Banning assault weapons again.

So fewer guns wont equal fewer deaths?

Originally posted by Black Flag
So fewer guns wont equal fewer deaths?

Fewer of which guns in the hands of whom? In the case you are proposing: no fewer guns will not mean fewer deaths because people who possess guns legally are not the ones killing people.

Fewer illegally obtained and carried guns will equal fewer deaths. Mandate the storage of guns in locked non-mobile safes to reduce theft, tighten port security to stop smuggling of foreign assault weapons, maximize penalties for illegal concealed weapons, restrict ammunition sales to registered gun owners. You can cut down on illegal possession and use of firearms without stripping law-abiding citizens of their constitutional right to bear arms, which is not the source of America's violent crime problem to begin with.

Originally posted by Black Flag
So fewer guns wont equal fewer deaths?

Fewer guns will equal fewer firearm-caused deaths, but the violence will be the same, just with inferior weapons.

Hoplophobes like to think they can just win with kung fu, but the fact is that it takes a few years of training to become skilled enough to have a chance against a committed criminal. The basics of gun use can be learned in a single day of concentrated training. The amazing thing about firearms is that they can be used effectively without going through a Jedi training regimen. They are the great equalizer, because a 300 pound ninja can now be suddenly threatened by a 100 pound woman. You can't have that if you leave them with just knives or fists.

So BlackFlag are you basically saying that if one person dies from something that it should be banned. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by all gun deaths each year. People that smoke cigaretes get lung cancer and that is more each year then all gun related deaths.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
So BlackFlag are you basically saying that if one person dies from something that it should be banned. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by all gun deaths each year. People that smoke cigaretes get lung cancer and that is more each year then all gun related deaths.

That's an outstanding point. It can go further too. Why is murder the only crime we are preventing? Shouldn't we prevent slander? Everybody cut your tongue out. What about assault? Everybody wear padded gloves always.
Ultimately, humans are responsible for more crimes than any other species-the ultimate crime prevention is to outlaw the breeding of humans.

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security. At a certain point you have to own up to the risks that come with life and freedom. You can limit things by reasonable means- we do what we can to prevent crime- but we can't start disassembling our bill of rights for fear of crime.

Right on Vagabond, once we start down the slippery slope it will be over.

This is certainly true in the case of a dictatorship in the US. However a more likely scenario would be the break down of our financial system and infrastructure. In that case there are no police to save you, and the only person who could protect my and my family would be me and my good friends, rifle and gun.

Hang on even if the stock market crashed there would still be a police force they would face hard times like everyone else.
Arent the cops in America capable of solving a crime that involved an illegal gun?

As for the guy who murder your friend he should spend the rest of his life in prison.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by xpert11]

xpert11, one point that I think you are missing is that, the police only show up after a crime has been committed. Someone needs to call them in order for them to show up. I have lived in the country where it took over 2 hours for law enforcement to show up even though they were called about someone breaking into a house.

Cops cannot protect you all the time. Cops and harsh laws are only deterents, they do nothing to prevent a crime that is already happening.

xpert11 I was talking about a financial crash, and some sort of disaster, natural or otherwise that would leave us in anarchy, destroy our infrastructure, no power, no water, that sort of thing.

And I also think he should get life in prison, however since the shooting was the result of a bar fight, they can't prove premeditation. It remains second degree murder even though the guy shot him twice in the chest and then walked up on him and shot him in the head while he was down. 15-20 years, it's disgusting.

Oh yeah, and the cops were two minutes away and all they could do was call in the coroner.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by LeftBehind]

Hypothetical question:

Which would result in fewer deaths across the country?

1. If there were no guns, or almost none.

or

2. If almost everyone had one.


Be honest. Which would result in fewer deaths?

Originally posted by Black Flag
Hypothetical question:

Which would result in fewer deaths across the country?

1. If there were no guns, or almost none.

or

2. If almost everyone had one.


Be honest. Which would result in fewer deaths?

While we are being honest, which would result in fewer deaths?

1. No guns.

or

2. No cars.

Let's all ban cars while there is still time.

