Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Ban Assault Weapons

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
December 19, 2012 1:06:16 AM

We have to reinstate the Assault law ban we had in the 60's.This is getting more horrific everyday we see and hear.There is no reason for people to have these semi automatic weapons at all.

More about : ban assault weapons

December 19, 2012 12:15:21 PM

An assault weapon is classified as a weapon that can hold a magazine, fire semi automatic, and must have* either a collapsable stock or pistol grip. There were a couple other items listed but not very common.

So, you can buy yourself an AR-15 without a collapsable stock and it is fine. If you buy one with an adjustable stock, it would be considered an assault weapon. In Vietnam they didn't have collapsable stocks... They're still made today with full A1 style stocks.

I liked the argument on Huffington Post. Hit the high capacity mags with a tax stamp like what is done with suppessors. Tack on $20 per mag, doubling the price. For reference, a suppressor costs starting around $600 and up, the tax stamp is $200 on it as a one time fee.

As I stated earlier, it would be far easier for me to put mulitple 10 round magazines in my pockets or tape them to my body than it would be for me to carry 30 round magazines for a quick reload. High capacity mags are a scapegoat for the real issue anyhow...
Related resources
December 19, 2012 1:04:40 PM

FYI @OMG the report of the AR15 being in the car was inaccurate, the only time he used a handgun was to off himself.
December 19, 2012 1:36:58 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Do you have a linky mingo? There have been big discrepancies in the reporting on this incident. It's maddening just trying to get the freakin truth.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns...

Thats one problem with our media, they want to get info out asap regardless if its right or not.
December 19, 2012 2:27:50 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
That's fine and all marv, but what do you hope to accomplish? These "Assault weapons" as you call them are used in 0.002% of violent crime.

I might add, an "assault weapon" was not used in the connecticut shootings. Handguns were. The AR-15 was recovered from the shooter's vehicle, not from inside the school.

@riser
That is incorrect. An assault rifle is fully automatic, not semi. At least that's how the Army classifies an assualt rifle.


I was basing it on the Clinton 94-2004 assault weapon ban definition.
December 19, 2012 2:34:00 PM

The closed room the AR was probably a better option for carnage. In the movie theater the AR was a bad choice.. and it ended up jamming. Using a shotgun with 6-7 would have done more damage.

With an AR you hit one shot with penetration. With a shot gun with self defense ammo, you get 9 pellets acting liike a 9mm round. The shotgun, even with the smaller capacity and in a small classroom would have been just as bad. Do we ban shotguns which are short range and heavily used for hunting and self defense as well then?
December 19, 2012 2:46:13 PM

musical marv said:
We have to reinstate the Assault law ban we had in the 60's.This is getting more horrific everyday we see and hear.There is no reason for people to have these semi automatic weapons at all.
OH YEAH! ABSOLUTELY MARV! Let's ban those evil assault weapons! Heck, I think we should ban any gun that can hold more than one round at a time! The only guns that people should be able to own are single shot rifles! Wait, better yet, we should ban all modern single shot rifles and people should only own matchlock style rifles!

Hey! Here's another great idea! Let's pass laws against all the bad things people own! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Cars are bad! Cars are the cause of over 32,000 deaths per year! BAN ALL CARS!

Knives are bad! Edged weapons are the cause of over 16,000 deaths per year! BAN ALL KNIVES!

Alcohol is bad! All alcohol related deaths total over 100,000 per year! BAN ALL ALCOHOL!

Stairs are bad! Falling down the stairs is the most common cause of household death resulting in 1,300 deaths per year! BAN ALL BUILDINGS MORE THAN ONE STORY TALL!

Fire is bad! House fires are the cause of over 2,700 deaths per year! BAN ALL FIRE!

Suicide is bad! Suicide results in over 36,000 death per year! BAN SUICIDE!

Drugs are bad! Over 39,000 people per year die because if prescription and illicit drug abuse! BAN ALL DRUGS!

