View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
3469. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,141 61.72%
  • No

    1,328 38.28%
  1. #4481
    in 1995, a man used fertilizer for farming and nitro methane used for racing fuel to murder 168 people. Since then, the sale of these items are closely monitored and regulated. You can’t buy them without the govt. watching and at least monitoring what you are up to.

    Meanwhile, the online purchase of high capacity magazines and drums and the stockpile of assault weapons go largely unchecked. So my question is, what does the body count have to be before we can do something about regulating these weapons? Do we have to wait until someone converts their semi-automatic gun into a fully automatic weapon and takes out 30, 40, 50 people or more in one attack before we can say we can and must do something?

    And don’t bother with the car analogy. If we followed that nugget of insanity, we would have said we should do nothing after 9/11. After all, only 2,996 people lost their lives that day. If we can’t or shouldn't do anything about the 11,000 + gun homicides every year because over 40,000 die in automobile accidents, than why did we care so much and move heaven and earth to make sure we avenged 3000?

  2. #4482
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    snip
    Had to log in to make a post, I usually lurk these forums but thank you.


    Infracted.
    Last edited by Majad; 2012-12-29 at 03:17 PM.

  3. #4483
    Quote Originally Posted by kinkz View Post
    Had to log in to make a post, I usually lurk these forums but thank you.
    What exactly are you thanking the person for unless making a very long lost and responding to each point while evading the larger question. Why are the AR-15 Bush Master legal. You do not use them for hunting. The number of bullets released from one pull of the trigger even for a semi-automatic still is the majority weapon used in the Movies. Killed 27 kids and 7 adults.

    These are all facts confirmed by several news outlet. I have no heard a legit counter proposal why they need this weapon. YIf we were talking about a hand gun. I would understand you have a right to carry that weapon as long it is concealed with a permit then you can carry on said person. Expect for all the responding a full legit reason why this Militarty Style Assult Rifle should be open to the general public.

    However today as of now is Saturday. The new congress comes into Act on Tuesday. That's three days away. After we overcome the Fiscal Cliff these are the kind of things that will be pushed through congress. Will the NRA defy them? Of course the NRA own a business of selling guns. Any ban would massively hurt their income. But its the moral right thing to do.

    When you have mass murders. Lets not count the fire fighter that was killed with a 223-Bush Master. Then if 20 kids with 7 adults dying doesn't change your attitude on weapons. Nothing will.

  4. #4484
    Banned Bakis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    16,187
    From an outside perspective what I have the hardest time wrapping my head around is why anyone think they need a semi automatic rifle based on a military grade assault rifle.
    Self defense, hunting kinda flies out the window. Target shooting? Hmm sure, I would think it was fun too but at the cost of having these easily modified weapons getting into the wrong hands or in the hands of criminals no-no.

  5. #4485
    Not sure if anyone has seen this or not. since there are so many pages on this I could have missed it.

    http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495

  6. #4486
    I'm still befuddled at the part where we have to pretend something that kills an absolutely trivial amount of people is a policy issue worthy of arguing vehemently in favor of legislation on. There's vastly more low hanging fruit in the form of various preventable accidental deaths that absolutely no one gives a flying shit about.

  7. #4487
    Bloodsail Admiral KunkkaTheAdmiral's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Seventyseven sea's.
    Posts
    1,018
    I looked at every, absolutely every post here... 225 pages. Wow... dont know what to say, I'm no american but I have a question.

    Why do you need a gun ? You have police in the USA.

    I guess a Hunter would need a gun, atleast if he wants to shoot something and not wrestle with it... but ... is there any other reason for you ?

    I dont fear to be "stripped" of my rights, even without a gun, I wouldn't know what to do with this piece of metal.

  8. #4488
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    From an outside perspective what I have the hardest time wrapping my head around is why anyone think they need a semi automatic rifle based on a military grade assault rifle.
    I'm going to put this as bluntly as possible and it's going to offend people. You "may" need a semi automatic rifle based on a military grade assault rifle to kill people, perhaps even a lot of people. Or maybe only a few if your a crappy shot.

