Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
... LastLast
  1. #161
    assault guns are bad...theres a certain point where you reallly dont need a higher power assault weapon like that......

  2. #162
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    Q: So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun?
    Ah - a fair question... Something quite lacking in the discussion to date. Here is your answer...

    A: It isn't about being the solution, it's about finding a stepping stone path to a solution.
    Gun control zealots know quite well that mass murders are attention getting news stories. They also know quite well that over 95+% of all homicides are perpetrated by people using normal handguns and not assault weapons. What the zealots want though is a United Kingdom style ban on all guns. But they know that they can't get that right up front - so they are trying to go for these so-called assault weapons as a 'stepping stone'. They know that it doesn't decrease gun violence. They know it won't even accomplish their self-described goal of reducing mass shooting incidents. To them the long-game is simply to establish these stepping stone laws aimed towards the desired eventual 100% gun ban.

    Let's assume that an "assault rifle ban" passes. What will happen next? The zealots will cheer among themselves and go home... But they won't stay there. They will pull up a chair and wait... Like vultures... Then the next mass shooting will happen. The weapon? It'll be a pistol, or a shotgun, or some other weapon that wasn't in the ban. Then they will spin up the media outrage machine again and say "The assault weapon law wasn't enough!" Enter the next stepping stone... They'll go for semi-automatic pistols, or whatever. Lather, rinse, repeat until the goal is achieved - the full repeal of the 2nd amendment.

    Now - Piers Morgan says "I don't want to ban all guns..." Let's take him at face value and say that's true. Now - that may be the case for HIM, but it that true for ALL of the gun-law advocates? Most assuredly not. In the past 4 weeks we have seen that there are lawmakers pushing for total gun bans in Maryland, in Chicago, in New York, and several other places. We've seen that there are people in Washington who don't just want "assault gun bans" but want to ban all guns. They're only saying it in word, or for the cameras for now. But they are like vultures. They circle and wait, and seek to advance what they said in "word" today in LAW tomorrow. So while there may be some people out there who are reasonable and only want to restrict/limit the laws to so-called 'assault rifles' (though they can't seem to even define THAT), there are others who want far more than that and they are not going away. To them an assault ban is just stage one.

    I can't help but notice that these flare-ups in the "gun law" issue only happen when there is a significant gun event that has captured wide-spread media attention. Those same people don't care jack-squat about the 9,000+ other people killed by a pistol in 2012. But they sure as shootin' miraculously start to "care" when a thing like Sandy Hook happens because that's the story that gets them the attention they want. The guy was 100% right. They stand on the graves of victims, and when there isn't a big 'gun story' in the news they circle around like vultures waiting for one to happen. Sick, sick puppies.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    I am NOT talking about the video with that fat guy (Alex Jones I believe his name is). Please don't simply assuming that's the video I'm linking to. The video/interview I'm talking about there is 0 yelling between the two parties.

    Ok, so I just watched the Piers Morgan interview where the guy from Breitbart destroyed Piers about why "banning" assault weapons is the stupidest thing in the world.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...ook-graves.cnn

    Ok, so this guy actually "gets it", and that's the fact that sure most "mass shootings" are done by assault weapons, BUT the big "problem" with these people who think we need to ban these assault weapons to these few and far between (relative to all shootings) mass shootings, but they don't care about ALL the murders that happen DAILY with every other weapon?

    So MAYBE if assault weapons were banned, criminals (you know, the people who did the last 4 mass shootings, the people who break the law to begin with) MIGHT not have broke the law and shot these people because they MAYBE weren't able to get their hands on LEGAL weapons.

    So great, we stopped these very few mass shootings, but what about all the other murders that happen DAILY in MULTIPLE cities?

    I'm really torn about the issue because while I can't fathom the need for assault rifles and the like (which people also need to realize weren't even a thought in someones head when the constitution was penned) it's also 100% fact that more killings happen with non-assault weapons. It's simple fact, point blank. So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun.

