Automatic Weapon Legalization in U.S.A. - Your Opinion-

[Joseph]

What do you think of the recent legalization in the U.S.A. concerning Automatic weapons? Other countries illegalize small arms and now we have automatics rolling in. (Irony;) :cheesy:
Do you think people will take advantage of this and purchase weapons with the capability of 1,500 bullets per minute?
http://img31.exs.cx/img31/1930/DietrichmitMG42.jpg
Perhaps this is not such a good idea. Radical group's might protest in a crowded area. We saw in WWII what happened when something got in the way of an MG42. Perhaps maybe somebody might get a hold of an M-60? The power that individual/group might wield is awesome. Then again, some might argue the right to bear arms is unalienable and what sets the Americans apart from the European countries. What do YOU think?

[DavidAlizée]

I guess its cool if you live in the us. But living in the UK, its best that we havnt legalized Firearms. If we did, that would mean the Police need them. In turn, everyone that is going to commit a crime will need a gun. That could be very bad for us.

I do know one thing.. if the legalization of automatic weapons are allowed in the united states.. america are going to need a hell of a lot more bodybags. The death count will rise for sure. Not a good idea imo.. 8)

[Manu]

That law is a threat to Democracy. The most powerful and influential country in the world should once for all realise that we are not living in the Far West anymore and the world is not a John Wayne's movie, or a 007 one, with licence to kill. Arms are not a toy or a thing to boast about before your buddies. This is another example of how powerful the arms companies are in the USA. They sell arms to the Americans, they sell arms to abroad, and it is good for them if there is a war occasionally. To fight terrorists, of course, a lot of them with arms sold by these same companies.

Bad news.

[mot]

Didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger appose to this?
What's the reason after all this? Do they think crimerate will go down with more weapons or something?
I don't know much, so i can't give an opinion.

[squeaky ladida]

well, it's a great concept, but here's the truth
the assault weapons ban (not specific to automatic weapons, just assault weapons, which includes about 15 types of weapons i think) was not very effective
reason #1- many loopholes. the AR-15 is banned, the XM-15, best known for its use during the DC area shootings is very legal though just as deadly. Same applies for pretty much every gun on the banned list
reason #2- If someone wants an automatic weapon that bad, that person is going to manage to get it. There are many "civilian grade" versions of banned weapons, and many of them can be converted with minimal effort into the banned versions, ie increased muzzle velocity, acceptance of banned ammunition types, rates of fire (automatic versions of guns, such as legal glocks or legal rifles that are semi-only for sporting), and even magazine size.

I mean, if it worked it would be great, all it did was make it so that places like the Sports Authority can't sell AK47s, which is a good thing, cuts down on domestic crime and smaller stuffs like that, but for the bigger picture, those who want an AK47 will get one, those who want automatic weapons will get their weapons, those who want their grilled cheese sandwhiches will.... mmm....
oh, sorry, sidetracked

anyway, in closing, the automatic weapons ban was a good IDEA, but in reality it didn't work as well as politicians claim that it did or of it's potential. Until something that can really prevent assault weapons of that grade from being utilized in this country, i don't think anything will be able to accomplish what this ban tried to accomplish.

[Bismarck]

I'm opposed to it. It makes me very glad that I'm with the RCMP, and not in the United States. Two individuals in a fortified position with an MG-42 could pin down a lot of officers. I see no reason why civilians should possess such weapons.

[loveherfromusa]

No one needs weapons of this type unless they are fighting a war. Almost all police organizations in this country opposed lifting the ban. The NRA (National Rifle Association) is so powerful that few politicians will oppose them. I read that 30% of NRA members opposed lifting the ban.

Someone said that Canada is like the US, except with fewer guns and better health care.

[Thanasis]

Money rules the world.
Stupid illegalization at a stupid country at these kind of lows.

[Alw]

bad idea... i'll bet the number of killed ppl per year will raise.... which is about 24k ppl dead per year in murder cases

[Mr Bond]

UK police need to carry something more substantial than the batons they have now. What about issuing them withh tasers instead? Tasers are a great choice because you can immobilise a suspect without injury. Maybe in certain situations the police should carry small arms but never automatics certainly nothing like that guy in Joseph's pic is carrying. I would be extremely worried/terrified if I was an American that's a terrible law.

[Ayan]

Or lightsabers, lightsabers are cool too.
They are as effective as firearms, but not so dangerous.
Press F5 on your keyboard to vote for lightsabers!!






.....I dont have anything reasonable to say here actually.

[Wespe]

Altough I am a foreigner staying out of this issue, with out much feasible statement against it, but I just simply remind that the tragedy in Colorado campus happened few years ago and in 1991, the Chinese student Lu Gang shot 3 professors and the vice-rector and one of his fellow-mate.
That's already horrible to rake it up... certainly the GUN itself is lifeless, but you couldn't prevent the potential danger from which the holder would harm to great extent. All right, some Yankees always like to be proud of Cowboy spirit and like to killing emptiness in this way. So let them go to dance with Azrael. God bless America ! :idea:

[DavidAlizée]

So i guess if i ever visit Amercia, the rough areas.. ill be wearing by bullet proof vest, but i doubt that will save me against these auto weapons. There is only 2 ways to fight against these..

1. Don't go to America now

2. Fight back with auto weapons.. which is exactly why this law shouldnt have been made. I can't see the benifits.. i realy can't. Its going to cause more crime than ever before.... :?

[Marcust-235]

I'm opposed to it. It makes me very glad that I'm with the RCMP, and not in the United States. Two individuals in a fortified position with an MG-42 could pin down a lot of officers. I see no reason why civilians should possess such weapons.

MG42?!?!??!?!??!?!
Oh My god..
But I don't think it's good to legalize the auto weapons..

[Joseph]

America is dangerous nevertheless. my hispanic friend's house is near a railroad , where all the gangs hang out so we haev kevlar vests we put on before we go chill over there:) its pretty cool but REALLY scary at times.

[Ayan]

And now those vests are useless coz they wont protect you from automatic weapons anyway. Like some quote used to say once: " This is good news to all, who want to get rid of lot of people fast"

[squeaky ladida]

Last time i checked kevlar vests were moderately effective against the types of weapons banned in the automatic weapons ban
I won't go into specifics, but a kevlar vest will siginifanctly reduce any harm from standard rifle bullets
they won't stop anything fancy like a 5.7mm combusting bullet, but they serve their purpose

so far no big crimes with automatic weapons...
I'm really not gritting my teeth as there isn't too much crime in my area, but now that I think about it, people were lugging around AK47s way before the ban was lifted in a few parts of town I've been to

[Riccardo]

It's absolutely rubbish from my point of view. They are afraid of everythiong terror which might threatens them, and then they legalize those weapons.

And i know that in the States it was proved that since they prohibited those weapons, crime went to a lower level, and know it will raise again, 100%!

They shouldn't wonder about new terrorism in the states...

My last word,

NONSENSE

[SeeMeRot]

....yet again......America is screwed thx to Bush's stupidity and ties to the NRA.....

[squeaky ladida]

it's unfortunate that the NRA has such a choke-hold on american politics
most politicians that go against the NRA never get re-election and ties are found directly to the NRA and their influence

"Real power comes from the barrel of a gun"
proven true.... in American politics... how disappointing

[HampsterOnSpeed]

....yet again......America is screwed thx to Bush's stupidity and ties to the NRA.....

Nuff said...seriously people we need to get that sucker out of the OFFICE!!!

