• Calderon urges Congress to reinstate ban on assault weapons
    224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22071816]No because once you kill a police officer your life is pretty much over. Good luck running for the rest of your life because you wont get away. Im fucking aware of what a criminal is. In some country's if your caught stealing they cut your hand off. I bet thieves there think twice before they go to steal something. Just because someone is a criminal don't mean their going take extreme risks when they mug someone for 100 bucks or an mp3 player. Your still going to see the outlaw bikers and higher class gangsters with guns but for the most part the small timers will give them up because its not worth it unless your a bank robber or something. You people are the ones who are naive. you watch to many movies and think all criminals are mad dog psychos kill you for any little reason. Being a criminal you ARE going to jail at some point not if but when. If a new law was made that tacked on 10 years for carrying a gun. Its risk vs reward and criminals are aware of that.[/QUOTE] You're very naive to think criminals care about going to jail that much. If they are living the good life, they don't give a shit about anything. Most criminals are in that position because they are stupid, and couldn't make money in any other way. They are addicted to the lifestyle, they won't just quit because you raise the stakes. Most of them are already going away for a long time, adding 10 years does nothing. In countries where they cut your hand off for stealing, it doesn't do anything as a determent, because those people are stealing so they don't fucking starve to death.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22071930]if its a stiff punishment yes it is a deterrent.[/QUOTE] Marijuana possession is 8 years in jail in some parts of the states. has this stopped it...? Fuck no it hasn't. This would simply be another form of prohibition.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22071930]if its a stiff punishment yes it is a deterrent.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. That doesn't work. There's a very stiff punishment for pretty much anything to do with illegal drugs, but people still do it. It's not a fucking deterrent.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22071930]if its a stiff punishment yes it is a deterrent.[/QUOTE] The War on Drugs, The American Prison System, hitting a child... All stiff punishments, all very unsuccessful. [editline]07:24PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mudbone;22071816]You people are the ones who are naive. you watch to many movies and think all criminals are mad dog psychos kill you for any little reason. Being a criminal you ARE going to jail at some point not if but when. If a new law was made that tacked on 10 years for carrying a gun. Its risk vs reward and criminals are aware of that.[/QUOTE] Oh sorry mister criminologist, I wasn't aware that a man who has been committing crimes since adolescence, has been arrested multiple times, has very little to lose, and is overall mentally unhealthy is concerned about jail-time. People who commit gun crimes are likely the type of people who could shrug off 10 years.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22067966]you like to hunt im fine with hunting rifles. Pistols for self defense and shotguns for bird shooting but why the fuck does anyone need a fully automatic ak-47 or an Uzi.[/QUOTE] GOD FUCKING DAMMIT ASSAULT WEAPON =/= ASSAULT RIFLE. caps [editline]04:33PM[/editline] Anti-gun people can be so stupid. [editline]04:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE]Assault weapon is a [B]non-technical[/B] term referring to any of a broad category of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm"]firearms[/URL] with certain features, including some some [B]semiautomatic rifles[/B]..[/QUOTE] [editline]04:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;22070938]Hmmm, two points to make here. A: Your country is a corrupt shithole due to you and your government's incompetence, and thus you don't have any place trying to tell us how to run things. B: Banning assault weapons here just means your criminals will get them elsewhere.[/QUOTE] Holy shit Used Car Salesman I agree with you for once.
[QUOTE=starpluck;22063854]He should fuck off and mind his own business.[/QUOTE] I think it's good that he's trying to fight the violence there... but it won't work.
[img]http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/04/15/alg_anahi_cabrera.jpg[/img] Guys you've got it all wrong drug runners are buying M1919s off american street corners!!!
