• AWB introduced today
    131 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39343688]can I add, without getting dumbs, that after the first AWB the crime rate in America went down as fuck, I'm not saying that AWB was the cause, but conversely, it didn't hurt, so I can't say that the AWB will make anything worse.[/QUOTE] "crime" will go up because of all the legal gun owners getting arrested for possessing now "illegal" scary guns. (that are used in a super minority of crimes)
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;39343639]They're just guns, you guys are acting as if Hitler is rising from the dead and is starting the Holocaust Part 2.[/QUOTE] This argument has little to do with guns, but more to the effect that the Government is trying to enact unconstitutional restrictions on it's citizens' rights.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39343487]SoH Shooter - Eric David Harris (Columbine) used a Hi-Point Carbine with only 10-round mags. Harris shot 96 times. Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech) used 10-round magazines in his Glock and Walther. Cho shot 170 times. Samurai - Guy in China who stabbed a bunch of children. I can't remember the details.[/QUOTE] And they have done nothing yet? We.are.doomed
[img]http://puu.sh/1S43t[/img] It seems Facepunch has an equally split opinion on gun control.
Could someone post a link to the site that has the bill in it's entirety as well as what stage it is in the "becoming a law" process? I don't remember what it was off the top of my head and I accidentally google.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;39343815]Could someone post a link to the site that has the bill in it's entirety as well as what stage it is in the "becoming a law" process? I don't remember what it was off the top of my head and I accidentally google.[/QUOTE] Here is Feinstein's bill: [url]http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons[/url] The bill was just introduced, it has not been voted on yet.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39342959]threads like these turn into silly circlejerks for strong gun advocates this habit needs to stop, because it doesn't feel terribly civil[/QUOTE] It's not silly if the post in them are true and sensible using facts and common sense. The second post in this thread alone sums up why this AWB is pointless and peopel generally have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to mass shootings.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39343867]Here is Feinstein's bill: [url]http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons[/url] The bill was just introduced, it has not been voted on yet.[/QUOTE] I already knew that. There's a specific site that shows when the law was introduced, and where it is in the house/senate. Someone posted the site in the other AWB-themed thread in which the other law being proposed defined what an assault weapon was and outlined a government buyback program.
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39343688]can I add, without getting dumbs, that after the first AWB the crime rate in America went down as fuck, I'm not saying that AWB was the cause, but conversely, it didn't hurt, so I can't say that the AWB will make anything worse.[/QUOTE] It was coincidental, not consequential. I'll point to the classic "more piracy=less global warming" chart. Crime rates have dropped steadily since after the first AWB expired. The AWB had little to no affect on actual crime because little to no crime was committed in the first place with actual "assault weapons". And saying it doesn't hurt isn't true, bans like these turn already law abiding citizens into paper criminals.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;39343908]I already knew that. There's a specific site that shows when the law was introduced, and where it is in the house/senate. Someone posted the site in the other AWB-themed thread in which the other law being proposed defined what an assault weapon was and outlined a government buyback program.[/QUOTE] I apologize, I misunderstood. I am unable to help you in this matter.
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39343688]can I add, without getting dumbs, that after the first AWB the crime rate in America went down as fuck, I'm not saying that AWB was the cause, but conversely, it didn't hurt, so I can't say that the AWB will make anything worse.[/QUOTE] There's plenty of statistics around the globe that counter acts the statement that the AWB helped at all.
[QUOTE=OvB;39343242]Fireworks use gun powder and explosives like the kind used to kill. Model rockets use the same principle that propels rockets and missiles like ones used to kill. Yet these are both acceptable pass-times. Not all guns are designed to kill. Yes, they can kill and they should be considered dangerous, but so can a fire cracker blow off your hand or a model rocket cause bodily harm if used in a malicious manner. My glock has never killed anyone, and never will kill anyone.[/QUOTE] But really, they are designed to kill or immobilize something. You don't have to use them for that purpose, but that's what they were designed for.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;39344183]But really, they are designed to kill or immobilize something. You don't have to use them for that purpose, but that's what they were designed for.[/QUOTE] Knives were designed as cutting tools, not as weapons.
