This is topic Assault Weapons Ban in forum Your News! at The Geek Culture Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002002

Posted by SpikeSpiegel (Member # 1452) on September 07, 2004, 13:30:
 
In 6 Days, the Assault Weapons Ban will end in America, President Bush has not made a move to renew it even though, he promised to do so in 2000.
Sign The Petitions at

Stop the NRA Save the Ban
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on September 07, 2004, 14:48:
 
What is more American than Americans killing Americans.....I say give everyone an assault rifle. [Razz]
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on September 07, 2004, 14:59:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
In 6 Days, the Assault Weapons Ban will end in America, President Bush has not made a move to renew it even though, he promised to do so in 2000.
Sign The Petitions at

Stop the NRA Save the Ban

Thanks for the heads up!
 
Posted by unclefungus (Member # 2118) on September 07, 2004, 17:26:
 
quote:
I say give everyone an assault rifle.
Any one who wants an illigal weapon can get one.

It's nothingthat hasn't already happened in other countries running wild with AK's. These fully automatic weapons just make getting rid of your opponent easier than having to deal with them.
If people have such a big problem with each other, that it leads to shooting one another, they should duel it out man-to-man like an old western. Not by "bustin' caps in they' ass"

I think if every one was able to get thier hands on these weapons, then we would end up like those countries with all out access to AK's and other weapons. Am I saying ban all guns, no, but not all of them should be allowed either. I personally like to go hunting. and would not like my rifle/bow and arrow taken away.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 07, 2004, 18:15:
 
A "ban" stops law-abiding citizens from doing something.

It's my understanding that there's plenty of Heroin, Crack, and Cocaine to be found in the U.S. ...

Should we pass 50 more laws to make these drugs "more illegal" when there's a law that makes them illegal already?
 
Posted by SpikeSpiegel (Member # 1452) on September 07, 2004, 18:39:
 
the ban doesnt affect hunting weapons, weapons like AKs, uzis, tec-9s etc are effected. if you go hunting with those, you dont exist. ASM just stfu, this ban was originally instituted because cops were being killed by said weapons and a decrease in the use/killings has occurred. if the ban is lifted under some state laws you can carry a concealed Tec-9 legally into school. i know sensible people such as yourself dont want more cops or schools being shot up. Reagan supported this ban, maybe he was onto something.

as for law abiding citizens not being able to do what they want, if you have the need to have a M-16 in your house, you have serious issues about the size of your penis.

on the topic of drugs, maybe we should just make them legal and have the government either heavily tax it or have the government give it out to prevent problems like other civilized countries have done.
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on September 07, 2004, 18:59:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
......if you have the need to have a M-16 in your house, you have serious issues about the size of your penis.....

That or a stash of Heroin, Crack, and Cocaine to protect [Razz]
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on September 07, 2004, 19:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
as for law abiding citizens not being able to do what they want, if you have the need to have a M-16 in your house, you have serious issues about the size of your penis.

Either that, or you want to see how Counterstrike plays out in real life.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on September 07, 2004, 19:43:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
. if the ban is lifted under some state laws you can carry a concealed Tec-9 legally into school.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the laws regarding concealed guns are quite separate and distinct from the ban on assault weapons, yes? So if they could carry assault weapons to school in a week, does that mean they can carry a handgun to school now? [Confused]
 
Posted by SpikeSpiegel (Member # 1452) on September 07, 2004, 19:59:
 
one of the websites that is petitioning, mentioned that Tec-9 specifically will be allowed, i think there is a separate handgun ban in schools
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 07, 2004, 23:19:
 
The concept of personal responsibility is practically dead.

"Everyone" looks for the easy way out:
- Diet Pills and Gastric-Bypass Surgery instead of sensible diet and exercise.
- Downloading Free Music (MP3's) (*cough* stealing).

Murder is not a phenomenon created by technology; it's been around for thousands of years.

A popular belief seems to be: "criminals are victims of society," as if the world gives everyone else a free ride. There are people which delight in the suffering of others and feel justified in destroying whatever they cannot own or control.

