Humans are unpredictable.
Tauren Shaman - Pandaren Monk - Orc Hunter - Troll DruidFrostwolf clan is best clan!
Why wont the left talk about gun crimes in chicago? I think its because its obama's former district and they have strong gun control, yet its the murder capital of the us.
I thought it was funny when he put the constitution book over pier's talking points.
First, define "Assault Weapon". It is a term intentionally used to sound like "machine gun" to garner regulation support from the public at large but vauge enough to apply to just about any gun that isn't a single-shot black powder loader. Is the discussion about shots per minute? Accuracy? Ease of use? Capacity? The vast majority of any type of gun out there fires one shot per trigger pull - limited by how fast the use can pull the trigger. These are not machine guns we are talking about. "Assault Weapons" is a red herring.
Secondly I agree with the sentiment of the post - guns will be public enemy number one in the media for a long time to come, yet more children died as a result of drunk driving than by guns (And nobody NEEDS beer right?) and chances for anyone to be killed in a mass murder is about the same as being struck by lightning. Pretty rare. The biggest issue is that these mass murders are media newsroom gold - and these pyschos are getting exactly the kind of attention and ripples through society that they are looking to get.
Last edited by Konker; 2013-01-13 at 08:03 PM.
Just because there is a "larger issue" doesn't mean that there shouldn't be efforts made towards solving the "smaller issue."
Sorry about the german but its easy to explain:
Number of Weapons
Deaths per Million Population
Why are you so torn? You said it yourself that there isn't a need for assault weapons. Semi-automatic handguns can be used practically for self defense, why does anyone need anything more. The fact that this is such a divisive argument is disconcerting.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 still laugh at the conspiracy nuts that think they are going to down our "tyrannical government" when they come to "send us to the FEMA camps." GL
I don't think it matters how many guns exist so long as you live in a society where having someone walk into your yard or try to steal your laptop is seen as a reasonable justification (or a welcome opportunity - "go ahead, make my day") for committing legal murder.
If they want to ban assault-style weapons, fine by me. There's not much of a justifiable reason for the average person to have one. But to say it will somehow address mass killings is pretty silly. The Columbine shooters used several guns, only one of which was actually affected by the gun ban in effect at the time. The rest were sawed-off shotguns (they sawed the barrels themselves) and a carbine that was also legal. The carbine shooter had thirteen 10-round magazines, also legal. So if the assault weapon ban had any effect at all, it was a slight inconvenience in having to reload a bit more often.
Seems to me the biggest problem we face isn't the presence of scary-looking guns, it's the culture. We are a very violent society. I recall the difference in behavior between the aftermaths of Hurricane Katrina and the huge Japanese tsunami of 2011. After Katrina, it was loot, loot, loot, even discounting people trying to find food and medicine. In Japan? No looting. The only difference I know is cultural.
But it's a lot more politically expedient and symbolic to attack the tool used.
His discussing was retarded and only consisted out of yelling as hard as possible.
"Don't ban assault weapons because normal pistols also kill people!"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?
That doesn't make any sense..
By that logic they should unban nuclear weapons for civilians, because "pistols kill people too!"
They will still happen.So great, we stopped these very few mass shootings, but what about all the other murders that happen DAILY in MULTIPLE cities?
But murders that happen every day are much harder to stop.
Because you have to start somewhere.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.
And it's much easier to put a ban on assault rifles, since there are no decent arguments to keep them legal.
Once you started on this path, then maybe in 10 years you can ban all weapons.
Things like this have to go step by step, not a complete ban on everything. That won't work and you won't get your entire population behind such an absolute idea.
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 09:44 PM ----------
But I love the argument.
Let's use that in other cases!
"Allow heroïne, because you can also OD on sugar!"
"Allow nukes, because knifes can kill too!"
Yes, that's a really mature thought-process.
It was a poor debate either way you look at it, but while Alex Jones definitely comes across as a lunatic, his information was at least factually accurate. Piers Morgan, on the other hand, makes up information. Sandy Hook, for example, is *NOT* the worst shooting in American history. It was awful, but not the worst. He claims that the Second Amendment was written in regards to muskets, when in reality, "muskets" has fuck-all to do with the Amendment.
Personally, I think if anything, concealable weapons are the biggest problem. Assault-weapons are protected by the Second Amendment because that's how The People would oppose a corrupt government. Handguns and Uzi's, on the other hand, would never serve the purpose of defending against government, so I would be much more inclined to restrict those.
Keep in mind, I'm all for more regulation. Strict background-checks, with imprisonment if a gun-seller is found having sold without the background-check. Removing The People's ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, however, undermines the entirety of the Constitution, and is in direct opposition of the Second Amendment.
One thing I would like to get out of the way in all of these assault rifle ban arguments is the misconception that they fire "powerful rounds".
