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.
You might see them as unneccessary or illogical. I view pickup trucks, hummers, sports-cars, supers, exotics, business jet-liners, and personal water craft as unnecessary and illogical too.
And those things kill people all the time. There are between 30-40 thousand automobile fatalities per year.
Excluding suicides, there are about 9,000 gun homicides each year. Cars are four times more dangerous than guns.
Guns are w-e-a-p-o-n-s. That's why your comparison just fails miserably. You are trying to compare weapons vs modes of transportation, definitely not apples to apples. Nice try.
Quote:
Someone else already mentioned it, but come up with sensible regulation, and we can talk. Airbags make sense in cars. They save lives. Unless someone starts calling for the ban on the number of passengers a vehicle can hold, I'll continue to rebuke any bans on magazine capacities. Unless someone starts banning black and dark colored cars, I'll rebuke any bans on "black guns" and "assault weapons."
They actually do ban certain vehicles (imported), so by your logic and admission we should ban assault weapons.
Quote:
No. I am under the impression you couldn't reasonably argue why an AR model should be banned.
I'm still waiting for someone to reasonable argue why they shouldn't be banned other than they're fun to shoot. I want them banned because of their tactical advantage.
Quote:
Wrong answer.
You don't have the unbiased thought to be making claims about fore-fathers, especially considering your prior statement about not actually caring about the documents they wrote.
And you're going to sit here with a straight face and tell me you are unbiased, mr let's compare vehicles to weapons?
But try not to think too much on what I said, as I don't want to shred the document, just tired of people hiding behind (this goes behind gun owners).
Quote:
But I guess the internet doesn't need to be free, nor the mass media, or telephones, or any form of speech technology that has been released in the past two hundred years, because our fore-fathers would think differently about it. While we're at it, X-Ray scanners don't violate your privacy, nor do drug-sniffing dogs. After all, these didn't exist 200 years ago either. Neither did most of the states in our union, so they don't benefit from the 10th amendment.
Again, you're thinking way too much into this. I'd stop before you look silly.
Quote:
Automobiles are four times more deadly than firearms. There are as many autos in the United States as there are firearms. Care to explain why lethal cars should have absolutely no bans on their type or manufacture, their seating capacity or accessories, but **** all when it comes to guns that make you pee your pants?
LOL. Guns that make me pee in my pants. Oh yes you are making this less personal and bias as you go along....
Remember. Guns are w-e-a-p-o-n-s and vehicles are transportation.
Quote:
If you have enough money, you can buy all of these. There is no federal restriction stopping people from owning an Aircraft Carrier. There is no federal restriction banning the ownership of drones or attack helicopters or military tanks, IFVs, military transports, artillery, or other military hardware, like fighter jets. In fact, I can own my own armored car, and drive that ***** on the highway, for less than the cost of a full-size sedan.
So yes, civilians are allowed to own military hardware. The sole exception in your pithy list is nuclear weapons, which are currently beyond the scope of self-defense, militia, and sporting use. But, of course, your entire list of a fallacy of strawmen. The difference between a 60-Ton Main Battle Tank like the M1 Abrams, and a rifle of any design is that the latter can (and are) operated by single people. You need a crew of four to operate a tank.
I'll concede you that point as I was unaware people were allowed that modern of military hardware. Now we are talking about American citizens right?
Quote:
You ask a question, but completely fail to support the answer you give. How many are most? What percentage of violent crimes are acts of random violence? I think you'll be surprised by what you dig up.
Most = majority. But please post some stats as I'm having a hard time finding actual stats and not vague summaries.
Quote:
Simply put, I don't give a **** what you think is "legitmate reason" [sic] for purchasing a type of firearm. I think it's silly people buy $200,000 super cars just to drive around town and show off their little dicks, but I'm not running around saying they should be banned either.
Oh yes because guns don't make up for little dicks. And by the way some of you folks talk about your guns, you'd think we were wanting to take away your dick.