Even if someone is a threat to society for reasons beyond his control, would you allow a rabid dog to roam free in a city?

My opinion: Humans refuse to believe that they are the cause of misery in this world, and as such will blame inanimate objects and forces of nature for their suffering.

When I was in high-school, I don't remember needing signs that said "No Guns in the Classroom" to keep people from carrying firearms to school, but that was quite some time ago.
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on September 07, 2004, 23:36:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
...My opinion: Humans refuse to believe that they are the cause of misery in this world, and as such will blame inanimate objects and forces of nature for their suffering.......

So it won't make a difference to you if you are shot with a BB gun or an AK-47 since it won't be the inanimate object doing the damage?
 
Posted by fishd (Member # 2416) on September 08, 2004, 01:39:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
The concept of personal responsibility is practically dead.

Couldn't agree more...

quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Murder is not a phenomenon created by technology; it's been around for thousands of years.

True, however, the technology of murder has become much more efficient. If murder was still an offense where the murderer had to look their victim in the eye, where they had to get up close and bludgeon or cut their victim to death, then I'd wager there would be fewer murders. Now with drive by shootings and sniper rifles the murderer can be detached from the immediate carnage and suffering and just deal with the "buzz" of the act.*

quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
So it won't make a difference to you if you are shot with a BB gun or an AK-47 since it won't be the inanimate object doing the damage?

Personally? No. That fact someone tried to kill me is probably sufficient for me to worry about... At that point I think it's pretty moot what weapon is used, the fact is someone tried to kill me! If the gun wasn't available I'm sure some other weapon would have been used.

*I'm quite positive I'm not explaining my point properly here, and some people will think I'm either weird or dangerous. I've tried several times to explain the way I feel about this but it doesn't quite cover it. I'll keep thinking and post again if I can properly explain myself.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 08, 2004, 03:08:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
My opinion: Humans refuse to believe that they are the cause of misery in this world, and as such will blame inanimate objects and forces of nature for their suffering.

This really pisses me off.

If I had a $ for every time some gun nut carefully explained to me (as if they were correcting some misconception on my part) that guns don't go wandering around by themselves killing people, I could retire to the Bahamas.

They've even made it into one of their standard phrases, "Guns don't kill people, people do".

Get this straight: We know

It's not the guns I worry about, it's the gun owners, especially the ones who feel the need to repeatedly explain the bleeding obvious.

</rant>

quote:
Originally posted by fishd:
That fact someone tried to kill me is probably sufficient for me to worry about... At that point I think it's pretty moot what weapon is used, the fact is someone tried to kill me! If the gun wasn't available I'm sure some other weapon would have been used.

Actually, probably not.

For example, comparing the murder statistics in the USA (about 42 per million) and Australia (15.1 per million), an American is about 3 times as likely to be murdered as an aussie.

Look a little closer at the figures, and you find Americans and aussies are about equally likely to be stabbed, strangled, pushed off tall buildings, and beaten to death with stuffed penguins. (aussies 12.15/million, americans 14.6/million) The big difference is in shootings, Americans (27.53/million) are about 9 times more likely to be shot than aussies (2.95/million).

So, the evidence doesn't seem to support the "if there had been no gun present, they'd have used some other weapon" theory.
 
Posted by littlefish (Member # 966) on September 08, 2004, 03:25:
 
quote:
It's not the guns I worry about, it's the gun owners, especially the ones who feel the need to repeatedly explain the bleeding obvious.
Damn right! If you handle a gun you should pass a test to show that you aren't a moron. You need to pass a test to drive a car, which is (probably) less deadly than a gun.
 
Posted by Doco (Member # 371) on September 08, 2004, 07:48:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:


They've even made it into one of their standard phrases, "Guns don't kill people, people do".

Get this straight: We know

It's not the guns I worry about, it's the gun owners, especially the ones who feel the need to repeatedly explain the bleeding obvious.

</rant>

The reason people keep stating that is that the "gun control freaks" seem intent on regulating guns and not using already existing laws to punish criminals. For some people it won't end until there are so many laws that everyone is a criminal, and the only thing keeping you out of jail is being friends with the cops or others in power.

