View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
3486. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,147 61.59%
  • No

    1,339 38.41%
  1. #10021
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    But how many guns has Walmart sold that has killed people? Gun sellers should be liable for gun-related deaths too. Care to bet how fast Dicks and Walmart stop selling guns when they become uninsurable? It would happen overnight.
    Kmart used to sell guns, they stopped since their sales were never strong anyway and it became not worth the trouble for FFL's and such. Sears had, years earlier stopped for the same reason, though Kmart's was predicated on a lawsuit.

    A guy bought a shotgun, went home and killed his (girlfriend or wife), while drunk. The problem with the lawsuit was that Kmart's staff was irresponsible in their sale. When questioning the sales clerk, they asked "Did you think he was too drunk to buy a gun?"

    Her response "no, but he was too drunk to fill out the form, so I had to do it for him."

    (That's going from memory, so if anyone wants to correct it, so be it.)

    First off it's illegal for her to fill out the form for the guy, but just the idea that someone is so drunk they can't fill it out and you still sold them a gun? Very irresponsible. It's like Lanza's mother trying to have her son committed, but not securing her weapons from him, it's just unconscionable.

  2. #10022
    So let's arm ourself and prepare for war in a democracy. Seems about right, except the there will be no country or citizens left.
    That made little sense to me.

    How about gun control and measures to stop on illegal weapons?
    There is already gun control as it stands against felons, certain licenses for different types of firearms are already in place(which is I dislike outright) and State/Local laws determine whether or not selling weapons without a license is illegal.

    So you dissarm both parties, intead of failing for one of them so then having to buff the other.
    How exactly do you disarm "Criminals" if they're still willing to acquire weapons illegally? Chicago is a great example of a city that bans nearly everything yet, thirty people or more die every month in that city from murder by firearms.

    If you can't follow that logic and understand that I hope you will not alive the day the "law abiding citizens" will outgun the police task force,
    Some people in the USA already do outgun the police force... I know of some people who own +100 firearms by themselves. Am I afraid? Of course not. A gun is a tool... The person behind it is what makes it a tool or defense or murder.

    and when to use the same idealogy that "anti-tyranny" guys use, maybe a leader will want to rule this "mitilia" and raise them up above the law.
    Okay... so there is a possibility of a "militia" rising above and overthrowing the elected Government. If the people were that willing to join that cause they must have had plenty of justification to overthrow the Government if the military/state/local forces were unable to contain the uprising.

    Sounds about right, civil war incoming.
    No one wants to die but, the fact remains that being disarmed/helpless throughout history have proven to be the downfall of a great many of people. Waiting 2-10mins for the Police to arrive at your doorstep as a person is trying to break your door down isn't a great option at all. What if you're not able to call the Police? Just let the guy rape you for a few days, allow him to slit your throat and proceed to dump you in the river? Just because you decide to disarm yourself for the "greater good"? Pitiful.

    That's how tyranny can be introduced to the US not via politics and with legal means, they will be one to be overthrown.
    Okay... so your irrational fear of a populace uprising that plans to create a tyrannical government in the USA stems from the fact that people have access to firearms? Umm... I have a RATIONAL fear of a Government abusing its own power and becoming tyrannical. We've only see governments turn on their people for the past +6,000yrs so being prepared for isn't a form of irrationality. That's suggesting that putting on your seat belt when you go to drive is a form of lunacy because you're afraid you're going to hurt in a car accident. Well guess what!? Getting in car accidents happens quite often just as Governments turn on their own people and exterminate their "enemies" without blinking an eye.

  3. #10023
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I don't think it falls on the manufacturer's shoulders to dictate what their customer (the dealer) does with the product once it belongs to him. Or, rather, it does (as is the case with the dealer selling to a drunk), but there needs to be a strict limit on how far back you can trace liability.
    Very few gun manufacturers sell direct to the dealer, nearly all major manufacturers sell to a distributor who then sells to the dealer. In addition, it IS illegal to sell to an intoxicated person in the majority of states, and I'd think that would be something easy to "insert" into the laws of the other jurisdictions, which seems a good idea regardless of the liability argument.

    Editing in
    Years ago, Nathaniel Brazill took his grandfathers gun (Raven 25) from the coffee can his grandfather stored it in. He shot a teacher that had prevented him from talking to a girl. The manufacturer had, years earlier, sold the gun to a distributor (Valor). The manufacturer had long since burned down and was no longer around. Valor sold it to a dealer, who sold it to a person, at some point someone pawned it, the pawnshop sold it (as a dealer, with all attendant paperwork) to someone and it changed hands a few more times before ending up with the grandfather.

