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.
So for every gun related crime that takes place we lock up a bad guy and take his gun. I see this taking an awful long time before any kind of meaningful result could be achieved.
It is something, if it's new, and I don't disagree with it on principle.
However, don't we already laws like that? Or is it just harsher sentencing you're promoting?
You also have to consider the cost to us involved with locking people up. Easier, safer and cheaper (though risky in it's own right) to take away their guns before they've done something wrong if they're not willing to play by the rules and register.
The violence in America can be corrected if we stop blaming guns, and start working on solutions that will stop our prison recidivism rate. We can create many fewer victims if we stop with the plea bargains that allow violent criminals to negotiate down to a misdemeanor on violent crimes. We need to stop the early release program for those convicted of violent crimes. The Bureau of justice reports that 71% of those arrested for violent crimes are repeat offenders. When will we stop letting those with long rap sheets back out into society to create more victims?
We need to treat violent gun crimes as federal offenses that put these offenders away in federal prison for lengthy sentences.
Now the detractors from this idea will say that we already incarcerate too many people. To that I say fine, lets keep what we are doing, lets keep the justice system revolving door open, and just whine about guns instead of dealing with the real problem.
Certainly if something is military-grade, it shouldn't be in the hands of common citizens.
Let's look at the "military grade" AR-15, it's a semi-auto rifle fundamentally no different than ANY semi-auto It was first marketed to consumers in the early 60's as a sporting rifle. It's light and easy to operate. If for example you were learning to shoot it's good gun to start off with. A common use might be pest control. It has a medium cartridge that is not particularity powerful or deadly. There is semi auto hunting rifles that are much more powerful than this rifle.
The military based the M-16 on it because it's relatively cheap to make, easy to operate and it's light along with the ammo which is important if you are going to be carrying a gun for miles. The major difference between the M-16 and the AR-15 is selective fire, selcetive fire allows for semi-auto fire, 3 round bursts or fully auto. A common complaint from military personnel has always been that it's under powered. In Iraq and Afghanistan they were reissuing the m-14 which is a much more powerful gun, it uses a cartridge common in hunting rifles. Weight was really not an issue there, power was more important.
Now that you have detailed explanation of what an AR-15 is I want you to explain to me the fundamental difference between it and semi auto rifle that is considered a hunting rifle. What makes it a "military grade" rifle?
It's a nonsensical label and this is important. The reason it's important is if you can justify banning the AR-15 solely based on function you can justify banning any semi auto rifle.
Violence is not a problem ? Not sure what part of the country you live in but here it Detroit it is. If want to solve the violence problem in our country banning types of firearms is not going to fix it.
How did you not get that ?
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.