View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
3472. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,141 61.66%
  • No

    1,331 38.34%
  1. #6461
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    I wouldn't consider 80-85% to be almost 100%, though.

  2. #6462
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    The Aurora shooter spent thousands of dollars, not bad for a student with no job. Maybe he should have spent the money on beer and hookers instead.
    yea that is interesting huh

  3. #6463
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    "Almost 100%" is a bit of a stretch.
    Sorry, I meant firearm murders.

  4. #6464
    Brewmaster PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Sorry, I meant firearm murders.
    Yeah, actually, looking at the FBI numbers for 2011, it was more like 89% of firearm murders and 60% of all murders. I applied a little judicious extrapolation and assumed the same % breakdown of the unidentified firearms as for the identified firearms.

  5. #6465
    Stood in the Fire downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnesium View Post
    Is this a likely possibility where you live? I feel bad for you.

    It wasn't a likely possibility in Sandy Hook CT either was it?
    Last edited by downnola; 2013-01-14 at 05:02 PM.

  6. #6466
    People seem to have this preconceived notion that has been spawned by the media with this ridiculous term "assault weapon": The notion that an "assault weapon" is an automatic weapon, such as the traditional AK-47 or submachine guns like the Uzi. The government's definition of an "assault weapon" is not an automatic weapon at all. Automatic weapons are and have been VERY strictly regulated by the government for a long time. The government definition of an "assault weapon" as it pertains to this bill:

    Semiautomatic assault weapon.

    (a) Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as:

    (1) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models),
    (2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil,
    (3) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70),
    (4) Colt AR-15,
    (5) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC,
    (6) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12,
    (7) Steyr AUG,
    (8) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, and
    (9) Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;


    (B) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

    (1) A folding or telescoping stock,
    (2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
    (3) A bayonet mount,
    (4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and
    (5) A grenade launcher;

    A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

    (1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip,
    (2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer,
    (3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,
    (4) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded, and
    (5) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

    (d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

    (1) A folding or telescoping stock,
    (2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
    (3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds, and
    (4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine.


    Note where it says SEMIAUTOMATIC at the head of each of these lists.

    Let me clarify this point for those who say "ban the assault weapons but not hunting rifles, shotguns, [etc]..." This AR-15 you're all so fond of mentioning? Not only is this weapon SEMIAUTOMATIC, it is also a BARELY bigger caliber than a .22 rifle (it is a .223), which is often the gun that a child owns first when learning to shoot. It might even be what you hunt with personally, which is surprising since you're ignorant as hell about guns, yet you claim to want to ban this supposedly "more dangerous" weapon. I'm more terrified of you than I am of this gun. You're obviously an uneducated gun owner.

    I do not support this ban because it's completely ridiculous if you read my post. They're not trying to ban what everyone is afraid of; they're trying to ban something that looks scary but is, in reality, the same as the gun you probably use every day. Now I don't really think that huge magazines are really necessary, but I also don't believe that getting rid of them is going to help any. Using Sandy Hook as an example, the shooter in that scenario didn't use anything out of the ordinary. He used normal, every day handguns. Kind of funny when you think that the rifle everyone wants to ban wasn't even in use in this shooting, nor would it have given him any advantage to having it over the pistols he DID use, given the distance away his victims were. I hope everyone reads this logically and reasonably instead of just reading the first sentence and then lashing out. Lack of reasonable, intelligent, and logical people are a big part of why our country has been struggling for the last 15 years. Please, use your brain and accept this as proof that you are not supporting a ban of what you are so scared of. You're banning an ordinary gun that just happens to be skinned to look like a more malicious weapon. And believe it or not, I don't see it stopping here if this gets passed.

  7. #6467
    The Lightbringer bergmann620's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    3,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    I wouldn't bet against me. The arc of history is inexorably more liberal in these things.
    The extreme irony in this statement... Do know anything about the etymology of 'liberal'?

    Also, as to your point on 3D printing of guns and sharing of schematics... It terrifies me to know that the government is ALREADY ass-deep in monitoring the internet. it makes me wonder what's going to happen as people start moving back off of the 'web' in order to get back to having some privacy.

    As a matter of fact, the way you reference governmental authority as far as guns, it makes me even more paranoid, especially as we start to enter an age where I feel like we're going to be withdrawing from society more and more simply to avoid being surveilled 24/7.

    As a point of comedy, it's fucking gold that you're recruiting for a guild named 'Tyranny'.
    Life: bergmannity.com/ | Gaming: indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat

  8. #6468
    Wow.. So many sheep. just following everything the liberal media says. Makes me sad.