    I truthfully don't think there is any kind of compromise on the issue of banning guns in terms of what it could (hopefully) accomplish. So we ban assault rifles/high magazine clips and then you stop mass shootings involving those but the fundamental problem is that mass shootings are few and (relative to all murders involving guns) far between.

    Why is America's version of "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" so screwed up?

    Here in Britain, i am a strong believer in centre right wing politics, but yet dont agree with any public gun ownership. (and neither do our right wing politicians either).

    I also see Piers Morgan making more sense than the other guy. In fact, I would say Piers tactfully destroyed him.
    Last edited by howdydiddlydoo; 2013-01-14 at 04:55 PM.

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime017 View Post
    Governments turn on their people. Its happened before and it will happen again. It may not be in the US, and it may not be in the near future, but when and if that time does come, the freedom to own firearms will be the #1 difference between those who will remain citizens and those who will become serfs.
    Hahaha, and the same people say that the "anti-gun lobby" has shitty arguments. Visiting MMO-Champion is much more fun than watching television/movies or even playing WoW itself these days...

  5. #165
    i think this interview goes much better if you are wanting one from the other side.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDv...ature=youtu.be

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by bklutz View Post
    assault guns are bad...theres a certain point where you reallly dont need a higher power assault weapon like that......
    if your deer hunting (which seems to be the only legitimate reason to have a rifle to some folks on the left) you want something MORE powerful then an "assault rifle" the .223 round doesn't have enough stopping power to humanely kill a deer unless you hit the heart.
    Proud member of the zero infraction club (lets see how long this can last =)

  7. #167
    Banned The Fiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Merry ol' England.
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by goobernoob View Post
    if your deer hunting (which seems to be the only legitimate reason to have a rifle to some folks on the left) you want something MORE powerful then an "assault rifle" the .223 round doesn't have enough stopping power to humanely kill a deer unless you hit the heart.
    sorry, but when did deer start wearing body armor? Also, hitting the heart? What kind of romantic nonsense is this?

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    sorry, but when did deer start wearing body armor? Also, hitting the heart? What kind of romantic nonsense is this?
    Yea, when deer hunting your aiming for lungs not the heart. A .223 can do the job ok its just not ideal. Plus people hunt more than just deer. We hunt coyote, racoon, and other smaller game with it.

    And piers morgan makes sense if your not american. Hes a jamoke if you are. Hes on american tv as an immigrant complaining about the country allowing him to be heres laws. Its a joke.

  9. #169
    Legendary! Dezerte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,756
    Well, if I look at my country's laws on guns... you know what I'm going to say.

    With that said, the US is a bit different because of their history with guns. But, that doesn't mean you should stop trying.

    I have no stake nor strong opinion on the matter in the US, but I want to pose this question:

    What will the negative effectes & positive effects be of a assault weapon ban? Weight them against each other.
    To declare that a personal, inner experience gives certainty about the workings of the universe is to assign far too much value to one’s subjective sense of conviction.
    I’m not that arrogant.

    The brain, marvelous instrument though it is, isn’t infallible. It can misfire, seize or hallucinate, and it can do so in a way that’s utterly indistinguishable from reality to the person experiencing it.

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    sorry, but when did deer start wearing body armor? Also, hitting the heart? What kind of romantic nonsense is this?
    i'm guessing you don't hunt... the amount of powder behind a .223 round (which is what most of the "assault weapons" we are trying to ban fire) and the weight of the bullet is quite a bit lower then your average deer hunting round. at hunting safety classes you are taught to fire at the vital organs of an animal you intend to harvest, those being the lungs and heart, most hunters use a .243 or larger round with a soft point or hollow point bullet so that if they hit the lungs, they are just gone, nothing recognizable left, and thus the animal dies quickly and with minimal suffering. A .223 round on the other hand doesn't do as much damage to the lungs and animals either survive wounded or bleed out over a longer time, which isn't nearly as humane.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 11:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Trunksee View Post
    Yea, when deer hunting your aiming for lungs not the heart. A .223 can do the job ok its just not ideal. Plus people hunt more than just deer. We hunt coyote, racoon, and other smaller game with it.