One problem with the ban is that it didn't really do much because the only way to craft such a ban without affecting common sport and hunting rifles is to very narrowly define an assault weapon. This made it easy for manufacturers to create variants that are equally deadly but outside the language of the ban.

I feel that this ban is like many of the high profile things from our government - a feel good measure that doesn't really do much other than create more red-tape for a lot of people.

The United States, unlike some countries, has the right to bear arms as one of the core freedoms for a very good reason. Without having had lots of common people with muskets and rifles we would not have been able to fight and establish ourselves as a separate country when we did. This along with many other events over the last couple of hundred years has lead to guns being part of our culture.

Having lots of guns readily available and them being part of our culture may lead to more deaths as compared to other countries. It may also be that the poverty, crowding, or other issues are the cause for these differences between the countries death rates. It is overly simplistic to claim that the availability of assault weapons is the cause for the difference when there are many many other differences in our societies.

Fortunately we have not had to have our citizens fight against our government for almost 140 years but that possibility always exists. I pray that it never again comes to that, but our leaders must be kept mindful of the fact that they lead with permission from the people. Being able to use force of that kind is sort of like the cold-war equivalent of mutually assured destruction keeping the peace. The government having all the power and the people having none to very little will lead to abuse. While a stalemate with that threat of violence in the background is very ugly it is preferable to tyrants. While I don't like it that every nut case can have a weapon, I even more dislike the idea of only the "right" people being able to have weapons.

--- end of my little rambling rant.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on September 08, 2004, 08:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:


When I was in high-school, I don't remember needing signs that said "No Guns in the Classroom" to keep people from carrying firearms to school, but that was quite some time ago.

Funny, mine had it printed in the student handbook. If you think kids aren't bringing guns to school, would you like to explain the school shootings that got so popular in the 90s (which is while I was in HS)?
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 08, 2004, 09:46:
 
I just wish I could get out of this country of delusional, homicidal, hypocritical and money hungry idiots. [Frown]
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on September 08, 2004, 10:07:
 
Look to the north, my son.
 
Posted by Doco (Member # 371) on September 08, 2004, 10:29:
 
Guns in High School - that is an interesting topic, as the well publicized rampages carried out really have stoked the fires in this gun control debate.

I don't believe that putting up a sign, or having it in the handbook really is going to change if we have any more maniacs shooting up a school. It has stopped people from learning about and using guns in schools though.

My gun in school story is that I once took a very nice 12ga shotgun (with insanely fancy leather case that I hand-tooled) in to my school. Walked it right up the main hall to the office for safekeeping - not safe from being used, but safe from being stolen from my locker. Of course it was planned as we used it that day for trap shooting. Out at the edge of the football field going over the corn field we shot a bunch of clay pigeons - and a lot more were missed. It was an awesome experience - especially for those who had never shot a gun before. -- as an aside it was awesome for me to be able to show the pretty girls of the class how to properly hold the gun, swing it, and hit your target. That of course "required" me to wrap my arms around them to help. [Smile]

Back to the debate - if you want to keep bad guys from bringing guns into the school - put up bars, install metal detectors, and have cops patrolling. You'll get security. You'll also lose freedom to go to and from the school as well as spend a huge amount of money in the process. A sign or handbook only stops those who will obey the rules without being forced to obey them.
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 08, 2004, 12:06:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Look to the north, my son.

Is admission free? I definitely would like to move up there, but for a number of reasons, can't. I once took an online questionaire about preferred immigration status, but I was seven points short of being able to do it. [cry baby]
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on September 08, 2004, 12:51:
 
Admission is free, yes.

You could claim refugee status on the grounds that your gov't is a terrorist nation. [Wink] You'd love it here, our ecomomy is strong, streets are safe, clean air and water.

Oh, and we have good beer too. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Allan (Member # 1717) on September 08, 2004, 13:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Look to the north, my son.