[QUOTE=ShnitzelKiller;22072464]I think it's good that he's trying to fight the violence there... but it won't work.[/QUOTE] Less then 10% of all guns used in crimes are AWs.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;22070938]Hmmm, two points to make here. A: Your country is a corrupt shithole due to you and your government's incompetence, and thus you don't have any place trying to tell us how to run things. B: Banning assault weapons here just means your criminals will get them elsewhere.[/QUOTE] This feels worse than the time I agreed with trotsky :saddowns:
[QUOTE=mastermaul;22072467][IMG]http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/04/15/alg_anahi_cabrera.jpg[/IMG] Guys you've got it all wrong drug runners are buying M1919s off american street corners!!![/QUOTE] OSJDFPOISHDFKLSDF AsSaUlT WeApOn oH sHiT [editline]04:49PM[/editline] Actually an M1919 wouldn't classify as an AW. There's only a pistol grip, nothing else.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;22072265]GOD FUCKING DAMMIT ASSAULT WEAPON =/= ASSAULT RIFLE. caps Anti-gun people can be so stupid.[/quote] And this is exactly why the Assault Weapons Ban passed back in '94, because the people behind it are fucking idiots and most of America just believes whatever they're told. My favorite was the news story they did that the NRA forced CNN to correct, they got a class III AK from a police department, fired it around, and then told everyone that it was one of the weapons in the ban, even though the bill had nothing to do with automatics. As I explained earlier in the thread, [b]"Assault Weapon" is a bullshit term made up specifically by anti-gun activists.[/b] They are not machine guns, or rocket launchers, or any of that. In terms of performance, most of the guns affected by the ban were either less powerful or equal to conventional hunting rifles in terms of performance. A Barrett chambered in .416 is ok, but a Ruger 10/22 with a detachable hi-cap magazine for varmint hunting is the spawn of fucking Satan. A Mossberg 500 is ok, but so help me God, if you put a heat shield on the barrel, it's a weapon of mass destruction. There's even a weight limit on handguns, because heavy guns are more dangerous you know, even though they fire the same rounds as their counterparts. A Glock is ok, but it's if it's got a hi-cap magazine on it, better outlaw it, because you know, that makes it's bullets more dangerous, it's a proven fact that a 9mm from a Glock with a 10 round magazine is half as dangerous as one fired from a Glock with a 20 round mag. As you can see, there is no fucking logic in the Assault Weapons Ban, it's completely inconsistent in terms of what it targets, has no real clear definitions, and really accomplishes nothing.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22070463]back I was eating lunch. How wouldn't it. Theres places in this country where people are afraid to walk down the street. Its so easy for anyone to find a gun pick it up and go start shooting people. Guns are banned in other countrys and their fine without them and they don't have the monstrous murder rates we have. Yes even if guns are banned some criminals will still have access to them but if it lowers crime even a little bit and puts these people in jail for even a little bit longer then why not? I'm not saying ban hunting rifles or anything like that, I just see no reason someone NEEDS to own an assault rifle unless their in the military or a police officer.[/QUOTE] Last I heard, the good old United Kingdom had a dramatic increase in handgun crime ever since they banned them. You are aware that not very many people have selective-fire rifles and the old "ban on assault weapons" mainly refers to semi-automatic versions of military rifles? I'll list what the old ban states the characteristics of an typical "assault weapon". Two or more of the following: [b]1. Capability of accepting high-capacity detachable magazines or more than 10 rounds.[/b] * Reason? The criminal may operate an "assault weapon" longer without reloading. * Why it's silly: A handgun can be reloaded in less than 2 seconds with enough practice, thus having the ability to firing more bullets within the minute. Besides most gun crime (at least in the U.S.) are caused by criminals using firearms like these: MP-25, a "Saturday Night Special" [sp]or cheap handgun[/sp] [IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/15rdtz8.jpg[/IMG] Mossberg 500, the same one the police use! [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/33yg9e0.jpg[/IMG] [b]2. Folding/Telescoping stock[/b] * Reason? It'd be easy to conceal an "assault weapon" under a jacket or coat. * Why it's silly: If a criminal wanted to hide an "assault weapon" under thick clothing and then begin a sudden shooting spree, why bother looking for an "assault weapon" with a folding/telescoping stock? It takes some time to even get the damn thing down anyways. [b]3. Pistol grip[/b] * Reason? Easier to shoot from the hip. * Why it's silly: Any firearm can be shot from the hip and pistol grips do nothing to make it easier. Long guns are meant to be fired while braced against the shoulder for the purpose of accuracy and recoil absorption, hip-shooting long guns will give you little-to-none accuracy and will throw the barrel around. [b]4. Bayonet mount[/b] * Reason? Grants the ability to attach an extra weapon to the "assault weapon". * Why it's silly: When was the last time there was a bayonet crime? [b]5. Flash suppressor or threaded barrel to attach one[/b] * Reason? Reduces muzzle flash. * Why it's...yeah: Have you ever heard of a muzzle brake? It's an attachment at the end of a firearm to reduce muzzle climb. What does this have to do with flash suppressors? Can you tell the difference between the two? [IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/ousad5.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/20k6r92.jpg[/IMG] [sp]Left: Muzzle break Right: Flash suppressor[/sp] [b]6. Grenade launchers[/b] * Reason? Destruction! * Why...you know: Take a guess on which of the two would be banned. [IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/2dkhj41.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/122ki39.jpg[/IMG] [sp]The one to the left, though I hear the one to the right is basically already banned.[/sp] Got an antique grenade launcher? How about looking in eBay for the grenade? Make sure you don't load it into the wrong firearm because it might not fit in the barrel!
[QUOTE=Mudbone;22070463]back I was eating lunch. Yes even if guns are banned some criminals will still have access to them but if it lowers crime even a little bit and puts these people in jail for even a little bit longer then why not? I'm not saying ban hunting rifles or anything like that, I just see no reason someone NEEDS to own an assault rifle unless their in the military or a police officer.[/QUOTE] You just don't get it do you? Gun bans raise crime rates. Just look at Britain. Their rates have risen steadily for years. So have Australia's. What do they have in common? Extremely broad bans on weapons. Time and time again the areas with easier access to guns for the law abiding have seen decreases in crime.