    Now, liability law in Florida is that if something is awarded across multiple people, and only one of them can pay, that guy has to pay the total, basically. So, Some jury decided Valor was 5% liable, most of the liability being on the Brazill family, who of course had no money. So they required Valor to pay the total of millions. It was later overturned.
    Last edited by Svifnymr; 2013-02-03 at 05:51 PM.

  4. #10024
    Pit Lord Templar 331's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Roelath View Post
    Assault Weapons make up less than 1% of the total crimes involving guns. This thread is just filled with foreigners who most likely have no right or limited rights to own a firearm as it is and are promoting their country's laws. Are they truly effective? UK is an island nation so there are no direct borders at all and doesn't deal with the immense of amount Cartel/Gang activity that the US suffers. Why does the UK have a 100%+ crimes per person than the USA if they've banned firearms outright? If banning firearms was so effective why does UK suffer far more crimes compared to the USA when the USA allows you to own under a Class III license any Automatic weapon grandfathered?

    The answer is that gun control doesn't work and you only end up with criminals & the Government with the firearms. If they're not using firearms they're using knives, bottles or any other form of tool to hurt and/or kill someone which enables gangs to have a stronger advantage because they have numbers.
    Poor choice of country. The UK tracks crimes differently than the US. As far as using knives instead of guns, I'm all for that. XD I'm all for everyone having knives on them. That way if anyone wanted to kill me, they'd have to come up to me or have a throwing knife.
    P.J. O'Rourke quote: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

  5. #10025
    The UK tracks crimes differently than the US.
    Every country does but, it doesn't refute the fact that a country that doesn't have severe gang/cartel activity nor does it allow its populace to own/carry firearms has double or more crimes per person than the USA.

    As far as using knives instead of guns, I'm all for that.
    I'm sure the 90 pound woman who is up against a 200+ pound man would say otherwise.

    I'm all for everyone having knives on them.
    I carry a knife on me at all times because it has other uses beyond that of protection. Firearms are meant for protection and they're the greatest equalizer.

    That way if anyone wanted to kill me, they'd have to come up to me or have a throwing knife.
    A feather weight person vs. a heavy weight is going to end terribly for the feather weight if they're not trained in hand to hand combat. Then you add in numbers in favor of the aggressor and the victim is sure to be wounded or dead.

  6. #10026
    Quote Originally Posted by Templar 331 View Post
    Like I said before, if you need more the 10 bullets to kill someone, your in trouble. Especially if they're in your house or in the door way. Think about it, door ways and hall ways are choke points. Makes it easier to hit someone coming in your house. And I would hope the mother has been to a shooting range and learned how to shoot too.
    Like I said before, someone defending themselves is less likely to have extra loaded magazines compared to someone that is preparing to commit a mass shooting. The regular criminal would of course just be using a gun as a threat in most cases and not need extras.

    So you're restricting the capability of millions of normal users because of 1-2 mass shootings a year, ignoring the fact that mass shootings occurred during the AWB of 94-04 anyway. So what is the purpose of the law?

    More criminals have been released due to the protection vs illegal search and seizure than crimes have been aided by more than 10 rounds. How many criminals were allowed to walk free because of the fifth's protections against self-incrimination? How many witnesses have been removed and the criminal couldn't "face his accuser"?

    Not that they haven't come out with some restrictions on those rights, the rulings on Eminent Domain are just stupid, IMO, but it's the "we need to do something to help the victims!" line that just rings false to me.

  7. #10027
    Scarab Lord GreatOak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    4,925
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    Well 1 person is shot in New York every 24 hours.
    New York is neither cohesive, homogenous, or as established as a place like Denmark. It also has many more people in the metropolitan area. Apart from the relative size, the dynamics are completely different.
    "It woudl be funny as hell if the abodinal snoawman walk in the background" -Confucius

  8. #10028
    Quote Originally Posted by Roelath View Post
    I'm sure the 90 pound woman who is up against a 200+ pound man would say otherwise.
    Absolutely... she would ignore the knife and simply out-run the guy.

    Though being 90lbs means she's more dexterous, and can land a vital blow much easier with a knife than a heavier gun with a powerful kickback.
    "Tell them only that the Lich King is dead... and that World of Warcraft... died with him..."

    Quote Originally Posted by BenBos View Post
    That's the ONLY reason you would post 9600 posts over 3 years: a mission of hate.

  9. #10029
    Scarab Lord GreatOak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    4,925
    Quote Originally Posted by mvallas View Post
    Absolutely... she would ignore the knife and simply out-run the guy.

