Obama Backs New Assault Weapon Ban

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Name one case in which an assault rifle was used to shoot up a school in the US.Wasdie

That wasn't an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a weapon capable of selective fire, which the AR-15 used in that massacre was not capable of. That gun was your standard semi-automatic rifle. Just because it looked like an M4 doesn't make it an assault rifle. Even with a 5 round mag the damage would have been pretty significant.

You just go to show that you know nothing about guns yet you are really quick to want to ban them out of fear.Assault rifles have been illegal since 1934 and will probably always stay that way.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Good thing we can't own assault rifles.

Also, you're now trying to classify guns as some are "more deadly" than others, this is and argument that people who are clueless about firearms try to argue all of the time. It's pointless and I think you would be shocked to know how many people in your community own those deadly "assault weapons" yet have never once used them for anything more than recreation.

Banning the sale them is pointless as it only would stop future gun owners and does nothing about 2nd hand trade, which is impossible to actually regulate.

The point is people are scared about something they don't understand. That's it. There is nothing else. You want to do something for the greater good then go after trying to find the reason behind why somebody would want to shoot up a school or commit a crime with a firearm. Don't knee jerk because you're clearly scared of something you know nothing about and are very quick to judge people on.

thegerg

Guns don't kill people, physics kill people.

This is why I want everyone to wear an inertia-cancelling device that stops anything coming in at more than 30mph.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

And you're going to spend the bilions it would cost to regulate a 2nd hand market?

Sounds like the war on drugs all over again.

Wasdie

Yes that's exaclty what I want and is what is logical...

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I didn't hear any reason in any of that post for why an "assault weapon" is needed for recreational reasons.

My point is that nobody can come up with a reason why ORDINARY PEOPLE need one PERIOD. There's no real use for those types of weapons other than to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible.nocoolnamejim

Recreation isn't a real use? Neither is hunting, collecting, or self defense?

You don't "need" a gun like you don't "need" a lot of things. You're just afriad of something that you don't understand.

If you're trying to turn this into what you need versus what you don't need, then there is no point arguing with you.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] Or spend the Billions to turn public schools into Prisons with armed guards, checkpoints, and locked doors?Nuck81

Yes that's exaclty what I want and is what is logical...

You sure made me look like a fool.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Yes that's exaclty what I want and is what is logical...

Wasdie

You sure made me look like a fool.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] Or spend the Billions to turn public schools into Prisons with armed guards, checkpoints, and locked doors?Nuck81

Yes that's exaclty what I want and is what is logical...

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]My point is that nobody can come up with a reason why ORDINARY PEOPLE need one PERIOD. There's no real use for those types of weapons other than to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible.Wasdie

Recreation isn't a real use? Neither is hunting, collecting, or self defense?

You don't "need" a gun like you don't "need" a lot of things. You're just afriad of something that you don't understand.

If you're trying to turn this into what you need versus what you don't need, then there is no point arguing with you.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Yes that's exaclty what I want and is what is logical...

Kamekazi_69

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="thegerg"] It's not needed for recreational purposes. What's your point?thegerg

So you're in favor of banning things simply because you don't think they're needed?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]My point is that nobody can come up with a reason why ORDINARY PEOPLE need one PERIOD. There's no real use for those types of weapons other than to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible.nocoolnamejim

Recreation isn't a real use? Neither is hunting, collecting, or self defense?

You don't "need" a gun like you don't "need" a lot of things. You're just afriad of something that you don't understand.

If you're trying to turn this into what you need versus what you don't need, then there is no point arguing with you.

How is that even relevant? You're trying to turn this into a need based argument. Straw man much with this whole "grenade launcher" BS?

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] My point is that nobody can come up with a reason why ORDINARY PEOPLE need one PERIOD. There's no real use for those types of weapons other than to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible.nocoolnamejim

So you're in favor of banning things simply because you don't think they're needed?

I can kill a whole lot of people with my 5 round bolt action rilfe from WWII. Even more with my 10 round bolt action rifle from WWII because it has a smoother action and is more accurate. Ban those too?

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="thegerg"]

So you're in favor of banning things simply because you don't think they're needed?

Wasdie

I can kill a whole lot of people with my 5 round bolt action rilfe from WWII. Even more with my 10 round bolt action rifle from WWII because it has a smoother action and is more accurate. Ban those too?

I find the consideration that a chef knife has other, legitimate, uses and a semi-automatic rifle does not compelling.nocoolnamejim

So basically, you want to ban them because you can't find a need?

I'm glad people like you don't make public policy, because I wouldn't be allowed to get drunk or eat fast food because a lot of people feel I don't need those.