Is admission free? I definitely would like to move up there, but for a number of reasons, can't. I once took an online questionaire about preferred immigration status, but I was seven points short of being able to do it. [cry baby]
3 more exams and I've got points to spare [Smile]

Edit: sorry went completely off topic. Who was it that does the line about letting everyone have guns but banning ammunition [Wink]
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on September 08, 2004, 16:33:
 
maybe I'm paranoid, but has anyone considered that buying an assault weapon might put one on some government list with names like osama b.l.? (looking over shoulder cautiously)

"please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery"
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 08, 2004, 16:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
maybe I'm paranoid, but has anyone considered that buying an assault weapon might put one on some government list with names like osama b.l.?

I certainly hope so.
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 08, 2004, 18:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
Edit: sorry went completely off topic. Who was it that does the line about letting everyone have guns but banning ammunition [Wink]

Chris Rock. But he said that they should make one bullet cost $5000. So if somebody got mad at somebody, they'd have to wait a long time saving money just to buy the bullet they'd shoot them with.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on September 08, 2004, 18:41:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
maybe I'm paranoid, but has anyone considered that buying an assault weapon might put one on some government list with names like osama b.l.? (looking over shoulder cautiously)

"please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery"

You'd better give me a damn good reason why anyone needs an assault weapon...and I probably still won't buy it (the reason). I don't think they should be manufactured at all - let alone even bought by the military/LEAs. No one needs an *assault* weapon - I mean, WTF is up with this? Can't we all get along, and stop producing weapons of mass killing? As prior posters have said - the weaker the weapons we all have, the harder it is to kill others, and the more personal it gets. If we're going to grow at all as a society, we must stop the killing.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on September 09, 2004, 01:32:
 
Having witnessed gun control debates on this forum before, and coming from a country where it is a now a complete non issue, it seems completely insane and inexplicable to me (and I suspect everyone else outside the US) that anyone can try to argue in favour of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I just cannot begin to understand how ASM and his like can believe one iota of their own arguments.

The US is a very very strange place.
 
Posted by fishd (Member # 2416) on September 09, 2004, 06:08:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
it seems completely insane and inexplicable to me (and I suspect everyone else outside the US) that anyone can try to argue in favour of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

This is the kind of thing I was thinking in the "A question about America" thread before, I really can't see how anyone can believe that the US government would tolerate any kind of armed uprising by local militia... do you really believe that your politians would hand over power to NRA members? Without a fight? Fancy seeing US soldiers being deployed on US soil to fight US citizens?

Scary. [Frown]
 
Posted by Doco (Member # 371) on September 09, 2004, 06:51:
 
I don't know why - but I feel compelled to reply to at least some of the arguments here.

First - I don't have a problem with an assault weapon ban - IF you could define an assault weapon. The current ban defines it as having at least 2 of the 3 following items - a bayonet mount, a flash surpressor, a foldable stock. Have only 1 and the gun is legal. (The current ban also outlaws new magazines over a certian size - but that is a separate item) Those 3 things aren't what most people think of when they think of an "assault" weapon. They think of anything that spews out a lot of lead. That is pretty much the definition of what a gun is supposed to do and banning that would ban guns - something that our constitution prohibits. Weapons that are essentially an AK-47 or M-16 clone without the fully automatic features and with just 1 of those 3 things have been sold continiously throughout the ban. The cosmetic differences banned by the expiring assault weapon ban really don't do anything. Fully automatic weapons have been tightly regulated for a long time before and still will be after this ban exprires. The problem is that you can not create a good definition that doesn't also ban a lot (maybe even a majority??) of common sport / hunting rifles.

Of those - a bayonet mount - that would be a very personal way of killing someone, and not something used in any of the scare stories spread by the media. The other two also have NOT been a factor in most killings before or after the ban. So please get past the name of "assualt weapon ban" and look at the real details of the law. It is just another feel good law that doesn't really do much in the real world. The registration and waiting periods have probably had much more of an impact than this silly assault gun ban.