    To those on the pro-gun side who will chip in about about how 99.99% of these rifles are used to either hunt, collect or target practice with - you are correct. But it isn't what it's original design is for. Let's all be honest here and call a spade a spade. These weapons are designed for killing people. And that's fine.

    In America, our founding fathers said we had the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose for this is self defense against criminals, other nations and our own government. The quotes are out there, all over the place. They've been posted in this very thread a dozen times. The intent of the second amendment is not to allow hunting, it is not to allow target practice. It's to give people the ability to kill those who are meaning you harm.

    So then, if *you* feel that an AR-15 or a similar weapon is the best avenue of protecting yourself, it is your inherent right to own one.

    Now the anti-gun people will chime in with snide remarks about being tied to some "ancient" document and the founders could never have imagined the world we live in today.

    I say this - Back then people had access to a one shot muzzle loading rifle. If they were to protect themselves against the government, as in one of the clear intents of the 2nd amendment, they would have three shots *at best* per minute. Tell me, what good is that against 50 men? Each firing their own 3 shots per minute..? About the same good as one AR-15 will do against a heavily armed SWAT team. So, our founders knew that "one-man against the world" thing was as futile then as it is now. Yet, lo and behold there is the second amendment. So is it not possible then, that the intent was not to prevent such an occurrence, but to simply make it more costly for the government to infringe on it's citizens rights? (To say nothing of the national defense and self defense angles.)

    In the end it comes down to what was said earlier, as we all know no consensus will be reached here.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I sat alone in the dark one night, tuning in by remote.
    I found a preacher who spoke of the light, but there was Brimstone in his throat.
    He'd show me the way, according to him, in return for my personal check.
    I flipped my channel back to CNN and lit another cigarette.

  9. #4489
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    From an outside perspective what I have the hardest time wrapping my head around is why anyone think they need a semi automatic rifle based on a military grade assault rifle.
    Why does anyone "need" a car that goes faster than the highest posted speed limit? Why does anyone "need" a meal that has more than the daily required calories? Both of these things result in more deaths than "assault weapons".

  10. #4490
    Mechagnome Guilu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I'm still befuddled at the part where we have to pretend something that kills an absolutely trivial amount of people is a policy issue worthy of arguing vehemently in favor of legislation on. There's vastly more low hanging fruit in the form of various preventable accidental deaths that absolutely no one gives a flying shit about.
    Mass killings like these are the only things that get people off their asses, the misuses of guns in general are quite baffling. Worse, this gives your country a very negative image abroad. America, land of the free.. free psychos with machineguns. (I know they don't have machineguns, but do you think people make the difference ? most of them have never held a gun in their lives!)

    @FusedMass You need to vary your sources and get some more info. There is a lot of bias and disinformation coming from all directions; Michael Moore in particular is quite heavy-handed when it comes to this stuff.

  11. #4491
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Sure, it's simple. It's even true. But why stop there? Less human interaction = less violent crime. So let's all lock ourselves up, one person to a room. Then we could eliminate all violent crime.

    You see, there's a problem where simple math is concerned when it corresponds to humans. There's nothing simple about humans. As with broad, sweeping generalizations, the problem is that you tend to ignore the other factors involved.
    Did you actually just compare human interaction to gun ownership? You don't see a difference between interacting with another person and your gun?

    You need to explain to me how math flactuates based on humans. Simple math is the same when it deals with humans and anything else. If there is less access to guns, the humans who want them will have more trouble getting them. There is no magic math that applies to humans that changes that.

    The only thing that changes it, is human emotion. Which in the case of siding with leaner or the same gun control, would require a need that outwaighs the damage. In your case, your emotional attachment that you admit has no need, outweighs the benefit of stricter gun control lowering gun violence.

    If this was just math, not emotional attachment. The things we would be looking at is capability versus necessity. We wouldn't need to argue over this every time someone gets shot. If this was just math, there woud have been stricter laws before these shooting, because guns would be as difficult to get as their ability to do damage.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    And people who try to imply that I have little regard for human life annoy the shit out of me. The idea that all gun-owners are blood-thirsty maniacs is just parochial. And the idea that anything but a tiny fraction of gun owners are violent is just ignorant of the facts.
    The idea stems from you arguing to keep something that you admit will lead to more violence, despite you having no need for it. It's hard for the idea to not pop into your head, when someone's emotional attachment to a gun is so great after such events.
    Go Hawks!!!!