    And piers morgan makes sense if your not american. Hes a jamoke if you are. Hes on american tv as an immigrant complaining about the country allowing him to be heres laws. Its a joke.
    Yes, it can do the job but it is not preferred for deer, it is good for hogs and varmint, I wasn't arguing that. I was responding to someone saying you don't need something that powerful.

    And if you aim for the heart you are aiming through the back of the lungs, ever notice most deer targets have a red area in the yellow area that signifies the lungs, that's the heart, where your ideal shot would go =p
    Last edited by goobernoob; 2013-01-14 at 05:26 PM.
    Proud member of the zero infraction club (lets see how long this can last =)

  11. #171
    Stood in the Fire Typhoon-AN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Deepest, darkest, East Midlands - UK
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    Ah - a fair question... Something quite lacking in the discussion to date. Here is your answer...



    Gun control zealots know quite well that mass murders are attention getting news stories. They also know quite well that over 95+% of all homicides are perpetrated by people using normal handguns and not assault weapons. What the zealots want though is a United Kingdom style ban on all guns. But they know that they can't get that right up front - so they are trying to go for these so-called assault weapons as a 'stepping stone'. They know that it doesn't decrease gun violence. They know it won't even accomplish their self-described goal of reducing mass shooting incidents. To them the long-game is simply to establish these stepping stone laws aimed towards the desired eventual 100% gun ban.

    Let's assume that an "assault rifle ban" passes. What will happen next? The zealots will cheer among themselves and go home... But they won't stay there. They will pull up a chair and wait... Like vultures... Then the next mass shooting will happen. The weapon? It'll be a pistol, or a shotgun, or some other weapon that wasn't in the ban. Then they will spin up the media outrage machine again and say "The assault weapon law wasn't enough!" Enter the next stepping stone... They'll go for semi-automatic pistols, or whatever. Lather, rinse, repeat until the goal is achieved - the full repeal of the 2nd amendment.

    Now - Piers Morgan says "I don't want to ban all guns..." Let's take him at face value and say that's true. Now - that may be the case for HIM, but it that true for ALL of the gun-law advocates? Most assuredly not. In the past 4 weeks we have seen that there are lawmakers pushing for total gun bans in Maryland, in Chicago, in New York, and several other places. We've seen that there are people in Washington who don't just want "assault gun bans" but want to ban all guns. They're only saying it in word, or for the cameras for now. But they are like vultures. They circle and wait, and seek to advance what they said in "word" today in LAW tomorrow. So while there may be some people out there who are reasonable and only want to restrict/limit the laws to so-called 'assault rifles' (though they can't seem to even define THAT), there are others who want far more than that and they are not going away. To them an assault ban is just stage one.

    I can't help but notice that these flare-ups in the "gun law" issue only happen when there is a significant gun event that has captured wide-spread media attention. Those same people don't care jack-squat about the 9,000+ other people killed by a pistol in 2012. But they sure as shootin' miraculously start to "care" when a thing like Sandy Hook happens because that's the story that gets them the attention they want. The guy was 100% right. They stand on the graves of victims, and when there isn't a big 'gun story' in the news they circle around like vultures waiting for one to happen. Sick, sick puppies.
    Quoted your whole post, so not to appear to be taking your huge wall of text out of context. The bolded part is utter horse shit. Guns are NOT banned in the UK, only automatic rifles and hand guns are. Shotguns and rifles are perfectly legal to own, with certain rules being in place to prevent the "Crazies" getting them (you can look this up yourself with a simple Google search if you so wish).