All I'm arguing for it draw the line for what type of firearm to buy. I don't care what the 2nd amendment says about self defense and the right to bear arms in Colonial America. You don't have some God given right to shoot whatever gun you please.
Quote:
I think you fail to understand how destructive automobiles are.
Their purpose isn't destruction or death or defense. Please find another analogy.
Guns are w-e-a-p-o-n-s. That's why your comparison just fails miserably. You are trying to compare weapons vs modes of transportation, definitely not apples to apples. Nice try.
Did you miss the part about the guy that killed 10 people (and injured many others) on accident? Or the fact that automobile accidents claim between 30 and 40 thousand people a year, and excluding suicides, guns kill 9,000. From a point of risk assessment, vehicles are much more dangerous and much more worty of discussing safety concerns.
But of course, guns--firearms--are as much tools as they are weapons. Knives are weapons, explosives are weapons, and vehicles are weapons when used as such. However, when they aren't being used to maim, kill, or otherwise assault another individual, they are tools.
Quote:
They actually do ban certain vehicles (imported), so by your logic and admission we should ban assault weapons.
Name a banned imported vehicle.
Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to reasonable argue why they shouldn't be banned other than they're fun to shoot. I want them banned because of their tactical advantage.
The "burden of proof" in this case rests on you, because as a free society, we have to have reasonable argument as to why something should be prohibited. Laws are designed to restrict, not enable.
And what tactical advantage are you referring to? Have you ever fired a rifle? A handgun? A shotgun?
Quote:
And you're going to sit here with a straight face and tell me you are unbiased, mr let's compare vehicles to weapons?
I'm comparing apples to apples. People unjustly call for gun bans and nonsensical increased regulations of something which is 1\4 as deadly as a car.
Quote:
But try not to think too much on what I said, as I don't want to shred the document, just tired of people hiding behind (this goes behind gun owners).
Our constitution was designed to be changed. The founding fathers knew they had not figured out everything when they wrote it, and allowed for changes.
We have a civic duty to defend ourselves, and the best means to do so is via firearms. That alone warrants keeping the right to bear arms as well.
Quote:
Again, you're thinking way too much into this. I'd stop before you look silly.
You're making the argument that our founding fathers couldn't have possibly though of automatic weapons capable of spitting bullets at 900 rounds per minute. They also probably couldn't have fathomed near-c communications across continents, or ever traveling into the heavens aboard controlled explosives.
If the argument you want to make is "this is the 21st century guys," be prepared to be criticized on it.
Quote:
LOL. Guns that make me pee in my pants. Oh yes you are making this less personal and bias as you go along....
Remember. Guns are w-e-a-p-o-n-s and vehicles are transportation.
It's not about being personal, it's about the ludicrous nature of your arguments. The Assault Weapons ban in 1994 was based on reasoning completely devoid of any kind of reality. Criminals use "assault weapons" in less than 1% of all cases, and the ban itself literally did nothing useful, as manufactuers just created equally functional firearms with entirely cosmetic differences. Personally, I think the SL8--Heckler and Koch's Export version of the G36--looks fantastic with a thumbhole stock.
HCI didn't have a clue about firearms when they wrote that law, and it's quite clear that Brady Campaign still doesn't have a clue. I'm willing to bet few if any of the leadership and employees of Brady have ever fired a weapon. They don't have the requisite knowledge, education, or experience to begin regulating firearms. It'd be akin to an insurance agent passing regulations on chemical transportation because he saw it on TV once.
Quote:
I'll concede you that point as I was unaware people were allowed that modern of military hardware. Now we are talking about American citizens right?
Yes we are. I've sourced out an M8 Greyhound for ****s and giggles. A friend of mine owns a 6x6 2.5ton truck that we take paintballing with us. It's all military hardware.
Quote:
Most = majority. But please post some stats as I'm having a hard time finding actual stats and not vague summaries.
You stated that most acts of gun violence were committed by people you know.
There are in the United States about 30,000 people killed from gunshot wounds.