The second point I wanted to make is that - No, I don't think that a citizen uprising using weapons is likely and the very thought of our own army fighting citizens is very damn scary. It would result in huge loss of life. I hope and pray that our country never again has to have a violent turnover of our government. Democracy helps to make sure that changing the government to meet the people's needs is a non-violent process. However, this democracy thing in the US is relatively new in the view of world history and I believe that we always need to be vigalent against despots that might hijack the process.

A third point is that I can't make an argument for why I need an assault weapon - I don't. But what I define as an "assault weapon" is only those that are fully automatic. That is not what is at stake with this assault weapon ban that is about to expire. My 30-06 is a wonderful gun for hunting deer. An animal in my area that desperately needs to be controlled more because of overpopulation, damage to crops, and many highway accidents (and some of those are fatalities). That weapon is a semi-automatic rifle that can shoot several high velocity shots in rapid succession. Please show me a definition that would outlaw the kinds of weapons used to shoot up schools, but not outlaw one of the most safe, effective, and popular weapons used for game hunting. I have yet to read of a definition that can distinguish between the two. (Mostly because there are not many differences other than maybe the paint job on the guns)

I guess I don't "need" a weapon, but I do have a pretty strong desire to be able to shoot the stray dog I caught last night killing some of our chickens. A fence isn't practical, the dog is harming my property and even if you call the authorities they can't do anything unless they can catch the animal - a highly unlikely event. Fortunately the constitution provides that I don't have to argue for my right to keep a weapon - just as it provides for our right to be able to argue about this (and anything else we want to).
 
Posted by littlefish (Member # 966) on September 09, 2004, 06:59:
 
quote:
Having witnessed gun control debates on this forum before, and coming from a country where it is a now a complete non issue,
How is gun control in the UK a non issue? it is still possible to buy a shotgun and go kill with it. Rifles are still legal as well. Handguns (above .22) were banned after Dunblane (IMHO, a dumb kneejerk reaction which has done little to increase public safety, but a lot to the people who enjoy target shooting). Automatic weapons are also not legal, but then they never were.

All firearms must be kept in a locked cabinet when not in use, and a number of checks are needed before you can get a license.
 
Posted by Erbo (Member # 199) on September 09, 2004, 14:28:
 
Let's straighten some things out (and yes, I know I'm shoving my head in the lion's mouth yet again on this...it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it [Smile] ):

The guns that were banned by the 1994 ban are not "assault weapons." They are all semiautomatic weapons. You pull the trigger once, one--and only one--bullet comes out the muzzle. (Unless the gun is malfunctioning, but, in that case, it's hazardous and shouldn't be fired anyway until it's fixed.) To fire a second bullet, you have to release the trigger and pull it again.

Real assault weapons--i.e. full auto rock'n'roll--were banned and/or heavily restricted by other, earlier laws, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. They will not suddenly become legal when the 1994 AWB sunsets. (To own one legally, you have to have a special permit from the government, which is tough to get. And even then, some states prohibit them entirely.)

What were banned by the AWB were certain design features of guns and their magazines. None of those features affected the basic operation of the firearm. That's why some people say that the law's definition of "assault weapons" basically amounted to "Guns that look scary."

Frankly, some of the design features that were banned by the AWB are actually good things to have on a firearm. A folding stock makes it easier to store or transport a rifle, and, if it's a telescoping stock, makes it easier to fit the rifle to the person who's shooting it. A pistol grip makes it easier and more comfortable to shoot a weapon, especially for extended periods. Flash hiders ensure that the gun doesn't blind you as much when you shoot at night. Barrel shrouds are actually a safety feature, ensuring that the gun won't burn you if you grab it in the wrong place after you've been shooting awhile. (You see how wacked this law was? Banning safety features in the name of "controlling crime"!) And "high capacity" magazines (which are really standard-capacity magazines, as they were standard before the 1994 AWB limited capacity to 10 rounds) allow you to shoot longer before needing to stop and reload, and/or to have more ammo at your disposal in a self-defense situation.

I for one welcome the AWB sunset. It was "feel-good" legislation, enacted supposedly for the purpose of "crime prevention," that had not one thing to do with actually preventing crime.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on September 09, 2004, 15:06:
 
Fully-automatic: hold down trigger, fires more than one round.