Oh man, I can only imagine how much safer we would be if we banned all the bad things in the world. We would be so much better off than we are today!
December 19, 2012 2:46:24 PM

How does this help those who need it
How does this prevent similar acts, whether by gun or blunt instrument?
In other words, its certain people doing these things, it wasnt a crime for money
December 19, 2012 4:38:45 PM

How often we fail to point at the person who did the crime.. instead we blame items or society, never the individual.
December 19, 2012 4:57:03 PM

Google Image these two Items:

AR-15
Mini-14

These are two firearms that shoot the .223 sportsman & 5.56 NATO round.

The AR-15 was banned under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. The Mini-14 was not due to it not having the Pistol Grip style of the AR-15 and because it did not have a collaspable stock.

Both are magazine fed, have high capacity magazines, are semi-auto, and both fire very quickly. The mini-14 is cheaper than an AR-15 as well.

This is the stupidity of the gun ban and the lack of knowledge these people making these laws have about what they are attempting to do.
December 20, 2012 1:04:21 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
That's fine and all marv, but what do you hope to accomplish? These "Assault weapons" as you call them are used in 0.002% of violent crime.

I might add, an "assault weapon" was not used in the connecticut shootings. Handguns were. The AR-15 was recovered from the shooter's vehicle, not from inside the school.

@riser
That is incorrect. An assault rifle is fully automatic, not semi. At least that's how the Army classifies an assualt rifle.
What ever the term is ban these dam weapons before more and more killings happen. Hopefully Obama will start to do something asap with this new commission he appoints led by Biden.This is getting out of hand completely.
December 20, 2012 2:28:31 AM

The fault lies within the home itself. There were no safety systems, no safe, no lock and key, no out of reach system to prevent this guy from obtaining his weapon. I doubt the black market would be affordable for him.

All of us could argue on how to curtail the threat of gun violence. It will always be here, but the real question is how to reduce...not prevent.

Reduction decreases frequency which will help law enforcement manage gun crimes much easier. It will also be more economical as gun owners and sellers will not be subjected to hefty/costly regulations due to others stupidity.

Educate our country on gun operations and what they are for. Defense, not offense. Teach people how to store a gun safely, how to manage it safely, and the proper ways to use and discharge the system using high velocity projectiles.

I have an opinion on ownership of military grade weapons though. They are for military, not civilian. You do not need a semi- or full- automatic gun with a magazine to defend yourself unless you are a warrior. A simple pistol or rifle would do. I don't care if you buy 'assault weapons' for a hobby, there should be a reason why you should NOT own them!

I am not a gun enthusiast, owner, nor user. However, I feel that legally we are granted special rights to bear arms, whether guns, knives, Molotov cocktails, Chuck Norris, etc... and that our government should respect that.

Oh, and BTW, Obama cannot legally take your guns away. See, there is this piece of paper, called the Constitution... you should check it out sometime! :)  If he does, his power as president is illegitimate. Same goes for congress and the supreme court.
December 20, 2012 11:16:47 AM

The consensus seems to be we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people. Government cant do it effectively, people cant do it effectively (Just look to all of the legally purchased guns used in mass shootings), same for states. Crazies need to be stopped in their community by the people around them.

My idea is let people carry small handguns for "Self Defense". No one really needs an AR15 to defend themselves. So heres what we do, we let groups of people have whatever guns they want, we could call them militias or whatever. But each group has its own armory where they store their heavy weapons. If you want to go shooting you'll have to check out your guns. That way we have a small community of responsible gun owners all ensure their weapons are being used responsibly and by responsible people.

No federal oversight let the states figure out how to implement. If the Sandy Hook shooters mom had her guns in a safe place this would have never happened.
December 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM

And when a guy goes "shooting" and decides to stand outside the place where the guns are.. and starts shooting the place up, what do you? You know how long it will be for a response team to show up with the police?

The militia would be pointless as they are not ready in short notice.

We don't know who is crazy because HIIPA doesn't let anyone check that information. We need to change health care policy; Child molesters have mental issues and we get to know about them in our neighborhood, we should get to know about people with a list of mental illnesses, and especially when applying to purchase a gun - at least put them on a waiting period. It worked for Adam Lanza when he attempted to purchase a gun.
December 20, 2012 12:28:21 PM

Remove gun free zones. I bet shootings go down.