20,000 of them are from suicides, and I don't include them in the discussion for two reasons. 1. The personal belief that we have a right to take our own lives, and 2., they are self-inflicted homicides, and irrelevant to a discussion about criminal homicides.
So, realistically, about 10,000 people are killed each year by gunshot wounds, and about 1,000 of these are written off as self-defense shootings, and police shootings (otherwise known as "Justifiable Homicide.) The rest, ~9,000 (which is what Brady Campaign also comes up with), is "criminal" homicides with a gun.
Of those 9,000...
50% of victims were black, and 70% are male. Suspects are 53% black.
(I'm not insinuating anything about race, but pointing out that a lot of these shootings are occurring in black neighborhoods, due to societal strains (high crime, poverty, etc).
53% of victims are by assailants that are known. Of all victims, 14% are family, 13% are strangers (not know to the victim), and the rest are non-family. Friends, aquantinces, employers and employees, etc. Because the suspect is not known in the case of the other 47% of homicides, we can't reliably make an assumption on who they are. Based solely on the numbers, about 15% of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance. And honestly, I wouldn't call that really being killed by someone you know. It may not be random, but it's hardly family feuding.
I'll dig up more, but what the numbers eventually boil down to is that the majority of cases are 1. domestic homicides, and 2. gang violence.
The former is a bit more difficult to control, but the latter can be controlled by getting rid of gangs.
And the best way to get rid of gangs, is to disempower them. They make money and control neighbordhoods by the illegal selling of drugs and sex. Legalize those, offer legal recourse for human vices, and you'll see organized crime, like gangs, evaporate.
Quote:
Oh yes because guns don't make up for little dicks. And by the way some of you folks talk about your guns, you'd think we were wanting to take away your dick.
All I'm arguing for it draw the line for what type of firearm to buy. I don't care what the 2nd amendment says about self defense and the right to bear arms in Colonial America. You don't have some God given right to shoot whatever gun you please.
Of course guns are proxies for penises, but just as much as we shouldn't care that people are driving around in irrational sports cars, we shouldn't care that people are purchasing irrational firearms.
We don't have any god-given rights, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms. And we have a right to defend ourselves, and in a free country such as this, it's up to you to conceive of legitimate argument as to why something should be banned or regulated.
If you want to "draw the line" on firearm ownership, For every firearm you determine is unfit for consumption, I'll list a vehicle unfit for consumption. We'll both end up with flintlocks and Model T's.
Now, as I stated, nobody is calling for regulations on limiting the number of seats in passenger vehicles, why should we limit the number of rounds in a magazine?
Quote:
Their purpose isn't destruction or death or defense. Please find another analogy.
NO! The analogy works because your focus is on the number of people being killed. If you aren't concerned about gun violence, why do you care at all what people purchase?
Homicides are the direct result of gun-violence, and I've demonstrated that automobile accidents are four times more deadly than guns.
It's a perfect comparison for the argument you are making, and you don't get to disqualify it because you don't like what it does to your argument.
If you wanted to come up with a different topic to argue as to why we should ban or regulate certain types of firearms, you need a different theme than just "gun violence."
ADDENDUM: Oh, did I mention that as you point out, the purpose of vehicles is not death or destruction, yet they kill four times as many people?
Over the course of the month-long investigation law enforcement seized nearly three pounds of heroin and nearly one pound of methamphetamine. Fourteen firearms were purchased by a person working with law enforcement: seven shotguns, two rifles and five handguns. Some of the weapons had been reported stolen in jurisdictions as widespread as Tacoma and Brier, Washington.
You bet your sweet arse that gangs/criminals are gonna own 'em. And use 'em. It's too late for gun control. They're everywhere.
How insightful! Now that two libertarian magicians have told me the hard truth, how could I possibly have any doubt?? This is the first day of the rest of my life!! I can now love my phallic killing tool unobstructed!! Oh happy day!!
Our military bases have some of the strictest gun controls in the nation!
How'd that work out at Fort Hood for everyone?
