Then maybe folks wouldn't over react.

    They completely ignore the calls to reform the NFA Branch, who is the government agency that handles the transfers of machineguns and such. (Not "allow more machineguns" but "computer the paperwork so that they can find some of the machineguns they've lost"...)
    Don't let people like Feinstein write a bill? Well then this wouldn't be the United States of America then, would it. How about not using a bill which not only doesn't have a great chance of passing, but is almost guaranteed to go through revision after revision before it does so. Again if it does so. Be considered a reason to empty the gun shops' racks. As far as the ATF? Or was it FBI? Don't recall. Throughout the six presidential administrations that I can personally recall. Various officials acting the fool, and the rest of us getting to pay for it, is hardly anything new.
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  2. #4682
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    how extensive are the background checks?
    The federal required background check basically works like this:
    Dealer has you fill out form and gets your state issued ID.
    Calls System with that info, they compare your info to a list of people that are disqualified (felon, domestic violence, insane) and if they get a close match, you're denied.
    If denied, you can appeal, submitting fingerprints to prove you are not said person.
    If denied, you have lied on the original form you filled out, and can thus be prosecuted by the ATF for it, but they don't prosecute anybody since it's not worth their time.

    False ID could be an issue, obviously. Obvious answer would be a firearms license where your fingerprints are checked to ensure you are who you say and then with said license you could purchase, but of course there won't be a national license of this sort since anti-gun states would never agree to it.

    By contrast, in reaction to Kennedy's death in 63 (the rifle was bought through the mail, though not sure how that changed anything), they passes (in 68) a system whereby to ship a gun through the mail, the receiver had to have a Federal Firearms License. It was later changed to become a dealers license, though that was not it's original intent. Now in order to get one, you must have a retail establishment with operating hours, rather than it being a license to buy guns. They also drafted the "Curio & relics" license which was easier to get but only applied to really old guns.

    For a concealed weapons license in florida, you need to submit finger prints. It can be done electronically in some places and the process takes less than a week, so there is no actual need for a background check to take longer than a week.

    And lastly, the last numbers I saw (was a few years back) was that the average time between when a gun was used in a crime and when it was originally purchased, is 6 years, so mandatory waiting periods don't do a whole lot.

  3. #4683
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    this is exactly why the ban is bullshit...perfect example.

    this would be totally legal under the ban



    but my 10/22...same gun...same operation, would be an "assault rifle". (not to mention the suppressor on it is already an NFA item)





    that is all the ban really does...ban things that look evil. Nothing in the current ban, as crazy, outlandish, and strict as it is, would have prevented the newtown shooting.
    I hate to disagree with you but both of those would be illegal under the new ban.

  4. #4684
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    Don't let people like Feinstein write a bill? Well then this wouldn't be the United States of America then, would it. How about not using a bill which not only doesn't have a great chance of passing, but is almost guaranteed to go through revision after revision before it does so. Again if it does so. Be considered a reason to empty the gun shops' racks. As far as the ATF? Or was it FBI? Don't recall. Throughout the six presidential administrations that I can personally recall. Various officials acting the fool, and the rest of us getting to pay for it, is hardly anything new.
    Well, she can write whatever bill she wants, that's not what I meant. What I meant was to (as a party and hopefully with some support from the news, but yeah...) simply not focus on her crackpot stuff. Have someone that understands firearms and people write something that takes current law, and amends it into a workable project, rather than just trying to throw some other random thing on top of all the current laws that are already totally disorganized and random.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 01:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Extrazero8 View Post
    I hate to disagree with you but both of those would be illegal under the new ban.
    We haven't seen the actual ban yet. Her summary is worthless.

  5. #4685
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Don't forget the drug war. The drug war is the cause of evil, and violence in our inner cities is one of the results.
    I really think the legalization of marijuana would go along way to quelling a lot of violence (Before some stoner comes it, no not because everyone would be stoned and chill)

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 06:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    That is a fantastic stock, i have a cane that matches its colour and pattern. (I'm disabled, mobility problems)
    As for prot... haha losers he dmg needs a nerf with the intercept shield bash wtf silence crit a clothie like a mofo.
    Wow.

