Senate Comittee approves Assault Weapons Ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39913383]The implication from the site is that it's an unbiased source of information, when it actually leans too far in one direction to be considered unbiased. For instance, blaming Al Gore losing the election in 2000 on the AWB is a pretty obvious one.[/QUOTE] Aren't you in everyone of these threads arguing for stupid shit like this?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39944958]Funny that you've obviously not done any research, because [I][B]post [U]1986[/U][/B][/I] there are no new 'assault rifles' for sale, their production has already been banned for civilian use. An 'assault weapons' ban is petty and will do nothing to stop actual crime.[/QUOTE] Alright, I didn't know that, but the thing is, why do many Americans have or want to have assault rifles? Are you at war? It's pointless. Some states even allow a person to openly carry a rifle. What's the purpose of such thing, it's stupid. I am just trying to figure out why is America so pro gun.

[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39945171]Alright, I didn't know that, but the thing is, why do many Americans have or want to have assault rifles? Are you at war? It's pointless. Some states even allow a person to openly carry a rifle. What's the purpose of such thing, it's stupid. I am just trying to figure out why is America so pro gun.[/QUOTE] Just because you don't see a purpose to it doesn't mean it should be banned. Also, why was your response to being corrected on Assault Weapon vs Assault Rifle to make the same mistake again?

[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39945171]Alright, I didn't know that, but the thing is, why do many Americans have or want to have assault rifles? Are you at war? It's pointless. Some states even allow a person to openly carry a rifle. What's the purpose of such thing, it's stupid. I am just trying to figure out why is America so pro gun.[/QUOTE] Because being able to defend yourself is something a lot of people want. It's okay in Europe where guns are enforced heavily (but no, they aren't illegal - you can for example legally own an AR15 in the UK, you have to apply to the home secretary for such a right though...) but we're also somewhat more safeguarded from tyranny because of the EU so there isn't much need to bear arms.

[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39945171]Alright, I didn't know that, but the thing is, why do many Americans have or want to have assault rifles? Are you at war? It's pointless. Some states even allow a person to openly carry a rifle. What's the purpose of such thing, it's stupid. I am just trying to figure out why is America so pro gun.[/QUOTE] Figuratively, an AWB would not achieve jackshit. The so called "assault weapons" (semi-automatic rifles), are only used in about roughly 1% - 3% of the overall homicides in the United States of America. This does not give a good reason to outlaw them nor does it give reason to add more restrictions to the purchase of them. As for why Americans like firearms... It's entirely what it is. We can freely own and experiment with firearms, so long as we are a lawful citizen. I personally find great joy in taking apart firearms like my Makarov and Gewehr 98, and just simply learning about the inner-workings of them.

[QUOTE=Legend286;39945298]Because being able to defend yourself is something a lot of people want. It's okay in Europe where guns are enforced heavily (but no, they aren't illegal - you can for example legally own an AR15 in the UK, you have to apply to the home secretary for such a right though...) but we're also somewhat more safeguarded from tyranny because of the EU so there isn't much need to bear arms.[/QUOTE] A colt would do the same job as an assault rifle. unless you wanna gibb him up bad.

[QUOTE=Shoopiwoop;39945330]A colt would do the same job as an assault rifle. unless you wanna gibb him up bad.[/QUOTE] You do realize that Colt developed the AR-15?

[QUOTE=Shoopiwoop;39945330]A colt would do the same job as an assault rifle. unless you wanna gibb him up bad.[/QUOTE] Assault Rifle = Select Fire Capability "Assault Weapons" = Scary black rifles that only have semi-automatic capability.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39945310]Figuratively, an AWB would not achieve jackshit. The so called "assault weapons" (semi-automatic rifles), are only used in about roughly 1% - 3% of the overall homicides in the United States of America. This does not give a good reason to outlaw them nor does it give reason to add more restrictions to the purchase of them.[/QUOTE] You don't want to reduce that 1-3%? According to [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]this[/URL] site that would reduce deaths per year by almost 300-400 in the USA depending on whether your number of "all homicides" was all firearm homicide or all homicide in general. Assuming the policy is effective. I am not saying this policy is a good idea, I am just saying why hasn't there been an alternative proposal to reduce these homicides. Bans on hand guns would never fly in the USA, but assault weapons have a greater chance. You can't actually restrict hand guns, but you have that possibility with these assault weapons (I hope that's the right term). [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39945310]just simply learning about the inner-workings of them[/QUOTE] Why not a watch? What is it about a firearm that is more interesting?

[QUOTE=gerbe1;39945385]You don't want to reduce that 1-3%? [/QUOTE] You know it's funny how we only use that logic on firearms, and not literally everything else.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39945342]Assault Rifle = Select Fire Capability "Assault Weapons" = Scary black rifles that only have semi-automatic capability.[/QUOTE] oh well the more guns banned the better

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39945341]You do realize that Colt developed the AR-15?[/QUOTE] Well, Armatech developed it but Colt turned it into a fully-automatic Assault Rifle for the Military.