But think of all the massacres that have been prevented!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Honestly, because they're the best tool for the job of killing. All our military are issued M16s that are basicly full auto ARs. Guns have no other purpose but to kill. Ever since the first human tied a rock to a stick other humans have tried to make a better club. when the ancients were sitting around the campfire eating their mammoth steaks they discussed and planned how to make more efficient clubs and spears. It's built into the human gene pool. Why would you deny the law abiding citizen the chance to arm himself with the best technology out there just to prevent the one in a million whacko from getting one?
Bottom line, you don't like them, talk to your governor and state rep and get them banned from your area. That is reasonable under the SCOTUS ruling. In Arizona, we like them and have no intention of banning them.
Why is it that when a republican doesn't like a gun they just don't buy it but when a democrat doesn't like a gun they ban it?
I'm a liberal independant by the way.
In my experience liberals are a little more rational than conservatives. However, gun control is one issue where liberals are far more irrational than conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I don't care what the constitution says, that was the late 18th century. Check your calendar because it's 2012.. The second amendment was thought up during a time of revolution. Not to mention Native Americans still controlled and occupied most of continental America. Not to mention the Spanish and French held vast interests. Not to mention law enforcement paled in comparison. I don't think our founding fathers would view our modern day need for firearms for the same.
You are just taking advantage of the constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment, in order to do as you please. No way getting around that fact. But whatever. Firearms are big business and are treated as such.
I agree 100%. Just like I believe that you should be executed for disagreeing with me. The First Amendment was thought up during a time when America did not have established laws and there was still a lot of debate and obviously they didn't want people to be punished for for opposing a law before it was enacted. America doesn't need that now. The government should be able to burn people alive for criticizing the quartering of troops on their property without a trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Yes that's already been discussed. People will kill regardless. Blah blah. Please keep up.
I'm still waiting for someone to reasonable argue why they shouldn't be banned other than they're fun to shoot. I want them banned because of their tactical advantage.
You want to talk about "tactical Advantage". I have a Mossberg Model 550 (shotgun) that has some serious tactical advantage. If I wanted to do something stupid I would leave the AR-15 at home. That shotgun would do a whole lot more damage.
But for idiots who kill people just to get attention, a shotgun is not there choice of weapon. They don't want to ban shotguns, just assault rifles. So they use the assault rifle.
I have found discussing gun control the people who want to ban assault rifles actually know very little about guns. I even showed one very anti gun person my AR-15 and a hunting rifle I own. Asked them which one they thought was the more powerful. They picked the AR-15 and even said it scared them. She would not even touch it but she did hold the Remington rifle. I asked her if she wanted to shoot them and she said no thank you but i would love to see you shoot them. I fired the AR-15 first and then the hunting rifle. She could not believe the loud sound from the hunting rifle and how much bigger the shells were.
Did you miss the part about the guy that killed 10 people (and injured many others) on accident? Or the fact that automobile accidents claim between 30 and 40 thousand people a year, and excluding suicides, guns kill 9,000. From a point of risk assessment, vehicles are much more dangerous and much more worty of discussing safety concerns.
Yaaah! Common sense.
But of course, guns--firearms--are as much tools as they are weapons. Knives are weapons, explosives are weapons, and vehicles are weapons when used as such. However, when they aren't being used to maim, kill, or otherwise assault another individual, they are tools.
Name a banned imported vehicle.
Other than ones that can't pass emissions/safety, I don't think they can name one.
The "burden of proof" in this case rests on you, because as a free society, we have to have reasonable argument as to why something should be prohibited. Laws are designed to restrict, not enable.
Excellent point.
And what tactical advantage are you referring to? Have you ever fired a rifle? A handgun? A shotgun?
I'm comparing apples to apples. People unjustly call for gun bans and nonsensical increased regulations of something which is 1\4 as deadly as a car.
Again, excellent point. Also, there are more firearms in the US than there are registered cars/vehicles.
Our constitution was designed to be changed. The founding fathers knew they had not figured out everything when they wrote it, and allowed for changes.
The only thing I disagree with is that the individual states can impose tighter restrictions than the Bill of Rights state.