[Joseph]

What would I expect from *alters voice* THE BOYS FROM CALIFORNIA. :wink: :roll: :kiss:

[SeeMeRot]

^ ah ha ha ha........I know your kind all to well Joseph........Texans = conservative nitwits that are too hard headed and full of false hopes......too blind to accept the simple truth.....that Bush fucked up real bad.....and will keep screwing the US over if he gets re-elected period.....

[DavidAlizée]

What would I expect from *alters voice* THE BOYS FROM CALIFORNIA. :wink: :roll: :kiss:

rofl

[bvmjethead]

:roll:

To bad most of you have NO IDEA of what you're talking about. This is a perfect example of how gun law misinformation is spread.

Furthermore, it's statistical FACT that states within the USA which allow citizens to own and carry weapons have far fewer crimes committed against them that citizens in states that do not allow guns.

A perfect example is the nations capitol Washington D.C. Guns have been illegal there for dozens of years yet untill very recently D.C. was the gun murder capitol of the USA.

When guns are made illegal, only criminals will have guns. If they are prepared to break the law in the first place, what makes you think one more law will stop them from breaking another law? :roll:

Take a look at the crime and terrorism numbers in countries like Switzerland where the majority of households own several fully automatic weapons. I dare ya.

Full auto weapons have never been illegal to own in the USA.

NEVER.

Fully automatic weapons are however heavily regulated and a Class III Federal Permit is REQUIRED to own them. You must have a permit for each and every Class III weapon you own.

What happened recently was the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to "sunset" in accordance with the provision to allow the law to "sunset" which was written into the bill originally.

There is no vast conspiracy by gun owners in the USA.

Before you post such blatently erroneous crap, how about posting a disclaimer as well..........

Guns cause crime and terrorism about as much as Rosie Odonnel's fork is responsible for her being overweight.

[silentkiller885]

bmvjethead is absolutely right. What is one more law to a person who has already broken a bunch in the first place??

If there is someone breaking into/or in my house, they aint leaving on their feet thats for sure, they are gonna be carried out. Cause once you walk over that threshold, youre mine.

Most criminals are going to commit a crime, and it usually doesnt matter if they have a gun or not.

[DavidAlizée]

:roll:

To bad most of you have NO IDEA of what you're talking about.

Furthermore, it's statistical FACT that states within the USA which allow citizens to own and carry weapons have far fewer crimes committed against them that citizens in states that do not allow guns.


Rubbish. I hope you didnt join the Alizee forum to make your point about guns. Sorry i dont agree with that statement above at all. Show me proof of this "fact" ...

[bvmjethead]

You first!

You wrote the 2nd post in this thread and made some pretty wild predictions based on WRONG information pal. Show me the links to where you got your information.

Fully Automatic firearms have never been illegal to own in the USA.

I guess its cool if you live in the us. But living in the UK, its best that we havnt legalized Firearms. If we did, that would mean the Police need them. In turn, everyone that is going to commit a crime will need a gun. That could be very bad for us.

Fine, you feel that way about your country, don't force me to adopt your beliefs.

Fact is crime has risen in your country since guns were banned.

I do know one thing.. if the legalization of automatic weapons are allowed in the united states.. america are going to need a hell of a lot more bodybags. The death count will rise for sure. Not a good idea imo.. 8)

Again, see above, you have no idea what it is you're talking about.

[bvmjethead]

David,

Nevermind, I'll go first.........

Gun control is CERTAINLY NOT working in your country.........

Link......http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=30

Did British Gun Control Work?
June 21 2001
Iain Murray
United Press International

When we read about children carrying weapons, of course we worry. Their inexperience and naiveté can lead them to do stupid things with tragic consequences. Therefore, it is only natural that one response should be to push for more restrictions, to make it more difficult for children to get access to weapons. If it works for children, why shouldn't it work for adults?

If we want to stop criminals carrying guns, for instance, wouldn't the best way be to restrict everyone's access to them? One of the best ways of checking hypotheses like these is to look at actual tests of the theories.

The test lab in this case is Britain, which enacted strict gun control laws five years ago following an especially tragic school shooting. But the results so far are not good.

Americans were shocked when the Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed data in April that showed that 14 percent of all high school students and 21 percent of all boys had carried a weapon to school at least once in the past year.

Addressing these findings, a representative for Handgun Control told Time.com, "The least we can do is keep guns out of kids' hands." That's exactly what Britain's strict gun laws aim to do.

But according to a survey for the British government's Youth Justice Board released last week, fully 26 percent of high school-age students there have carried a weapon for aggressive or defensive purposes in the last year.

Unfortunately, neither survey broke down the results by weapon type (although 17 percent of the British children admitted carrying a knife). But worryingly, among British "excluded" students (those who had been suspended or expelled from school), a staggering 23 percent claimed to have had access to a gun in the last year.

This is in a country where it is virtually impossible to get access to a gun legally. Some commentators have suggested that part of the reason that the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease spread so rapidly there was because veterinarians could not shoot infected animals on the spot because they are forbidden to carry pistols.

Yet we have evidence that almost one-fourth of the children who need the most help in avoiding taking the wrong path have access to firearms. Strict gun laws don't seem to be helping them much.

Nor are they helping hold down crime in general. The recent International Crime Victimization Survey, which provides a good indication of overall crime levels around the world, shows that, while crime fell dramatically during the 1990s in the United States and most of the rest of the world, it has remained steady in Britain and Australia (which also enacted a gun ban during the late 1990s).

Meanwhile, gun crimes in Britain are increasing. According to London's authoritative Sunday Times, the number of firearm offenses in Britain increased almost 40 percent from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 in 2000. These are still small figures in comparison to the United States, but the trend is the opposite of what might be expected.

INCREASED 40%!!!???!!!

It does not seem that Britain can be said to be a safer place as a result of the gun ban. The police there have traditionally gone unarmed, but the number of incidents in which police officers have had guns issued to them in recognition of potential danger increased from about 6,000 in 1994-95 to over 12,000 in 1997-8.

WHAT, they had to double the guns issued to police because of gun crime towards police in a nation where it's completely illegal to own a weapon in the first place. HUH, WHAT???

With such incidents come the inevitable mistakes: British police recently shot dead a drug dealer in his own bedroom. He was both unarmed and naked at the time.

You mean they have drugs in Britan? I thought drugs were illegal to own............guess that's not working either...........

Nor has strict control had much effect on the number of guns available to criminals. British police estimate that there are nearly 300,000 illegal guns in circulation there -- one for every 200 people.

To put that figure in perspective, the leading U.S. authority on gun numbers, Gary Kleck of Florida State University, estimates that only 180,000 guns are used in crimes in the United States each year.

WHAT!?!?!?! More gun crime in Britan where guns are already illegal than in the USA where FULLY AUTOMATIC guns are perfectly legal to own..... :shock:

So despite the strict gun control laws, there are more than enough illegally held guns in Britain to allow gun crime there to reach U.S. proportions.

These figures speak for themselves. Britain enacted strict gun control laws and has achieved a rise in gun crime, a decline in safety and a position where access to firearms among delinquent children seems commonplace.

These are valuable lessons in this experience for other countries, including the United States.

If the United States enacts strict gun laws nationwide, the American people cannot expect to see a swift drop in crime or to see our police able to do their jobs with less risk. Most of all, they cannot expect such laws to free delinquent children from the seduction of the gun.

Iain Murray, a British citizen, specializes in criminal justice issues at STATS, the Statistical Assessment Service, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization. He is the author of the Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on gun control statistics.


