Assualt weapons ban expires
- Thread starter Xavier
- Start date
Okay, first of all, you're saying it takes 10 bullets to kill a human being? That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Especially since in your average break-in type scenario, you're going to be encountering someone at fairly close range. Secondly, why is it an advantage or at all necessary to kill someone with more ease? If someone breaks into your house, wouldn't you want to see if they're willing to surrender, or disable them (ie, shoot them in the leg or something) before you kill them outright? Your average handgun is already more than enough of a deterrent, IMHO. Most people will give up if they have a gun pointed at them.
Perhaps, but nearly every gun on the black market was obtained legally by someone, and then sold to someone else illegally (or stolen by them, etc). If all these weapons were illegal to sell or possess, it would be much harder for anyone to obtain them in the first place, and so far fewer of them would end up in the hands of criminals.
It's much harder to shoot someone than it is to slice them with a sword? That's just ridiculous. In the first place, if anyone is close enough to be cut by someone wielding a sword, it's going to be very difficult to miss them with most firearms. Secondly, if you're coming at me with a sword, I can run away from you, whereas if you have a gun, you can shoot me in the back. If you're talking about, say, surprising one person and killing them with a sword, then I suppose you might have a point, but in a situation where a crowd is involved (which is what we were talking about), the majority are going to have much more of a chance to get away from someone with a sword.
Even if this is true, it assumes a successful strike. You've not really provided much of an argument that the tactical limitations of a gun substantially outweigh those of a sword in anything but scenarios within arm's length. In particular, without a huge amount of training it takes a lot less time to pull a trigger than to perform an effective sword strike (I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect that it's around a couple orders of magnitude difference for a sword capable of doing any real damage), to say nothing of strength - being able to effectively stop the strike is as important as being able to start it; if you don't do so the sword swings you, likely into a vulnerable position - and coordination.
I don't care where the original argument came from, he's making it an issue to scare people. Some people will just suck his words up. The idea is that you have to meet certain requirements to buy a gun in the first place, such as being a law-abiding US citizen. I think people who buy firearms should have to pass competency tests with them, I think there are other restrictions that can (and sometimes are, depending on state) be applied here. But there's no reason to ban them. It won't stop people from obtaining them through other means.
<!--QuoteBegin-ExCyber
That's only true if you have an unlimited supply of money; the ban could raise the expense of obtaining an "assault weapon" beyond what you are willing or able to pay. Generally, though, the goal of lawmakers is not to make it impossible to commit crimes, and I don't think anyone made the argument that the ban makes it impossible to obtain these weapons.[/quote]Banning them in the US doesn't mean you can't steal them or smuggle them in. Also, some of these terrorist groups are actually extremely well funded. Banning assault weapons won't stop them. It won't even stop your garden variety domestic killers - but they will have to resort to wimpy handguns (<-sarcasm). Too bad they're lethal too. That's the same idea as banning "high capacity" mags. Oh no, now they can't slaughter quite as many people quite as quickly. Now, banning ALL firearms, limiting manufacture of them, and limiting distribution to military/police would eventually put a dent in crimes involving firearms. Unfortunetely, it would also make people utterly helpless whenever someone with bad intentions does get their hands on one.
During the ban? Oh no! Looks like the ban isn't working!
I'll leave with this. I don't object to the ban... but I understand how little the ban expiring means for availability of lethal killing weapons. So they're making an issue out of it to scare people who don't know any better, and that I object to.
9mm bullets are weak, it takes a lot of them to do damage. In police training they teach you to aim for the hostile target's chest and keep firing until they go down. I thought it was a known fact that you aren't going to kill someone with one or two shots from a handgun. Sure you could try and incapacitate someone that enters your house with a leg shot. But would you really want to leave the perp alive? The moment you draw a gun, he has one goal: to take you down before getting killed. How do you know he won't pull out a gun after you think he surrendered. And besides if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to kill them if you say you thought your life was threatened--I personally would take advantage of that.