  9. #6469
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghash View Post
    Let me clarify this point for those who say "ban the assault weapons but not hunting rifles, shotguns, [etc]..." This AR-15 you're all so fond of mentioning? Not only is this weapon SEMIAUTOMATIC, it is also a BARELY bigger caliber than a .22 rifle (it is a .223), which is often the gun that a child owns first when learning to shoot.
    actually if you want to be technical, a 22LR and the .223/5.56 NATO are both .224 diameter. Obviously with the bullet design and charge behind the latter is what makes it more powerful.

  10. #6470
    Obama all but admitted a ban won't pass at the press conference today. Maybe now we can get some reasonable things through.


    GG

    At least you tried

  11. #6471
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidenx View Post
    Obama all but admitted a ban won't pass at the press conference today. Maybe now we can get some reasonable things through.


    GG

    At least you tried
    he also said...

    "My understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence," said Obama. "Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it."

  12. #6472
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    he also said...

    "My understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence," said Obama. "Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it."
    So? He can't do anything substantive. The worst he could do is limit magazine sizes. What he will likely do is strengthen background checks.

  13. #6473
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidenx View Post
    So? He can't do anything substantive. The worst he could do is limit magazine sizes. What he will likely do is strengthen background checks.
    what will that do? background checks work and are extremely effective. Most people that murder with a gun gets it many other ways than simply buying them. The ones that have gotten through have gotten through because there was nothing on their record. The problem is the information is not supplied to the agencies that do the background checks. This is why you have people with known issues able to buy them.

  14. #6474
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    what will that do? background checks work and are extremely effective. Most people that murder with a gun gets it many other ways than simply buying them. The ones that have gotten through have gotten through because there was nothing on their record. The problem is the information is not supplied to the agencies that do the background checks. This is why you have people with known issues able to buy them.
    I don't think it will help much to be honest, but it wouldn't really effect anyone who should be able to get a gun on the first place

  15. #6475
    Scarab Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    4,823
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    what will that do? background checks work and are extremely effective. Most people that murder with a gun gets it many other ways than simply buying them. The ones that have gotten through have gotten through because there was nothing on their record. The problem is the information is not supplied to the agencies that do the background checks. This is why you have people with known issues able to buy them.
    500,000 guns are stolen each year from "responsible" gun owners. I hold them liable for not safely storing and securing their firearms. Gun owners need to go through yearly safety course and mental health evaluation with cross references with their family's mental history.

  16. #6476
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    500,000 guns are stolen each year from "responsible" gun owners. I hold them liable for not safely storing and securing their firearms. Gun owners need to go through yearly safety course and mental health evaluation with cross references with their family's mental history.
    That's fair enough. It doesn't really limit anyone's right to own firearms.

  17. #6477
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidenx View Post
    So? He can't do anything substantive. The worst he could do is limit magazine sizes. What he will likely do is strengthen background checks.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ecutive_orders

    Executive orders are no joke. Interment of Japanese Americans during WW2 was accomplished through executive order without legislative approval and I'd call that pretty substantive.

  18. #6478
    wow is this thread still going on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    The Aurora shooter spent thousands of dollars, not bad for a student with no job. Maybe he should have spent the money on beer and hookers instead.
    yeah, more beer and hookers for everyone \o/
    Quote Originally Posted by Kavoo View Post
    Well I do have a penis attached to me as well but I dont know 'a lot' about it, I dont even know how it tastes. Maybe you do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycoris View Post
    Everyone who does not miss Vanilla has no heart. Whoever wishes it back has no brain.

  19. #6479
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    500,000 guns are stolen each year from "responsible" gun owners. I hold them liable for not safely storing and securing their firearms. Gun owners need to go through yearly safety course and mental health evaluation with cross references with their family's mental history.
    if a person wants something bad nothing you can do in the end will stop them. that doesn't mean they shouldn't lock them up safely....but blaming them regardless of how secure it is isn't a fair accusation to make towards the owner.i'm not referring to owners who just leave them lying around of course.

    i also still can't believe this thread is still on the first page.
    Last edited by breadisfunny; 2013-01-17 at 04:26 PM.

  20. #6480
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,233
    Responsible gun owners are not the ones killing people. If you have guns, and no safe you are irresponsible. I have several...several firearms. The $2600 i spent on a safe is a negligible amount of money. As a gun owner...it really bothers me to see the amount of money people spend on firearms, accessories, and ammunition yet not buy a safe.

    I cannot agree on the mental health eval, that is not only complete bullshit but a huge waste of money to a country already in debt. If you have your firearms locked up then there is no need. If Adam Lanzas mother (if this is the story you actually want to believe) had her firearms locked up, it would not have happened (at least not the way the media told us it happened...yea...i have some questions about sandy hook but conspiracies are not allowed here)

Posting Permissions

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