[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39945171]Alright, I didn't know that, but the thing is, why do many Americans have or want to have assault rifles? Are you at war? It's pointless. Some states even allow a person to openly carry a rifle. What's the purpose of such thing, it's stupid. I am just trying to figure out why is America so pro gun.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]For one[/URL] Secondly, if you're wanting to reduce crime, then banning semi automatic rifles of any sort is silly. Like Joe said, they're used in about 1% of crime annually. The first AWB in the 1990's had very very little affect on crime overall, all it did was piss off legal gun owners, turn many of them into paper criminals, and inconvenienced them.

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;39945412]You know it's funny how we only use that logic on firearms, and not literally everything else.[/QUOTE] Yes there are x number of vehicle accidents in the USA, but there is already heavy regulation on that, the more money you spend trying to regulate the less effective every dollar is. But the firearms we are talking about have limited regulation, right? So it takes less money to reduce these deaths than it does to reduce the deaths of those in car crashes.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39945341]You do realize that Colt developed the AR-15?[/QUOTE] i was talking about the pistol though

[QUOTE=gerbe1;39945385]You don't want to reduce that 1-3%? According to [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]this[/URL] site that would reduce deaths per year by almost 300-400 in the USA depending on whether your number of "all homicides" was all firearm homicide or all homicide in general. Assuming the policy is effective. I am not saying this policy is a good idea, I am just saying why hasn't there been an alternative proposal to reduce these homicides. Bans on hand guns would never fly in the USA, but assault weapons have a greater chance. You can't actually restrict hand guns, but you have that possibility with these assault weapons (I hope that's the right term). [/quote] Instead of banning something that will have absolutely no significant affect on crime overall, how about you invest on something that will? Like poverty in urban areas, social issues, and the piss poor mental health care in the US. [QUOTE=gerbe1;39945385] Why not a watch? What is it about a firearm that is more interesting?[/QUOTE] Because it's his hobby? He finds firearms more interesting than watches, probably like how you might find a compute more interesting than a rifle.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;39945440]Yes there are x number of vehicle accidents in the USA, but there is already heavy regulation on that, the more money you spend trying to regulate the less effective every dollar is. But the firearms we are talking about have limited regulation, right? So it takes less money to reduce these deaths than it does to reduce the deaths of those in car crashes.[/QUOTE] No, we don't have "limited regulation", Firearms are actually heavily regulated if you actually look at the laws on the books, and not just what you believe from popculture. [editline]17th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Shoopiwoop;39945445]i was talking about the pistol though[/QUOTE] That's like saying "Ford" to talk about a specific brand of car.

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;39945412]You know it's funny how we only use that logic on firearms, and not literally everything else.[/QUOTE] It's also funny how so many people assume that removing some long guns is going to remove the ability and desire of people to commit violent crimes.

[QUOTE=Shoopiwoop;39945445]i was talking about the pistol though[/QUOTE] Colt has designed many, many pistols over the years. For all we know you're talking about the peacemaker.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39945480]Colt has designed many, many pistols over the years. For all we know you're talking about the peacemaker.[/QUOTE] Oh come on now let's not get into semantics for the sake of getting into it.

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;39945448]No, we don't have "limited regulation", Firearms are actually heavily regulated if you actually look at the laws on the books, and not just what you believe from popculture. [editline]17th March 2013[/editline] That's like saying "Ford" to talk about a specific brand of car.[/QUOTE] Heavy regulation is what we have in Australia. The USA does not have heavy regulation. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39945446]Instead of banning something that will have absolutely no significant affect on crime overall, how about you invest on something that will? Like poverty in urban areas, social issues, and the piss poor mental health care in the US.[/QUOTE] All I am saying is this should be a simple way of removing those homicides. If there wasn't so much opposition, it would not cost very much at all therefore it could be used in conjunction with the other things you've mentioned. I'll stop now. I'm not going to change anyone's mind.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;39945507] All I am saying is this should be a simple way of removing those homicides. If there wasn't so much opposition, it would not cost very much at all therefore it could be used in conjunction with the other things you've mentioned. I'll stop now. I'm not going to change anyone's mind.[/QUOTE] The few hundred deaths a year would more effectively be stopped by working on the issues I stated. Yes it would take a while, but it would be a much more worth while pursuit than legislation that makes soccer moms feel safe.