  6. #4686
    Brewmaster PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,339
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    Would like to see some source explaining how the TEC-9 sold for $491. Seems horribly overpriced.
    I looked for some corroborating information earlier and the only places I saw referencing the receipt was, like, one blog post and someone quoting that post. And even then it only referenced a credit card receipt for $491, not that the cost of the weapon by itself was $491.

  7. #4687
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Without looking at the links, I'd assume that the range is actually a huge range, not sure what the urban median or rural median would be. There are a lot of factors involved in police response.

    There was a shooting in the plaza where I currently work. Guy shot his sister and then himself because of financial matters at their little stand. Police took about 7-8 minutes to arrive, ambulance was there first. Police have a substation not too far away, but were somewhere else at the time.

    It does come down to what can be done in say, 5 minutes though. I think it would be safe to say that, as many rounds as you could carry on your person (no matter how many each magazine held) could be used in 5 minutes. When you factor in how an entry team works, it'd take even longer for police to reach a situation in a building.

    Though, it does spring to mind what happened at the shooters house. He shot his mother and some other people there, right? (Again, details shift so I may be wrong) He then loaded up a car with guns & ammo and drove to the school. I wonder if anyone called the police for the first shooting. Not sure how far the house was from the school though.
    I would absolutely agree that in mass shooting scenarios, minutes count. Seconds even. Plus its hardly like the deputy at Columbine went in after the shooters. He stayed outside waiting for backup as far as I recall. So even once the police get there its hardly like we can expect them to immediately intervene. Just another part of what makes making mass shootings impossible, well, impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    It's one of the amusing (well, not really) factors around here, that when a police force is doing their job, crime will lower and they will cut the police budget since we don't need as many since there's less crime...
    Yep, there is never a one hundred percent right answer. Adjusting as we go. The FAWB itself expired after all. It was never a permanent ban at least as far as I can recall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    I really wish you'd concede the "cosmetic" ban;
    The KG-9 was the one that set the rep, along with open bolt mac-10's and some others, of weapons that could be "easily converted to a machinegun" and were redesigned in the 80's.

    The tec-9 or DC9 was banned
    /pic
    The AB10 made during the ban
    /pic

    The threads on the barrel are the banned feature, the obviously affect nothing of the actual characteristics of the gun, don't you agree?
    Which part are you expecting a concession on? I've brought up before that including semiautomatic rifles with cosmetic similarities to assault rifles may have been the best they could get passed. Just as the FAWB didn't just include rifles since the TEC-9, a handgun, was included as well. Beyond that I even referenced that, when dealing with public opinion, "looks" actually do matter. Even if there is little to no effective difference. Is there something else you've been wanting?

    The TEC-9, as a handgun itself, does have a very "colorful" history with the Feds.

    The TEC-DC9's journey to America began with George Kellgren, a Swedish designer of military guns.

    In the 1970s, South Africa's apartheid government was in the market for a new gun. It wanted something light and portable, yet capable of firing at machine-gun speed. Kellgren got a contract and designed a military submachine gun, akin to the Israeli Uzi, with a lightweight plastic stock. When South Africa failed to produce it, Kellgren began writing to firearms dealers in the United States, seeking a partner in the manufacturing business. He found one in Miami.

    Carlos Garcia, a young man who had fled Cuba with his family, ran a small store in the city's Little Havana neighborhood called Garcia's National Guns. Garcia had no gunmanufacturing experience. But he had a knack for marketing, and he liked the paramilitary look of the handgun Kellgren sketched.

    Together they formed Interdynamics Inc. in the early 1980s, producing their handgun and selling it at Garcia's store. They called it the KG-9 - K for Kellgren, G for Garcia - and described it as a weapon "combining the high capacity and controlled firepower of the military submachine gun with the legal status and light weight of a handgun.''

    The KG-9 cost about $70 to produce. It was sold as a semiautomatic, firing one bullet with each squeeze of the trigger. But when federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents examined it, they found the KG-9 could easily be converted to a submachine gun, shooting a stream of bullets with a squeeze of the trigger.

    The agency declared the KG-9 an illegal machine gun in 1982 and halted its production. Kellgren and Garcia then introduced the KG-99, a semiautomatic less readily turned into a machine gun. But they sold it with an "assault grip'' accessory designed for two-handed spray firing of a handgun with a 36-round ammunition magazine. Again, ATF stepped in. No assault grip on the KG-99.