    Though being 90lbs means she's more dexterous, and can land a vital blow much easier with a knife than a heavier gun with a powerful kickback.
    No. Guns are an equalizer; plain and simple. A world without guns is one in which the weak become prey to the strong.
    "It woudl be funny as hell if the abodinal snoawman walk in the background" -Confucius

  10. #10030
    The Insane Catta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,963
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    New York is neither cohesive, homogenous, or as established as a place like Denmark. It also has many more people in the metropolitan area. Apart from the relative size, the dynamics are completely different.
    You think that the main reason for the killings are malice rather than economics or mental health problems?

  11. #10031
    Quote Originally Posted by Roelath View Post
    I carry a knife on me at all times because it has other uses beyond that of protection. Firearms are meant for protection and they're the greatest equalizer.
    Bullshit it's the "greatest equalizer". How does your gun prevent a hidden bomb under somebody's coat from exploding when you don't even know he has one?

    It's only the "greatest equalizer" if you live in a society who's surrounded by guns...

    The reason gun violence is big in the USA is because those people use them to give them a vastly powerful advantage. Give everybody a gun and guess what? They will look for the NEXT powerful advantage over guns. They don't magically just don't say "Guess I stop being evil and give-up". They make bombs, they steal your guns, they get a sniper rifle, they poison water supplies, they drive vehicles into buildings and people...

    Your guns don't equal out shit... they just give you a false sense of security while increasing the risk of it getting stolen and falling into illegal hands.
    "Tell them only that the Lich King is dead... and that World of Warcraft... died with him..."

    Quote Originally Posted by BenBos View Post
    That's the ONLY reason you would post 9600 posts over 3 years: a mission of hate.

  12. #10032
    Pit Lord Templar 331's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Roelath View Post
    Every country does but, it doesn't refute the fact that a country that doesn't have severe gang/cartel activity nor does it allow its populace to own/carry firearms has double or more crimes per person than the USA..
    http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

    The reason the UK has more assault crimes than the US is that the UK classifies some crimes as assault that the US doesn't.


    I'm sure the 90 pound woman who is up against a 200+ pound man would say otherwise.
    Don't underestimate a little woman. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it. That big 200 man makes for a bigger target than the woman does.

    I carry a knife on me at all times because it has other uses beyond that of protection. Firearms are meant for protection and they're the greatest equalizer.
    I do to, and I agree with firearms being better protection. I just like the idea of everyone having knives instead of guns. I wouldn't force anyone to do that, it just sounds better to me.

    A feather weight person vs. a heavy weight is going to end terribly for the feather weight if they're not trained in hand to hand combat. Then you add in numbers in favor of the aggressor and the victim is sure to be wounded or dead.
    You are right about that. But like I said with guns, if your not trained to use a knife, don't be surprised if you lose even while using one.
    P.J. O'Rourke quote: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

  13. #10033
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by mvallas View Post
    Bullshit it's the "greatest equalizer". How does your gun prevent a hidden bomb under somebody's coat from exploding when you don't even know he has one?

    It's only the "greatest equalizer" if you live in a society who's surrounded by guns...

    The reason gun violence is big in the USA is because those people use them to give them a vastly powerful advantage. Give everybody a gun and guess what? They will look for the NEXT powerful advantage over guns. They don't magically just don't say "Guess I stop being evil and give-up". They make bombs, they steal your guns, they get a sniper rifle, they poison water supplies, they drive vehicles into buildings and people...

    Your guns don't equal out shit... they just give you a false sense of security while increasing the risk of it getting stolen and falling into illegal hands.
    Think of it this way: 3 people break into your house. They're stronger than you. What do you do?

  14. #10034
    The Lightbringer Yirrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    3,733
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    No. Guns are an equalizer; plain and simple. A world without guns is one in which the weak become prey to the strong.
    Soo...basically like now, but with less stray bullets and a chance to outrun whoever's after you? Sounds good.
    Want ACTA? No? Say NO to TTIP! Want GMO's? No? Say NO to TTIP! Want your country controlled by US buisness interests? No? Say NO to TTIP!

  15. #10035
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    No. Guns are an equalizer; plain and simple. A world without guns is one in which the weak become prey to the strong.
    Yeah - the 90lb terrorist with an explosive strapped to them will take out hundreds of your "great equalized" strapping 200lb men...

    "equalizer" my ass... and you damn well know it's not. :P
    "Tell them only that the Lich King is dead... and that World of Warcraft... died with him..."

    Quote Originally Posted by BenBos View Post
    That's the ONLY reason you would post 9600 posts over 3 years: a mission of hate.