The AR-15 which with all of its variants is what most of these shootings were done with fires .223 (or 5.56mm NATO which normally has less powder behind the round) that is just about the smallest acceptable round for deer hunting, they are most popular as varmint or feral hog rounds. Most hunters use something between .243 winchester and .30-06 which have considerably higher muzzle energy.
The 5.56X45mm round was chosen because it would wound more often then kill which vs traditional enemies would get more enemies off the battleground per hit by forcing them to evacuate their wounded.
You can argue about the need for semi automatic actions, though they too are popular for hunting, but the round itself is weaker then most hunting rounds.
In cases like the DC sniper, we are lucky they used an AR-15, if they had used a normal deer hunting rifle with hollow/softpoints we would probably have less survivors.
Last edited by goobernoob; 2013-01-13 at 08:53 PM.
Proud member of the zero infraction club (lets see how long this can last =)
I'm so tired of reading these threads and seeing so much misinformation.
You people don't know anything about guns.
You all sound like the idiot government rep who referred to the internet as a series of tubes.
How many people here can define what an assault weapon is?
How many of you even care?
How many of you are just hoping they ban all the scarey looking guns that don't have wood stocks.
How many of you realize that pistols very often chamber the same size or BIGGER bullets then your assault rifles?
How many of you realize that almost every time you read or hear a media reference to 'assault rifles' it is actually completely wrong.
Imagine if a group REALLY thought we ought to get rid of all cars. So they chose to start with big trucks, because hey who REALLY needs a big truck. So pretty soon every time they discuss any vehicle that isn't a super compact 2 door, they call it a truck. Well, there are a lot of people out there who don't know a whole lot about trucks so they will pretty much accept that all the sources can't possibly be miss characterizing all these cars as trucks, certainly they must all be trucks. Soon you have this big push to ban all trucks and the general consensus is that anything that isn't a super tiny compact 2 door is included in that.
See, most gun owners in the US aren't even that upset at all about banning your TRUE assault rifles. The fact is most people don't own them. They are expensive as hell first off, ammo is expensive so shooting a lot at a time is out of most peoples budget. Secondly, most gun owners actually own them for a purpose, and as has been pointed out so often, there aren't a whole lot of applications for a true assault rifle, you aren't allowed to hunt with them in most cases anyways. So when it really comes down to it this whole process of banning assault rifles would go a LOT smoother for the progressives if they would educate themselves and actually address the things that need addressing.
Let me help the folks here out a bit.
A gun is like a book. You cannot judge its capability by looking at it, unless you can actually identify it. You can buy very tiny target plinker guns that look like hideous war machine guns. OOOOO scarey. Why would anyone want one? Well obviously cuz it looks cool. But to people who can identify guns, they look like those guys who buy cheap crappy cars and stick a bunch of auto-zone fake lookalike accessories to it. They put useless wings on the trunk and shitty tint on the windows and all kinds of seat covers and such. You know what I'm talking about. The stuff that makes the guys with real sports cars just facepalm. Unfortunately people have been convinced that any gun that LOOKS scarey must be capable of blowing off the heads of every living creature in 1000 yards without reloading. The fact is that gun is FAR less dangerous to other humans then the tiny little pistol hidden in any random persons pocket, not just in volume of ammo they hold but in actual damage each round does. Trust me you would MUCH rather be shot with a .22 long rifle then a .357 hand gun. We're talking about the difference between a through and through little hole and losing entire limbs.
Unfortunately we have a progressive group in the government who is more then willing to take advantage of ignorance throughout the population to expand what a 'ban on assault weapons' actually means. Then on top of that, we have a media machine that is also willing to fan the flames because its GREAT for ratings. They get both sides to watch by propagating these miss characterizations. Then you have the small group of staunch gun owners who aren't willing to budge an inch, leaving the moderate group in the middle getting attacked by both sides. Your either a baby killer or your a pinko commie.
I'm not here trying to tell you that it's all a big left wing conspiracy. In most cases its just a case of pure ignorance and apathy. People don't know the difference, and they don't feel like they care because they themselves will never own one of these terrible 'assault weapons'.
I put it to you this way.
If the left would be more accurate and intelligent about how they discuss this topic, and if those who were presenting themselves as educated on the topic in fact WERE educated on the topic, you would find far less resistance to new gun control measures. So if the goal is truly to ban weapons of war from civilian ownership, LEARN about the topic before pulling out your 'jump to conclusions mat'.
If people are unwilling to learn about the subject of the issue then it simply tells me that they aren't really interested in banning weapons of war and that they in fact have another agenda in mind. Of course the mind immediately goes to thinking that those folks are interested in a much wider, comprehensive ban on significantly more firearms.
Want to know why you hear so many gun owners saying things like 'they want to take away all our guns'? Well its because the things your saying actually allude to that fact. They are just parroting what your saying back to you, and I think some of you don't even know your saying it.