Hey, David I want you to notice that this article was NOT written by an American, but a British citizen........neither does he work for the NRA........


Your turn............


Italics within article are my comments..........

[DavidAlizée]

you know way to much about guns. :P

And dn't belive everything you read. I live here.. and i can tell you it is much safer withought guns.. Thankyou ..very much.

[bvmjethead]

Where is your proof David?

You asked me for proof and I provided it.......

Show me why I should believe your opinion.

How come you can make sweeping erroneous comments about guns and gun crime in my country, but you can't defend what a citizen of your own country said about guns and gun crime in your own country?

I think you're the one who should search for fact rather than believing everything you read.

[DavidAlizée]

Where is your proof David?

I did not say i will provide any. This is based on my Opinion.. (Please look at the topic)

You asked me for proof and I provided it.......

Why yes you did... Thanks

Show me why I should believe your opinion

Nope. This is my opinion only. I do not care if you belive it or not.


How come you can make sweeping erroneous comments about guns and gun crime in my country?

Because that is what the topic is about ( again please re-read the topic )

I think you're the one who should search for fact rather than believing everything you read

Thanks.. but i like my opinion the way it is. I don't need facts to back up what i belive.

[Guard-]

Yall've raised a sleeping dragon, and a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment of the constitution! Guns are like drugs in a way, you can get them even if they are made illegal, but the thing is, only the people that intend to commit a serious crime will have a gun, while you, John Doe, will be unarmed and unable to defend yourself if you don't have the right to possess a firearm. Guns aren't bad, people are bad, and children that don't know how to use a gun have sh#*$&ty parents for not teaching their kids how to properly handle one and/or not keeping them locked away in a safe place. When i grew up, we had a loaded gun in every room, i was one little kid that wasn't about to have any harm done to me, while on the other hand, my mom would beat me with a bat if she ever caught me playing with one or acting in an unsafe manner! :D
A little comedy mixed in couldnt hurt anything :wink:

http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/patriotic-pictures/guncont.jpg

Texas is just fine the way it is... I'd walk the streets at night with a shirt that says "SHOOT ME PLEASE" and not be worried single bit. People make the connection between crime and guns, why not the People that commit crimes. "Guns cause crime, like flies cause garbage" Bad people are what the problem is, not firearms. And as far as the 'ban' on automatic firearms, anybody could make a pipe bomb with $20, Ace hardware store and a few chemicles.... Mass murderers still pop up in the news, even without automatic firearms. Timothy McVeigh didnt use one, neither did Osama. People that intend to do something horrible will find a way, you could ban things from now until the next millenium and i'd bet the farm there will still be those crazy #$&(*# that find a way.

[bvmjethead]

It's interesting that all you can do now David is state that your opinion is just that, your own opinion. You sure sounded different in your 1st post in this thread. But that's par for the course, I'm used to disputing misinformation with printed stats...........

You simply cannot provide any fact's to back up your opinion.

I will however provide even more links to printed stats showing my "opinion" to be based in statistical fact. Here ya go.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/s=122/bcw1069915015293/


Alert Date: November 27, 2003


Gun laws do not reduce criminal violence according to new study
SOURCE DATE: November 26, 2003
AUTHOR: Fraser Institute



Media Release
The Fraser Institute

For Immediate Release

VANCOUVER, BC, 27 NOVEMBER 2003—Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The Unites States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997. Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997.

However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime.

For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic.

Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.

–30–

CONTACT: Gary Mauser,
Professor, Simon Fraser University
Tel: (604) 291-3652,
gary_mauser@sfu.ca

------------------

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.

For further information, please contact:
Suzanne Walters, Director of Communications,
The Fraser Institute
(604) 714-4582,
suzannew@fraserinstitute.ca

*****************

[bvmjethead]

More for your reading pleasure............

http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/guns/chicago.shtml


Chicago Gun Show
Mark Skousen
"According to the economic approach, criminals, like everyone else,
respond to incentives."
-Gary Becker 1

The Chicago boys are at it again. This time the economists at the University of Chicago are making headlines in today's hotly disputed debate about gun control. Milton Friedman set the general standard a generation ago by insisting on rigorous empirical work to support sound (though often unpopular) theory and policy. More recently, Gary Becker extended Chicago-style economic analysis into contemporary social problems such as education, marriage, discrimination, professional sports, and crime.

Now John R. Lott, Jr., until recently the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow at Chicago, is making the case that a well-armed citizenry discourages violent crime. Lott analyzed the FBI's massive yearly crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties over 18 years, the largest national surveys on gun ownership, and state police documents on illegal gun use. His surprising conclusions, published in his recent book, More Guns, Less Crime:

- States now experiencing the largest drop in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing rates of gun ownership.

- The Brady five-day waiting period, gun buy-back programs, and background checks have little or no impact on crime reduction.

- States that have recently allowed concealed weapon permits have witnessed significant reductions in violent crime.

- Guns are used on average five times more frequently in self-defense than in committing a crime. 2

According to Lott, recent legislative efforts to restrict gun ownership may actually keep many law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves from attack. (There's that Law of Unintended Consequences again.)

The Incentive Principle
Underlining Lott's findings is a basic economic concept, the law of demand: If the price of a commodity goes up, people use less of it. In the case of criminal activity, if the cost and risk of committing a crime rises, less crime will be committed. This is often referred to as the market's incentive principle.

Gary Becker has showed that increasing the cost of crime through stiffer jail sentences, quicker trials, and higher conviction rates effectively reduces the number of criminals who rob, steal, or rape.3

Similarly, Lott argues that state laws per-mitting concealed handguns deter crime. "When guns are concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether the victim is armed before striking, which raises the risk to criminals."4 He produces a variety of statistics and graphs to support his case. For example, the following graph compares the average number of violent crimes in states before and after the adoption of a concealed-handgun law.



Lott's crime figures also remind me of Frederic Bastiat's brilliant essay "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen." In 1850, this great French journalist note, "In the economic sphere,. . . a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first ... is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen."5

According to Lott, Bastiat's principle applies in crime statistics. "Many defensive uses [of guns] are never reported to the police."6 Lott gives two reasons. First, in many cases of self-defense, a handgun is simply brandished, the assailant backs off, and no one is harmed. Second, in states that have stringent gun laws, citizens who use a gun for protection fail to report the incident for fear of being arrested by the police for illegal use of a weapon. Thus, Lott confirms (through extensive surveys) the initial work of Gary Kleck, professor of criminal justice at Florida State University, that guns are used far more frequently in self-defense than in committing crimes. Kleck, by the way, used to have a strong anti-gun bias until he uncovered this revealing statistic.

All this confirms a long-standing constitutional principle: People have the right to own a gun for self-protection.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the original publication, Mark Skousen was an economist at Rollins College, Department of Economics, Winter Park, FL 32789, a Forbes columnist, and editor of Forecasts & Strategies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Gary S. Becker and Guity Nashat Becker, The Economics of Life (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), p. 143.

2. John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chica go Press, 1998).

3. Becker and Becker, p. 137.

4. Lott, p. 5.

5. Frederic Bastiat, "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," Selected Essays on Political Economy (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1995 [1850]), p. 1.

6. Lott, p.5.

Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., October 1999, Vol. 49, No. 10.

[bvmjethead]

Percentages of types of guns used in crimes............