It does not take any strength to cut a jugular vein or carotid artery (left and right side of the neck respectively) assuming one side of you sword has a sharp edge. A hard swing isn't necesary. Let's say a crazed maniac is on a rampage in an office buiding and a hundred people are trying to get through one doorway. It is just as lethal (if not just faster) to start slicing necks open, that it is to shoot two people with a double-barrelled shotgun, reload and repeat. And for chrissakes the sword was just an example to show that you can kill people with anything. I challenge anyone to find me an item from around the house that can't be used as a weapon. I personally prefer swords over guns because I'm a traditional guy
, however I will concede that the majority of people are more dangerous with a gun.I brought this conversation down to a pretty low level, lets go back towards the actual change of policy.
I don't think the prominence of that manual has been substantiated at all; I was just presenting it to show the non-soundbite version of the argument, and because it's good to know where the soundbite issues come from because it informs us about political allegiances. As for using this as an Issue, I think people on both sides of the aisle seriously need to stop justifying their policy decisions with "trust me or the terrorist bogeyman will get you!". I'm really not impressed with Kerry right now - he was supposed to be running a campaign based on hope for America's future and embracing the middle class, not Keno.
None of which applies to the argument I was responding to, which was about you personally getting a gun illegally. What you say here is pretty much true, and I particularly fail to see why terrorist groups situated in the Middle East need to fly across an ocean when they can probably get much more bang for their buck by raiding the corpse of the USSR.
Likewise. I was just about ready to start thinking that maybe Kerry wasn't a complete opportunistic dick, but then he had to go and disappoint me.
You know, I don't see why people feel fine making and hearing these sorts of comments, when a similar comment like "I hate #######," would result in a huge backlash from most nearly everyone. If it was on a message board, for example, that person would most likely be banned.
It could be argued that "I hate rednecks" is not the same kind of statement, because it does not single out a group of people (i.e. southerners), but only a particular type of southerner (the dumb kind).
However, "I hate dumb #######," sounds just as bad as "I hate #######," in my opinion, and would probably result in the same kind of backlash.
My literature teacher last year, who was the most PC guy I've met, used to dumb on the south all the time. This is just something that's always bothered me. I have a friend from the South who I've talked to about it, and he's told me about all the stereotypes he's encountered. People have actually told him he's naturally racist.
I apologize for how un-PC this post was, and also for its off-topicness. I hope I haven't offended too many people. I also hope this isn't taken as a personal attack on Gallstaff. And by no means do I condone racism. I'm merely pointing out that this mindset is very common in society today and it's based on the same ideas as racism. I just wish more people were aware of it.
Edit: Okay, it censored out the word I used, which is probably a good thing. Just replace the #s with your favorite racial slur.
----------------------
On topic, I'm indifferent to the gun ban. It really doesn't make much difference.
Bush has also said he's in favor of continuing it, but he's not actually pushing it or anything, so his support doesn't mean much.
Making all guns illegal would only increase the sale of them on the black market, make them more expensive, and the people who sell them illegally more rich. It would also put people who sell them legally out of work, and take away a means of defense from people who don't have connections with the black market.
I think this pretty much just sums up the fact that there are fundamental differences in our attitudes. Would I want to leave them alive? Yes, I would... personally I don't believe that someone deserves to die for committing a crime like burglary. How do I know he wouldn't pull a gun? Well, if I was in that situation, I would probably make the burglar get down on the ground or something, and tell my girlfriend to call the police. I think you're being a bit paranoid. Most people will back down when confronted with a gun, and although I don't have any stats on this, I'd be willing to bet that most people arrested for breaking and entering aren't carrying a gun. And, I have to say, I'm fairly disgusted by the way you phrased that last bit - you would 'take advantage' of the ability to kill someone without consequences? Why would you want to kill them if you could resolve the situation without doing so?