What proof? Simply look at Washington DC. Crime and gun violence went down after removing the handgun ban.
December 21, 2012 1:02:26 AM

dogman_1234 said:
The fault lies within the home itself. There were no safety systems, no safe, no lock and key, no out of reach system to prevent this guy from obtaining his weapon. I doubt the black market would be affordable for him.

All of us could argue on how to curtail the threat of gun violence. It will always be here, but the real question is how to reduce...not prevent.

Reduction decreases frequency which will help law enforcement manage gun crimes much easier. It will also be more economical as gun owners and sellers will not be subjected to hefty/costly regulations due to others stupidity.

Educate our country on gun operations and what they are for. Defense, not offense. Teach people how to store a gun safely, how to manage it safely, and the proper ways to use and discharge the system using high velocity projectiles.

I have an opinion on ownership of military grade weapons though. They are for military, not civilian. You do not need a semi- or full- automatic gun with a magazine to defend yourself unless you are a warrior. A simple pistol or rifle would do. I don't care if you buy 'assault weapons' for a hobby, there should be a reason why you should NOT own them!

I am not a gun enthusiast, owner, nor user. However, I feel that legally we are granted special rights to bear arms, whether guns, knives, Molotov cocktails, Chuck Norris, etc... and that our government should respect that.

Oh, and BTW, Obama cannot legally take your guns away. See, there is this piece of paper, called the Constitution... you should check it out sometime! :)  If he does, his power as president is illegitimate. Same goes for congress and the supreme court.
Why the hell do we need guns period!In my time when i was growing up in the 50's we never needed guns to protect ourself.people more more humane and had more compassion than now.Also the internet was not that accessible like now.Also video games were not even mentioned than.
December 21, 2012 1:25:28 AM

musical marv said:
What ever the term is ban these dam weapons before more and more killings happen. Hopefully Obama will start to do something asap with this new commission he appoints led by Biden.This is getting out of hand completely.

Which weapons exactly Marv? You do not care about the definition... How do you know what to ban then?
December 21, 2012 1:30:43 AM

dogman_1234 said:
The fault lies within the home itself. There were no safety systems, no safe, no lock and key, no out of reach system to prevent this guy from obtaining his weapon. I doubt the black market would be affordable for him.

All of us could argue on how to curtail the threat of gun violence. It will always be here, but the real question is how to reduce...not prevent.

Reduction decreases frequency which will help law enforcement manage gun crimes much easier. It will also be more economical as gun owners and sellers will not be subjected to hefty/costly regulations due to others stupidity.

Educate our country on gun operations and what they are for. Defense, not offense. Teach people how to store a gun safely, how to manage it safely, and the proper ways to use and discharge the system using high velocity projectiles.

I have an opinion on ownership of military grade weapons though. They are for military, not civilian. You do not need a semi- or full- automatic gun with a magazine to defend yourself unless you are a warrior. A simple pistol or rifle would do. I don't care if you buy 'assault weapons' for a hobby, there should be a reason why you should NOT own them!

I am not a gun enthusiast, owner, nor user. However, I feel that legally we are granted special rights to bear arms, whether guns, knives, Molotov cocktails, Chuck Norris, etc... and that our government should respect that.

Oh, and BTW, Obama cannot legally take your guns away. See, there is this piece of paper, called the Constitution... you should check it out sometime! :)  If he does, his power as president is illegitimate. Same goes for congress and the supreme court.

What is a simple pistol or rifle in your opinion. This post is vague for any gun owner who knows their stuff. That is who this bill is aimed at. Try to be realistic
December 21, 2012 1:36:39 AM

musical marv said:
Why the hell do we need guns period!In my time when i was growing up in the 50's we never needed guns to protect ourself.people more more humane and had more compassion than now.Also the internet was not that accessible like now.Also video games were not even mentioned than.