Percent of all 1994 traces

Type of gun


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 100.0%
Handguns 79.1
Pistol 53.0
Pistol revolver 24.7
Pistol derringer 1.4
Rifle 11.1
Shotgun 9.7
Other, including
machinegun 0.1


Oh yeah those "machine guns" or fully automatic assault weapons are sure dangerous.

.1% that's something to get all riled up about.

Link: http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/0900GUIC/Guns%20Used%20in%20Crime.htm

[bvmjethead]

More........


Link:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/0900GUIC/Guns%20Used%20in%20Crime.htm



Weapons ban purely cosmetic
By Stephen Cathers
Published: Thursday, March 25, 2004
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1


Media Credit: Henry Hsu | Daily Trojan


One of the more important Senate votes of the year took place this month. John Kerry even made it back to the Senate to cast his first vote all year.

The issue: extending the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons by attaching it as an amendment to a bill protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Kerry and others framed it as a ban on dangerous military-style weapons that only criminals would use. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein called it an issue "as to whether the American people want AK47s, street sweepers and Uzis sold once again." With this kind of rhetoric, it's easy to misunderstand what an assault weapon actually is.

Ban proponents and the media certainly won't give people a straight definition of what they mean by assault weapons. Judging by the AK47 and Uzi references, it's easy to think that machine guns are being banned.

Many news reports fail to even mention that the guns in question are semiautomatic, not automatic. One gets the impression that the NRA is fighting for the right to go hunting with machine guns. Even "The Simpsons" lampooned the ban's opponents, with Lenny (speaking at an NRA meeting) claiming that assault weapons are "manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals."

Given these impressions, it's interesting to find out what's actually banned.

The law classifies assault weapons as "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher." Several types of pistols and shotguns are also banned, along with magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Notice that automatic weapons are not covered, because they've been strictly regulated by the federal government since 1934. Basically, the assault weapons ban bans guns that look scary. Assault weapons are actually only semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns that are functionally exactly the same as other semiautomatics, which fire one shot per pull of the trigger.

The guns shoot the same type of ammunition with the same power as traditional guns. For instance, the banned TEC 9 uses 9mm ammo, which is also used in many legal pistols, such as the Glock 17. Gun-control advocates have decried manufacturers for "violating the spirit of the law" by making "slight cosmetic changes" to guns in order to escape the ban.

What makes this claim so ironic is that the ban was always based on cosmetic features. These cosmetic features make no functional difference. Indeed, it's hard to understand why some of them were included at all.

Remember the last crime committed with a bayonet? Neither do I.

You might think that a flash suppressor hides where a shot comes from, but it actually only hides the temporarily blinding flash from the person firing the gun. Gun-control advocates claim that features such as folding stocks and pistol grips make it easier to spray bullets indiscriminately, causing greater casualties and damage. Of course, assault weapons fire no faster than any other semiautomatic weapons. Nor does the evidence bear out claims that assault weapons lead to increased damage in crimes. During the Clinton administration, the Justice Department study "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-1996" found that "the ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds."

Interestingly, ban proponents are quite short on evidence that the ban has fulfilled its ostensible purpose: reducing crime. While Sen. Feinstein trumpets the statistic that assault weapons now represent 1.22 percent of all recovered crime guns (down from 3.57 percent in 1995), she gives no evidence that this has actually led to a decrease in crime. Tom Diaz, of the pro-gun-control Violence Policy Center, even said, "If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another ... reducing death and injury." As long as the ban has failed to reduce crime, it seems rather odd to rejoice that the look of the weapons used for crimes has changed.

Perhaps the most powerful claim made by ban proponents is that one of five cops killed between 1998 and 2001 fell victim to an assault weapon. Yet the VPC, which came up with this statistic, inflates these numbers by neglecting to use the definition of assault weapon defined in federal law. Nor does it show that these murders were because of any special properties of assault weapons.

For instance, according to its Web site, one of the murders involved a policeman who was shot multiple times from behind. Another involved a policeman ambushed by a subject who was hiding behind a door. You have to wonder what difference it would have made if the murderers had used a more traditional gun.

So if assault weapons are no more dangerous than other legal guns, why do gun control groups make such a fuss about them? Because, with the collaboration of a media that overwhelmingly favors gun control, they're able to play on public confusion over what assault weapons really are. Indeed, in 1988, the VPC's Josh Sugarmann wrote, "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semiautomatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

One might wonder why citizens should care about merely cosmetic bans that do little to actual gun effectiveness. But the government ought to have a compelling reason before it restricts the freedoms of anyone. The burden of proof ought not be on those defending the constitutional right to bear arms but rather on those seeking to abridge it. Arbitrary bans erode respect for Americans' fundamental rights. As Jacob Sullum wrote in the magazine Reason, "The 'assault weapon' ban sets a dangerous precedent precisely because the justification for it is so weak. It suggests that you don't need a good reason to limit the right to keep and bear arms, and it invites further restrictions down the road. As far as the gun banners are concerned, that is the whole point."

The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who's pro-gun control, admitted that the ban's "only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." The ban erodes respect for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The assault ban, while little more than symbolic, does have political effects. It allows gun control advocates to portray themselves as favoring reasonable restrictions while condemning the NRA and others who fight arbitrary restrictions as "gun nuts" who reject even "moderate, rational" measures.

The VPC study "Assault Weapons & Accessories in America" claimed the ban would "damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby." Moreover, it moves the debate away from the Second Amendment and its protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

If gun-control supporters can create a debate where gun owners must justify the right to own a gun solely by its utility in hunting and target shooting, they'll have won the ideological war. The tyranny of complete gun confiscation won't be far behind.

Ultimately, the bill which contained the renewal of the assault ban was voted down, and the ban will expire this September.

Expect for Kerry and his allies to make an issue of this in the coming election. But politicians such as Kerry, who claim to believe in Second Amendment rights, ought to reject this cynical wedge issue and protect Americans' freedoms.

[bvmjethead]

Perhaps the best post yet and absolutely on topic..............

Link:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Definitions
A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun.

Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire a handgun cartridge and can be operated by one person. Sometimes they are referred to as machine pistols.

A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second.

Federal Firearms Regulations

[Disclaimer: Firearms laws change frequently, and vary from state to state. None of the information here should be considered legal advice or a legal restatement of any Federal firearms laws or regulations. Consult a lawyer, your local law enforcement, and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for further information regarding firearms laws and taxes in your area.]

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

(Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, "FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons", and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, "The Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective" [Hardy, 1986]) )

Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely. For further details see NRA state firearm law summaries.

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states.

Crime Involving Illegally Owned Machine Guns

Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.
A Good Argument for Gun Registration?

An observant reader would think the strict registration requirements and extremely low rates of crime committed with legally owned automatic weapons are powerful arguments for "sensible" gun control. However an even keener reader notices that despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.

[DavidAlizée]

Here we have rules about double posting. Why dont you just link me to them sites, instead of copy and paste all that crap. I am never going to read it as i did not even read the first one you pasted. I do not care about Guns... Calm down and stop your spam please. Remember this is about opinions.

[Ayan]

You know, bvmjethead, this whole thing you posted is nothing but statistics. Recent scientific studies have proved that 80% of statistics is wrong.
I only bothered to read your first longer post about Britain.
That somehow the kids in school have carried weapons. But this is like asking a bunch of 12 year olds if they have had sex, and you would get the answer "Yes" from 80% of them. :roll:

USA is the only "democratic" country in the world, where you can legally kill a person. Shouldnt that already say something. And now the civilians should have the right to carry automatic weapons? Why - to protect themselves from hordes of criminals. What are those civilians going to do, step against the mob? Please.

