Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one needs an assault weapon. An assault weapon's sole purpose is the maximum number of casualties. An assault weapon is what allowed Lanza to riddle those children with as many as 11 bullets in their little bodies. He stopped shooting when the police arrived, but with an assault rifle, he was able to do so much damage in an extremely short period of time. There is no justification for an assault weapon.
I'm sure you've already been corrected a number of times in the last thirty or so hours, but one more time won't hurt.
The shooter in CT used two very common handguns. He didn't use a rifle, and there were no "assault weapons" (as if you actually even know what the phrase defines) involved.
You'd do yourself a favor to at least have the facts of what you're saying straight, and it would also be helpful for you if you bothered to educate yourself on the topic in general before engaging in a discussion about it.
You're what's wrong with this country. You want a right stripping knee-jerk reaction to an isolated event, and you don't even understand the basics of what you're advocating. It sickens me not only as a gun owner, but also as a citizen. Like I said, you're what's wrong with this country.
I tried very hard, but I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own an assault weapon.
First, you should have defined what YOU believe an "assault weapon" actually is. Odds are, what you think it is and what it actually is are two very different things.
Second, it doesn't matter if you can think of a reason or not. There's over three hundred million people in this country, and roughly half of them have a gun in the house. It's not for you to know, understand or care why. Obviously, there aren't a hundred and fifty million people out there going on rampages, so what you perceive to be a problem actually isn't. Not on a scale that demands the removal or severe curtailment of a Constitutional right.
Finally, I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti or McLaren. I think we should ban them. They serve no useful purpose other than to drive faster than the speed limit. Everyone should drive Chevy Volts or Smart cars. If you need a pickup truck or SUV, you should have to prove that you actually need it, take a safety course to demonstrate that you can handle it, submit to a psychological exam to ensure that you won't be using it to build a rolling bomb, pay an exorbitant tax on it, and of course, accept a mandatory thirty day waiting period before taking delivery of it. It's just common sense...
What happened in 1994 that made the homicide rate by guns plummet on your graph?
A VERY good question, that nobody, to my knowledge, has an answer to. Because, it was at that time that just about every available metric of "how bad is society" began improving by similar amounts.
Not just firearm deaths. But all murders.
Not just murders, but all violent crime.
Not just violent crime, but non-violent crime.
Not just non-violent crime, but STD transmissions, teenage pregnancy rates, highschool dropouts, and a whole host of others.
The only theory I've heard so far that makes even a bit of sense is that that tiimeframe is when the unwanted kids who were aborted starting after Roe v. Wade would have reached the age that they started being a societal problem, as unwanted children so often do.
But I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if any studies have been done. I know it makes sense from a timing perspective, but correlation does not imply causation, so it could be a coincidence.
A VERY good question, that nobody, to my knowledge, has an answer to. Because, it was at that time that just about every available metric of "how bad is society" began improving by similar amounts.
Not just firearm deaths. But all murders.
Not just murders, but all violent crime.
Not just violent crime, but non-violent crime.
Not just non-violent crime, but STD transmissions, teenage pregnancy rates, highschool dropouts, and a whole host of others.
The only theory I've heard so far that makes even a bit of sense is that that tiimeframe is when the unwanted kids who were aborted starting after Roe v. Wade would have reached the age that they started being a societal problem, as unwanted children so often do.
But I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if any studies have been done. I know it makes sense from a timing perspective, but correlation does not imply causation, so it could be a coincidence.
So I'm open to suggestions.
Here is a suggestion: In 1994 congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Quote:
Imposed, on an interim basis, a five-day waiting period and background check before a licensed gun importer, manufacturer or dealer can sell or deliver a handgun to an unlicensed individual.
Required a new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI, be ready to replace the waiting period by Nov. 30, 1998. The new background check system will apply to all firearms and will allow checks to be done over the phone or electronically with results returned immediately in most cases.
A VERY good question, that nobody, to my knowledge, has an answer to. Because, it was at that time that just about every available metric of "how bad is society" began improving by similar amounts.
Not just firearm deaths. But all murders.
Not just murders, but all violent crime.
Not just violent crime, but non-violent crime.
Not just non-violent crime, but STD transmissions, teenage pregnancy rates, highschool dropouts, and a whole host of others.
The only theory I've heard so far that makes even a bit of sense is that that tiimeframe is when the unwanted kids who were aborted starting after Roe v. Wade would have reached the age that they started being a societal problem, as unwanted children so often do.
But I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if any studies have been done. I know it makes sense from a timing perspective, but correlation does not imply causation, so it could be a coincidence.
Please try to keep your massacres straight. The gun jammed at Aurora, not Columbine. None of the weapons at Columbine had high-capacity magazines.
My mistake but your defense that the gun jammed at Aurora is a defense of high capacity magazines? You never answered the question, what would have happened if the gun didn't jam, how many more would have been killed.
Quote:
In answer to this question:
Quite simple really, law abiding citizens should have these weapons because a) there is nothing illegal about them and b) the citizens that aren't law abiding have them and will continue to have them long after any ban is put into effect, and when push comes to shove most of us would prefer that the proverbial playing field be at least somewhat level.
Yes they are legal, that is not the issue and you still have not answered the question, what practical use does someone have for a 30 round semi-automatic weapon.
Even the playing field, for who, the proliferation of these guns to people that supposedly had good intentions are ending up in the hands of murderers.
You too, great! Just keep buying your guns with no real thought about the harm that's caused others , like little children......I would guess you are against seat belts and motorcycle helmets also ?
If you think I am off the rails, please check out my earlier post. ( I owned a Bushmaster).
Yes they are legal, that is not the issue and you still have not answered the question, what practical use does someone have for a 30 round semi-automatic weapon.
When I go to the range, on average, I go through 80-100 rounds of ammo. Not a single of one of which killed anyone. But having less than a 30 round magazine is a major pain, as I spend more time reloading mags than I do shooting.
Is that the end result you're trying to accomplish?
When I go to the range, on average, I go through 80-100 rounds of ammo. Not a single of one of which killed anyone. But having less than a 30 round magazine is a major pain, as I spend more time reloading mags than I do shooting.
Is that the end result you're trying to accomplish?
Is this all about you? 20 children were riddled with multiple bullets within minutes and you worry that you might have to reload more often at the range!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