We have a civic duty to defend ourselves, and the best means to do so is via firearms. That alone warrants keeping the right to bear arms as well.
And that is exactly why this country would be hard to take over. The first thing that Hitler did was to take all firearms from the civilians.
You're making the argument that our founding fathers couldn't have possibly though of automatic weapons capable of spitting bullets at 900 rounds per minute. They also probably couldn't have fathomed near-c communications across continents, or ever traveling into the heavens aboard controlled explosives.
I used to live in NH, and we were allowed to buy literally almost anything we wanted. I rejoiced for that. Ever see a Ma-Deuce raining down .50BMG like sh*t through a goose? I loved it (though it was costing me a fortune). And it was my right to own one. The only things that should have been scared were targets made out of paper. Where I live now, I can walk down the street and buy a full-auto AK-47, no paperwork needed.
If the argument you want to make is "this is the 21st century guys," be prepared to be criticized on it.
As that poster should be.
It's not about being personal, it's about the ludicrous nature of your arguments. The Assault Weapons ban in 1994 was based on reasoning completely devoid of any kind of reality. Criminals use "assault weapons" in less than 1% of all cases, and the ban itself literally did nothing useful, as manufactuers just created equally functional firearms with entirely cosmetic differences. Personally, I think the SL8--Heckler and Koch's Export version of the G36--looks fantastic with a thumbhole stock.
I still don't even understand what an 'assault weapon' is, as when back in the states I could (and did) buy MP5's, M60's, Barretts, etc, legally. No big deal. (Though I got sick of getting fingerprinted all the time, for many of the purchases).
HCI didn't have a clue about firearms when they wrote that law, and it's quite clear that Brady Campaign still doesn't have a clue. I'm willing to bet few if any of the leadership and employees of Brady have ever fired a weapon. They don't have the requisite knowledge, education, or experience to begin regulating firearms. It'd be akin to an insurance agent passing regulations on chemical transportation because he saw it on TV once.
Yes we are. I've sourced out an M8 Greyhound for ****s and giggles. A friend of mine owns a 6x6 2.5ton truck that we take paintballing with us. It's all military hardware.
You stated that most acts of gun violence were committed by people you know.
That makes me scared of the crowd he/she runs with.
There are in the United States about 30,000 people killed from gunshot wounds.
20,000 of them are from suicides, and I don't include them in the discussion for two reasons. 1. The personal belief that we have a right to take our own lives, and 2., they are self-inflicted homicides, and irrelevant to a discussion about criminal homicides.
So, realistically, about 10,000 people are killed each year by gunshot wounds, and about 1,000 of these are written off as self-defense shootings, and police shootings (otherwise known as "Justifiable Homicide.) The rest, ~9,000 (which is what Brady Campaign also comes up with), is "criminal" homicides with a gun.
Of those 9,000...
50% of victims were black, and 70% are male. Suspects are 53% black.
(I'm not insinuating anything about race, but pointing out that a lot of these shootings are occurring in black neighborhoods, due to societal strains (high crime, poverty, etc).
53% of victims are by assailants that are known. Of all victims, 14% are family, 13% are strangers (not know to the victim), and the rest are non-family. Friends, aquantinces, employers and employees, etc. Because the suspect is not known in the case of the other 47% of homicides, we can't reliably make an assumption on who they are. Based solely on the numbers, about 15% of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance. And honestly, I wouldn't call that really being killed by someone you know. It may not be random, but it's hardly family feuding.
I'll dig up more, but what the numbers eventually boil down to is that the majority of cases are 1. domestic homicides, and 2. gang violence.
The former is a bit more difficult to control, but the latter can be controlled by getting rid of gangs.
And the best way to get rid of gangs, is to disempower them. They make money and control neighbordhoods by the illegal selling of drugs and sex. Legalize those, offer legal recourse for human vices, and you'll see organized crime, like gangs, evaporate.
Of course guns are proxies for penises, but just as much as we shouldn't care that people are driving around in irrational sports cars, we shouldn't care that people are purchasing irrational firearms.