    In 1984, Kellgren left the business. Garcia's father entered, renaming the corporation Intratec Firearms and the KG-99 the TEC-9. Four years later, Carlos Garcia took over Intratec and created a new umbrella company, Navegar Inc.

    Under his direction, Navegar became known for its provocative - some say reprehensible - promotion of Intratec's TEC-9s.
    One ad referred to its "excellent resistance to fingerprints.'' Garcia later said that merely meant its finish would not rust from handling. Another ad featured a bikiniclad woman on her hands and knees, cradling an assault weapon. Another used a human head and heart as bull's-eyes, with gun smoke pouring from both.
    Last edited by SirRobin; 2012-12-30 at 06:35 PM. Reason: Spotlighting
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  8. #4688
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    Which part are you expecting a concession on? I've brought up before that including semiautomatic rifles with cosmetic similarities to assault rifles may have been the best they could get passed. Just as the FAWB didn't just include rifles since the TEC-9, a handgun, was included as well. Beyond that I even referenced that, when dealing with public opinion, "looks" actually do matter. Even if there is little to no effective difference. Is there something else you've been wanting?

    The TEC-9, as a handgun itself, does have a very "colorful" history with the Feds.
    Seems odd that the TEC-9 would have such a tainted past while similar hand guns do not.

  9. #4689
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,861
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    I looked for some corroborating information earlier and the only places I saw referencing the receipt was, like, one blog post and someone quoting that post. And even then it only referenced a credit card receipt for $491, not that the cost of the weapon by itself was $491.
    Yeah, what I could find referencing the $491 was:

    http://dylanklebold.com/columbine-sh...nner-gun-show/
    http://signofthetimes.yuku.com/topic...o#.UOCLLm883V8
    http://books.google.com/books?id=ZQO...ed=0CCwQ6AEwAg

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 12:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Extrazero8 View Post
    Seems odd that the TEC-9 would have such a tainted past while similar hand guns do not.
    Not sure, have not dug that deep into other handgun histories yet. What it does show, at least in this example, is that this particular item on the FAWB had a long history of, shall we say, "issues." So I would hardly subscribe its addition to the FAWB as purely a "cosmetic" coincidence.
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  10. #4690
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    Which part are you expecting a concession on? I've brought up before that including semiautomatic rifles with cosmetic similarities to assault rifles may have been the best they could get passed. Just as the FAWB didn't just include rifles since the TEC-9, a handgun, was included as well. Beyond that I even referenced that, when dealing with public opinion, "looks" actually do matter. Even if there is little to no effective difference. Is there something else you've been wanting?
    Plus the last FAWB included the TEC-9, a semiautomatic handgun. So it wasn't just about cosmetics.
    It was just about cosmetics. If you want to say "looks matter too", then so be it, but it's purely cosmetics based with no understanding of firearms capabilities. No semi-auto fires faster than any other semiautic. Ballistics of the 223 are not governed by how the gun looks, but by barrel length, which means most AR15's (11-24", most 16 or 20 barrels) are ballistically inferior to most hunting rifles (20-26" barrels) of other varieties.

    The TEC-9, as a handgun itself, does have a very "colorful" history with the Feds.
    As I mentioned, the KG9 was the submachine gun that set the rep. Cheap, mass produced open bolt. When they made the semi auto version they basically did it in the cheapest possible way they could and it was possible to convert them back with little trouble. As I said, that was part of the 80's and long since done with. The tec-9 is a rap-video fame baby, not based on any actual capability of the gun itself. Again, rate of fire in semiauto is no more than a Glock 17, barrel length is similar so ballistics are similar also. 33 round magazines for the glock if you feel like it, though standard is 17.

    It does nothing special except look mean, purely cosmetics.

    So if you're going to ban them because it's easier to convince folks they're bad, then the next logical step would be to ban the Glock since it's just as capable. Where do you draw the line and decide what is "reasonable"?

    Now, off to make Pumpkin Muffins! If this thread gains another 5 pages before I come back, I may just go play GW2 instead of catching up.

  11. #4691
    Brewmaster PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,339
    So... from Feinstein's press release a few days ago...
    A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders. However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.
    First, we should acknowledge that the her claim about the previous FAWB only talks about total gun murders without isolating out assault weapon murders. On top of that, she fails to mention the fact that the decline in total gun murders is a situation that pre-existed the FAWB and has actually continued after the expiration of the FAWB in 2004. So the FAWB really just represents a status quo of a declining murder trend.