All weapon laws are unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;22072819]All weapon laws are unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Even one that gave all citizens access to weapons?
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;22065066]newsflash: most gun owners are law abiding citizens. having a gun =/= automatically hurt people[/QUOTE] jdk has his shit DOWN no one has ever used a gun to hurt a person [editline]05:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=dogmachines;22072796]You just don't get it do you? Gun bans raise crime rates. Just look at Britain. Their rates have risen steadily for years. So have Australia's. What do they have in common? Extremely broad bans on weapons. Time and time again the areas with easier access to guns for the law abiding have seen decreases in crime.[/QUOTE] Norway is fictional. [editline]05:32PM[/editline] and Britain has a very rocky crime rate. You haven't actually read into this, have you? [editline]05:33PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jenkem;22065423]Military-grade assault weapons are being used by the drug cartels, and those happen to not be legal for sale to the general public. It's a lie when they say that the US is producing them and that gun control will stop them from buying more; it won't. Average citizens can't distribute them, and only the government actually has legal access to, say, buy from Colt's stock of M16s.[/QUOTE] i don't think drug cartels are using US government weapons lol you have no idea what you're talking about.
Trotsky's arguments "I ignore arguments, mis interpret what I need to, and misunderstand arguments intentionally so I don't have to formulate a real argument, or admit I might be wrong about something." [editline]01:57PM[/editline] In every thread, and in every argument.
thanks freud [editline]09:03PM[/editline] Norway proves him wrong.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;22084371]jdk has his shit DOWN no one has ever used a gun to hurt a person[/QUOTE] correlation does not imply causation. and he's also talking about LEGAL gun owners. [quote]Norway is fictional.[/quote]so is switzerland [quote]and Britain has a very rocky crime rate. You haven't actually read into this, have you?[/quote] yeah instead of gun crime (which still exists in britain) you have chavs shanking everyone for their ipods
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;22087940]thanks freud [editline]09:03PM[/editline] Norway proves him wrong.[/QUOTE] I didn't know all cultures world wide were the same, and not only that, but in fact had the same statistics for guns in circulation, crime rates, gang rates, and everything else. That's all the same isn't it?
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;22087940]thanks freud [editline]09:03PM[/editline] Norway proves him wrong.[/QUOTE] switzerland proves you wrong.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;22088020]switzerland proves you wrong.[/QUOTE] They're too busy admiring their epic landscape and making toblerones to kill people.
[QUOTE=windwakr;22065203]Ok, they wouldn't be used for self defense, and you wouldn't use them for hunting. So, why do people need them? I can see why people need normal rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But I see no legitimate reason as to why people need to own assault weapons. EDIT: Guy below me, nice avatar![/QUOTE] There's no legitimate reason to have a car that can break the speed limit either. Its sole purpose is to break the law, then. Same way with guns. It doesn't matter what it is, it's how its used. Banning them because they don't conform to what you consider tasteful of tactful to own is ridiculous.
No thanks, Mexico. Y'see semi automatic assault type rifles are virtually never used in the commission of a crime. In fact virtually nothing with a price tag above about 250 USD is ever used in a crime. So not only does the government technically lack the right, but it also lacks the reason to ban them.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22089637]No thanks, Mexico. Y'see semi automatic assault type rifles are virtually never used in the commission of a crime. In fact virtually nothing with a price tag above about 250 USD is ever used in a crime. So not only does the government technically lack the right, but it also lacks the reason to ban them.[/QUOTE] Gunfox, you're my favorite mod for this very reason. You always give the most practical view on the simple issues.
FYI, most of the assault rifles floating into Mexico come from the US. I suppose more money should probably be put into finding gun runners, as apposed to restricting gun ownership. I'm guessing these assault rifles were not acquired in a legit manner. granted, most of these assault rifles were probably once bought legitly, but probably got stolen. that's the real danger of owning "assault weapons" is the fact that they might get stolen and sold on the underground market. I think Americans just like to kill each other, if they didn't have guns they'd do it with something else.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22089637]No thanks, Mexico. Y'see semi automatic assault type rifles are virtually never used in the commission of a crime. In fact virtually nothing with a price tag above about 250 USD is ever used in a crime. So not only does the government technically lack the right, but it also lacks the reason to ban them.[/QUOTE] lol, ok, please source this [editline]01:29AM[/editline] [QUOTE=the_KMM;22092492]Gunfox, you're my favorite mod for this very reason. You always give the most practical view on the simple issues.[/QUOTE] especially when he says the US never malicious attacks anyone, that's TOTALLY practical. [editline]01:30AM[/editline] what the FUCK do you need with a god damn machine gun anyway?
Without the Second Amendment all other Rights are worthless.
why do you people need assault rifles anyway?
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;22093082]what the FUCK do you need with a god damn machine gun anyway?[/QUOTE] What do you need with the internet anyways? It being fun to use, enjoyable, or interesting isn't a viable answer. Also I believe you don't even know what an "assault weapon" is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.