If you're going to fire a gun, you'd better shoot to kill. There's no other reason to be using it, and if you fire at a hand or something, you're not necessarily going to get one of those Hollywood shots. Especially if they aren't posing for you (read: moving). With that said, I would prefer not to kill someone if possible. But depending on the situation, I would put enough rounds in them to take them down. If it's a guy with a bat, I can probably shoot him once and just keep my gun leveled at him. As long as he's not jacked up on something, I wouldn't be too worried about him rushing me, and if he tries I'd shoot him again. But it's not always that clean cut, especially if they threaten more than just me. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to blow holes in someone, ever. But I would if I had to.
Food for thought:
In Australia, 1996, a single gunman armed with an AR-15 shot and killed 35 people and wounded another 18. This single event led to the forming of national gun control laws which, among other things, largely prohibited the ownership of "self loading" rifles and shotguns (with exemptions such as shooting clubs and farmers). In the 8 years since, there have been no cases of gun related mass-murder (4 or more people shot dead) recorded.
It's not like gun control here has irradicated shooting deaths, but I've certainly seen no evidence to suggest that non-ownership of semi- and automatic firearms makes you less safe.
In Australia, 1996, a single gunman armed with an AR-15 shot and killed 35 people and wounded another 18. This single event led to the forming of national gun control laws which, among other things, largely prohibited the ownership of "self loading" rifles and shotguns (with exemptions such as shooting clubs and farmers). In the 8 years since, there have been no cases of gun related mass-murder (4 or more people shot dead) recorded.
It's not like gun control here has irradicated shooting deaths, but I've certainly seen no evidence to suggest that non-ownership of semi- and automatic firearms makes you less safe.
Ok so lets recap , these weapons can be had by either bad guys , people who had them before the law was made or can prove it was manufactured beore the law was enacted , and people who have serious money and dont mind jumping through hoops . All this law did keep these systems out of the hands of the middle class more by making them insanely expensive for law abiding citizens .
It's just a feel good law . I'm dissapointed in the Kerry camp for bringing this up because Bush said if it ended upon his desk he'd pass it , it never ended up on his desk ...so whats he supposed to do ?
Arguements for home defense for any kind of assualt rifle semi or automatic is crazyness the bullets will go through your wall and a couple of your neighbors .
Right now nobody lives in front or in back of me or on either side so I may be able to get away with it for a bit . I would like an m4 for familiarisation and target practice .
Moutaindud is right though, most handgun caliber weapons would take at least a clip to put put somebody down .People high on PCP have been known to take 40+ rounds before stumbling down to the ground. (Thats why I believe Rodney King was just lucky he just got the shit beat out of him..but thats another thread .)
THis is why I fought of that mugger a couple of weeks ago I knew it used real small bullets and when I saw him go to cock it and take it off safe thats when I took my chance .
I believe this is why if I was another super power why I wouldnt want to declare a ground war in the United States is because we are armed to the the teeth more so than just about anybody else in the world excluding the persian gulf .
Its our right to bear arms but when weighed down with laws what it equals is you can own a 9mm handgun or self loading shotgun for $300+ if you can and want to be legal .
It's just a feel good law . I'm dissapointed in the Kerry camp for bringing this up because Bush said if it ended upon his desk he'd pass it , it never ended up on his desk ...so whats he supposed to do ?
Arguements for home defense for any kind of assualt rifle semi or automatic is crazyness the bullets will go through your wall and a couple of your neighbors .
Right now nobody lives in front or in back of me or on either side so I may be able to get away with it for a bit . I would like an m4 for familiarisation and target practice .
Moutaindud is right though, most handgun caliber weapons would take at least a clip to put put somebody down .People high on PCP have been known to take 40+ rounds before stumbling down to the ground. (Thats why I believe Rodney King was just lucky he just got the shit beat out of him..but thats another thread .)
THis is why I fought of that mugger a couple of weeks ago I knew it used real small bullets and when I saw him go to cock it and take it off safe thats when I took my chance .
