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.
It's bogus to take the campaign to ban assault weapons as a campaign to ban handguns, ie. to do away with the 2nd amendment. And if some maniac pulls a gun while driving a car, or gets out of their car to walk up to somebody in a car, that person in the car would barely be able to pull a handgun from the glove compartment to fire a shot back if the attack came as a surprise and the attacker was a good shot, and even IF the person had a chance to defend themselves, they would be much more capable of doing so with a handgun and shooting over their shoulder if needs be than with having an assault rifle in the car. An assault rifle in this situation does an individual no good anyway. And the ban is about assault weapons anyway, not about handguns. Therefore this situation has nothing to do with the move to ban assault weapons, and the move to ban assault weapons does NOT prohibit citizens from defending themselves with guns.
Anybody trying to turn an assault weapons ban into a "GUN BAN" implying all guns is promoting a bogus talking point to try to scare people into thinking they might be forbidden from protecting themselves and their families.
Why do shooters` rights trump our unalienable right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 26 people in Conn. were denied their rights last week. Why don`t they count?
It's just a human life. My right to bear arms is more important
Oh, so you think the twenty-year old kid who looked like a gangbanger would respect laws against guns? No, he probably acquired his gun illegally, which is the very reason legal gun owners don't want to give up their guns.
I agree, it is just a human life. My right to abortion is more important.
Sorry, you're not allowed to use that argument per protocol here. Cold blooded murder by abortion is allowed. Crimes of passion or by reason of insanity are cause for disarming the American people in violation of the Constitution and allowing them to be enslaved, whereas the killing of millions of unborn children is a right granted by the Supreme Court.
It's bogus to take the campaign to ban assault weapons as a campaign to ban handguns, ie. to do away with the 2nd amendment. And if some maniac pulls a gun while driving a car, or gets out of their car to walk up to somebody in a car, that person in the car would barely be able to pull a handgun from the glove compartment to fire a shot back if the attack came as a surprise and the attacker was a good shot, and even IF the person had a chance to defend themselves, they would be much more capable of doing so with a handgun and shooting over their shoulder if needs be than with having an assault rifle in the car. An assault rifle in this situation does an individual no good anyway. And the ban is about assault weapons anyway, not about handguns. Therefore this situation has nothing to do with the move to ban assault weapons, and the move to ban assault weapons does NOT prohibit citizens from defending themselves with guns.
Anybody trying to turn an assault weapons ban into a "GUN BAN" implying all guns is promoting a bogus talking point to try to scare people into thinking they might be forbidden from protecting themselves and their families.
I'm not really against bans on assault weapons, or closing the gun show loophole, but you've got to admit how pointless it is. I read that there are over 300 million guns in this country. What good would a ban do if there are so many of these types of guns on the streets? The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no way to put him back. In fact, the more people talk about banning any type of guns, the more people go out and buy them before a ban can be put in place.
There are many, many more road rage incidents with people crashing into another driver than shooting at them.
No cars....no road rage!
See how silly you sound?
Why didn't this guy just crush the victim to death with his car. Or build a bomb, or poison, or karate-chop her to death, or grab a sword, knife, or bow and arrow to use against the other car ?
I just want sensible people to know that some of us gun owmers aren't nincompoops who can't distinguish between firearms and other things that can kill.
Why do shooters` rights trump our unalienable right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 26 people in Conn. were denied their rights last week. Why don`t they count?
They do count but IMO all we're doing is singling out easy targets such as guns and video games.
At one time the target was comic books. In the 1950's the psychiatrist Fredric Wertham published the book Seduction of the Innocent warning that comic books were a negative form of popular literature and a serious cause of juvenile delinquency. The book was a minor bestseller that created alarm in parents and galvanized them to campaign for censorship. At the same time, a U.S. Congressional inquiry was launched into the comic book industry. And soon the Comics Code Authority was voluntarily established by publishers to self-censor their titles.
Once the government gets into the fear business it's hard to stop. Just look at this administrationand how they've ginned up the fear machine against the rich, Wall St, the GOP, white people...and next it will be guns and video games.
The real problem is societal and how we handle mental illness in this country. I had the misfortune recently of helping a relative after they got caught up in the gears of the mental health bureaucracy - it's a grim, heartless business.
And I don't have easy answers because there aren't any easy answers, and IMO this country isn't willing to have an honest discussion about mental illness and the root causes and what to do about people like Adam Lanza or Jared Lee Loughner, the creep who shot Gabbie Giffords along with 18 other people. So we'll throw a ban or two on guns and maybe tweak the video gaming codes so people will feel good and politicians can pat themselves on the back, but they're just bandages over the real problem and we'll have this discussion all over again soon enough.
Why do shooters` rights trump our unalienable right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 26 people in Conn. were denied their rights last week. Why don`t they count?
Did you seriously just ask that question? You do understand the difference, don't you?
I'm not really against bans on assault weapons, or closing the gun show loophole, but you've got to admit how pointless it is. I read that there are over 300 million guns in this country. What good would a ban do if there are so many of these types of guns on the streets?
The good it would do is in over time reducing the extent of these kinds of incidents. If the assault weapons ban had been in effect, then the mom of the Connecticut killer would have had to decide does she comply with the law and turn her gun in or does she keep it instead. If she complies with the law, then her son doesn't have it to use to kill kids and instead at most has whatever handguns are available, which equates to fewer kids being killed in the same amount of time. And if people keep those guns and get caught with them, they get legal punishment, fines or jail time or some combination. The good is not in getting all those guns off the street IMMEDIATELY, it's in getting them off the street over time and making sure those caught with those guns PAY high penalties. It's about reducing the likelihood of a potential mass killer having the kind of gun which makes it easier to kill en masse. A killer with a regular rifle or shotgun or with handguns is capable of killing much fewer than a killer with an AR-15 semi automatic assault rifle with clips of 30 or 40 rounds. And at the same time, it's highly unlikely that someone has to worry about a team of 10 burglars breaking into their house and needing an AR-15 to take out all 10 in short order. Also unlikely that hunting would come to an end once AR-15s are banned.
There is a reason these mass killers use the AR-15 as their weapon of choice. What good you ask? This Connecticut killer could have killed 100 kids with that AR-15 if he hadn't shot himself first. Taking a 20 kid/ 100+ kid potential murder spree and minimizing the loss of life in such incidents is a LOT of good. Plus, 300 million guns is not 300 million AR-15s. So when talking about banning assault weapons, we're actually talking about a small subset of all the guns in the US. Thus it is MORE than reasonable to do so, and the good done is fewer Americans killed in these killing sprees when they happen. And they WILL keep happening, as recent history has proven.
First of all, a ban will not require anyone to turn in anything.. It will simply stop the manufacture and new sale of these weapons. Secondly if you think this will have an impact on the number of murders look to the assault weapons ban of the 80's. It had NO impact on the crime rate. Thirdly if you look at the overall statistics, there are less crimes committed with a "assault rifle" than virtually any other fire arm... Your narrative isn't supported by fact.
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.