To protect ourselves Marv. Don't take your peaceful life for granted.
The second amendment was made to be our check on the government. In times of tyranny (hope there will never be any but we should always be prepared for the worst), the founding fathers gave us this right to take our freedoms back. Armed citizens created America, the founding fathers recognized that and gave the future generations the same means so we could overthrow tyranny.
December 21, 2012 1:49:13 AM

In my dads day, when someone fought, it was 1 on 1 only, as anything else was totally dishonorable.
No kicking either, boxing only.
As things got cooler, and mens attitudes towards being a "man" changed, eventually, anything goes.
We read stories of the civil war, where the north and south got together for Christmas for a meal etc.
This civilized society we live in today?
Its what the people want I guess
December 21, 2012 3:09:51 AM

mjmjpfaff said:
What is a simple pistol or rifle in your opinion. This post is vague for any gun owner who knows their stuff. That is who this bill is aimed at. Try to be realistic

Excuse me for not being knowledgeable about guns like all of you are.

This was my opinion piece that I offered.

I had no clue there were technical terms for a 'pistol' and 'rifle'. I would figure gun gurus as yourselves would help clear any misinformation and help people make things less abstract.

December 21, 2012 4:13:30 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Excuse me for not being knowledgeable about guns like all of you are.

This was my opinion piece that I offered.

I had no clue there were technical terms for a 'pistol' and 'rifle'. I would figure gun gurus as yourselves would help clear any misinformation and help people make things less abstract.

Sorry that definitely came off way differently than I tried to put it.
I never want to offend you doggy. :p 

Considering about 90% of rifles and pistols are semi-automatic, there is no way the US can ban them. There is a need for them. One must prepare for the worst if they want to prepare at all. In the Rodney King riots a man defended his store with a semi automatic weapon. His store would have been ruined if he did not have a semi automatic weapon. Who would have thought it would come to that? I bet the store owner did not think it would happen in a million years, but he still prepared for it. Also when you are under stress your 6" spread at the range goes to about 6'. One misses more under stress. If you had a single shot rifle or something that did not reload by itself and you miss while a crazed man armed with anything more than a club or a club, you could get seriously injured or even killed. Now one may think why not a lever action or a pump action gun. One can EASILY short stroke the action not cycling another round while trying to shoot fast. I have done that at a calm setting at a gun range. Imagine if you are under stress and the likelihood that, that could happen...

Going on to assault rifles and the definition. It is legal in CA (has an assault weapons ban much like the one that is proposed now by Feinstein) to own an AR-15. This would do close to nothing as the ban did in 1996. One can change magazines quickly (with the bullet button uncovered is the key) if and only if they do not have a pistol grip (look up monster man grips, or kidex grip wraps) no forward pistol grip. Mainly cosmetic stuff, that in reality, will maybe hurt the gun's hip firing accuracy. No gun with a bullet button can have 30rd magazines, but then you leave only the criminals to illegally have that. These gun free zones are really killing fields for the unprotected. It is only gun free if you have armed guards protecting the zone.
December 21, 2012 1:20:10 PM

Its a difference in philosophy which is what makes this so difficult.

Some weapons facilitate mass killings that would have been much more difficult if the person didnt have an AR15 with 30 round clips.

People who are killed with knives feet or golf clubs are targeted individually vs someone who wants to kill as many people as possible. I want to make it as hard as possible to get your hands on guns that could kill lots of people real quick. A small caliber handgun should be enough for self defense, anything larger is useless for self defense (Unless again a dozen guys descend on your prepper compound).

Murders will always happen and the statistics show that if you want someone dead its easy to make it happen. I want it to be hard to kill multiple people real quick.

And dont forget the AR15 was used in Aurora, Sandy Hook, and with the DC sniper. I believe the columbine shooters used primarily handguns with extended clips. Same with Lautner (Giffords shooter) he used an extended clip.

So AR15's used in 3 of the worst shootings in American history.....
December 21, 2012 2:00:57 PM

^That is true about the Aurora shooter.

I have a problem with the Aurora shooter getting guns in the first place. How would a man with a psychiatrist get past a background check. IMO if you have a psychiatrist you should not own a gun.
December 21, 2012 2:24:36 PM

The only reason Lanza was denied a gun when he went to go buy was the mandatory 14 day background check to go through. I guess he didnt want to wait....

December 21, 2012 4:14:59 PM

wanamingo said:
The only reason Lanza was denied a gun when he went to go buy was the mandatory 14 day background check to go through. I guess he didnt want to wait....