The point is not about how many deaths there are where guns are used, it is about our right as American citizens to be able to protect ourselves from Government and or physical injury or death from someone trying to harm us.

Notice how both of you refused to answer the question. A very simple question.

Why?

Yes, there are problems in other aspects of our society: car accidents, pollution, stupidity, drug and alcohol abuse etc., but this thread is about guns. Lets stay on point.

More specifically, assault weapons.

While you are at it, how does the Constitution ensure the rights of citizens to "bear" assault weapons?





[edit on 9-2-2005 by Black Flag]

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Black Flag]

LeftBehind If the likes of an earthquake happend for example isnt it likely that your is damaged/destoryed by the quake?
Wont finding people be more important then finding a gun amongst the rubble?
Dosnt the USA have plans for a situation like this ?

Xpert please bear with me, I wasn't talking about a large earthquake, but a hypothetical situation where say, a nuclear attack destroys all government in the US and all population centers on the coasts. An invasion or a civil war. I was talking about a future scenario, not something imminent.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Xpert please bear with me, I wasn't talking about a large earthquake, but a hypothetical situation where say, a nuclear attack destroys all government in the US and all population centers on the coasts. An invasion or a civil war. I was talking about a future scenario, not something imminent.

Sorry my mistake.
Wernt the people of Hiroshima armed ? If I recall rightly the japs were preparing for a allied landings although they might not of kept there guns at home.
A gun wont prevent or cure the affects of a nuclear bomb thats if you are still alive.

cryptorsa1001 your point raises other questions.
Take the likes of secuity cameras they only seem to be useful after a crime has been committed. While I dont think guns are the answer I wonder if the right approach is being taken in the fight against crime.

Originally posted by Black Flag

... assault weapons.

While you are at it, how does the Constitution ensure the rights of citizens to "bear" assault weapons?

Before you go on, explain what an assault weapon is. It seems to me that gun controllers will slap that label on any gun that is too accurate, too ugly, too powerful, too fast, or holds too many bullets, and when you look at it that way, it's ridiculous. How can you keep the civilians so blatantly outgunned when we know what tends to happen in that situation?

The Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to bear weapons. Since it doesn't specify what kind, it means any kind. It's that simple. The only thing that should obstruct me from getting a howitzer is the fact that I don't have enough money to purchase one.

I believe that there have always been people willing to hurt and kill people for financial gain and or pleasure (rape) especially in free societies. I bet you did not see very much theft under Saddams dictatorship. He had severe penalties, if you stole your hand was cut off. So in a free society you are going to have to deal with these types of people. I am not willing to give up freedoms in order to feel safer.

It is my belief that a large proportion of crimes committed involve drugs. People will rob and steal for drug money and dealers will kill to keep their turf and money. I started another post about trying a different approach to the drug problem, maybe something like what they have in the Netherlands. Drugs are either legal or to some degree tolerated and yet they have a lower rate of habitual users as a % of their population. I believe that would reduce crime substantially.

I am not sure what your stance on religion is but here in America after the Government passed a law about separation of chuch and state crime has gone way up. when my mother was in school about the worst thing kids did was chew gum in school, probably a fist fight every now ane then. When I was in high school kids were passing out in school due to drug use.

So yeah I agree another method of crime control needs to be looked into but I also fear my government. I honestly do not think that they have my best interests at heart. During the clinton years they were saying they wanted to take my guns away from me becasue I would be safer. What!!!!! Hitler took away its citizens guns and look what happened. How many people in communist china have guns? How bout Russia or Cuba. I will not tolerate that type of government here in america. If I have to fight a tank with my semi-auto rifle I will. If I have to die so that others will be free I will due that too.

You have about 4,000,000 people in your country. There are that many people within a 30 minute drive of my house. People tend to be meaner and less caring towards others the higher the density of the population. I have lived in the country and out in the boonies of alaska and left my door open at night without fear. Where I am now that is asking for trouble.

Maybe you have more trust in your fellow man and government than I do. If I am armed I have the means to defend myself wether that is against an armed intruder or the government or foreign invaders.

What has driven the fear into you?

What would drive someone to feel that way? I am serious, that is not a rhetorical question, I really am interested.