Topic: Guns - page 15. (Read 22182 times)

Lets start taking you apart:


I don't give a fuck about constitution's interpretation, either you're for federal regulations or not - make up your mind. If you're then don't get butthurt when feds decide to ban your precious guns.

NYS: Outside of NYC the cost to get a CCW license is $10 with $3 fee for fingerprinting. If $13 is expensive, may be you should get a job?!

Fun fact: Buffalo has conceal carry, and its crime rate 3x times more than in NYC.


Mute point, the base is highly secure. Even if everyone was armed, he could have gone into a section where were no guns - hospital, showers, etc.


These murderers can always find a moment where people are not armed or chose different kind of weapon. Colorado laws are pretty flexible about guns, Colorado is a shall issue state.


NYC is one of safest metro areas and highly packed.

That may or may not be granted, and even if it is, the tax/bribe/whatever you want to call it, is prohibitively expensive, IOW unconstitutional.


A military base where carrying guns is prohibited by all but a few MPs and civilian LEOs.


They're easy to enable, because everyone can't carry a cop, and if you ban guns like the theater, the base, and the site of just about every modern massacre, all victims are defenseless to be murdered and maimed with impunity in the minutes it takes police to arrive. There's a common theme of massacres: high body counts=in gun free zones. Low body counts, including the criminal=guns not-free zones.


For criminals, who find utopia when they have nothing but defenseless victims, and cops who violate civil rights with impunity. The defenseless victims of crime and tyranny, not so much.


No amount of FUD is beneath you, it seems.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Thank you.

This times 1000. It's an obvious fact. I doubt anyone would deny it.

Which leads to the natural conclusion that these laws are NOT really about disarming criminals, and that anyone trying to sell that lie, or even just throwing out anti-gun arguments focusing on criminals/crime/etc. is being intellectually dishonest from the start.

And even that is far from certain.  Everything in life involves risk, and a statute cannot take that risk away no matter how much some people wish it weren't so.  A concealed carry license holder slightly reduces the risk of violent crime for the society in which he lives, because sane criminals respond to the increases in encountering an armed victim for what it is, and increase in the risks involved in their chosen occupation.  But the CC license holder does this also at the increased risk of accidental harm done to himself or to family members from the simple presence of a loaded (and not locked up) firearm.  It's somewhat like giving your little kid a Rubella vaccine; for Rubella isn't a significant risk to a healthy child, but a child infected with Rubella is a huge miscarriage risk for any expectant mothers that might come into contact with said child.  In other words, we don't give little kids the MMR vaccine because there is a great risk of harm to that particular child; we do it to protect other children.  In reality, the risk of harm is greater from complications of the MMR vaccine itself than from a natural infection of any of these childhood illnesses.

In short, if you want to be safe from nutters like the batman shooter... Get a F#%!ng gun.
Anything else is a joke. Honestly people, what your saying is that a rule would have saved those people. Oooh, a rule. That will keep people from doing wrong. If they do it anyway, you should shake your finger at them and say "no thank you". That should stop em.

Well, at least we can agree on that.

I am not missing the anything, I nailed the question perfectly.

If you're asking me if that law would prevent such massacres - don't know. Massacres are anomalies, they happen rarely and have no impact on crime statistics.

I think that you are missing the point.  Even those who wrote that law can't define an assault rifle.  That's because there is no way to define one that isn't also a hunting weapon.  Fully automatic weapons, such as are used in the military, are not (by law) assault weapons.  While that document was actually a law, I could get a selective fire AR-15 with little trouble and some more money, perfectly legally, as a Class III weapon; but I couldn't buy a semi-automatic AR-15 without mortgaging my house.  Furthermore, that document actually never banned even the 'assault weapons' that it defines, it only banned their manufacture & import.  It didn't stop private sales of existing weapons stock, nor even the sale of decommissioned semi-auto military firearms such as M-14's.  In effect, all this document did while law was make several firearms collectors I knew suddenly wealthy, as they could sell their stock on the open market for four times what they paid for them.  In the end, that document would have done nothing at all to prevent this nutjob, or any other, from buying an AR-15 (probably legally) from another private owner so long as he was willing to spend money that it took, which apparently he was.

In short, statutes passed by Congress cannot actually change reality.  Nutjobs can get guns in America and they can get guns in Russia, Canada, Australia and Britain.  

Huh, I did not know that. It does make sense when you see it on a map though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America

Don't ask silly questions then? Also the question was about an assault weapon. You're describing assault rifles.

Ok, do you want to call Central America part of North or South America? fixed

Africa, Europe, Central America. also the Caribbean
[/quote]

What what I was afraid of. Out of these four, only two are continents.

Strictly speaking, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon as it is not capable of fully automatic fire. That makes an AR-15 a toy version of an assault rifle.
Africa, Europe, Central America. also the Caribbean

P.S. that is NOT a hunting rifle above. It was developed by Ruger as a military weapon to kill people.

Wel thank God he was inexperienced with his equipment.  If he had been carrying mil-spec magazines things might have been even worse.

I disagree on that point.  NYC is a police state, the cops can stop and frisk anyone on the street that they like.  That's not my America.  That wouldn't fly where I live, and I know a guy who was born and raised in NYC who moved to my home city, and would never go back.  I was bike/bussing for my commute, and was talking to this transplant (from the Bronx, IIRC, but didn't sound anything like those tv actors, I've never been anywhere near NY myself) and he was talking about going downtown and seeing a Tea Party rally, and being surprised about how many rednecks with rifles he could see in plain view and the police weren't doing anything.  I responded with a "have you met an unarmed white man since you moved here?" (he is black, and I'm white)  When he loked at me sideways I said "I bet you haven't.  You live in one one of the most heavily armed urban populations in America, and our violent crime rates are way under NYC's".  I said it plainly and loud enough that most everyone on the bus at the time (about 12 people) could hear me.  Other than myself, only the bus driver was white, and not a soul tried to contradict me or reacted at all.  Also, there is a plain as day "no weapons" sign at the front of the bus.  My buddy just looked at me, looked at the bus driver (who was only about 6 feet away) and started to laugh.  When he started to open his mouth with that look in his eyes, I cut him off and said, "Do not ask the obvious question.  I'm legally prohibited from answering it at this time."  And then the bus driver just laughed.

In my state, home invasions are rare, but often deadly.  Sometimes for the victim, sometimes for the attacker.  The same is true in 'no knock' police raids, because if a cop dies and it can be proven that 1) the cops didn't announce and 2) they made a mistake and ended up at the wrong house (this does happen, cops aren't very careful about such things) then the homeowner not only gets off for self-defense, but the department ends up buying them a new house over the damage done.  If the homeowner dies defending himself, there is a good chance a cop goes to jail for manslaughter.  So 'no knock' raids don't happen and regular raids are few and far between.  They are more careful here, too.

BTW, I live 15 miles from here...

http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot

It did jam, he went back to his car to reload (or whatever) and got arrested there.

I don't have nearly as much a problem with a misleading statement which is not a meme. The reasons should be obvious.