I only half agree with that. Shooting accurately at 1,000 yards is not very easy, and instead of saying that they are 'proxies for penises', they can also be considered requiring a technically complex skill that needs to be learned, to be successful at an enjoyable sport. Your latter statement about cars rings true to me, as I dumped mine, becaure of the image it portrayed of me, in public.
We don't have any god-given rights, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms. And we have a right to defend ourselves, and in a free country such as this, it's up to you to conceive of legitimate argument as to why something should be banned or regulated.
I absolutely agree that the Bill of Rights should be defended to the end.... Some things that should be regulated, (this is the extreme) however if someone collects 50,000 thrown-away smoke detectors, and take all the Americium out of them, and make something really nasty... or mix ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and potassium permanganate (used in water softeners), or about 15 other concoctions you can think up (like bleach and acetone).... THAT should be banned or regulated.
I don't understand all the hub-bub over gun control.... anyone can go buy stuff at Home Depot that can make things far worse than a 9mm semi. What is important that we all just treat everyone well. (Idealistic, but there is always hope).
If you want to "draw the line" on firearm ownership, For every firearm you determine is unfit for consumption, I'll list a vehicle unfit for consumption. We'll both end up with flintlocks and Model T's.
Now, as I stated, nobody is calling for regulations on limiting the number of seats in passenger vehicles, why should we limit the number of rounds in a magazine?
NO! The analogy works because your focus is on the number of people being killed. If you aren't concerned about gun violence, why do you care at all what people purchase?
Homicides are the direct result of gun-violence, and I've demonstrated that automobile accidents are four times more deadly than guns.
It's a perfect comparison for the argument you are making, and you don't get to disqualify it because you don't like what it does to your argument.
If you wanted to come up with a different topic to argue as to why we should ban or regulate certain types of firearms, you need a different theme than just "gun violence."
ADDENDUM: Oh, did I mention that as you point out, the purpose of vehicles is not death or destruction, yet they kill four times as many people?
Compared to cars, guns are incredibly safe!
I am glad there is a voice of common sense here (you Konraden) on C-D, as at times with others it can be rare. JMHO.
Did you miss the part about the guy that killed 10 people (and injured many others) on accident? Or the fact that automobile accidents claim between 30 and 40 thousand people a year, and excluding suicides, guns kill 9,000. From a point of risk assessment, vehicles are much more dangerous and much more worty of discussing safety concerns.
And just the other day one accident involving one pick up truck with 26 passengers inside it killed 14 of them.
And these were humans that had been smuggled illegally into the country. The government isn't able to stop the black market drugs nor humans -- and if you can smuggle in 26 humans illegally, you won't have any trouble bringing in some big weapons. The same kind of truck that could be packed with 26 humans, could be packed with many more assault weapons, bombs, grenades and whatever else anyone wants.
Tons of drugs and thousands of humans are smuggled over the southern border ever day. No reason the cartels can't add weapons to those shipments.
I'm still waiting for someone to reasonable argue why they shouldn't be banned other than they're fun to shoot. I want them banned because of their tactical advantage.
.
OMG, I almost fell out of my chair?
Please, inform us of what your definition of a "tactical advantage" is.
Did you miss the part about the guy that killed 10 people (and injured many others) on accident? Or the fact that automobile accidents claim between 30 and 40 thousand people a year, and excluding suicides, guns kill 9,000. From a point of risk assessment, vehicles are much more dangerous and much more worty of discussing safety concerns.
But of course, guns--firearms--are as much tools as they are weapons. Knives are weapons, explosives are weapons, and vehicles are weapons when used as such. However, when they aren't being used to maim, kill, or otherwise assault another individual, they are tools.
A tool by definition is a physical item used to achieve a goal, so in the loosest sense, you are correct. However, guns are weapons plain and simple. They are designed to cause harm, otherwise they wouldn't be very effective. Automobiles are designed for transportation and fatalities are an unfortunate byproduct of human error (generally). It seems you are fixated on automobiles because of the high number of fatalities associated with them. Aside from fatalities, they serve completely different purposes and the comparisons end. You are grasping at straws in this comparison.