    The next two paragraphs you wrote is hearsay, and what you fear will happen. Unless you have sources to back up this kind of statement, using it as a counter argument makes you look silly.

    In the thread regarding the gun regulation in the USA here (page 294, last two posts) you made an outrageous statement which I posted sources proving you wrong, and you are yet to reply to that. It just means people are wasting their time reading anything you post, due to the fact that most of the time it is a massive troll attempt.

    The simple truth is, people will continue to get shot, anti-gun people will scream "ban guns", pro-gun people will scream "mah ritez", the people in the middle will say "we could do something, but it's too much hassle" and nothing will change. The first step is always the hardest but once the USA gets over that (it could take 10 years, it could take 50 years, but you still need to take that first step), your culture will adjust and you will be all the better for it.
    Last edited by Typhoon-AN; 2013-01-14 at 05:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Britain crushed the Egyptians as well. This is what they used to do, kill the people who want independence. Haven't any of you seen Brave heart? Falklands, Northern Ireland and Scotland should be able to break free like India did.

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    I am NOT talking about the video with that fat guy (Alex Jones I believe his name is). Please don't simply assuming that's the video I'm linking to. The video/interview I'm talking about there is 0 yelling between the two parties.

    Ok, so I just watched the Piers Morgan interview where the guy from Breitbart destroyed Piers about why "banning" assault weapons is the stupidest thing in the world.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...ook-graves.cnn

    Ok, so this guy actually "gets it", and that's the fact that sure most "mass shootings" are done by assault weapons, BUT the big "problem" with these people who think we need to ban these assault weapons to these few and far between (relative to all shootings) mass shootings, but they don't care about ALL the murders that happen DAILY with every other weapon?

    So MAYBE if assault weapons were banned, criminals (you know, the people who did the last 4 mass shootings, the people who break the law to begin with) MIGHT not have broke the law and shot these people because they MAYBE weren't able to get their hands on LEGAL weapons.

    So great, we stopped these very few mass shootings, but what about all the other murders that happen DAILY in MULTIPLE cities?

    I'm really torn about the issue because while I can't fathom the need for assault rifles and the like (which people also need to realize weren't even a thought in someones head when the constitution was penned) it's also 100% fact that more killings happen with non-assault weapons. It's simple fact, point blank. So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun.

    I truthfully don't think there is any kind of compromise on the issue of banning guns in terms of what it could (hopefully) accomplish. So we ban assault rifles/high magazine clips and then you stop mass shootings involving those but the fundamental problem is that mass shootings are few and (relative to all murders involving guns) far between.
    It's not wholly a matter of how many deaths are caused, but the method of it. Semi Automatics being widely available makes it a lot harder to stomp out a potential mass shooting situation, whereas a knife or handgun may have its limits (and would require much more training to be as lethal). At the core of the argument, you can't compare one type of death statistic to another and say people are turning a blind eye and only focusing on automatics - the topic is focused on BECAUSE of the recent mass shooting.

    After 9/11, would you say we should do nothing about dealing with terrorist threats because more people died to suicide? You deal with the immediate issue at hand that is the bigger threat to the community. Jones' death statistics are more or less irrelevant.
    Last edited by Thimagryn; 2013-01-14 at 05:43 PM.

  13. #173
    Banned The Fiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Merry ol' England.
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by goobernoob View Post
    i'm guessing you don't hunt... the amount of powder behind a .223 round (which is what most of the "assault weapons" we are trying to ban fire) and the weight of the bullet is quite a bit lower then your average deer hunting round. at hunting safety classes you are taught to fire at the vital organs of an animal you intend to harvest, those being the lungs and heart, most hunters use a .243 or larger round with a soft point or hollow point bullet so that if they hit the lungs, they are just gone, nothing recognizable left, and thus the animal dies quickly and with minimal suffering. A .223 round on the other hand doesn't do as much damage to the lungs and animals either survive wounded or bleed out over a longer time, which isn't nearly as humane.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 11:24 AM ----------



    Yes, it can do the job but it is not preferred for deer, it is good for hogs and varmint, I wasn't arguing that. I was responding to someone saying you don't need something that powerful.