There is a waiting period, and a background check. Two different things. He did not want to go through both of those things.
December 21, 2012 6:42:19 PM

This is a technical site, so let's get our terms straight.

There is no such term as "assault weapon," except in the mouths of those who want to eliminate private ownership of firearms. An "assault rifle" is one that is capable of selective fire, either one shot per trigger pull or multiple.

An "assault <i forget which term was used>" as defined in the ban was defined as something that looked scary. Specifically, it had more than two of a certain list of features all but one of which had no effect on its mass lethality. That one was, if I remember correctly, a detachable magazine.

Now that we have that straight, we can all talk the same language. Private citizens do not own assault rifles; since these are capable of full-automatic fire, they are strictly controlled. More definitions: Full automatic: fires more than one round per trigger pull, tightly controlled. Semi-automatic: fires one round per trigger pull, then puts another in the chamber.

Ready to speak accurately? OK. Private citizens do not need assault rifles or any other fully-automatic weapons. The proposed legislation will ban weapons because they look scary; that makes me believe that they are a waste of ink.

Reducing the number of shots that a given person can fire in one minute will either reduce the number of people killed in a crazed attack or make the crazed attack longer. Or make the crazy bring a larger number of loaded guns. All that sarcasm aside, limiting the number of shots that can be fired in a minute seems likely to reduce casualties in a future horror, but not the likelihood of said horror.

Semi-automatic weapons and clips are a straw man argument. I can reload a revolver pretty darn quickly with speedloaders, not much slower than I could reload a semi-automatic. Limits on clip capacity sound, at first hearing, like a practical idea. Nobody needs eleven shots to hunt deer, and if a theoretical shooter in a self-defense situation needs that many rounds, he or she will probably lose. Three, yes. Six, possibly. More, you've probably lost.

Finally, reducing the number of available firearms and bullets will not eliminate these tragedies. Nothing can make anything one hundred percent safe. People have died choking from drinking a glass of water. Water is not banned. Children, God help us, are run over by cars driven by careful and responsible adults in rare accidents, but cars are not banned. The argument that tighter gun control will "eliminate" these events is bogus. Only removing all firearms from the country could do that. If only police have guns, then only insane relatives of police will take family guns and kill people.

So: I believe that such tragedies are unimaginably horrible, and if giving up my guns would guarantee that it would never happen again I would go get a whole bunch and turn them in. If banning guns in the state of New York would guarantee that it would never happen again, I'd vote for that. But in the real world, nothing is one hundred percent safe.

And I have yet to see this conversation held in a form other than two ideologies shouting at each other, one assuming that stricter control will lead to all private guns being removed (although HCI would love that) and one assuming that if more than two private citizens in the country are allowed firearms then there will be tragedies. Safety is a continuum, with a definite end on one side (jumping off the Empire State Building will lead to death), but the other side is like absolute zero. Closer and close at more and more expense, but you can't get there.

Let us remember the (approximate) words of Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But please, Marv, stick with real words and real terms. "Assault Weapon" is not a technical term, it's like calling abortion "baby murder." Emotionally laden, without meaning, and hampering communication.
December 21, 2012 6:50:50 PM

dogman_1234 said:
I have an opinion on ownership of military grade weapons though. They are for military, not civilian. You do not need a semi- or full- automatic gun with a magazine to defend yourself unless you are a warrior. A simple pistol or rifle would do. I don't care if you buy 'assault weapons' for a hobby, there should be a reason why you should NOT own them!

Many simple pistols or rifles are semi-automatic. A revolver can be fired as quickly as a semi-automatic. The only differences are is that one has a scary word in it and the very real issue that large capacity clips can be made for semi-automatic pistols. There are bolt rifles that can take larger clips too.

As I said above, the entire national discussion has been poisoned by replacing technical accuracy with emotionally laden scarewords.
December 22, 2012 12:51:45 AM

WyomingKnott said:
Many simple pistols or rifles are semi-automatic. A revolver can be fired as quickly as a semi-automatic. The only differences are is that one has a scary word in it and the very real issue that large capacity clips can be made for semi-automatic pistols. There are bolt rifles that can take larger clips too.

