Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #9981
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Your country is much more homogenous, established, cohesive, and has the population of 1 large American city. It's a lot easier to manage.

    That is to be expected.
    Well 1 person is shot in New York every 24 hours.

  2. #9982
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    In my country its pretty much always headline if shots are fired.
    Different scale, here also, when we had a "mob type" shooting with semi-automatic rifles shooting at a car. Was the highlight of the year, the shooter even left the guns behind, they didn't care. But that's what you get when you have 0.7 guns per capita and required permit & registration for even non-lethal guns.

    Just hoping mass shootings won't be mainstream in the near future in US, that would suck.

  3. #9983
    Immortal mistuhbull's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quel'Thalas
    Posts
    7,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    Oh, you are so hilariously mistaken. Time is not on your side. Not in the slightest.

    Have you ever wondered why diverse cultures from Japan to the United Kingdom to France to Spain have all arrived at the same conclusion and nearly banned gun ownership? How do such diverse democracies arrive at the same conclusion?

    It's because their populations live far more in cities than ours. In Many parts of Europe, the wealthy and powerful, the educated live in cities while working class folks live in the rural areas. In the US, its the other way around.

    When you have more people in a concentrated area, public safety becomes a priority. People don't want to get shot walking home at night. So gun control goes up the importance queue.

    And this is where you lose: the US is getting more urban, very very quickly. Urban sprawl has accelerated in the last twenty years. What was once "the suburbus" are now vital parts of major metropolitan areas. In another 20 years, todays suburbs will be tomorrow's college-sections of cities. With our growing American population, all of it in urban areas and suburbs becoming the refuge of the old, you will see a lot of young people, with families, who place their safety in these crowded areas as their highest priority.

    And that is how guns are defeated once and for all in this country. Because the day will come when a highly urban future America places saftey of living in cities so high, these laws are passed easily, because people living in apartments in the city won't own guns, or be too far from the open spaces to go hunting or too a range.

    That is how you lose: so long as Americans keep having kids, and Americans keep moving to cities, your hobby dies.

    Let me ask a speculative question: what proportion of Americans owned a gun in the 1980s, when we were predominantly rural, compared to today? I bet you it's vastly lower. Because people in urban areas... Americans, Japanese, British... do not buy guns.

    Time is in no way shape or form on your side. And it could take a century to win, as you say, but you still lose. And people like you will be looked at a century hence like how modern Americans look back at those who defended slavery 150 years ago.

    So grats on being on the losing side. But at least you have your hobby.
    Except for the actuallity that high-population urban areas have dramatically increased crime rates compared to the rural/suburban areas.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...group_2011.xls

    National Violent Crime Rate: 392/100,000.
    Violent Crime Rate in cities with 250,000+ residents: 754/100,000.
    Theron/Bloodwatcher 2013!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alsompr View Post
    Teasing, misdirection. It's the opposite of a spoiler. People expect one thing? BAM! Another thing happens.

    I'm like M. Night fucking Shamylan.

  4. #9984
    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.

  5. #9985
    Immortal mistuhbull's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quel'Thalas
    Posts
    7,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    A school bus driver was shot while protecting a student from a crazed gun man. The gun man has taken the child hostage in an underground bunker and has been negotiating with police for six days.

    The most deadly sniper in US history has also been shot to death.

    I think that's it.
    And probably around 100 poor minorities in inner cities, but that's "gang violence" so nobody really cares
    Theron/Bloodwatcher 2013!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alsompr View Post
    Teasing, misdirection. It's the opposite of a spoiler. People expect one thing? BAM! Another thing happens.

    I'm like M. Night fucking Shamylan.

  6. #9986
    Deleted
    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.
    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. How about gun control and measures to stop on illegal weapons? So you dissarm both parties, intead of failing for one of them so then having to buff the other. 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, 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.

    Sounds about right, civil war incoming. That's how tyranny can be introduced to the US not via politics and with legal means, they will be one to be overthrown.

    ps: And in that case none will succeed.

  7. #9987
    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.

  8. #9988
    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.

  9. #9989
    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.

  10. #9990
    Elemental Lord Templar 331's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    8,226
    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.

  11. #9991
    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.

  12. #9992
    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.

  13. #9993
    I am Murloc! GreatOak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    5,106
    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.
    In the fell clutch of circumstance
    I have not winced nor cried aloud.
    Under the bludgeonings of chance
    My head is bloody, but unbowed.

  14. #9994
    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.

  15. #9995
    I am Murloc! GreatOak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    5,106
    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.
    In the fell clutch of circumstance
    I have not winced nor cried aloud.
    Under the bludgeonings of chance
    My head is bloody, but unbowed.

  16. #9996
    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?

  17. #9997
    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.

  18. #9998
    Elemental Lord Templar 331's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    8,226
    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.

  19. #9999
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    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?

  20. #10000
    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

Posting Permissions

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