    And if you aim for the heart you are aiming through the back of the lungs, ever notice most deer targets have a red area in the yellow area that signifies the lungs, that's the heart, where your ideal shot would go =p
    And here we come to the hilarious crux of your argument.

    You don't need an assault rifle to fire a stronger round, you merely need a stronger rifle. No one is against this, they're against weapons that can spew lead into an entire room effectively.

  14. #174
    The fact the thread was started by someone with such a dogmatic opinion is hilarious, and is one of the main reasons why being pro-gun is becoming and increasingly unpopular opinion to have.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    And here we come to the hilarious crux of your argument.

    You don't need an assault rifle to fire a stronger round, you merely need a stronger rifle. No one is against this, they're against weapons that can spew lead into an entire room effectively.
    I dont know of anyone that hunts with an assault rifle. I do however know many people that hunt with a ar15 in a sporting configuration with the 5 round mag. Your 5 round argument is pointless because most bolt action rifles and shotguns hold at least 5 rounds as well.

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    And here we come to the hilarious crux of your argument.

    You don't need an assault rifle to fire a stronger round, you merely need a stronger rifle. No one is against this, they're against weapons that can spew lead into an entire room effectively.
    Sadly some people are against that, you can find some in this thread if you look.
    I am just trying to remove an argument that I find annoyingly inaccurate.
    By the way that "since when did deer start wearing body armor" quote also went along those lines.
    Proud member of the zero infraction club (lets see how long this can last =)

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Champxoxo View Post
    The fact the thread was started by someone with such a dogmatic opinion is hilarious, and is one of the main reasons why being pro-gun is becoming and increasingly unpopular opinion to have.
    NICS proves you wrong


  18. #178
    Banned The Fiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Merry ol' England.
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by goobernoob View Post
    Sadly some people are against that, you can find some in this thread if you look.
    I am just trying to remove an argument that I find annoyingly inaccurate.
    By the way that "since when did deer start wearing body armor" quote also went along those lines.
    I said that because honestly? I have friends who have hunted and killed deer with a hunting bow, I very much doubt a gun cannot kill a deer effectively at almost any caliber.

    Of course, I remember that American hunting usually only goes after the large bucks.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 05:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    I dont know of anyone that hunts with an assault rifle. I do however know many people that hunt with a ar15 in a sporting configuration with the 5 round mag. Your 5 round argument is pointless because most bolt action rifles and shotguns hold at least 5 rounds as well.
    And yet Assault rifles exist to be bought by the American public, I guess you can see why people find that stupid.

  19. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    I said that because honestly? I have friends who have hunted and killed deer with a hunting bow, I very much doubt a gun cannot kill a deer effectively at almost any caliber.

    Of course, I remember that American hunting usually only goes after the large bucks.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 05:44 PM ----------



    And yet Assault rifles exist to be bought by the American public, I guess you can see why people find that stupid.
    Well, any center fire rifle round (so no .22lr or .17 rimfires) is legal to hunt with in the US, and a .223 can bring down a good sized buck, but if you don't place your shot near perfectly you are going to make the animal suffer more and it might get away from you, most hunters don't want that.
    Proud member of the zero infraction club (lets see how long this can last =)

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post
    Hahaha, and the same people say that the "anti-gun lobby" has shitty arguments. Visiting MMO-Champion is much more fun than watching television/movies or even playing WoW itself these days...
    I guess superior court justice Andrew Napolitano can lay it out better than I can.

    Edit to add link: http://www.judgenap.com/index.php?po...ns-and-freedom

    If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

    We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

    The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

    Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
    Last edited by Prime017; 2013-01-14 at 05:50 PM.

Posting Permissions

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