As I said above, the entire national discussion has been poisoned by replacing technical accuracy with emotionally laden scarewords.
This a matter of semantics what i am stating is guns period should be outlawed in homes period and also in what this idiot Lapierre said have guns in schools to protect our students.naturally he is making tons of money off the gun manufacturers and fools who buy these guns.You want guns use them for hunting only that is it.
December 22, 2012 3:00:22 AM

musical marv said:
This a matter of semantics what i am stating is guns period should be outlawed in homes period and also in what this idiot Lapierre said have guns in schools to protect our students.naturally he is making tons of money off the gun manufacturers and fools who buy these guns.You want guns use them for hunting only that is it.

You calling me a fool Marv?
How are you supposed to keep guns out of gun free zones? And how can you keep criminals from having guns, knowing that they get them illegally anyways and do not follow laws.
What would be your idea to keep guns out of gun free zones? Obviously not protecting them has worked terribly.
And how would citizens be safe when criminals have guns ILLEGALLY and we do not? Are you going to count on the police to arrive in seconds?
December 22, 2012 3:50:33 AM

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-gun-lobby...

52 percent of American's surveyed want gun restrictions.

Bizarre ... paranoid ... off his trolley ... all terms I'd say fit well with the NRA guy at the news conference.

I'd replace "Assualt rifle" with "semiautomatic" and leave bolt action rifles available only to civilians.

That clears that one up.

As for handguns ... nobody but the forces / security / police should have them.

December 22, 2012 4:44:33 AM

Reynod said:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-gun-lobby...

52 percent of American's surveyed want gun restrictions.

Bizarre ... paranoid ... off his trolley ... all terms I'd say fit well with the NRA guy at the news conference.

I'd replace "Assualt rifle" with "semiautomatic" and leave bolt action rifles available only to civilians.

That clears that one up.

As for handguns ... nobody but the forces / security / police should have them.

What about lever action, and pump action. How are we supposed to protect ourselves with bolt action guns when criminals can get any guns they want?

An all out handgun ban. That will never happen (hopefully). When that happens gangs and criminals will be much quicker to steal from that unprotected lady walking down the street. USA is HUGE. There is not enough armed cops to protect all of America. This makes us much different from all of Europe. That is one reason why banning guns will not work and hurt citizens more then it will make a dent in crime.

I do not like these polls. They do not explain guns enough for people to make an educated decision. They are more so based on the feelings of the day. Most people will feel this way right now.
December 22, 2012 8:28:02 AM

I didn't say it would be easy getting them off the streets but you have got to start somewhere ... sometime.

News update ... the wild west doesn't fit with modern society.

Your country is becoming more lawless every day.



December 22, 2012 1:48:36 PM

Reynod said:
I didn't say it would be easy getting them off the streets but you have got to start somewhere ... sometime.

News update ... the wild west doesn't fit with modern society.

Your country is becoming more lawless every day.

Now is that because of our laws or our society?
Something tells me Lapierre isn't really off his rocker.
December 22, 2012 2:27:42 PM

You prolly shouldn't listen to that voice telling you he is ok ...
December 22, 2012 2:30:39 PM

Way back in the day:
One on one duel, pistols at ten paces, considered very socialably the norm, many deaths/injuries, honor was retained.
Back in the day:
One on one, fists only, often friendships after said brawls.
Honor retained
Today:
As many as seen fit against as little as one, anything goes, using whatever, wheres the honor?
I believe this transcends down into society, as in the past, this was considered honorable treatment back then, and just doing the right thing let you "back in", no harm no foul, unless tragedy struck.
So, once again, we get to a mans heart, his current mindset, his belief system, and not the tools in which something would happen.
Lets look outside those norms.
Kicking, biting, more than one on one would get you tarred and feathered out of town and disgraced permanantly in the old days, where we were of course, by todays standards so barbarian, and sounds like the argument being made, about to be made, or even owned in true belief by many.
I beg to differ
December 23, 2012 1:11:16 AM

mjmjpfaff said:
You calling me a fool Marv?
How are you supposed to keep guns out of gun free zones? And how can you keep criminals from having guns, knowing that they get them illegally anyways and do not follow laws.
What would be your idea to keep guns out of gun free zones? Obviously not protecting them has worked terribly.
And how would citizens be safe when criminals have guns ILLEGALLY and we do not? Are you going to count on the police to arrive in seconds?
There has to be a solution to this asap or else these killings will go on and on .
December 23, 2012 1:45:39 AM

musical marv said:
There has to be a solution to this asap or else these killings will go on and on .