This bill reeks of autism from people who have no idea what they're talking about. [editline]24th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39344360]Knives were designed as cutting tools, not as weapons.[/QUOTE] [url]http://image.rockynational.com/Gerber/Knives/30-000183/LHR-Combat-Knife-1.jpg?width=1000[/url] Pictured: totally not a weapon, yo
[QUOTE=Strongbad;39344410]This bill reeks of autism from people who have no idea what they're talking about.[/QUOTE] why are you using autism as shorthand for stupidity
[QUOTE=Cone;39344455]why are you using autism as shorthand for stupidity[/QUOTE] [img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130124135403-feinstein-guns-story-top.jpg[/img] This is why
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39343688]can I add, without getting dumbs, that after the first AWB the crime rate in America went down as fuck, I'm not saying that AWB was the cause, but conversely, it didn't hurt, so I can't say that the AWB will make anything worse.[/QUOTE] Um no, it didn't. The FBI even admits that the AWB did nothing to affect crime.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;39344410][url]http://image.rockynational.com/Gerber/Knives/30-000183/LHR-Combat-Knife-1.jpg?width=1000[/url] Pictured: totally not a weapon, yo[/QUOTE] Point missed entirely. His argument were that guns were designed to kill people, therefore we don't need them/shouldn't have them for hobby purposes. Knives were originally designed as cutting tools, but were turned into weapons over time. The point is, people will find different purposes and uses for ANYTHING, regardless of what the original intended purpose is. [editline]24th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ducklingqt;39343688]can I add, without getting dumbs, that after the first AWB the crime rate in America went down as fuck, I'm not saying that AWB was the cause, but conversely, it didn't hurt, so I can't say that the AWB will make anything worse.[/QUOTE] The ATF has stated on more than one occasion that the original AWB had no measurably effect. What little effect it may have had, was too insignificant to be able to be tracked and documented.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;39344494][img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130124135403-feinstein-guns-story-top.jpg[/img] This is why[/QUOTE] God she looks like some kind of evil librarian. Like she's seconds away from murdering some poor sap with those guns on the wall because he coughed too loudly.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39344596]God she looks like some kind of evil librarian. Like she's seconds away from murdering some poor sap with those guns on the wall because he coughed too loudly.[/QUOTE] considering she has a conceal carry permit and owns NFA weapons, I wouldn't doubt it if she went on a killing spreee!!!!!!!
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39344555]Point missed entirely. His argument were that guns were designed to kill people, therefore we don't need them/shouldn't have them for hobby purposes. Knives were originally designed as cutting tools, but were turned into weapons over time. The point is, people will find different purposes and uses for ANYTHING, regardless of what the original intended purpose is. [editline]24th January 2013[/editline] The ATF has stated on more than one occasion that the original AWB had no measurably effect. What little effect it may have had, was too insignificant to be able to be tracked and documented.[/QUOTE] Well guns were originally designed for killing but over time many people adapted them for accuracy and competition/game shooting Your point is moot
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39344672]considering she has a conceal carry permit and owns NFA weapons, I wouldn't doubt it if she went on a killing spreee!!!!!!![/QUOTE] Clearly she's a dangerous terrorist who has managed to weed her way into Congress undetected.
How stupid do you have to be to not realise that it's easily concealed and cheap firearms like pistols that are mainly used in gun crime?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39344679][b]Well guns were originally designed for killing but over time many people adapted them for accuracy and competition/game shooting[/b] Your point is moot[/QUOTE] This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make, you are just restating it. The point is not moot. Again, his argument for banning is based on what they were originally designed for. My point is that purposes change over time (my example was the comment about knives), and basing an argument solely on something's original purpose is stupid. I apologize that I didn't spell it out entirely.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;39344076]There's plenty of statistics around the globe that counter acts the statement that the AWB helped at all.[/QUOTE] that's awesome! good thing I never said the AWB caused the decrease.
[img]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9008/130124135403feinsteingu.jpg[/img] Sight, what are you doing. That isn't where you go.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39344778][img]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9008/130124135403feinsteingu.jpg[/img] Sight, what are you doing. That isn't where you go.[/QUOTE] That is an RDS, and it is co-witnessed. That's actually a perfectly fine location for it to be mounted, and you get the extra benefit of the carry handle.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39344821]That is an RDS, and it is co-witnessed. That's actually a perfectly fine location for it to be mounted, and you get the extra benefit of the carry handle.[/QUOTE] That only works without the carry handle. Even then it is stupid to have the front mounted sight.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39344778][img]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9008/130124135403feinsteingu.jpg[/img] Sight, what are you doing. That isn't where you go.[/QUOTE] But if she removed the carry handle where the sight is supposed to go the gun wouldn't be evil enough!
[QUOTE=GunFox;39344843]That only works without the carry handle. Even then it is stupid to have the front mounted sight.[/QUOTE] What? No.... It's a red dot sight, it has zero magnification, and it doesn't matter how far forward or back it is, the sight's effectiveness doesn't change. That carry handle has an iron sight in it that lines up with the front sight. The red dot sight is co-witnessed with those iron sights, meaning it is in line with them. This allows the operator to focus on the target with their eyes and use the red dot, or opt for longer range precision shooting with the iron sights. Also, in my opinion, it is generally stupid to remove iron sights from a weapon that is using a RDS, and I believe many people would agree with me (including the US Military). Batteries fail, and you won't have as much precision with an RDS as you will with iron sights. The red dot will cover a target at long range, an iron sight will not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.