Democrats to pursue assault weapons ban, as Sandy Hook Elementary 'unlikely to re-open'
232 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tea;38854986]it'll certainly help[/QUOTE]
Not really.
Think about it this way, if a guy wants to plot a mass murder he/she will find a way. Look at something such as the Oklahoma City bombing; not a single firearm was used. Everything could essentially be found on your average farm or purchased at any hardware and farm supply store.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38854662]Well here's an idea:
Rather than waiting for the government to collapse into tyranny and then removing it with guns, we could actually vote them out before it's too late instead.[/QUOTE]
Daww, you're so cute. Thinking that the people actually control who's in power in this country.
Corporate lobbyists control this nation, it's why we had leaded fuel that we knew caused brain damage all over the country until the 1990's.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38854925]Except in both cases, extraneous variables are to blame.[/QUOTE]
What's to prevent extraneous variables happening here, too? The same thing that happened to Germany is happening right now in Greece.
Well yes, I understand it was written in the context of that time, when things were different.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38854925]America was a tiny agricultural nation of loose towns and farms populated with former criminals, religious loonies, refugees, mercenaries, and rich people exploiting them all.
Today it's quite large with massive metropolis scattered here and there, and very powerful too.
Plus two centuries of economic, social, political and military change occurred. Some laws don't apply forever.[/QUOTE]
And why shouldn't a right to bear arms apply? It wasn't made to protect from other nations, which is what you seem to think. It was to protect against a tyrannical government from forming if our government fails.
[QUOTE=Tea;38854986]it'll certainly help[/QUOTE]
The National Institute of Justice, the Center for Disease Control, and the National Research Council all agree that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004 had a negligible impact on crime, and it's re-institution would do little today.
[QUOTE=znk666;38855020]It is only common sense to prevent average people from accessing military grade assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
It's only common sense to keep people from having kitchen knives, they're larger and sharper than butter knives, plus why would anyone except a chef need access to them?
[QUOTE=znk666;38855020]It is only common sense to prevent average people from accessing military grade assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
And that's why they're already illegal, or extremely restricted. The semiautomatic clones available to the civilian market are neither military grade, nor assault rifles.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38855053]What's to prevent extraneous variables happening here, too? The same thing that happened to Germany is happening right now in Greece.
Well yes, I understand it was written in the context of that time, when things were different.
And why shouldn't a right to bear arms apply? It wasn't made to protect from other nations, which is what you seem to think. It was to protect against a tyrannical government from forming if our government fails.[/QUOTE]
Also to protect against unjust rebellions. Such as if a minority milita (because not all militias in the country are actually like this) becomes violent and acts out, the people can respond and help defend their nation.
-snip-
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38855062]And that's why they're already illegal, or extremely restricted. The semiautomatic clones available to the civilian market are neither military grade, nor assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
Automatic / military grade rifles are restricted to a class 3 license that only former/active military/government and law enforcement can purchase and own.
[QUOTE=znk666;38855020]It is only common sense to prevent average people from accessing military grade assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
But they aren't military grade...
People seem to not understand the differences between a sporting rifle and "Military" assault rifle.
if you believe that democracy is working well your delusional.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854769]That's unrelated? I don't kill people every time I shoot at targets.[/QUOTE]
I can't really kill someone with a copy of GTAIV (well except breaking the disk in two and slicing their throat with it, but then it would be easier to just strangle them)
I can with a loaded gun, even at a distance and as quick as pulling the trigger.
Not to mention the original design and use guns were meant for.
they are [I]DESIGNED[/I] for providing a easy way of putting a small bit of metal into or through something or someone, and that can even be accomplished with a small air rifle, except with greatly reduced potential lethality.
[QUOTE=draugur;38855083]Automatic / military grade rifles are restricted to a class 3 license that only former/active military/government and law enforcement can purchase and own.[/QUOTE]
In the US you can get an auto with a 6-months waiting period, an extensive background check, and at least $20'000 to shell out. And normal civilians (mostly gunsmiths) can get a Class 3 license too, but it's really hard to get and you'll be under great surveillance.
It's mostly for rich collectors who can afford plinking at targets with really expensive guns.
yes and they also manage very well in different roles like hunting.
It's amazing the power and effect this one man had by opening fire on a school and completely devastating so many people.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38855053]And why shouldn't a right to bear arms apply? It wasn't made to protect from other nations, which is what you seem to think. [/QUOTE]
It actually was.
The new country didn't have a standing military, and instead largely relied on its citizenry.
It could barely hold itself together, let alone maintain an army.
Anyone who wants to kill someone with an automatic weapon is an idiot anyway. You'll waste all of your ammo like a scrub.
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38855110]if you believe that democracy is working well your delusional.[/QUOTE]
So what instead? A dictatorship?
Democracy is actually quantifiable to a degree, and America ticks more boxes than China does (who ticks more than North Korea).
[QUOTE=Kwigg;38853911]Can I ask - WHY would a person even need an assault weapon in the first place? I can understand a simple little handgun for emergencies - maybe even a simple rifle/shotgun for hunting, but why an assault weapon?[/QUOTE]
Because the military has them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38855185]So what instead? A dictatorship?