[bvmjethead]

You guys are great at SAYING something, but lousy at finding printed statistical evidence of your claims.

[Ayan]

You guys are great at SAYING something, but lousy at finding printed statistical evidence of your claims.
I dont see you spreading any printed evidence either.

[Manu]

I'm no way gonna read all those posts lol. Well, I don't think it is that difficult to understand. My freedom ends where yours begins, and if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot at anybody. It's called 'probability'. And democracy, too.

[bvmjethead]

I'm no way gonna read all those posts lol. Well, I don't think it is that difficult to understand. My freedom ends where yours begins, and if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot at anybody.

Including the murdering rapist who breaks into my home to rape and kill my wife and daughter.

The only person I have ANY desire to shoot is the person who has the desire and will to harm me or my family. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Call 911 sometime and see how long it takes them to get to your home.

It's called 'probability'. And democracy, too.

It's called being responsible for your own safety without being a burden on the state. Every law abiding citizen has that right according to the Constitution of the USA.

Oh I'm sorry you wouldn't know anything about a Constitution that guarantees freedom to citizens though would you.

[bvmjethead]

It's very interesting to me that most of the people who believe that guns cause crime or contribute to crime believe that ALL guns should be made illegal. Somehow this notion of making all guns illegal will make gun crime go away, or at least lessen it.........correct?


You know it's funny, drugs are illegal in every country I've ever been to, YET every country I've ever been to has a drug culture steeped into it's society.

Think about that.

[Manu]

I can only pity on you. Quit seeing Hollywood movies, dude, you got a trauma.

[Ayan]

It's very interesting to me that most of the people who believe that guns cause crime or contribute to crime believe that ALL guns should be made illegal. Somehow this notion of making all guns illegal will make gun crime go away, or at least lessen it.........correct?
Nope, not correct. Not at all. Not all guns should be illegal. But why should civilians have guns? Yes, i know, it is a sort of a standard in USA. And okay, it is in the constitution.
But these laws are old. You guys are not living in wild west anymore. The constitution should be re-written.

Fine, if people have lived for so long in a society where it is normal to own a gun, then it may be hard to let it go. Personally I think it is ridiculous how many families want to have a gun in their house. But i guess I'm being just a naive non-american, right ? Pfff.



P.S. An AK-47 to protect your doughter from a rapist? Let me laugh here please :roll:

[DavidAlizée]

Well said Manu and Ayan.

bvmjethead

Why don't you edit your posts instead of double posting ?

It's very interesting to me that most of the people who believe that guns cause crime or contribute to crime believe that ALL guns should be made illegal. Somehow this notion of making all guns illegal will make gun crime go away, or at least lessen it.........correct?

If Guns were legal, People would abuse it. Ud see kids carring guns to school.. shooting them and maybe killing people by accident. Or most realisticly hostage situations.. If some Americn can't get what he wants, out comes the gun.. Sorry, this is a bad idea. We need to keep some countries sane. : )

But ofc bvmjethead, you are correct in everything you say because you are from the United States, and we all know.. Americans are always right. :roll:

[Lía]

can i make a point about the uk gun culture (soz if it's off-topic) but it's becoming to be like the US gun culture... just last friday danielle beccan, an innocent 14-year-old girl from nottingham got killed by a gang....

the whole gun thing is totally outta hand and i'd prefer a total gun ban in both countries. sorry but...
LÍA + VIOLENCE = DOESN'T GO....

[DavidAlizée]

i read there was more to that story than the news was letting on. Her brothers were the target and they were into something big.. dunno

[Joseph]

can i make a point about the uk gun culture (soz if it's off-topic) but it's becoming to be like the US gun culture... just last friday danielle beccan, an innocent 14-year-old girl from nottingham got killed by a gang....

the whole gun thing is totally outta hand and i'd prefer a total gun ban in both countries. sorry but...
LÍA + VIOLENCE = DOESN'T GO....


One Killing? And that is significant, how? Oh, we forgot, let's blame that glock for the young boys death, and let the men who did it free, YAY!

To blame the gun would be to blame your eraser for making a mistake.

[Jenny]

What people don't understand is that even before the ban you could buy all the parts of an automatic weapon and put it together and fire it. It doesn't make much of a difference with or without the ban. However, I don't think ANY weapons should be sold AT ALL. Even though I'm from Oklahoma, and most people here have guns, it causes alot more problems in the long run.

If you think about it, anyone beside police and military owning guns are completely pointless, and in fact dangerous. People feel as if they have no power if they can't own a weapon, which is true in some aspects, but in the long run I think it would make not only America, but if other countries followed suit, the world safer.

Although the middle east still sells automatic weapons and rocket launchers to children.

[bvmjethead]

If Guns were legal,

Dude, let me say it again, you obviously did not get it the first time.

Guns ARE legal to own in the USA.

People would abuse it.

True. Criminals will always break laws. The more laws we make the more laws the criminals will break.

Ud see kids carring guns to school.. shooting them and maybe killing people by accident.

Sure that's happened twice already. But both times it's happened the kids who did it BROKE LAWS already in place prohibiting minors from carrying concealed weapons AND bringing weapons onto school property. How is one more gun law going to help?

Or most realisticly hostage situations.. If some Americn can't get what he wants, out comes the gun..

BS, again with the meaningless broad sweeping generalizations. I didn't get my way a bunch of time just today and my gun never even came into my mind. You're making ridiculous comments. Stick to something that at least makes common sense.

But ofc bvmjethead, you are correct in everything you say because you are from the United States, and we all know.. Americans are always right. :roll:

If you say so.

What's really funny is you from Britan trying to tell me what's good for my country. You don't even live here, how in the world can you possibly know better than I what is good for my country.

[DavidAlizée]

If Guns were legal,

Dude, let me say it again, you obviously did not get it the first time.

Guns ARE legal to own in the USA.

.

Read my comments again before jumping in. I was talking about Britain in that statement. ( We all know Guns are legal in the US.. use yourr brain )So "dude" let me say it again..as you obviously did not get it the first time.... RE-READ my post.

[Manu]

What people don't understand is that even before the ban you could buy all the parts of an automatic weapon and put it together and fire it. It doesn't make much of a difference with or without the ban

Of course you can, as well as you can buy a grenade and throw it to the White House, or a C4 and make it explode in a gas station. You gotta excuse me, but I don't see the point here, cos it does make the difference. Nobody in Spain carries a gun walking down the street, mainly cos they are banned and you cannot go to a supermarket and just get it. At least you are against that law.

Criminals will always break laws. The more laws we make the more laws the criminals will break.

I hope you never get shot. But hey the other guy would've broken the law, how cool. You must be joking, really.

[bvmjethead]

What people don't understand is that even before the ban you could buy all the parts of an automatic weapon and put it together and fire it. It doesn't make much of a difference with or without the ban.

Agreed, you are absolutely correct, BUT........

You can still LEGALLY purchase a fully automatic gun in the USA, AND always have been able to. The Assault Weapons Ban had NOTHING to do with fully automatic or Class III weapons.

Do you understand what I'm saying? This is not my opinion, it's fact, it's the law in Oklahoma as well as the rest of the USA.

Criminals have ALWAYS known how to convert a semi-auto firearm to a fully-auto firearm, how will one more gun law stop them from breaking the law. They are planning on breaking the law and using an already illegal gun in the first place.

