To everyone saying that banning assault weapons won't reduce murder rates... Come on now.
If an item is banned, that means that it no longer can be sold publicly, and must be acquired on a black-market esq level.
When you buy something like that, It becomes MORE EXPENSIVE because of the prohibitive nature of the product. It also in many cases will become less effective.
Everyday joe shmoes will never come into contact with the banned gun, because they can no longer go out and buy one to shoot for fun in the same way that they can today. Professional criminals will have a significantly harder time getting the guns, thus indirectly lowering the death toll.
Example: Gun A. is banned. Normally, Eric could go and buy gun A from a local armory. Since that armory can no longer carry that gun, Eric can no longer obtain it. John, a thief who would have possibly stolen the gun when he broke into Eric's house should he actually aquired the gun, now no longer gets ahold of gun A. John can then no longer use that gun to rob the nearest place with a cash register as he would have with the gun, regardless of the fact that given the opportunity, John would have ignored the gun ban law.
How about this for common sense. Keep everything as legal as it is now. At the same time increase police everywhere. I do mean everywhere, pretend I'm doing the 'every out house, dog house' scene from the fugitive. In malls, pre-schools, theater, colleges, donut shops, gas stations, I mean everywhere. The only change? Increase taxes on all gun products to pay for every bit of spending that has to happen to keep the public safe. This is also the low end of the spectrum, I'd prefer a tax on all gun products that would net a surplus. Keep everything as legal as it is, but make those who buy guns pay to keep the public safe from the small chance that one is used to comit crime. Those with guns already will see no impact on them, unless they by more than they already have. All new gun owners will have a huge impact on public safety, which is all they want anyway.
---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 01:04 PM ----------
You do realize that you actually have to have a permit to carry a weapon in the United States, right? Want to know how many people get busted for that a MONTH? Think that little law stops them? NO.
Bacon is the thing pigs give you when you're good.
The argument has been that "assault weapons" are not the problem and the numbers show that. The argument has been that this is an excuse to limit the liberties and freedom set by the Second Amendment without being honest about it. This is an argument that even if this does get passed it doesn't address the real issue just as the original did not address the real issue and in the mean time it is only going to punish, limit, and hurt people who were already following the law.
So... you think we should ban all guns, not just assault weapons?
To quote Rahm Emmanuel, liberal extraordinaire, "We have a problem with illegal guns." Our existing criminalization of certain types of weapons is fine. We don't need any more restrictive bans on ownership - at all. We need legislation that will allow us to close the loopholes in the enforcement of the current laws so that we can get illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.
Then, we can have a discussion about limiting the capabilities of certain weapons so as to limit the destructiveness of when a law-abiding owner snaps - which is a rare thing. Remember - if Adam Lanza's mom had secured her firearms from her son who she knew to be unstable, none of us would even be having this conversation.
All illegal guns where at one point legal...
Legal gun owners that sell / lose their guns are partly to blame.
1. There is no reason for any member of the public to own an assault rifle period, there is no logical argument you can make to justify that.
2. There is no reason for the public to own handguns.
3. All the countries that don't allow assault rifle's and handguns have drastically lower gun crimes, so your argument that the removal of them will make you all vulnerable to criminals doesn't hold up.
4. If gun control went into effect does not mean that murder rates will stay the same and that people will just find another way to commit the crime, that is just a stupid train of thought as this has been proven the opposite in countries that have implemented gun control or bans.
5. It is very easy to pull a trigger and kill someone or multiple people because shooting someone is very impersonal, you are distanced...it takes MUCH more to kill someone using a knife.
6. The huge difference in gun related deaths between the US and other countries statistically prove all the above pro gun arguments are false.
---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 12:21 PM ----------
2. Yes there is. Please refer to point 1.
3. No one has argued this beyond the anti-gun movement.
4. This is sometimes true over a long enough course of time. However, we have the 2nd Amendment and thus it is pointless to discuss.
5. This is subjective and conjecture. It is arguably easier to kill a few (being 1 or 2) in the heat of the moment. It is rationally not easier to go on a killing spree if the implication of easier being used is referred to mentality, which you're making. (No found support for your claim)
6. What gun arguments?
Increasing taxes on guns would actually solve some of the problems without having to make bans and rewrite the constitution. Though I doubt the republican congress with all their NRA support would ever support such as a tax.
Let's assume at some point in the future we have to exercise the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment for their intended purpose and we go to war against our own government to overthrow it, Just how you think we are going to do that without having comparable firearms to that of a U.S foot-soldier.
Now I myself firmly believe that we as a society should of already overthrown our Government, get rid of the two party system and all the dead weight in the senate, and even go as far as tossing out the law/tax books and starting completely fresh.
So yeah it is kind of my hope that the masses get on board to overthrow our corrupt tyrannical political structure in favor of something that works in these modern times, and I want them to have the necessary weaponry to do so as it will minimize rebel causalities and quite possibly be the only thing that would stop the military from declaring martial law to circumvent mass rebellion.
"edit" Personally I think we should be more worried about easily concealable guns and I would create a law banning all guns with less than a 10 inch distance between the trigger and the tip of the barrel.
"would mean the complete ban of all handguns as they serve no special purpose in comparison with larger guns."
Last edited by skrump; 2013-01-15 at 06:36 PM.
Between myself, my Dad and My late Grandfather we have around 10 Guns. Most are some form of shotgun, we have 3 22-caliber rifles. I love to shoot trap, and also like hunting. So are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to own something that has been in my family for 4 generations? If so Good luck, if they try an all out ban on guns it will not happen. Why because people are not going to just willingly give up their guns that they paid for, unless there is going to be monetary compensation. But even then what if like me they have been handed down through generations?