I believe this is why if I was another super power why I wouldnt want to declare a ground war in the United States is because we are armed to the the teeth more so than just about anybody else in the world excluding the persian gulf .
Its our right to bear arms but when weighed down with laws what it equals is you can own a 9mm handgun or self loading shotgun for $300+ if you can and want to be legal .
It really is just two polar viewpoints here. Like someone else said, if you are going to shoot someone, shoot to kill. It's just a matter of procedure, you can't do something like that haphazardly. In theory you could disarm someone, but it seems pointless to me, you don't gain anything by having the burglar live. And really, when is it EVER justified to kill somebody? It's not, it's just something we do anyway.
You're disgusted by my insensative attitude? What ever happened to not making moral judgements of other people? That's why I can't stand that pie in the sky happy talk like yours, because us violent anti-social sadists get the shit end of the "Don't judge" stick. Why would I want to kill the hypothetical intruder? Because solving a problem peacefully is no fun at all.
You know, how would you know the person that's breaking into your home has no intentions of killing you? Some of these peoples don't give a rat ass about you. (They wouldn't be robbing you in the first place, right? ). I wouldn't wait for someone to shoot me first!
By the way, even if this assault weapon expired.. It would have no effect in California. There are laws in place that already prohibits it.
By the way, even if this assault weapon expired.. It would have no effect in California. There are laws in place that already prohibits it.
Originally posted by mal@Sep 13, 2004 @ 03:32 AM
It's discussions like these that make me glad that I don't live in the good old US of A.
I think the perception you have of the USA is wrong. It's not as bad as some people make it to be. Sure, it has it's bad side, just like any other country. I believe it has a lot more good than bad.
Yeah, I agree. American movies and media and whatever make it seem like people get shot here all the time, but in reality you're not going to get shot for no reason. You'd really have to be in a gang or running from the police. Hell if someone came into my house to rob me, they can have what they want, just don't move.
See, the problems with this logic are twofold: a> you don't seem to have much justification for it (think about it - the suppliers have to get their guns somewhere, and it's going to be much harder to obtain them if they have to smuggle them into the country), and b> 'increased traffic on the black market' does not equal 'increased availablility to criminals/potential criminals'.
Even accepting for a moment the insane notion that some other country would attempt to invade the US, I highly doubt private citizens with guns are going to be on the top of their list of threats. Really, the idea of people forming armed militias to protect the country is ridiculously archaic. I'm not saying people wouldn't do it, but if it came to that, civilians would be slaughtered by the thousands (and if you don't think so, just look at Iraq, where as you stated people are more heavily armed than they are here).
That's your opinion. I agree, there isn't any justification, other than self defense. That means the attacker is armed and trying to kill you. Everyone says 'if you're going to shoot, shoot to kill', but as I said, I believe most people will back down if confronted with a gun, and no one has yet explained exactly why you should shoot only to kill. I think if there is any way at all to avoid killing them, then there is no reason to do so. And what do you gain by having them alive? Well, the weight off your conscience seems pretty important to me. That may not be the case for you.
Okay, now you're just trying to get my goat.
I wouldn't, but I'd be willing to take the chance. I don't really believe in guns for self-defense anyway, but in any case, I think most people would try to avoid killing someone else if they could help it, and that includes burglars. It's people with cowardly attitudes like yours that make the police feel justified when they shoot and kill unarmed drunks, mentally retarded kids, etc. I feel sorry for anyone who's fearful enough to think that it's better to shoot first and ask questions later.
I think it would be better if your governments spend more money in the police (real cops not eaters of donuts) and more money to help and educate poor and marginal people. Europeans trust too much in the state but Americans don´t like state because it is dangerous for freedom (but you are not free if you are poor, live in the "wrong" part of the city and you do not have the same oprtunities as others). I think security is a function of the state (what the hell they do with your money then?).
