Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 52. (Read 36627 times)

You see the guns in those pictures? There's 300 million of them in this country. That's the problem.

If your goal is to kill people, take a look at the Colorado movie theatre shooting. He started with a shotgun and then switched to a rifle. Most of the deaths were caused by the shotgun even though he shot many more shots with the rifle. So maybe we should ban shotguns because they are much deadlier!

The stupid thing about these laws is the rather arbitrary method in which they mark some guns as 'OK' and some guns as 'not OK'. For instance, most assault weapon bans put an AK on the bad list, but the SKS* would still be legal. Automatic AK's would already be covered under machine gun regulations, so let's compare the semi-auto version with the SKS. They fire the same round, the SKS is generally slightly more accurate, well practiced gunmen can fire 100 rounds out of either gun in about the same length of time, but the AK has a removable magazine and a pistol grip while the SKS has a fixed magazine and no pistol grip so the AK gets banned but not the SKS, all based on cosmetics. The same thing happens with the AR and the Ruger mini-14, the mini-14 looks nicer so it is allowed, even though it has the exact same functionality.

* For this discussion I am considering the factory configuration of most SKS versions; you can buy an aftermarket stock with a pistol grip and swap the fixed mag for a removable one which would put the rifle under the same category as the AK.

1. Yes, American liberals are idiots and focus on trivial shit rather than meaningful characteristics.

2. 0% armed?  So an armed deputy at Columbine doesn't count?

3. Relevant point : The teachers hauling guns are IDF reservists, with all that entails.  They're not just handing out rifles to every random.  I suspect you'd get a few gigaohms of resistance towards sending every teacher in the country off to basic.

I know very well the USA is not a culturally homogenous country, while I also know very well that the parts of the world where kids grow up around guns are those with a higher ration of violent murders per inhabitant.

Its kinda ironic that "US libertarians" despise the Government, which strength resides precisely on the fact that eventually you will be forced to follow its laws at gunpoint, while those same "libertarians" praise those same guns like they are a symbol of individual freedoms. A blatant example of flawed logic.

Freedom resides in individual respecting each other, and that needs to be taught, not enforced. And this is why I wrote "banning is not the answer". If you want to have social peace, you just do not fight violence in society with more violence, you fight it with education towards respect to human life. BTW, did you know that police in Germany only fired 85 bullets in all 2011, and killed only 6 people? That's an 80 million country, so its roughly 1 bullet fired by police per million inhabitants in a whole year. Why? They haven't got the need to fire more, most of the criminals are unarmed because they just do not need the guns. There is a deeper respect for human life, and while Germany is a country where there are 30 firearms per 100 habitants (which is very high for Europe standards), the vast majority of people never sees or touches one in their whole life.

You have a very big problem in the US, I don't deny that: but arming more people will just make it worse. I guess you "libertarians" should know that there is no "good" or "bad" people, no "sane" or "crazy" folks - people is normal until the moment they aren't, your own mind could flip out at a certain point because of external circumstances, and if you have a gun handy and you know how to use its just so much likely that you will end up using it.

I guess that living in a country where the average burglar has a gun and its mentally ready to fight for his life doesn't help at all. Well, maybe there is some work to be done to address THAT, instead of making it easier for criminals to arm themselves.

In the USA, states which have passed "concealed carry law" show a decrease in crime.  The reasons are somewhat obvious, Bad Guys act differently if they are worried there might be guns in the pockets of people they face.

Regarding your asserts re Europe, you seem to be trying to somehow generalize those to the USA.  But the USA is the exact opposite of a homogeneous culture.  I do not particularly believe that say, residents of a suburb in Boston face the same problems, issues and dangers that a resident of a suburb in El Paso does, with the border of Mexico 300 meters away and high levels of illegal activities close by. 

But you know best, clearly.  

So next time I talk with my friends in El Paso, I will have to relate this story to them of 'un hombre de Internet quien se dice ustedes solamente "gun-loving fucktards" '.