    But we already knew that. It's her second statement that has me scratching my head. So she's claiming that assault weapons have been used in 459 incidents, causing 385 deaths. Um... doesn't that mean that there's an average of less than one death per incident? And even adding in the injuries, that's less than 2 people harmed by these "dangerous weapons of war" (her words) per incident. Where are the "puffed up" body counts?

    Additionally, during that same 8+ year stretch, from 9/2004 to 12/2012, there have been about 75,000 gun homicides, of which around 3100 were rifle homicides. 385 homicides by assault weapons means... <furious pushing of calculator buttons> ...wait, that can't be right, can it? Only 0.5% of gun homicides were due to assault weapons? And assault weapons were only responsible for about 12.5% of the rifle homicides? Doesn't that mean that non-assault weapon rifles were used in 7/8ths of the rifle murders?

    In the same press release, she says (of her proposed FAWB):
    It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years...
    Her use of the term "most dangerous guns" is, to me, as close to an outright lie as you can get. The are somewhere around 3.5 million AR-15 style firearms and around 300 million total firearms in the U.S. Even excluding all other kinds of "assault weapons" (various other rifles, pistols, and shotguns, etc.), that means that they make up over 1% of the total number of firearms, and yet, by Feinstein's own numbers, they're responsible for less than half of one percent of the number of firearm homicides.

    That means that assault waepons are actually proportionately underrepresented in gun homicides. So, either "assault weapon" owners are less likely to go shoot someone to death, or their body counts are significantly lower, on average, per shooting than the remaining types of firearms.

    Now, someone might point to her use of the words "at least" in the second sentence and imply that the actual numbers are much higher. But if the FBI can confidently conclude that rifles were used in over 3000 homicides, shouldn't Feinstein be able to say the same about "assault weapons"? And if the best number she can come up with is supposedly so far off the mark, then how can she conceivably call them the "most dangerous guns", let alone be allowed to draft legislature banning them?
    Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2012-12-30 at 07:45 PM. Reason: clarity

  12. #4692
    This just in today:

    T]he question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," the president said of the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that -- ya know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."

    Obama laid out his support for three gun control provisions -- a ban on assault rifles, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a requirement for background checks at gun shows. He said he hoped to see something passed within a year, despite pushback from the National Rifle Association and similar groups.

    "My response is something has to work," the president said. "And it is not enough for us to say, 'This is too hard, so we're not going to try.' So what I intend to do is I will call all the stakeholders together. I will meet with Republicans. I will meet with Democrats. I will talk to anybody."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

  13. #4693
    The Unstoppable Force RICH816's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    22,417
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    This just in today:

    T]he question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," the president said of the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that -- ya know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."

    Obama laid out his support for three gun control provisions -- a ban on assault rifles, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a requirement for background checks at gun shows. He said he hoped to see something passed within a year, despite pushback from the National Rifle Association and similar groups.

    "My response is something has to work," the president said. "And it is not enough for us to say, 'This is too hard, so we're not going to try.' So what I intend to do is I will call all the stakeholders together. I will meet with Republicans. I will meet with Democrats. I will talk to anybody."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics
    All 3 are bullshit and will do little to prevent further killings. What you need is mandatory safe storage when not in use, leaving it on the dresser at night is not acceptable. Proper safety training and the registering and accountability of all firearms, having them stolen or "lost" should be punished heavily.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    I do sympathize with these so called terrorist organisations. As far as I'm concerned, at least they are fighting for something they believe in, and for what they see to be the greater good. They're not fighting to line the pockets of statesmen, governors and oil barons. I wish we could the same about the people on this side of the planet.
    Hobbes talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS.

  14. #4694
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    All 3 are bullshit and will do little to prevent further killings. What you need is mandatory safe storage when not in use, leaving it on the dresser at night is not acceptable. Proper safety training and the registering and accountability of all firearms, having them stolen or "lost" should be punished heavily.
    The person in NewTown got his AR-15 from his family. Even if they had it in safe all he would need is the access code. Can you imagine if they tried to make sure every single gun was in a safe. Or better yet if they tried to make that law. How would you check the guns to be sure they are in a safe? what would happen if they are not. I am simply posting information updated on this.