  16. #10036
    Absolutely... she would ignore the knife and simply out-run the guy.
    When she is trapped in her apartment? Doubt it.

    Though being 90lbs means she's more dexterous, and can land a vital blow much easier with a knife than a heavier gun with a powerful kickback.
    You have a 200+lbs guy carrying a pipe and/or a knife busting through your house... you have no training in hand to hand combat and you expect to outmatch him? Most people in that situation would cower and surrender because they don't want to die. The reason the guy can pound into someones house without a care is because he knows not many people can't fight at his strength so he is willing to break into homes. Put the fear of death of ever attempting it and people avoid it.
    Last edited by Roelath; 2013-02-03 at 06:30 PM.

  17. #10037
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by mvallas View Post
    Yeah - the 90lb terrorist with an explosive strapped to them will take out hundreds of your "great equalized" strapping 200lb men...

    "equalizer" my ass... and you damn well know it's not. :P
    Pretty sure you're not going to encounter people with bombs here in the states.

  18. #10038
    Pit Lord Templar 331's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Like I said before, someone defending themselves is less likely to have extra loaded magazines compared to someone that is preparing to commit a mass shooting. The regular criminal would of course just be using a gun as a threat in most cases and not need extras.

    So you're restricting the capability of millions of normal users because of 1-2 mass shootings a year, ignoring the fact that mass shootings occurred during the AWB of 94-04 anyway. So what is the purpose of the law?

    More criminals have been released due to the protection vs illegal search and seizure than crimes have been aided by more than 10 rounds. How many criminals were allowed to walk free because of the fifth's protections against self-incrimination? How many witnesses have been removed and the criminal couldn't "face his accuser"?

    Not that they haven't come out with some restrictions on those rights, the rulings on Eminent Domain are just stupid, IMO, but it's the "we need to do something to help the victims!" line that just rings false to me.
    You just proved my point. How many bullets do you need to take out ONE mass shooter. You don't need as many as he has. One clip would be enough to take out one guy. Be it 10-15 rounds, if you know how to use a gun you can take him out. Unless he's using body armour, then you might as well run.
    P.J. O'Rourke quote: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

  19. #10039
    http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

    The reason the UK has more assault crimes than the US is that the UK classifies some crimes as assault that the US doesn't.
    Is there a difference in rape too? UK has a higher rape % than the USA. Also even if they had the same laws as the USA in terms of assaults you'd still see UK being around or higher than the USA in terms of crimes per person. Even though they don't deal with Cartel/Gang activity like the USA has too.

    Don't underestimate a little woman. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it. That big 200 man makes for a bigger target than the woman does.
    Yes... an untrained woman who is frightened by a guy who can man handle her is going to win the fight. Because we all know that 100% of the female population trains in hand to hand combat and every man out there doesn't.

    I do to, and I agree with firearms being better protection. I just like the idea of everyone having knives instead of guns. I wouldn't force anyone to do that, it just sounds better to me.
    Probably because you see the skill in using knives over guns but, if you're untrained in hand to hand combat simply having a knife in fight that involves 2 or more against you and you're most likely going to die.

    You are right about that. But like I said with guns, if your not trained to use a knife, don't be surprised if you lose even while using one.
    Instant death at a distance from a gun is far scarier than a blade wielding woman when you could be carrying a baseball bat covered in nails.

  20. #10040
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Willy View Post
    Think of it this way: 3 people break into your house. They're stronger than you. What do you do?
    Easy... do what our ancestors historically have done - outsmart your enemies! ^_^

    First off - they even have to break in. I'm on the 5th floor of a Condo building with security cameras, double-locked doors, an elevator and 2 fire escapes + my dead bolted door. Not to mention I have a rope ladder for my balcony in case of emergencies.

    Secondly, I have many large closets (six in total) where I could hide.

    Third, it's a condo - no spacious rooms and lots of corners and hiding places. My Louisville Slugger and/or wakizashi blade will be far more effective than their gun in this setting...

    There's an old saying I love: Trust in God, but lock your car.

    You don't need a gun to lock your car. :P

    EDIT: Here's another fun old saying from Gallagher: We're not descended from the men who were eaten by the Dinosaurs, we're descended from the itty-bitty quick F#&@kers who got back to the cave! :P
    Last edited by mvallas; 2013-02-03 at 06:31 PM.
    "Tell them only that the Lich King is dead... and that World of Warcraft... died with him..."

    Quote Originally Posted by BenBos View Post
    That's the ONLY reason you would post 9600 posts over 3 years: a mission of hate.

Posting Permissions

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