The other thing and most important fact to understand concerning this entire thread is only ONE crime has ever been committed in the USA with a fully automatic firearm. It was a police officer who used a fully auto weapon he legally owned to murder a police informant (snitch).

Why do we need to legislate something that is not a problem. Owning fully automatic firearms in the USA is not a problem. One crime and that one committed by a police officer in hundreds of years as a country..........

PLEASE, I'm not trying to be a jerk, just THINK about what you're saying.

However, I don't think ANY weapons should be sold AT ALL.

Then don't buy a weapon.

Even though I'm from Oklahoma, and most people here have guns, it causes alot more problems in the long run.

More with the sweeping generalizations...... :roll: You make statements with no basis in fact. I'll bet that if you do some open minded research you'll find that because "most people in Oklahoma" have guns Oklahoms is a relatively safe place to be.

If you think about it, anyone beside police and military owning guns are completely pointless, and in fact dangerous.

This is the most ridiculous statement yet.....

Have you studied history at all?

Hitler, banned citizen gun ownership prior to his murderous rampage throughout Europe. He began killing Jews IN Germany. Hitler murdered 6 million UNARMED Jews.

Paul Pott, banned citizen gun ownership in Cambodia before killing millions of UNARMED people in his own country. If you had an education he killed you. If you wore glasses he killed you. If you could play a musical instrument he killed you.

Idi Amin, killed millions of his own UNARMED citizens.

Time and time again history shows, not long after a government bans citizen gun ownership a Dictatorship/ethnic cleansing soon follows.

[bvmjethead]

Well said Manu and Ayan.

bvmjethead

Why don't you edit your posts instead of double posting ?

It's very interesting to me that most of the people who believe that guns cause crime or contribute to crime believe that ALL guns should be made illegal. Somehow this notion of making all guns illegal will make gun crime go away, or at least lessen it.........correct?

If Guns were legal, People would abuse it. Ud see kids carring guns to school.. shooting them and maybe killing people by accident. Or most realisticly hostage situations.. If some Americn can't get what he wants, out comes the gun.. Sorry, this is a bad idea. We need to keep some countries sane. : )

But ofc bvmjethead, you are correct in everything you say because you are from the United States, and we all know.. Americans are always right. :roll:


Show me where in this post it indicates you were talking about Britan...............

[DavidAlizée]

If Guns were legal, People would abuse it. Ud see kids carring guns to school.. shooting them and maybe killing people by accident. Or most realisticly hostage situations

[squeaky ladida]

I guess i'll just reiterate my earlier post and lay down a few underscoring facts

1) All weapons, semi-auto or automatic, illegal or class III licensed, can kill people. a 400 year old match lock could kill anyone. All guns can kill
2) Though there has only been one murder with an automatic weapon, there have been many other crimes commited with automatic weapons. I remember a robbery commited by two men with kevlar vests and AK47s. No cops were killed, but many were severly wounded. The only counter to these two men was the local swat team, the normal cops were outgunned and couldn't hold their own.
3) It's written in the constitution, guns will never be completely outlawed without extreme opposition. Sons of Liberty

Too lazy to continue, i'll write more when i don't have work to do

[bvmjethead]

I guess i'll just reiterate my earlier post and lay down a few underscoring facts

1) All weapons, semi-auto or automatic, illegal or class III licensed, can kill people. a 400 year old match lock could kill anyone. All guns can kill

A rock can kill, a stick can kill, a car can kill, a drunk behind the wheel of a car can kill, I don't see us banning cars or alcohol. More people die from DUI related car accidents in the USA that from gun crime.

2) Though there has only been one murder with an automatic weapon, there have been many other crimes commited with automatic weapons. I remember a robbery commited by two men with kevlar vests and AK47s. No cops were killed, but many were severly wounded. The only counter to these two men was the local swat team, the normal cops were outgunned and couldn't hold their own.

BS, those guns were not fully automatic.

It is a FACT, provided by the FBI that there has only been ONE CRIME in the USA using a fully-automatic weapon.

It is a huge misconception when every time people who have no idea about guns see a gun that LOOKS like an AK-47 they assume it is a machine gun. There is a semiautomatic version of the AK-47.

Likewise the AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC version of the FULLY- AUTOMATIC M-16, please get your facts straight.

I won't go into specifics, but a kevlar vest will siginifanctly reduce any harm from standard rifle bullets
they won't stop anything fancy like a 5.7mm combusting bullet, but they serve their purpose

If you can, will you please explain to be what the devil a 5.7 mm combusting bullet is.

I've been involved in shooting for over 25 years and I've never heard this terminology used before. Are you talking about "tracers"?

[Jenny]

We have to have cars, we don't need to have alcohol, we don't need to have guns. Guns and alcohol cause FAR more problems than they fix, in the civilian sector anyway.

[bvmjethead]

Got any proof to the sweeping generalization you just made?

I'm privy to law enforcement studies and reports here in the USA, I wish I could post some of the information I read on a monthly basis.

Stories of hundreds of lives saved, robberies thwarted and rapes prevented every month because honest, law abiding citizens had a gun.

Many cops in the USA, IF ASKED, would sooner say to ban alcohol than to ban guns.

[Ayan]

Fine bvmjethead, just let me ask you this - Why should a civilian own an automatic weapon?

If you give me one good reason, i'll save myself the trouble to pick out more of your ridiculous comments.

[Goodfella]

And thats why the U.S. government can be terrible

[bvmjethead]

Fine bvmjethead, just let me ask you this - Why should a civilian own an automatic weapon?

If you give me one good reason, i'll save myself the trouble to pick out more of your ridiculous comments.

Because it's legal for me to do so, and I want to. There are 2 reasons.

A better question is why should citizens not be allowed to own fully automatic weapons?

There has been ONE crime in the entire history of America that involved an automatic weapon. ONE!

There are OVER 250,000 legally owned fully automatic firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens of the USA.

ONE crime has been committed and the perpertrator was a police officer.

So, with that in mind you tell me why should we not be allowed to own them.

BTW, I'm not here to argue with you or even to offend and I'm sorry if I've come off like that.

I'm very passionate about the Constitution of the USA, and I have very strong feelings about people from other countries giving us advice on how to run our country.

I'm just here to present facts that I've gathered over a lifetime of searching for truth.

Truth, something not easily found in this world anymore.

[Goodfella]

No but the question is what would a civilian, need an automatic weapon for?
Granted it is in the Constitution, the bear to arms, but why does a common citizen need a automatic weapon?

[bvmjethead]

Why do I have to prove a "need" for something to be able to legally own it?

You don't need a car, house, boat, jetski, stove, flashlight, beer, computer, phone, calculator, sofa, school, books, clothes.....none of it. Yet it's all legal to own.

I don't "need" and automatic weapon.....

but once more I'll say it for those of you who OBVIOUSLY missed in my previous post(s).

There has been ONE crime in the entire history of America that involved an automatic weapon. ONE!

There are OVER 250,000 legally owned fully automatic firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens of the USA.

ONE crime has been committed and the perpertrator was a police officer.

So, with that in mind you tell me why should we not be allowed to own them.

[SeeMeRot]

there's no use for a civilian to have an automatic weapon.......or the common pistol for that matter..... we have law enforcement to handle problems we don't need gun crazy civilians......and just because you can isn't a good answer....

[Goodfella]

You don't need a car, house, boat, jetski, stove, flashlight, beer, computer, phone, calculator, sofa, school, books, clothes.....none of it. Yet it's all legal to own.