    However some people have suggested that this would not happen. Obama would back down and it was already a forgotten memory in dems minds. This was taken from Meet the Press that just aired today. I say the issue is still alive and very well.

  15. #4695
    The Unstoppable Force RICH816's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    22,417
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    The person in NewTown got his AR-15 from his family. Even if they had it in safe all he would need is the access code. Can you imagine if they tried to make sure every single gun was in a safe. Or better yet if they tried to make that law. How would you check the guns to be sure they are in a safe? what would happen if they are not. I am simply posting information updated on this.

    However some people have suggested that this would not happen. Obama would back down and it was already a forgotten memory in dems minds. This was taken from Meet the Press that just aired today. I say the issue is still alive and very well.
    The same thing we do in the UK, police do random checks to make sure all firearms are accounted for, if someone else not registered to use those firearms gets hold of them then you are liable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    I do sympathize with these so called terrorist organisations. As far as I'm concerned, at least they are fighting for something they believe in, and for what they see to be the greater good. They're not fighting to line the pockets of statesmen, governors and oil barons. I wish we could the same about the people on this side of the planet.
    Hobbes talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS.

  16. #4696
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    The same thing we do in the UK, police do random checks to make sure all firearms are accounted for, if someone else not registered to use those firearms gets hold of them then you are liable.
    The Police there randomly go to a persons house to check if their weapon is secure.lets say for a moment that was even possible. People would scream invasion of privacy. That is also a ton of resources spent on officers checking each registered gun owner. Okay you remember the shooting that killed two fire fighters. The person who used it wasn't even the legal owner of the gun.

    He had someone buy it for him. If the ban went through. He would never had the option to buy it in the first place. No matter how secure you make weapons. He was able to get his hands on them and I sincerely doubt it would have prevented deaths. Its more of an illusion and feeling of safety then actual safety. I support the background checks on gun show though.

    Its a loop hole leading to un traceable guns to the hands of the people you do not want them to have.

  17. #4697
    Herald of the Titans TheEaterofSouls's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Location
    Posts
    2,786
    I think a simple pistle or sharp object or bulletproof protection would be enough. do we really need these crazy war guns that have harsh consequences.

  18. #4698
    The Unstoppable Force RICH816's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    22,417
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    The Police there randomly go to a persons house to check if their weapon is secure.lets say for a moment that was even possible. People would scream invasion of privacy. That is also a ton of resources spent on officers checking each registered gun owner. Okay you remember the shooting that killed two fire fighters. The person who used it wasn't even the legal owner of the gun.

    He had someone buy it for him. If the ban went through. He would never had the option to buy it in the first place. No matter how secure you make weapons. He was able to get his hands on them and I sincerely doubt it would have prevented deaths. Its more of an illusion and feeling of safety then actual safety. I support the background checks on gun show though.

    Its a loop hole leading to un traceable guns to the hands of the people you do not want them to have.
    Exactly my point, if the guy that brought it for him had to register it in his name and account for it I bet he wouldnt hand it over to a known criminal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    I do sympathize with these so called terrorist organisations. As far as I'm concerned, at least they are fighting for something they believe in, and for what they see to be the greater good. They're not fighting to line the pockets of statesmen, governors and oil barons. I wish we could the same about the people on this side of the planet.
    Hobbes talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS.

  19. #4699
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    Exactly my point, if the guy that brought it for him had to register it in his name and account for it I bet he wouldnt hand it over to a known criminal.
    You are forgetting the shooting in the movies. In Batman Dark Night Rises. He started blasting people in the crowd with an AR-15. He was the legal owner of that gun and it did not stop him.

  20. #4700
    The Unstoppable Force RICH816's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    22,417
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    You are forgetting the shooting in the movies. In Batman Dark Night Rises. He started blasting people in the crowd with an AR-15. He was the legal owner of that gun and it did not stop him.
    No, but it would have stopped other shootings. You can never prevent ALL murder sprees, but you can make them much harder to commit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    I do sympathize with these so called terrorist organisations. As far as I'm concerned, at least they are fighting for something they believe in, and for what they see to be the greater good. They're not fighting to line the pockets of statesmen, governors and oil barons. I wish we could the same about the people on this side of the planet.
    Hobbes talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •