Guns

[Tornado]

Assault weapon is the made up term.

Along those lines:

What if assault rifles were restricted for military use only, it would certainly make it harder for criminals to obtain one.

Assault rifles are restricted for military use only. Effectively have been since 1986. If someone on the street could go and buy one at a store, your hypothetical would make sense, but an AR-15 that looks like an M16 is no more of an inherent mismatch of force in a self-defense situation than any other gun you can buy as Danoff already noted.

 

[Michael88]

What if assault rifles were restricted for military use only, it would certainly make it harder for criminals to obtain one.

Like mentioned in previous comments, what people call an ''assault rifle'' is only available to the military and not for normal citizens since the year 1986.
Politicians who tell you they want to ban ''assault rifles'' either know very little about the subject they're talking about or they are using lies to play with the emotions of the audience to manipulate them in order to get their attention and support for something the people do not quite understand.

Assault rifle sounds so much better than ''evil looking semi-automatic rifle'', no?

 

[Dennisch]

Some of the most accurate guns out there allow only a single bullet to be loaded directly into the chamber.

Extremely deadly entering a room while 360 quickscoping.

 

[jimipitbull]

It's quite amusing that courts of law can use what some here call 'made up terms'

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/natio...allenge-ban-assault-weapons-article-1.2457669

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Civilians shouldn't have guns.

 

[Tornado]

Not as amusing as how transparent the attempt to divert attention from your initial claim was. Courts of law use those made up terms in court cases because the law itself uses those made up terms to define nebulous and arbitrary concepts.




Which one of these do you think is more dangerous? This:

Which is completely legal under the terms of the old California Assault Weapons ban (maybe the broadly similar NY SAFE Act as well, but probably not without at least a different grip). It is therefore not an Assault Weapon (which, again, is the word you meant), nor it is an Assault Rifle (which is the word you used).

Or this:

Which is not an assault weapon as it pertains to the New York SAFE act (and probably the old California Assault Weapons ban) or an assault rifle.

Or this:

Which under the terms of the California Assault Weapons (and the NY SAFE Act) ban is an assault weapon, but is still not an assault rifle.

Or this:

Which is both, but is moot since a civilian already would not be allowed to purchase one.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Civilians shouldn't have guns.

You're living in the wrong country.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

You're living in the wrong country.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One could argue the militias of today are the state guardsmen and national guard. If the amendment was read how it should have always been only people who have served in the national guard should be allowed to have guns. Not the populous. Giving everyone a gun protects no one.

 

[Michael88]

Civilians shouldn't have guns.

No, criminals shouldn't have guns.

If they don't have guns its all good.

But thats not possible, criminals will always have guns, so if you ban guns you take away guns from the non-criminal law abiding citizen.

Which results in the problem of leaving the citizen defenseless against the armed criminals, people don't have armed police officers and bodyguards wherever they go.

Conclusion: despite the occasional nut job doing harm with a legally possessed firearm, taking away all guns from all the citizens will only lead to more problems, more crime and more tragic events.

 

[Blood Eagle]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One could argue the militias of today are the state guardsmen and national guard. If the amendment was read how it should have always been only people who have served in the national guard should be allowed to have guns. Not the populous. Giving everyone a gun protects no one.

How about people who swore an oath to country? There is no expiration date on an oath. There is nowhere in the oath that says it's valid for such and such a date. Military, Law Enforcement swear oath. Should Military Veterans be barred from ownership? I'm a Veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. Should I be trusted as the United States and her citizens once did? I'm probably just a "right wing whacko" for hoping so.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

No, criminals shouldn't have guns.

If they don't have guns its all good.

But thats not possible, criminals will always have guns, so if you ban guns you take away guns from the non-criminal law abiding citizen.

Which results in the problem of leaving the citizen defenseless against the armed criminals, people don't have armed police officers and bodyguards wherever they go.

Conclusion: despite the occasional nut job doing harm with a legally possessed firearm, taking away all guns from all the citizens will only lead to more problems, more crime and more tragic events.

Terrible argument. Criminals get guns by stealing guns from people who have them legally or getting some clean to buy the gun and "lose it" your argument sets up the very problem you claim it to be solving.

How about people who swore an oath to country? There is no expiration date on an oath. There is nowhere in the oath that says it's valid for such and such a date. Military, Law Enforcement swear oath. Should Military Veterans be barred from ownership? I'm a Veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. Should I be trusted as the United States and her citizens once did? I'm probably just a "right wing whacko" for hoping so.

You might want to reread what I posted then. Are you ex military? What branch did you serve if you don't mind asking? The reason I bring that up is I want you to tell me how many hours of gun training did you partake in when you went in to basic and throughout your service

 

[Michael88]

Terrible argument. Criminals get guns by stealing guns from people who have them legally or getting some clean to buy the gun and "lose it" your argument sets up the very problem you claim it to be solving.

You clearly have no idea about the raging black market. You really think gangs are using the guns they stole from civilians? Most gangs and many criminals have fully automatic rifles originating from ex eastern-bloc countries, which are impossible to own & sell legally.

There are always exceptions, but if you think criminals get their guns from civilians you are terribly mistaken.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

You clearly have no idea about the raging black market. You really think gangs are using the guns they stole from civilians? Most gangs and many criminals have fully automatic rifles originating from ex eastern-bloc countries, which are impossible to own & sell legally.

There are always exceptions, but if you think criminals get their guns from civilians you are terribly mistaken.

What are you talking about. It's rare to see any fully auto gun on the streets especially in gang hands. You literally took an idea from a movie and tried to pass it off as real. American gangs use hand guns and SMGs. Shotguns as well as rifles. You are saying they won't steal a gun from someone but they will meet with the European mafia to buy a large shipment of guns. If you wanted to make it realistic you should have said they get it from Mexico.

 

[jimipitbull]

No, criminals shouldn't have guns.

If they don't have guns its all good.

But thats not possible, criminals will always have guns, so if you ban guns you take away guns from the non-criminal law abiding citizen.

Which results in the problem of leaving the citizen defenseless against the armed criminals, people don't have armed police officers and bodyguards wherever they go.

Conclusion: despite the occasional nut job doing harm with a legally possessed firearm, taking away all guns from all the citizens will only lead to more problems, more crime and more tragic events.

Why then, is the country that has the most relaxed gun laws, the same (and only) country that has mass shootings on an almost daily basis?

 

[Michael88]

What are you talking about. It's rare to see any fully auto gun on the streets especially in gang hands. You literally took an idea from a movie and tried to pass it off as real. American gangs use hand guns and SMGs. Shotguns as well as rifles. You are saying they won't steal a gun from someone but they will meet with the European mafia to buy a large shipment of guns. If you wanted to make it realistic you should have said they get it from Mexico.

Well, you just ignored all the gang fights with fully automatic AK-47's. Well done. And a submachine is fully automatic, its a machine gun and therefore not legally available.
If yous seriously believe legal guns are used in the majority of crimes I can only tell you one thing: educate yourself about that matter and find statistics. Thats all I can say to your ridiculous speculations.
And take a look at England, nearly a complete weapons ban didn't stop shootings. I wonder where the guns come from.

Why then, is the country that has the most relaxed gun laws, the same (and only) country that has mass shootings on an almost daily basis?

To get down to the bottom of the problem you first have to ask why so many people snap and want to harm other people out of a sudden, not what tool they're using to commit their crimes. Terror attacks and ideologically / religiously motivated shootings aside, the majority of the most well know shooters were under influence of controversial psychopharmacas.

I think improving health care for people with mental issues and a more critical view of certain of psychopharmacas, -while certainly not being the end-all solution- would be a step into the right direction. Between Europe and the US there is a rather big difference in how powerful drugs and patients with mental problems are handled. Not to mention the differences in health care.

I also believe better awareness and help for bullied students in school and fighting poverty would go a long way in preventing killing sprees.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Well now that seen it, you aren't even talking about the country where I'm from.

 

[Michael88]

Well now that seen it, you aren't even talking about the country where I'm from.

I am. I possess the mystical ability to know things that happen outside the borders of my country.

The ''information age'' we all live in right now might have something to do with it.

But I can tell you something about my country if you want, even though gun ownership is relatively easy around here the vast VAST majority of the weapons used in crimes are from illegal sources. (I also know several people who successfully defended their home from armed intruders with their guns.)

 

[jimipitbull]

Well, you just ignored all the gang fights with fully automatic AK-47's. Well done. And a submachine is fully automatic, its a machine gun and therefore not legally available.
If yous seriously believe legal guns are used in the majority of crimes I can only tell you one thing: educate yourself about that matter and find statistics. Thats all I can say to your ridiculous speculations.
And take a look at England, nearly a complete weapons ban didn't stop shootings. I wonder where the guns come from.



To get down to the bottom of the problem you first have to ask why so many people snap and want to harm other people out of a sudden, not what tool they're using to commit their crimes. Terror attacks and ideologically / religiously motivated shootings aside, the majority of the most well know shooters were under influence of controversial psychopharmaca.
I think improving health care for people with mental issues and a more critical view of certain of psychopharmaca, -while certainly not being the end-all solution- would be a step into the right direction. Between Europe and the US there is a rather big difference in how medications and patients with mental problems are handled. Not to mention the differences in health care.

Also I believe better awareness and help for bullied kids and fighting poverty would go a long way in preventing killing sprees.

Wait a minute, are you saying that people being treated for mental health problems are legally allowed to own firearms?

And did you compare England and US gun violence as being on similar levels?

 

[Michael88]

Wait a minute, are you saying that people being treated for mental health problems are legally allowed to own firearms?

No. I said a better treatment of mental issues and illnesses and more careful use of powerful drugs combined with a better health care system would certainly help to prevent mass shootings in the future.

And did you compare England and US gun violence as being on similar levels?

I said, if legally owned guns are used in crimes, how is it possible to have guns used in crimes in the UK, where 99% of legally owned guns were confiscated many many years ago?

I hate having to repeat myself, read my posts more carefully next time and stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[jimipitbull]

No. I said a better treatment of mental issues and illnesses and more careful use of powerful drugs combined with a better health care system would certainly help to prevent mass shootings in the future.


I said, if legally owned guns are used in crimes, how is it possible to have guns used in crimes in the UK, where 99% of legally owned guns were confiscated many many years ago?

I hate having to repeat myself, read my posts more carefully next time and stop putting words in my mouth.

Sorry. Perhaps not letting the mentally ill run around with guns could be a temporary measure while the health system is reformed.

Just noticed your signature, it's in quite poor taste (no pun intended)

 

[Michael88]

Sorry. Perhaps not letting the mentally ill run around with guns could be a temporary measure while the health system is reformed.

The mentally troubled can't get their hands on weapons and other dangerous objects?

Again you focus on and stigmatize the tools. I'd rather treat the mentally troubled properly instead not letting them touch anything that could harm other people. Shouldn't people with mental problems also prevented from handling flammable liquids, highly combustible materials, cars, knives, pointy objects, massive objects, stairwells, cables, kids, alcohol? Should all people with mental problems be locked away immediately? How do we know people have mental illnesses and problems, and how severe they are? How do we know beforehand if a person is about to snap?
Do you want a professional evaluate the mental health of all the people in the country every single day?

Better be aware of that people with mental problems drive the bus and fly the plane you are sitting in, many people have depressions nowadays.

A better treatment and awareness in combination with a good health care system would be a step into the right direction, not condemning the ill or banning anything from the face of earth they could use to cause harm.

 

[Exorcet]

Civilians shouldn't have guns.

Why not?

Terrible argument. Criminals get guns by stealing guns from people who have them legally or getting some clean to buy the gun and "lose it" your argument sets up the very problem you claim it to be solving.

Apparently gun theft is a small contributor on the order of 15% or less.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

It seems like they mostly come from illegal sources, ie other criminals.

Gun theft contribution could go to zero in the foreseeable future though:

http://www.intelligun.com/

 

[jimipitbull]

The mentally troubled can't get their hands on weapons and other dangerous objects?

Again you focus on and stigmatize the tools. I'd rather treat the mentally troubled properly instead not letting them touch anything that could harm other people. Shouldn't people with mental problems also prevented from handling flammable liquids, highly combustible materials, cars, knives, pointy objects, massive objects, stairwells, cables, kids, alcohol? Should all people with mental problems be locked away immediately? How do we know people have mental illnesses and problems, and how severe they are? How do we know beforehand if a person is about to snap?
Do you want a professional evaluate the mental health of all the people in the country every single day?

Better be aware of that people with mental problems drive the bus and fly the plane you are sitting in, many people have depressions nowadays.

A better treatment and awareness in combination with a good health care system would be a step into the right direction, not condemning the ill or banning anything from the face of earth they could use to cause harm.

I get it, it's along the lines of "guns don't kill people, robbers do. "

If someone is trying to steal some bread, do they deserve to be shot?

Half the population probably has a degree of mental illness. As such, the general population probably shouldn't have access to firearms. Seems to work well in other first world countries.

 

[FoolKiller]

@HELLAFLUSH240SX you are defining militia in terms of something that didn't exist when the constitution was written.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Full Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

During the American Revolution the militia were men brought in, with their own, personal firearms, to join a hastily organized group to aid the small standing army for short periods. They looked absolutely nothing like a standing military force, such as the National Guard, which are considered professional military by legal standards.