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] :lol: Yes, yes instead of keeping Dangerous out of the hands of crazy people, let's just send the kids to prison. Let's let all the criminals out of prison. Move the kids there, and give them all guns "just in case" I mean, if everyone had a gun, then there would be no crime. Criminals would be too scared to commit any crimes right?Nuck81

I find the consideration that a chef knife has other, legitimate, uses and a semi-automatic rifle does not compelling.nocoolnamejim

Someone explain to me why assault weapons are more dangerous than non-assault weapons. What point are you trying to make liberals?DaBrainz

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"] I have a better idea. how about we don't over exaggerate the situation like many have done prior, and instead of blaming inanimate objects since by some divine reason nothing except guns are culprits to this, we attack the source of the problem and really understand what is going on without spending "billions".Kamekazi_69

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I find the consideration that a chef knife has other, legitimate, uses and a semi-automatic rifle does not compelling.musicalmac

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]I think the story out of China about the individual who stabbed 22 children and an elderly women outside a school is important to consider when thinking about banning firearms. Should I need a license for my 8" Wusthof chef knife? Should it be banned for the horrors that an individual could conceivably commit? Perhaps we should also make it illegal to ball up your fist, because plenty of people have committed murder with that alone.

Do you not find these considerations compelling?Nuck81

This will probably be a waste of time -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm in favor of banning things that aren't needed and have no legitimate usage other than to kill lots of people. An X-box isn't NEEDED, but it also cannot be misused in such a way as to kill dozens of people. KIND OF A KEY DIFFERENCE.nocoolnamejim

I can kill a whole lot of people with my 5 round bolt action rilfe from WWII. Even more with my 10 round bolt action rifle from WWII because it has a smoother action and is more accurate. Ban those too?

So basically you've gotten me to a point where if I say yes, people look at me as a crazed lunatic who thinks people should own grenade launchers, or if I say no, then I believe that the government should be able to restrict certain weapons and thus agree with you?

Well to answer your question, I don't believe people should be able to own those kind of explosives because the storage of said explosives are far too dangerous. I don't see why it would be wrong to own the actual grenade launcher though. The explosives would fall under the laws that prevent private citizens from owning certain kinds of explosive devices for public safety purposes. Grenade launcher is kind of useless without ammo.

As for guns, I don't think it's unreasonable that the government prevents the sale of guns to criminals but after that it's kind of pointless. You can legally own .50 cal guns (really large guns). The storage of cartridge based ammunition is not illegal as it is much safer than many other types of explosives and explosive material found even in your own home. I even feel thinks like the assault rifle ban is pointless as "fully auto" doesn't make a gun more deadly as accuracy severely decreases while weapon reliability does as well. However keeping the ban of fully automatic weapons to civilians makes a lot of people feel better, so it would be hard to get that one changed.

That's not addressing the heart of the issue, however, which is that an 8" chef knife could be used to stab dozens of people in a single incident, regardless of other perceived uses. musicalmac

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]That's not addressing the heart of the issue, however, which is that an 8" chef knife could be used to stab dozens of people in a single incident, regardless of other perceived uses. ChiliDragon

I understand that completely, but I also don't think the government are the only ones who should be able to own and operate them. Heck, public opinion polls put the approval of our government at almost record lows. Why would I possibly trust these same people who we don't approve to be the only ones with all of the guns?

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I can kill a whole lot of people with my 5 round bolt action rilfe from WWII. Even more with my 10 round bolt action rifle from WWII because it has a smoother action and is more accurate. Ban those too?

Wasdie

So basically you've gotten me to a point where if I say yes, people look at me as a crazed lunatic who thinks people should own grenade launchers, or if I say no, then I believe that the government should be able to restrict certain weapons and thus agree with you?

Well to answer your question, I don't believe people should be able to own those kind of explosives because the storage of said explosives are far too dangerous. I don't see why it would be wrong to own the actual grenade launcher though. The explosives would fall under the laws that prevent private citizens from owning certain kinds of explosive devices for public safety purposes. Grenade launcher is kind of useless without ammo.

As for guns, I don't think it's unreasonable that the government prevents the sale of guns to criminals but after that it's kind of pointless. You can legally own .50 cal guns (really large guns). The storage of cartridge based ammunition is not illegal as it is much safer than many other types of explosives and explosive material found even in your own home. I even feel thinks like the assault rifle ban is pointless as "fully auto" doesn't make a gun more deadly as accuracy severely decreases while weapon reliability does as well. However keeping the ban of fully automatic weapons to civilians makes a lot of people feel better, so it would be hard to get that one changed.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]This will probably be a waste of time nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]That's not addressing the heart of the issue, however, which is that an 8" chef knife could be used to stab dozens of people in a single incident, regardless of other perceived uses. ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

nocoolnamejim

I understand that completely, but I also don't think the government are the only ones who should be able to own and operate them. Heck, public opinion polls put the approval of our government at almost record lows. Why would I possibly trust these same people who we don't approve to be the only ones with all of the guns?Wasdie

I better buy a Tommy Gun now before the price goes up.

lots of stuffnocoolnamejim

I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.