  12. #4492
    Mechagnome Guilu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    673
    Since America is so scared of their government, maybe they could have a well-regulated state militia along with tightened gun control ? just a thought. Having an armed populace doesn't mean giving guns to everybody who wants them, you also need to teach them how to use and be responsible with the tool.

  13. #4493
    Quote Originally Posted by KunkkaTheAdmiral View Post
    I looked at every, absolutely every post here... 225 pages. Wow... dont know what to say, I'm no american but I have a question.

    Why do you need a gun ? You have police in the USA.

    I guess a Hunter would need a gun, atleast if he wants to shoot something and not wrestle with it... but ... is there any other reason for you ?

    I dont fear to be "stripped" of my rights, even without a gun, I wouldn't know what to do with this piece of metal.
    the average time of arrival to the scene is roughly 30 minutes, better have a firearm.

  14. #4494
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Why are the AR-15 Bush Master legal. You do not use them for hunting. The number of bullets released from one pull of the trigger even for a semi-automatic still is the majority weapon used in the Movies. Killed 27 kids and 7 adults.
    What does this mean? I don't understand what you're saying. You're saying the AR-15 was the main weapon used in the killings? So? The number of bullets released from one pull of the trigger of any semi-auto(as stated above, which leads me to believe you didn't bother reading anything, which also makes me wonder if you are so uneducated in firearms why you even are arguing about this) is always going to be the same. <speculation>The guy could have taken two Glock 17s and done the same amount of damage in nearly the same amount of time with barely any practice. It doesn't take long to master reloading a magazine. The hard part is doing it under pressure. Hell, one could argue he could have done more damage with handguns because of concealment. <speculation>Go in, wait for a 'opportune' time with an even larger crowd and go crazy. Regardless of weapon of choice, you know what would of stopped that killer before he made it to even 10 people dead? Someone in the crowd with a personal carry weapon. Bottom-line. We can argue this all day but it's pretty obvious your view is the same as the people who look at me like I'm a madman when I open carry in my local grocery store or mall.(generalizing - but probably true) There's sheep and wolves buddy, and if there were more wolves out there who value their own safety in a country and world of crazy, it's possible there would be less of these killings. Back on topic though.

    I'm thanking him/her because he put into words what many gun owning Americans think and feel. I live in a household with 6 handguns with 13+ round capacities, a shotgun with a 6 round capacity and 2 of your feared 'assault rifle' weapons(an ak-47 and an ar-15). As an American I feel it is my duty and right to own these weapons, and I'm glad that even on a video game forum there are other like minded individuals like me. You're still on the kick of 'ending the purchase of assault rifles will end mass shootings' it seems, (once again)I wonder if you've even read the facts above. As long as there are firearms in this country(which will NEVER change in one way or another) there will be shootings, there will be ways to obtain these things if someone really wants to get their hands on them. Or maybe instead a mentally ill person who wants to cause malicious action will just resort to creating an easy to hide pipe bomb or book bag bomb and put it in a school or subway station. What will be the stance then?


    <tinfoilhat> I also believe in the right to own these 'assault weapons' for if the day comes that the American government, or an invading nation does try to take what is mine, that I will be protected, able to defend myself against unjust things that would turn a nation upside down. What would you do if American(or otherwise) soldiers came to your door one night and held you at gunpoint and said this property/house/town/city/ect ect is now under the control of the US Government and there's nothing you can do about it? Lay over and say 'ok boss!'?? </tinfoilhat>


    What about home defense? Sometimes a pistol or shotgun is not always the best choice, sometimes it is. I know I want to be prepared when (more realistically than a govt) criminals try to invade my home. Armed or not, invasion of home is a right to shoot to kill in my opinion. It's probably safe to assume you'd rather sit back and 1) let them take all of the stuff you've worked your ass off for. and 2) if they're a special kind of crazy assault your wife(or husband)/daughter/son? Could you live with yourself if that happened? I couldn't. And don't tell me that a handgun is sufficient protection, because like I said, sometimes it is sometimes it isn't. I keep 5 loaded magazines by the bed with a loaded handgun in an easy to access(for me or a responsible member of my home) place. Same with the shotgun and 'assault' rifles. Other weapons are also throughout the house, in case I am not in the bedroom at the time of the break-in. Are you prepared? Probably not. And don't tell me getting robbed is not likely to happen, because getting shot up in a theater or college is even less likely to happen.