Ok to sum it up, I agree that the way to fight gun crime is to fight poverty and invest in creating new jobs, making certain places better to live in and generally just giving people a future to look for, so they don't turn to violence and guns. But, do you think that the US Government should make obtaining weapons much more strict, as in the process of being checked should be longer and more detailed? Like background check, going to a doctor and psychiatrist and finally education on using a firearm responsibly? I think that would have a bigger impact than simply banning everything perhaps.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;39945385]You don't want to reduce that 1-3%? According to [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]this[/URL] site that would reduce deaths per year by almost 300-400 in the USA depending on whether your number of "all homicides" was all firearm homicide or all homicide in general. Assuming the policy is effective. I am not saying this policy is a good idea, I am just saying why hasn't there been an alternative proposal to reduce these homicides. Bans on hand guns would never fly in the USA, but assault weapons have a greater chance. You can't actually restrict hand guns, but you have that possibility with these assault weapons (I hope that's the right term). Why not a watch? What is it about a firearm that is more interesting?[/QUOTE] Your problem child with guns isn't rifles or shotguns though. Saturday night specials are the major, major problem child. Reducing handgun crimes from 65% to even 50% would be the same equivalent as outlawing shotguns, rifles, and restricting knife sales for christ sake. Even then I'm heavily against handgun restrictions as-well. The problem we have here isn't cultural, but rather the issue is social. Also in regards to your last question... A firearm is a piece of art. It requires you to be a master of craft in so much, that to simply ignore it for not being artwork would be insane. Not to mention, I do take an interest in pocketwatches as much as I take interest in firearms. I'm all around intrigued by the construction of items, and enjoy taking things apart, and being able to watch them operate.

[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39945637]Ok to sum it up, I agree that the way to fight gun crime is to fight poverty and invest in creating new jobs, making certain places better to live in and generally just giving people a future to look for, so they don't turn to violence and guns. But, do you think that the US Government should make obtaining weapons much more strict, as in the process of being checked should be longer and more detailed? Like background check, going to a doctor and psychiatrist and finally education on using a firearm responsibly? I think that would have a bigger impact than simply banning everything perhaps.[/QUOTE] Please do your research. As it stands now, when you purchase a firearm (you have to be 18 to buy a rifle, 21 to buy a handgun) you go through a backround check. Even if you pass it, the person selling you the firearm has the right to deny you sale for any reason they see fit. So if you come in with a swastika on your forehead, but pass a BG check, the person selling you the gun can still deny you sale. Straw sales are against the law unless it's a parent buying a firearm for their child. I'd be for psychiatric checks, but whose going to pay for the check ups? How often do I need to get one? How will they know that I got one? Will I be issued a permit? As it stands, if you want to get a class 3 permit through the ATF, it takes a metric fuck-load of paper work, tons of cash has to be thrown at them, and it takes months for you to get any sort of response back. The system takes long enough as it is, how badly do you think it will break when you get about a 100 million people all at once wanting to get permits?

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39945888]Please do your research. As it stands now, when you purchase a firearm (you have to be 18 to buy a rifle, 21 to buy a handgun) you go through a backround check. Even if you pass it, the person selling you the firearm has the right to deny you sale for any reason they see fit. So if you come in with a swastika on your forehead, but pass a BG check, the person selling you the gun can still deny you sale. Straw sales are against the law unless it's a parent buying a firearm for their child. [/QUOTE] Straw sales are only illegal if the person the straw purchaser is lied about, as in, putting in a false name, or if the person cannot legally own a firearm in any way. You can buy a gun for almost anyone, provided that you don't lie about anything, and they aren't a convicted felon or any such thing.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39945888]Please do your research. As it stands now, when you purchase a firearm (you have to be 18 to buy a rifle, 21 to buy a handgun) you go through a backround check. Even if you pass it, the person selling you the firearm has the right to deny you sale for any reason they see fit. So if you come in with a swastika on your forehead, but pass a BG check, the person selling you the gun can still deny you sale. Straw sales are against the law unless it's a parent buying a firearm for their child. I'd be for psychiatric checks, but whose going to pay for the check ups? How often do I need to get one? How will they know that I got one? Will I be issued a permit? As it stands, if you want to get a class 3 permit through the ATF, it takes a metric fuck-load of paper work, tons of cash has to be thrown at them, and it takes months for you to get any sort of response back. The system takes long enough as it is, how badly do you think it will break when you get about a 100 million people all at once wanting to get permits?[/QUOTE] Your government is spending tens of billions on wars. And they are spending hundreds of billions on the military. Cut a bit from that and you will have plenty of money for check ups. And you will also have plenty to form an efficient system.

[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39946417]Your government is spending tens of billions on wars. And they are spending hundreds of billions on the military. Cut a bit from that and you will have plenty of money for check ups. And you will also have plenty to form an efficient system.[/QUOTE] I am getting really sick of hearing the cut the military argument. They did. By a good amount already. Mostly personnel costs, that being college assistance, dining facilities, meal allowances, cost of living adjustment, and sheer numbers, that being 189,000 from the Army alone. So please, taking money away from a budget of one government entity does not mean that it will go towards another government program or entity. It is cut, not redistributed.

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;39945426]Well, Armatech developed it but Colt turned it into a fully-automatic Assault Rifle for the Military.[/QUOTE] Armalite, and actually Colt developed it into a sporting rifle. Not to mention the designation "AR-15" is only the given name to civilian semi-auto models.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39945242] Also, why was your response to being corrected on Assault Weapon vs Assault Rifle to make the same mistake again?[/QUOTE] don't be insufferable with this shit. nobody cares about the difference other than gun nuts