Automobiles
Automobiles imported into the United States must meet the fuel-emission requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and the safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Trying to import a car that doesn’t meet all the requirements can be difficult. Please see the Importing a Motor Vehicle page for more information. ( Importing a Motor Vehicle )
Almost all cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and so on that are bought in foreign countries must be modified to meet American standards, except most late model vehicles from Canada. Passenger vehicles that are imported on the condition that they be modified must be exported or destroyed if they are not modified acceptably. Also under these circumstances, the vehicle could require a bond upon entry until the conditions for admission have been met.
And even if the car does meet all federal standards, it might be subject to additional EPA requirements, depending on what countries it was driven in. You are strongly encouraged to contact EPA and DOT before importing a car.
Information on importing vehicles can be obtained from visiting the Environmental Protection Agency Web site. ( The Automotive Imports Facts Manual ) You may also find importation information from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of VehicleSafety Compliance. ( Vehicle Importation Regulations )
Copies of the brochure Importing or Exporting a Car can be obtained by writing to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
P.O. Box 7407
Washington, DC 20044
You can also visit the Exporting a Motor Vehicle page. ( Exporting a Motor Vehicle ) The EPA Automotive Imports Fact Manual can be obtained by writing to the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460. You can also visit the EPA Web site. ( Environmental Protection Agency )
Cars being brought into the United States temporarily, by nonresidents, (for less than one year) are exempt from these restrictions. It is illegal to bring a vehicle into the United States and sell it if it was not formally entered on a CBP Form 7501.
Name one? There are quite a few that fit that description. But that wasn't the point.
Quote:
The "burden of proof" in this case rests on you, because as a free society, we have to have reasonable argument as to why something should be prohibited. Laws are designed to restrict, not enable.
I agree, I would be in favor of making a law that restricts ARs
Quote:
And what tactical advantage are you referring to? Have you ever fired a rifle? A handgun? A shotgun?
The amount and speed at which it can put bullets down range.
Yes I have.
Quote:
I'm comparing apples to apples. People unjustly call for gun bans and nonsensical increased regulations of something which is 1\4 as deadly as a car.
Again. Completely different functions and purposes.
Quote:
Our constitution was designed to be changed. The founding fathers knew they had not figured out everything when they wrote it, and allowed for changes.
We have a civic duty to defend ourselves, and the best means to do so is via firearms. That alone warrants keeping the right to bear arms as well.
I agree.
Quote:
You're making the argument that our founding fathers couldn't have possibly though of automatic weapons capable of spitting bullets at 900 rounds per minute. They also probably couldn't have fathomed near-c communications across continents, or ever traveling into the heavens aboard controlled explosives.
If the argument you want to make is "this is the 21st century guys," be prepared to be criticized on it.
OK? It's not. They should have never been made available to the public in the 20th century.
Quote:
It's not about being personal, it's about the ludicrous nature of your arguments. The Assault Weapons ban in 1994 was based on reasoning completely devoid of any kind of reality. Criminals use "assault weapons" in less than 1% of all cases, and the ban itself literally did nothing useful, as manufactuers just created equally functional firearms with entirely cosmetic differences. Personally, I think the SL8--Heckler and Koch's Export version of the G36--looks fantastic with a thumbhole stock.
HCI didn't have a clue about firearms when they wrote that law, and it's quite clear that Brady Campaign still doesn't have a clue. I'm willing to bet few if any of the leadership and employees of Brady have ever fired a weapon. They don't have the requisite knowledge, education, or experience to begin regulating firearms. It'd be akin to an insurance agent passing regulations on chemical transportation because he saw it on TV once.
Yes we are. I've sourced out an M8 Greyhound for ****s and giggles. A friend of mine owns a 6x6 2.5ton truck that we take paintballing with us. It's all military hardware.