Semi-automatic: Each time you press the trigger, one round is discharged. To shoot again, you release, and re-squeeze the trigger.

Not-automatic: You need to either reload the chamber and/or pull back the hammer before squeezing the trigger to fire each round.

Just for clarification. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on September 09, 2004, 15:33:
 
quote:
A folding stock makes it easier to store or transport a rifle, and, if it's a telescoping stock, makes it easier to fit the rifle to the person who's shooting it
More like: Easier to conceal

quote:
A pistol grip makes it easier and more comfortable to shoot a weapon, especially for extended periods.
Again, easier to conceal, also, as you suggest for comfort.

quote:
Flash hiders ensure that the gun doesn't blind you as much when you shoot at night.
No. Flash suppressors are designed so the enemy has a lesser chance of getting a visual on your location.

quote:
Barrel shrouds are actually a safety feature, ensuring that the gun won't burn you if you grab it in the wrong place after you've been shooting awhile
Again, no. Barrel jackets are actually design to dissipate heat from the barrel. Anyone who knows anything about firearms know not to touch a hot barrel.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 09, 2004, 15:41:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
And "high capacity" magazines (which are really standard-capacity magazines, as they were standard before the 1994 AWB limited capacity to 10 rounds) allow you to shoot longer before needing to stop and reload, and/or to have more ammo at your disposal in a self-defense situation.

/me tries to imagine a plausible scenario in which an 'armed citizen' needs to fire more than 10 rounds on an assault rifle in 'self defence'.

still trying.........


still trying .....

give up.

/me now tries to imagine why a nutter who's attacking a bunch of innocent people, or a drug dealer who's holding off a few carloads of local police might like to fire off more than 10 rounds.

That one was much easier.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on September 09, 2004, 16:24:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
/me tries to imagine a plausible scenario in which an 'armed citizen' needs to fire more than 10 rounds on an assault rifle in 'self defence'.

still trying.........


still trying .....

give up.


Here's one: You are an Iraqi, trying to eek out a living for your family in war torn Baghdad. Death and destruction at the hands of America is all your young children know....suddenly a platoon of American soldiers enters and begins ransacking your home.....

/sarcasm
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on September 09, 2004, 16:48:
 
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 09, 2004, 18:09:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

paws for thought....

But ... but ... they weren't even gun dogs .....

This story is perilously close to the old joke about the right to arm bears .....
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on September 09, 2004, 18:16:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Here's one: You are an Iraqi, trying to eek out a living for your family in war torn Baghdad. Death and destruction at the hands of America is all your young children know....suddenly a platoon of American soldiers enters and begins ransacking your home.....

But the military has exemptions from these sorts of laws, so they can carry assault rifles all they want.

Surely you weren't suggesting the Iraqi needed one? After all, he shouldn't have built his house on an oil field in the first place [Wink]
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on September 09, 2004, 18:18:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

He should have stuck with killing kittens!

/be here all week, don't forget to tip the waitresses
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 09, 2004, 18:52:
 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger..... ?

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

He should have stuck with killing kittens!

/be here all week, don't forget to tip the waitresses

you mean like these 'kitten killers' ? [Frown]
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on September 09, 2004, 19:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger..... ?

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

He should have stuck with killing kittens!

/be here all week, don't forget to tip the waitresses

you mean like these 'kitten killers' ? [Frown]
I didn't actually. That's fscking sick [Frown]
 
Posted by Doco (Member # 371) on September 10, 2004, 07:27:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
What next? Gun control for dogs?

Pup shoots man

....A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.....

Nice shooting rex, the owner deserved what he got! [thumbsup]

I love it!!! The guy did get what he deserved - at least the part about getting shot by being so stupid.