Defining militia is fine, but be sure you understand the context of when it was written.


You might also want to look at how many of the colonies described the right to own arms in their state constitutions.

 

[RC45]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One could argue the militias of today are the state guardsmen and national guard. If the amendment was read how it should have always been only people who have served in the national guard should be allowed to have guns. Not the populous. Giving everyone a gun protects no one.

Let us just for the sake of argument assume this last statement of yours had some merit...

Would we be permitted to use the real world results of strict gun laws on a specific community and the level of crime in said community committed with guns as a yardstick for the success of legally disarming people in that community?

What I would like to establish is, when we have a specific community with very strict and restrictive gun laws in place, do we see a correlation between the lower gun crime stats and the severe gun restrictions in this community when compared to a community with less restrictive gun laws?

 

[Joel]

Let us just for the sake of argument assume this last statement of yours had some merit...

Would we be permitted to use the real world results of strict gun laws on a specific community and the level of crime in said community committed with guns as a yardstick for the success of legally disarming people in that community?

What I would like to establish is, when we have a specific community with very strict and restrictive gun laws in place, do we see a correlation between the lower gun crime stats and the severe gun restrictions in this community when compared to a community with less restrictive gun laws?

Yes we all know Chicago exists.

 

[Imari]

http://www.intelligun.com/

Oh wow, Judge Dredd gun. Cool.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

@HELLAFLUSH240SX you are defining militia in terms of something that didn't exist when the constitution was written.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Full Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

During the American Revolution the militia were men brought in, with their own, personal firearms, to join a hastily organized group to aid the small standing army for short periods. They looked absolutely nothing like a standing military force, such as the National Guard, which are considered professional military by legal standards.

Defining militia is fine, but be sure you understand the context of when it was written.


You might also want to look at how many of the colonies described the right to own arms in their state constitutions.

You are comparing a colony to a well established first world nation of 300 million. They had to do it that way under those circumstances, they needed men to fight. Of course they didn't have specialized military training for the American militia during the Revolt. I'm talking in terms of today, where there are no more rag tag militias like you've just described for me. The amendment calls for a right to bear arms for an well regulated militia which we would call the national guard today. Civilians with guns is a bad idea, especially in large cities have people living in such close proximity to each other.

Let us just for the sake of argument assume this last statement of yours had some merit...

Would we be permitted to use the real world results of strict gun laws on a specific community and the level of crime in said community committed with guns as a yardstick for the success of legally disarming people in that community?

What I would like to establish is, when we have a specific community with very strict and restrictive gun laws in place, do we see a correlation between the lower gun crime stats and the severe gun restrictions in this community when compared to a community with less restrictive gun laws?

like Chicago right? I want you to google something for me, a map of the continental United States. All you have to is look at the states directly next to Chicago. Wisconsin to the north and Indiana to the east. Dosent take a genius to see why Chicagos ban on guns dosent work

 

[RC45]

like Chicago right? I want you to google something for me, a map of the continental United States. All you have to is look at the states directly next to Chicago. Wisconsin to the north and Indiana to the east. Dosent take a genius to see why Chicagos ban on guns dosent work

*hooked*....

**reeling in**

Yeah - like Chicago.

So.... the reason the by now famously successful Chicago gun ban doesn't work is because the states around Chicago don't have gun bans???

Really?

So by your logic ALL Illinois cities should be similar bloodbaths to Chicago - right?

In fact, by your logic all the surrounding states should also be bloodbaths like Chicago - right?

So, again, let's for argument sake assume your last bolded statement had ay merit...

Would we be permitted to use the real world results of strict gun laws on a specific community and the level of crime in said community committed with guns as a yardstick for the success of legally disarming people in that community?

What I would like to establish is, when we have a specific community with very strict and restrictive gun laws in place, do we see a correlation between the lower gun crime stats and the severe gun restrictions in this community when compared to a community with less restrictive gun laws?

 

[jimipitbull]

Would we be permitted to use the real world results of strict gun laws on a specific community and the level of crime in said community committed with guns as a yardstick for the success of legally disarming people in that community?

What I would like to establish is, when we have a specific community with very strict and restrictive gun laws in place, do we see a correlation between the lower gun crime stats and the severe gun restrictions in this community when compared to a community with less restrictive gun laws?

Why study a specific community, when you can look at a whole country? Here's one we prepared earlier http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html