    The fact is if there is a will there is a way and there's no changing or disputing that. The way I look at it I'd rather have my 'assault rifle'(with it's superior stopping power, and penetrating power and long range) to protect my home, and my liberty.


    P.S. Thanks for the infraction.

    And once again thank you to PhaelixWW for putting your thoughts into words for everyone, I've only read maybe 10 pages of this thread and mostly facepalmed until I skipped to this last page.

  15. #4495
    Quote Originally Posted by Guilu View Post
    Since America is so scared of their government, maybe they could have a well-regulated state militia along with tightened gun control ? just a thought. Having an armed populace doesn't mean giving guns to everybody who wants them, you also need to teach them how to use and be responsible with the tool.
    Gun Fanatics already have this. Some gun community have people with armed community. This is what happened to one of them. Actually a member of the Milita was non other then American Terrorist was Timothy Mc Veigh. That Community was a well known Gun Community. They fired as the goverment came with a search warrent because they saw them as the foe.

    While watching a 2 hour special. I learned the reason he killed 168 people in a bombing on a government building. (You can look this up) because of the events that took place in Waco. Even though the search was legal. The community responded by killing several officers in a long intense stand off. This caused a chain of events. It did not work out so well there.

    I doubt it would work better in the future.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh- McVeigh, a militia movement sympathizer, sought revenge against the federal government for its handling of the Waco Siege, which had ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years prior to the bombing, as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. McVeigh hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government. He was convicted of 11 federal offenses and sentenced to death. His execution took place on June 11, 2001 at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana. Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier were also convicted as conspirators in the plot.

    Now an event took place in Waco Texas.

    he Waco siege began on February 28, 1993, and ended violently 50 days later on April 19.[5] The siege began when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), accompanied by several members of the media, attempted to execute a search warrant at Mount Carmel Center ranch, a property of the religious sect Branch Davidians located in the community of Elk, Texas[6][7] nine miles (14 kilometers) east-northeast of Waco, Texas.

    On February 28, shortly after the attempt to serve the warrant, an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly two hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed. Upon the ATF's failure to execute the search warrant, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The siege ended 50 days later when a fire destroyed the compound when a second assault was launched. Seventy-six men, women and children,[8][9] including the sect leader, David Koresh, died in the fire. The Waco siege also has been described as the "Waco massacre."[10]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
    Last edited by FusedMass; 2012-12-29 at 03:40 PM.

  16. #4496
    Mechagnome Guilu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by kinkz View Post
    there will be shootings, there will be ways to obtain these things if someone really wants to get their hands on them. Or maybe instead a mentally ill person who wants to cause malicious action will just resort to creating an easy to hide pipe bomb or book bag bomb and put it in a school or subway station. What will be the stance then?
    Stance will probably be that we need to make it harder for people to make such a bomb. Which is what happened after the McVeigh incident if I'm not mistaken. And really, these people are not crazy to the point where they're going to raid a police station to find guns. Your country's fascination for guns doesn't go that far I hope. The guns are an enabler - without the tool, the task can't be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by kinkz View Post
    What would you do if American(or otherwise) soldiers came to your door one night and held you at gunpoint and said this property/house/town/city/ect ect is now under the control of the US Government and there's nothing you can do about it? Lay over and say 'ok boss!'??
    You would rather die ? Because it's the most likely outcome there. Would seem more intelligent to let them do it and join whatever underground movement is working against the government. If it comes to that point they're probably not underground at all anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by kinkz View Post
    It's probably safe to assume you'd rather sit back and 1) let them take all of the stuff you've worked your ass off for. and 2) if they're a special kind of crazy assault your wife(or husband)/daughter/son? Could you live with yourself if that happened? I couldn't. And don't tell me that a handgun is sufficient protection, because like I said, sometimes it is sometimes it isn't.
    You have to be a special kind of stupid to go around robbing houses if you have guns in a country with tight gun control. If somebody invades my home and they don't run away the minute they see me (which most do), I'm going to try and fight back - just not with a gun because I don't have one. If they do have a gun (which they probably don't), then I'd probably let them take away my stuff. No point in risking my life.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 04:59 PM ----------