I understand that, but its a different kind of luxury. Cars help us with convinient transportation, a house for shelter, clothes as a social norm. But for what use is the automatic weapon.

So, with that in mind you tell me why should we not be allowed to own them.


We are allowed to own them, but is it right?

[DavidAlizée]

there's no use for a civilian to have an automatic weapon.......or the common pistol for that matter..... we have law enforement to handle problems we don't need gun crazy civilians......and just because you can isn't a good answer....

I couldnt agree more!!!!

[bvmjethead]

there's no use for a civilian to have an automatic weapon.......or the common pistol for that matter..... we have law enforcement to handle problems we don't need gun crazy civilians......and just because you can isn't a good answer....


Yeah, the last time I called 911 for EMERGENCY Police response it took them 27 minutes to get to my house.

OVERALL 911 RESPONSE TIMES

Cobb County
18.4 minutes

Fulton County
18.6 minutes

City of Atlanta
21.9 minutes

DeKalb County
23.6 minutes


Several day's later I WALKED to the nearest police station in 14 minutes.

Next time an armed robber is in your home, ask him to hold on while you dial the police and then hold out while the police get there.

Lady murdered WHILE on phone to 911
http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=mb_911-020117

Woman stabbed to death while on her 5th call to 911
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2001/05/02/911_pmc_010502

[SeeMeRot]

eh......have you ever heard the phrase trouble only breeds around trouble?....

[squeaky ladida]

BS, those guns were not fully automatic.

It is a FACT, provided by the FBI that there has only been ONE CRIME in the USA using a fully-automatic weapon.

It is a huge misconception when every time people who have no idea about guns see a gun that LOOKS like an AK-47 they assume it is a machine gun. There is a semiautomatic version of the AK-47.

Likewise the AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC version of the FULLY- AUTOMATIC M-16, please get your facts straight.

Sorry, it was indeed an automatic AK47
and I know a bushmaster xm-15 is, semi auto hunting/match rifle based on the M-16, but the original AR-15 was automatic, though the civilian versions out now by armalite are semi automatic




If you can, will you please explain to be what the devil a 5.7 mm combusting bullet is.

I've been involved in shooting for over 25 years and I've never heard this terminology used before. Are you talking about "tracers"?

it's an incindiary bullet, some people call them combusters
tracers are in a league of their own

no kidding everything can kill, but not everything has the purpose to kill.
A rock has many useful purposes, so does a car, and a wet noodle, yet indeed many of them are capable of fatal harm. Guns don't have all that many uses besides snapping ropes from 75 feet away, drawing designs on concrete walls, and harming other beings. I'm not saying guns should be banned, I'm definitely an anti-firearm advocate
Come to think of it... why am I arguing with you? All I did was present a few bits of information, not even presented a stand

[bvmjethead]

eh......have you ever heard the phrase trouble only breeds around trouble?....


Yeah, but it's just that a "saying", better known as a "wives tale"

:roll:

[squeaky ladida]

^lol, never thought about it that way before

[bvmjethead]

Sorry, it was indeed an automatic AK47


Show me some proof.......I'm privy to reports put out by the FBI that show different information.


it's an incindiary bullet, some people call them combusters
tracers are in a league of their own

Exploding or incindary bullets are ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR civilians to possess in the USA, so your point on owning these rounds is moot.

Come to think of it... why am I arguing with you? All I did was present a few bits of information, not even presented a stand

So what is your stand?

[squeaky ladida]

well, in my search to rediscover where i had read that (two armed robbers in body armor robbing a bank), which i had also seen twice on the history channel, I came upon masses of automatic weapon related crimes
I wasn't exactly looking for them, but they came up
I haven't seen the FBI thing, care to share?
since we're partially talking about illegal arms and their apprehension, illegal bullets are fair game too


my position? My position is that guns should stay legalized and that the assault weapons ban, though great in theory, is useless in practice
fact is, if someone really wants to do damage and wants an automatic weapons, s/he will get one regardless of the law. However, I don't think that automatic weapons should be openly availible on the market either. Pistols and bolt action and semi-automatic rifles are fine and practicle for their purposes, but i fail to see how automatic rifles are needed publiclly. What can an automatic realistically do practically that a semiautomatic rifle or pistol can't?
that's my stand

[bvmjethead]

Not a stand I can fault either.

Curious, are you aware of how difficult it is for a wealthy law abiding citizen to obtain a permit to legally purchase and own a class III (fully auto) weapon?

It's very difficult and takes at least 6 months to jump through all the hoops and background checks plus a $200 fee for the permit.

No way a criminal can LEGALLY obtain a full auto weapon.

But like you said if they want one they can get one just like I can walk down to downtown and get some coke, crack, pot or heroin right now. All of it is highly illegal but I can still get it.

When you say the bank robbery with 2 guy's in body armor, was that the one in Hollywood a few years back, if so those were semi auto weapons.

Guns used in crimes report from the U.S Department of Justice......http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

[Ayan]

Because it's legal for me to do so, and I want to. There are 2 reasons.

A better question is why should citizens not be allowed to own fully automatic weapons?

There has been ONE crime in the entire history of America that involved an automatic weapon. ONE!
You are right. Why didn't I think of it before. Hey you know what else.
Civilians should have the right to own nukes.
In the entire history of America, the nukes have only been used TWICE.
TWICE!

[squeaky ladida]

yeah, I know how hard it is to get hold of automatic weapons
and i'm not talking about the hollywood ones, there was a news chopper in the sky that captured most of this one, two robbers rob a bank and get into a car, but one gets out and eventually both are apprehended. Clearly shows an automatic weapon after the first man got out. The opening scene of the movie SWAT was based on it.
um, i just realized something, the entire thread is about legalizing already legal weapons.... the ban that just expired encompassed a group of semi-automatic weapons.... what was the topic discussing again?

[bvmjethead]

yeah, I know how hard it is to get hold of what was the topic discussing again?


The topic discussion was flawed from the jump because the thread started did not have his facts straight.

Automatic weapons were never illegal to own in the USA. They were not a part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to promote throughout every post I've made in this thread.

Misinformation based in an emotional response to a perceived problem that does not exist is bad politics.

Next........

[bvmjethead]

Because it's legal for me to do so, and I want to. There are 2 reasons.

A better question is why should citizens not be allowed to own fully automatic weapons?

There has been ONE crime in the entire history of America that involved an automatic weapon. ONE!
You are right. Why didn't I think of it before. Hey you know what else.
Civilians should have the right to own nukes.
In the entire history of America, the nukes have only been used TWICE.
TWICE!


This is a great reply to my post.

I certainly opened myself up to that one.

You're right, my use of this analogy was flawed from jump.

:oops:















However it certainly does not discount the FACT that there is a astronomical difference between civilians owning nuclear weapons and owning a single firearm.

Dude......watch another Rambo movie.

I can't remember when anyone has advocated civilian ownership of nukes.

[DavidAlizée]

its kinda funny.. It states your "kisses" = ALizée interested. It should say "Gun Interested" Im yet to hear you mention anything about Alizée.. or did you join here for the Gun topic?

[Alw]

Yeah! it rox now you can shoot a dear with a Para!! :thumbdown:

[romanholiday]

I confess I didn't read six pages of discussion, so I apologize if this has been brought up before.