I disagree with charging the guy for cruelty to animals. He couldn't find someone to take them so shooting them probably was as humane as is available to most of us. Cruelty would be drowning the dogs, or maybe bludgeoning them, not a quick bullet to the head..... Yes you can take animals to the pound or have them euthanized at a vet but both cost $$$ in almost all situations. Yes you can probably find a shelter that says they will take animals at no charge but when go to drop them off they will pressure you about some abandonment charge and only relent if you basically just drop the animals and run. It is nice to say that you don't want to kill animals, but then coming up with the money to support that is another issue.

Oh wait - sorry - I should be ranting about gun control.... hmmmmm - (digging into tired cliche bag) - that guy needs more gun control - he couldn't hit his intended target.

-Sigh- my rants here are probably don't connect with many of you, but something about this thread just got me going and pulled me out of lurkdom. I guess being a geek but living in a semi-rural area and being raised with an extended family all in farming gives me a decidedly different view on some issues.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 10, 2004, 17:31:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doco:
I guess being a geek but living in a semi-rural area and being raised with an extended family all in farming gives me a decidedly different view on some issues.

My sister and (until recently) parents live on farms (although they're not actually 'farmers'). They, and most of their neighbors, keep a .22 handy for dispatching the occasional fox.

I don't know of anyone in the 'gun control lobby' who's trying to take those kind of guns away. Aside from the practical impossibility of it, .22 rifles are not the weapon of choice for criminals and nutters.

Any farmer who thinks he needs an assault-rifle or a Tec-9 to keep the foxes out of the hen-house is a wanker.
 
Posted by Erbo (Member # 199) on September 14, 2004, 01:00:
 
Just a postscript now that the AWB has officially sunset...

This article points out an interesting little factoid:
quote:
Semiautomatic rifles never did catch on in a big way with career criminals, because they are too difficult to carry concealed. As a National Institute of Justice study noted in July, using a broad definition of the term, assault weapons were used in fewer than eight percent of gun crimes even before the ban. The firearm of choice for armed criminals has always been the high-quality handgun.
Makes sense to me.

Of course, the gun-grabbers are already finding new kinds of guns to demonize. Out in California, on the Governator's desk right now is a bill to ban .50 rifles, which the gun-grabbers have been saying is "the choice of terrorists." This despite the fact that only one crime committed using a .50 rifle has ever been recorded in the United States. (For one thing, they're expensive, and hence very uncommon in civilian use.) Now, if Ahnold decides to be a "girly man" and sign the bill, among other things, Barrett Rifles will probably have to move out of state. This is one of the primary manufacturers of .50 rifles, for both civilian and military purposes. Doing this will only hurt California's economy all the more.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on September 14, 2004, 05:34:
 
First let me state that I don't own guns at all. I have no reason to own a rifle or a pistol. I did debate whether or not I wanted a little 14ga for home security but opted out. I live in the suburbs and can't find a real reason to have one.

Now as far as this whole gun debate. I know people that can pick up the real thing for me. No AK-47 semi-auto. Full auto modded mac-10s and bigger. Needless to say these are people that do some questionable things. But even they choose a 9mm or .380 over an assault rifle.

Anyone I know that has a weapon like that play with them. "Let's get out in the hills and shoot stuff" kind of mentality. Not postal worker types.

I grew up with a multitude of guns in the house. Some pistols and such. Mainly rifles and shot guns. My father hung his favorites on the wall. On a rack with no locks or cases above the couch. Big deal, so did my friends fathers and our grandfathers, etc. I was taught to use and respect guns from an early age. In that teaching came the simple lesson. This will kill.

If they wanted to ban anything how about the pistols that can go through metal detectors without setting alarms? How about small arms? What f'n use are they. The range is crap the price is cheap and you can get them anywhere. Those are the weapons of choice. Who can wander around the streets with a sawed off shotgun or an AK? OK it has happened, but this is the exception not the rule.

The problem I saw with the gun ban is that it went after the scary guns, not the most used guns. The things they banned were first harder to procure and second were costly. Not a low life thug's weapon of choice. Which is what they used as the reason for this law in the first place.

edit: I am not saying that certain rules should not be in place though. I do like the waiting periods and gun safety education requirements. I don't want some semi unstable guy picking up a gun right after he gets canned and what not. And also I don't want some moron that has never even seen a bullet pick up a gun without at least knowing what it can do in reality.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 14, 2004, 06:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
I know people that can pick up the real thing for me. No AK-47 semi-auto. Full auto modded mac-10s and bigger. Needless to say these are people that do some questionable things. But even they choose a 9mm or .380 over an assault rifle.