It'll be good for a laugh, right?

Yep. Was going to reply, but once someone rejects the pro-criminal/tyrannical government's own statistics (that it could just manipulate in favor of banning all self-defense entirely, as it is doing incrementally with each "gun control" law, but cannot without being called on the carpet by good people), there's no real point in replying. /ignore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Enjoy your criminals' utopia, Europe.

What statistics? I know for sure the number of violent deaths per year in the country where I live is less than 1 per each 100,000 habitants, and as much as half of them are domestic husband-wive disputes (passional crimes).

In most of Europe you would NEVER fear for your kid to be killed in the streets by a criminal or a psycho.

Are you having fun making this stuff up?  Because the statistics do not seem to agree with you.

The amount of violent deaths of any type in developed countries where no firearms are easily at hand for a large amount of the population are ridiculous compared to those of the US.

Obviously crime exists in similar ratios, but its just less violent, there are less violent deaths per habitant. Thieves, burglars, and other "property criminals" (which are 99% of the criminals) are rarely armed (if at all), which makes a huge a difference. We also have plenty of people that goes nuts for no apparent reason, but its just they do not even know how to use or where to find a gun, and any other weapon is simply uneffective and definitely not as cool as an "assault rifle" when planning to cause as much death as possible.

The statement that school would be safer if teachers carried guns is complete madness, that is the kind of world you want your kids to grow up? The example of Israel speaks pretty much for itself, that's a fucking war zone, is to Israel to what you compare your country to?

You don't have to be a genius to realize that if you have firearms at hand, and they form part of your life, its more likely for you to use one of them at some point... While the thought wouldn't even cross your mind if you never would have seen one closely in your life. And no, a knife is something completely different, you use knifes every day in your kitchen, they have plenty of uses, while a handgun only use is to kill someone. The approach when dealing with both "tools" is completely different, in both a practical and philosophical way.

Banning is never an answer, violence is something that is rotten in culture and that needs to be eradicated by the society as a whole, but for sure the gun-loving fucktards that defend that more guns = less deaths are not helping at all.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

Even if there were no guns in a country except in the hands of non- criminal/evil/tyrannical/civil rights-violating law enforcement officers (impossible), then murders using all other weapons (including fists and feet) increase. There will always be criminal violence where there is no ultimate equalizer. Law enforcement cannot protect each individual at all times.

The cold hard fact is that in countries where guns are not easily purchasable (ie most of Europe) gun related deaths are negligible.

"Assault weapon" can be defined as a pinfire revolver, or fists and feet.

If a weapon can be used to defend innocent life without "collateral damage" (it can only strike the evildoer in its trajectory), then it must not be infringed, as it is needed to exercise the fundamental human right of self-defense.

Thanks.  That's pretty much what I would have expected.

Yeah I understand. 

Check out this - since the gun ban, Australia is #1 in crime victims.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/

It's like how North Korea calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Or how politicians give themselves the "Honourable" title.

Any stats on this?  I live in Australia and can't remember significant amounts of violence before.  The Port Arthur thing seemed to be a one-off and was a good way for government to further monopolize the ownership of weapons (in it's own hands).  

But then Aussie's have this unreal belief in the government that I've never understood.  Every little thing now, people go running to the government for solutions.   Anyone would think that the Australian govt is the messiah.  It's has a very communist, cultist feel in this country.  


That's all long forgotten.  Today, Aussies are soft and want their govt to look after them.

But your government was founded by criminals, and we are only finding out that ours are.

In America I know this guns are a very heated topic, and as an Australian I'm not sure I fully understand your reasons for wanting such high-powered rifles at home. For the most part Australia is a very safe country so it could just be that I am unaware of how different other countries are.

What I will say is, Australians were once allowed the same rifles. Laws changed after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre which seems to have had a tremendous effect on mass gun violence in this country. The government of the time issued a Gun Buy-Back scheme, and removed over 631,000 guns from our suburbs. Touch wood, we haven't had a similar massacre since.