    FusedMass, stop watching "2 hours specials" and get informed about guns and how they work; that'll avoid us some confusion.

  17. #4497
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    From an outside perspective what I have the hardest time wrapping my head around is why anyone think they need a semi automatic rifle based on a military grade assault rifle.
    Self defense, hunting kinda flies out the window. Target shooting? Hmm sure, I would think it was fun too but at the cost of having these easily modified weapons getting into the wrong hands or in the hands of criminals no-no.
    But it's so much easier to murder somebody with a handgun. If you're okay with handguns, I can't think of a single logical argument against rifles. The vast majority (and we're talking something close to 100%) of gun-related crimes are committed with handguns. If anything, ban handguns and let everyone keep their semi-automatic rifles.

    And while we're at it, what is with people trying to ban specific attachments for rifles? Like, which one of you fuckers thought it was a good idea to ban pistol grips on rifles in multiple states? What exactly is it you think a pistol grip does? Do people even research what they're banning before they ban it, or do they just go "yeah, that has a dangerous sounding name, let's ban that!"

    In fact, banning pistol grips is actually more dangerous than letting people have them. You know what they do? They improve comfort and by extension, accuracy. Not by a ton, but it's noticeable. So now the anti-gun crowd is thinking "if you're less accurate, it's harder to murder somebody!"

    No. It's not, and you'd realize that if you thought about it for more than five seconds. If I want to murder somebody, he's going to die. You can't stop that. But chances are, he at least sort of deserved it. If I'm as accurate as possible, he's the only one who will die. If you're putting bans on things that improve my accuracy, however, do you know what's going to happen? I'm still going to kill my target. I'm also going to accidentally kill everyone around him. Which is even more true if you ban rifles, because handguns are typically far less accurate than a semi-automatic rifle.

    You know, I'd be willing to cooperate more with the anti-gun lobby if they'd actually take five minutes to learn about the thing they want to take away from me.

  18. #4498
    Mechagnome Guilu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Do people even research what they're banning before they ban it, or do they just go "yeah, that has a dangerous sounding name, let's ban that!"
    But it's scary looking why do you need the same guns as the military ?!?!

  19. #4499
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Actually in Texas the only thing you have to be is age 21 and pass a background check. It's that easy. Anyone telling you otherwise is not telling you the full truth. Why when trying..and I use word trying lightly to make a point. Some(Not all) Pro Gun people will try to mock and act condensing. Its really not that difficult at all.

    Every State is unique and different. Some are harder to get a weapon then most. But in this state I could go buy a shotgun its as easy as walking into a store and passing a ten minute back ground check and fitting that weapon into my car. While I am deeply flattered by you saying my posts are comical however they bend in truth not in fiction.

    So I really sincerely do not know what is comical about them. I'm not talking about an AR-15 from the video. Then again this is another distraction from me seeing the entire picture. As Mitt Romney once said during the 3rd debates..attacking me is not an agenda.
    In the last post you said going to buy a full auto ar15. Which you can't just walk into a store in Texas and buy. Now your talking about a shotgun which yes you can buy a lot easier than a full auto. Trust me I own 7 guns I know how to buy one.

  20. #4500
    Quote Originally Posted by Guilu View Post
    Worse, this gives your country a very negative image abroad. America, land of the free.. free psychos with machineguns.
    I do not care, not even a tiny little bit. People in other countries having misinformed opinions of the US is not a reason to change policy.

Posting Permissions

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