Anyone I know that has a weapon like that play with them. "Let's get out in the hills and shoot stuff" kind of mentality. Not postal worker types.


Be very glad you don't know any
nutters like this
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on September 14, 2004, 06:34:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Having witnessed gun control debates on this forum before, and coming from a country where it is a now a complete non issue, it seems completely insane and inexplicable to me (and I suspect everyone else outside the US) that anyone can try to argue in favour of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I just cannot begin to understand how ASM and his like can believe one iota of their own arguments.

The US is a very very strange place.

I might have quoted this particular piece before, but even if I have, it deserves rewriting:

Dennis Miller on gun control: (And I'm paraphrasing, because I don't remember his exact words..)

You know, as soon as you listen to this gun control debate, the first thing a gun-advocate will point out to you is our constitutional right to bear arms. Aside from the fact that all of the forefathers who signed this bill were probably in their dementia state of syphilis when they came up with and signed this bill, it was created at a time when having a gun was a NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR SURVIVAL. At any time, the british could come over the hill ready to kick some yankee ass because they wanted their land back. Owning a gun is no longer necessary for survival.
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on September 14, 2004, 07:28:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
...My opinion: Humans refuse to believe that they are the cause of misery in this world, and as such will blame inanimate objects and forces of nature for their suffering.......

So it won't make a difference to you if you are shot with a BB gun or an AK-47 since it won't be the inanimate object doing the damage?
[Big Grin] Marvellous. I take my hat off to you, Sir.
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on September 14, 2004, 10:14:
 
Now here's something scary that was on the local news today.

Michigan:
Today, the State Senate could decide whether to lower age requirements for hunting. Right now, you must be 14 to hunt deer, bear and elk with a gun. A proposed bill would allow eleven year olds to get a firearm's license if they turn twelve during the year the license was issued.
Some argue the change could threaten the safety of other hunters. The House already approved the measure. 12 year olds can already hunt small game using firearms.


My dad gave me a shot gun on my 12th birthday and looking back on it that was way too young! Even though I went through the safety courses it was still too young! And now they want to drop it to 11 !?! [Eek!]

I remember going pheasant hunting at age 12 walking down rows of cornfields with 4 other people spread out and we could not see each other. And me out for only the 2nd time hunting with a 410 shot gun at the ready. It just seems crazy [crazy]
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 14, 2004, 10:53:
 
Let 'em kill each other off. Darwinism in action. [evil]
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on September 14, 2004, 11:08:
 
Normally, I'd wholeheartedly agree with that, but it's unfortunate when the gun controlling father who doesn't have any guns at all in his possession sends his innocent little 12 year old daughter to school and she gets smoked by some crazy bastard's kid because he wanted to show his friends how cool his Dad's gun is.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 14, 2004, 13:18:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:

I remember going pheasant hunting at age 12 walking down rows of cornfields with 4 other people spread out and we could not see each other. And me out for only the 2nd time hunting with a 410 shot gun at the ready. It just seems crazy [crazy]

<sings>
I always will remember
Twas a year ago November
I went out to hunt some deer
On a morning bright and clear
I went and shot the maximum
The game laws would allow
Two game wardens, seven hunters and a cow!

I was in no mood to trifle
I took down my trusty rifle
And went out to stalk my prey
What a haul I made that day
I tied them to my fender
And I drove them home somehow
Two game wardens, seven hunters and a cow

The law was very firm it
Took away my permit
The worst punishment I ever endured
It turned out there was a reason
Cows were out of season
And one of the hunters wasn't insured

People ask me how I do it
And I say there's nothing to it
You just stand there looking cute
And when something moves you shoot (BANG!)
And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now
Two game wardens, seven hunters and a cow
</sings>

-- Tom Lehrer
 


© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0