And a ban on all weapons is the solution? Really Marv?

And you guys think Lapierre is off his rocker for saying society is screwed up...
December 23, 2012 2:08:56 PM

Much like Bloomberg stating he wants to see firearms out of the hands of criminals when speaking against guns.
Well, I will one up em, I dont want to see ANY criminals, lets ban crime
December 23, 2012 4:44:09 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Why don't we ban murder? That will fix it.

Illogical. Murder is a consequence. It is not an object.
December 23, 2012 4:46:07 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Yes, ban crime. It will solve crime like banning 32 oz. sodas will solve obesity.

I have a better proposal. What Bloomberg did with soda was inefficient. What is stopping people from ordering 2 16 ounces? I would actually tax the crap out of it. Taxation reduces consumption of the targeted good.
December 23, 2012 5:21:23 PM

dogman_1234 said:
I have a better proposal. What Bloomberg did with soda was inefficient. What is stopping people from ordering 2 16 ounces? I would actually tax the crap out of it. Taxation reduces consumption of the targeted good.

You think it will do the same when it comes to a right?
December 23, 2012 6:58:27 PM

First of all, murder is or can be an objective, tho not an object.

These canned responses only shows how much out of touch our leaders are, and how poor symbolism is.
December 24, 2012 1:09:47 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Much like Bloomberg stating he wants to see firearms out of the hands of criminals when speaking against guns.
Well, I will one up em, I dont want to see ANY criminals, lets ban crime
This is no joke it is a very serious issue.Start with gun control, drugs, and social issues especially mental health problems we are confronted with in today's society.Our country is so high up in crimes it is not funny compared to other countries especially in Europe.
December 24, 2012 2:02:14 AM

musical marv said:
This is no joke it is a very serious issue.Start with gun control, drugs, and social issues especially mental health problems we are confronted with in today's society.Our country is so high up in crimes it is not funny compared to other countries especially in Europe.

Really Marv???
December 24, 2012 2:07:44 AM

Weve been going against crime from the beginning.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-o...
War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure

So, no joke, thats alot of our monies spent, and some want more.
Thats just for drugs, not counting theft, burgluries, arson etc etc

A particular tool and use of it, an activity requiring a certain tool can be regulated, which it is.
Stopping drug usage, illegal usage is not regulated other than for legalized drugs, where we find:
With the amount on the market and the relative ease of obtaining them, it is no wonder prescription drug abuse is on the rise. Abuse of prescription drugs has increased over 400% since 1998. Currently, over 6 million Americans use prescription drugs for nonmedical reasons.

http://www.recoverycorps.org/addiction/prescriptiondrug...

So, with deaths incurred:
Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show
Drugs exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-dru...

Using this ideology, we must also ban drugs, both legal and illegal.

Again, its the opportunity of a abuser or criminal, their intent, and not the objct, but the objective.
December 24, 2012 5:24:09 AM

mjmjpfaff said:
You think it will do the same when it comes to a right?

Sorry, it is late. I do not quite understand.
December 24, 2012 1:31:41 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Why don't we ban murder? That will fix it.


Not much chance of that when your itching to open up on your neighbours with that AR15 you have there OMG.

Its only a matter of time when you have one of those dragonslayers lying around.

You probably should get a bazooka just in case they have an armoured car ... maybe some grenades as well.

Start wearing your kevlar jacket when your out too.

Have a second weapon handy in case of a jam ... a Glock or a Uzi for close quarter work.

Better check under the bed ...

Maybe consider buying a larger property outside of the city and putting barbed wire around it and armed guards?

Congratulations ... now your in South Africa.

    • 1 / 9
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!