I'm all for compromises and my beliefs are not set in stone (are yours?). And you're absolutely right, gun manufacturers have and will find away However, why does the public need access to semi automatic weapon? Why?
Quote:
You stated that most acts of gun violence were committed by people you know.
There are in the United States about 30,000 people killed from gunshot wounds.
20,000 of them are from suicides, and I don't include them in the discussion for two reasons. 1. The personal belief that we have a right to take our own lives, and 2., they are self-inflicted homicides, and irrelevant to a discussion about criminal homicides.
So, realistically, about 10,000 people are killed each year by gunshot wounds, and about 1,000 of these are written off as self-defense shootings, and police shootings (otherwise known as "Justifiable Homicide.) The rest, ~9,000 (which is what Brady Campaign also comes up with), is "criminal" homicides with a gun.
Of those 9,000...
50% of victims were black, and 70% are male. Suspects are 53% black.
(I'm not insinuating anything about race, but pointing out that a lot of these shootings are occurring in black neighborhoods, due to societal strains (high crime, poverty, etc).
53% of victims are by assailants that are known. Of all victims, 14% are family, 13% are strangers (not know to the victim), and the rest are non-family. Friends, aquantinces, employers and employees, etc. Because the suspect is not known in the case of the other 47% of homicides, we can't reliably make an assumption on who they are. Based solely on the numbers, about 15% of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance. And honestly, I wouldn't call that really being killed by someone you know. It may not be random, but it's hardly family feuding.
I would argue otherwise. An acquaintance is somewhere you at least have had contact with. We can split hairs all we want though but it's still a majority, if even a slight one. Yay technicality!
Quote:
I'll dig up more, but what the numbers eventually boil down to is that the majority of cases are 1. domestic homicides, and 2. gang violence.
Seems like both cases you would generally have at least met and/or known the attacker as your stats show.
Quote:
We don't have any god-given rights, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms. And we have a right to defend ourselves, and in a free country such as this, it's up to you to conceive of legitimate argument as to why something should be banned or regulated.
Look, I've argued my case. However, let's be honest you have a lot more skin in this fight than me as you seem to be at least borderline passionate about firearms. I don't think you can objectively discuss what is a legitimate argument. And personally, I don't really care enough about the issue to take this any further than this forum. I believe we have more concerning issues right now in this country.
Quote:
Quote:
If you want to "draw the line" on firearm ownership, For every firearm you determine is unfit for consumption, I'll list a vehicle unfit for consumption. We'll both end up with flintlocks and Model T's.
Again apples to oranges.
Quote:
Now, as I stated, nobody is calling for regulations on limiting the number of seats in passenger vehicles, why should we limit the number of rounds in a magazine?
Apples to pears.
Quote:
NO! The analogy works because your focus is on the number of people being killed. If you aren't concerned about gun violence, why do you care at all what people purchase?
Not really. My focus is the bigger picture, fatalities are just one aspect. Just think the world be a better place with more limits on what the average guy can own to grossly oversimplify it.
Quote:
Homicides are the direct result of gun-violence, and I've demonstrated that automobile accidents are four times more deadly than guns.
So what?
Quote:
It's a perfect comparison for the argument you are making, and you don't get to disqualify it because you don't like what it does to your argument.
My argument doesn't rely on that, seems yours does, in fact it needs it. Don't confuse me responding to various people as making a solidified argument that relies on fatalities.
Quote:
If you wanted to come up with a different topic to argue as to why we should ban or regulate certain types of firearms, you need a different theme than just "gun violence."
Your ilk kept bringing that up. My first post in this thread asked why are ARs allowed to be purchase, from there I've had to respond to posts left and right. Haven't had the time to write a post the spells out all my thoughts and feelings.
Quote:
ADDENDUM: Oh, did I mention that as you point out, the purpose of vehicles is not death or destruction, yet they kill four times as many people?
Compared to cars, guns are incredibly safe!
Sigh... Well considering modern public society is reliant on automobiles to function... Why again is modern public society reliant on ARs?
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.