Democracy is actually quantifiable to a degree, and America ticks more boxes than China does (who ticks more than North Korea).[/QUOTE]
The United States needs a government that isn't on it's ass. for the most part the type doesn't matter, but if you at the U.S.A the democracy isn't working
i refuse to believe that's it's just the president and a bunch of idiotic congressmen leading the country.
the president is a puppet.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38855171]It actually was.
The new country didn't have a standing military, and instead largely relied on its citizenry.
It could barely hold itself together, let alone maintain an army.[/QUOTE]
It had multiple purposes; one being to prevent other nations from domestically invading. Another purpose was and is for citizens to be able to form a militia that can also defend itself and the nation from a tyrannical government. This was very much intended as a way to prevent future generations from struggling against aggressors of freedom.
Point: If the US ever pulled an England the founding fathers wanted to ensure we as citizens could put a stop to it.
[QUOTE=Van-man;38855114]I can't really kill someone with a copy of GTAIV (well except breaking the disk in two and slicing their throat with it, but then it would be easier to just strangle them)
I can with a loaded gun, even at a distance and as quick as pulling the trigger.
Not to mention the original design and use guns were meant for.
they are [I]DESIGNED[/I] for providing a easy way of putting a small bit of metal into or through something or someone, and that can even be accomplished with a small air rifle, except with greatly reduced potential lethality.[/QUOTE]
So? It doesn't mean you're forced to murder people because you own one. If you're actually sane, there's no problem with owning a gun besides "omg they're scary and can kill people if you're a fucking idiot"
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38855232]It had multiple purposes; one being to prevent other nations from domestically invading. Another purpose was and is for citizens to be able to form a militia that can also defend itself and the nation from a tyrannical government. This was very much intended as a way to prevent future generations from struggling against aggressors of freedom.
Point: If the US ever pulled an England the founding fathers wanted to ensure we as citizens could put a stop to it.[/QUOTE]
Pulled an England? Please, the American Revolution was a complete and utter farce.
Also it was the United Kingdom, not England.
[editline]16th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38855231]i refuse to believe that's it's just the president and a bunch of idiotic congressmen leading the country.
the president is a puppet.[/QUOTE]
say what you like, but the guy has a considerable degree of power
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38855566][b]Pulled an England? Please, the American Revolution was a complete and utter farce.[/b]
Also it was the United Kingdom, not England.
[editline]16th December 2012[/editline]
say what you like, but the guy has a considerable degree of power[/QUOTE]
What.
An assault rifle is a far superior weapon compared to a handgun even if it is semiauto.
Even if the killer stole the weapons from his mother, it is still the high availability of guns that is the main problem.
There should be a ban on weapons that are primarily designed to be used in warfare. And it should be harder to aquire weapons by creating more restrictions. Here in sweden you need to get a hunters licence for rifles that are designed for hunting. To get a pistol you have to be an active member for 6 months in a gunclub and after that get approved by other members in the club if you are eligible to store a gun at home.
Less guns in fewer homes would makes the chances for future accidents and shootings smaller.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38855566]Pulled an England? Please, the American Revolution was a complete and utter farce.
[/QUOTE]
Say that to me on the field of battle and not online, dirty redcoat.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38855603]What.[/QUOTE]
It was a poorly managed war by both sides, with pretty much false or exaggerated reasons for seceding, and was only saved because Britain's enemies joined in the fun.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38855566]Pulled an England? Please, the American Revolution was a complete and utter farce.
Also it was the United Kingdom, not England.
[editline]16th December 2012[/editline]
say what you like, but the guy has a considerable degree of power[/QUOTE]
Well, I found you to be a fairly reasonable debater until the nationalistic dick waving.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38855913]Well, I found you to be a fairly reasonable debater until the nationalistic dick waving.[/QUOTE]
Not nationalistic dick-waving. Britain was one of the freest places in Europe at the time (and gave a considerable degree of autonomy to the colonies).
[QUOTE=Stalk;38855635]An assault rifle is a far superior weapon compared to a handgun even if it is semiauto.
Even if the killer stole the weapons from his mother, it is still the high availability of guns that is the main problem.
There should be a ban on weapons that are primarily designed to be used in warfare. And it should be harder to aquire weapons by creating more restrictions. Here in sweden you need to get a hunters licence for rifles that are designed for hunting. To get a pistol you have to be an active member for 6 months in a gunclub and after that get approved by other members in the club if you are eligible to store a gun at home.
Less guns in fewer homes would makes the chances for future accidents and shootings smaller.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, that's all in place still. An assault weapon is a meaningless term that media and lawmakers made up.
There's no way to disarm america. America has so many guns prevalent through it's culture, but there's a huge amount of guns already distrubuted throughout the country. These can't be taken away feasibly or without great difficulty that would not be worth the effort. These guns and people who own them can also not be made to go through background checks feasibly(This is what we really need to do though, thorough and complete checks as well as mandatory safety training and what not). And not that even taking the guns away or banning them would help.
The high availabilty of guns is the problem but it's not one you can actively deal with that simply. Laws that require guns to be kept locked under bolt and key are good laws, and we need to start treading down this path. We need to start educating people en masse about the dangers of guns and the responsibility that you must carry out when owning one.
Sadly though, this will not stop all the shootings or killings because the other problems are the media, and the people who do this themselves primarily.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.