The assault weapons ban was largely cosmetic and useless. Fully automatic weapons were banned in 1934, I believe, and the legality of having one remains the same as it was before and during the AWB. There is a huge misconception that "assault weapons" are automatic weapons or assault rifles, but it's just a ploy. The provisions of the ban didn't effect the killing capacity of a rifle. The difference between a legal rifle and a banned "assault weapon" could be a bayonet lug - not a bayonet attached, just the lug to hold one. Or, a grenade launcher, which was almost certainly added just to scare people, because actual projectile grenades are illegal under different legislation, so a grenade launcher attachment would be useless. People freak out, to the ban proponent's benefit, when they imagine Rambos walking down the street with belt-fed, grenade-launching doomsday weapons.

I'm prototypically classified as a liberal, but I think there's a lot of sensationalism on the guns issue. I think it's an important right to bear arms, and that it's absurd to believe that a criminal who would commit an act requiring a firearm would be concerned about the legal ramifications of his weapon.

[bvmjethead]

OMG, the voice of reason.

You're no liberal.

[culorojo]

For my first post, let me start off by saying something we all can agree with
Alizée is "smokin hot!"

bvmjethead brought forth an opinion and an argument based in fact that is completely irrefutable, the detractors on the other hand brought forth an opinion based on purely emotion, media hype and no facts.

If you can truly make an open-minded assessment and get past your ignorance the truth will be staring you and the eye and you will realize there is no need to fear firearms.

I own many semi-automatic weapons and they are not nearly as dangerous as your automobile or your doctor :wink:

rojo

[Joseph]

or your doctor"

TRUE DAT, YO !

RAFLZ
(i hate docs very much)

[SeeMeRot]

For my first post, let me start off by saying something we all can agree with
Alizée is "smokin hot!"

bvmjethead brought forth an opinion and an argument based in fact that is completely irrefutable, the detractors on the other hand brought forth an opinion based on purely emotion, media hype and no facts.

If you can truly make an open-minded assessment and get past your ignorance the truth will be staring you and the eye and you will realize there is no need to fear firearms.

I own many semi-automatic weapons and they are not nearly as dangerous as your automobile or your doctor :wink:

rojo

unless ur in a war and are a soldier and not a civilian......there's no need for u to have an automatic weapon....

[culorojo]

For my first post, let me start off by saying something we all can agree with
Alizée is "smokin hot!"

bvmjethead brought forth an opinion and an argument based in fact that is completely irrefutable, the detractors on the other hand brought forth an opinion based on purely emotion, media hype and no facts.

If you can truly make an open-minded assessment and get past your ignorance the truth will be staring you and the eye and you will realize there is no need to fear firearms.

I own many semi-automatic weapons and they are not nearly as dangerous as your automobile or your doctor :wink:

rojo

unless ur in a war and are a soldier and not a civilian......there's no need for u to have an automatic weapon....


Bush won so deal with it!

Its not about the need, its about rights and freedom!

Do you "need" to express your infintile opinion? No, you don't but, you certainly have the right to do so.

using your logic, unless your a race car driver you shouldn't own a car capable of exceeding the speed limit.

[DavidAlizée]

You do NOT need to own an semi-automatic weapon. End of story. Thats how Baghdad is in the mess it is..

[SeeMeRot]

unless your a race car driver you shouldn't own a car capable of exceeding the speed limit.

^ exactly, that's why driving ur car faster than the speed limit and suped up cars are illegal..... :roll: ....and the same should be for automatic weapons, the only purpose they serve is to ensue as high damage as possible in "war" ....sure rights are important......but when ur rights come before overall security of other civilians.....it's wrong....period....

[Joseph]

unless your a race car driver you shouldn't own a car capable of exceeding the speed limit.

^ exactly, that's why driving ur car faster than the speed limit and suped up cars are illegal..... :roll: ....and the same should be for automatic weapons, the only purpose they serve is to ensue as high damage as possible in "war" ....sure rights are important......but when ur rights come before overall security of other civilians.....it's wrong....period....

Ummmm NO.
I did an LD on this. It's not 'period'. When you strip even a few rights away for " security " it causes problems. For any period longer than nessecary, you might just end up with something like the Gestapo.

[SeeMeRot]

well, well.........yet Bush, (ur idea of a great president) has already chosen overall security over some rights in the patriot act......

[culorojo]

You do NOT need to own an semi-automatic weapon. End of story. Thats how Baghdad is in the mess it is..

Please...

Don't presume to know what's happening in Baghdad, I live it everyday and call tell you it's nothing like what’s in the BBC


And since when are suped up cars illegal?

Speeding is illegal just like using guns in the commission of a crime

Bush is not my idea of a great President; he was just better than the alternative

[loff]

If the us citizens needs pistols/rifles to defend themselves - and fail - the problem isn't that the weapon isn't powerful enough. who the f*ck needs to have a have a few ak47's or an mp5 in their house? we don't need that in norway and we're still alive, aren't we? they might be useful for something, just like rambo knifes (http://www.cs-extreme.net/downloads/skins/weapons/ramboknife.jpg), but you don't really *need* them, do you? keep in mind that i don't know, nor would understand why they want to allow automatic weapons. the day you see someone with a gun like this http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/fnherstal/machine_gun2.jpg on their back while walking their dog, and you don't find it weird (in lack of a better word), you should seriously go in yourself and think..


edit: since i don't know how to fix a poll, if i should be able to do so, i'll post it without having a poll.

when will the us civilians have anti aircraft guns in their garden, and a tank in their garage? will they ever get it, are we talking 5 years, 10 years, 25 years 100 years? if we don't look at the sealing there, will this be a regular, american house in 10 years? when will childrens get a steyr aug for their 10th birthday?

[Orion]

The U.S. takes the right to bear arms faound in the constitution too literally/seriously. It's a simple statute that leads to complex legal challenges.

The reason why many people favour having those type of arms is because there are those who get them illegally and if one of those people should come after one of them, victim should have the right to bear arms and defend against attackers.

If the U.S. government can get the best and most powerfull weapons in the world to defend itself against those who might also get there hands on such weapons, then people should also be free to do the same in light of the constitution.

This sounds like the Cold War: it remained cold because both Russia and the U.S. had Nukes. I guess people want to keep any little "war" in their own neighbourhoods from becoming hot also. The real problem then, is the criminal or your average crazy who gets his/her hands on that shit. That's why they should not exist outside the confines of the Department of Defense.

[tern]

America is safe. Unless you make an effort to go to a dangerous area, you will be fine.

Wow, talk on this site about women and guns. Throw in some sports and beer and you got yourself a MANparty!

[bvmjethead]

......there's no need for u to have an automatic weapon....


There's no "need" for you to legally own a car..........

[bvmjethead]

You do NOT need to own an semi-automatic weapon. End of story. Thats how Baghdad is in the mess it is..

:roll:

You continue to make blanket generalized statements that have no basis in intelligence let alone fact.

There are so many things fundamentally wrong with this statement I hardly know where to begin.

I'll make two quick points though.

First of all you have no concept of freedom. Freedom is not based in the inherent "need" for something it's based in the desire of a nation of people that "want" things and have set up a form of government that allows the freedom to follow those dreams and make them reality. America is a free country. We don't have to "need" something to be able to obtain it. Keep that premise on your side of the pond thank you.

Secondly, guns (fully automatic, semi-automatic, bolt action, single shot or even muzzle loaded muskets) have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the current state of Baghdad. The entire country if Iraq is in the state it's in now because the former Dictator Saddam Hussain was a murdering criminal terrorist, he harbored terririst, trained terrorist and funded terrorism. He killed anybody who did not have the same ideals as himself. Even his own countrymen.

[bvmjethead]

America is safe. Unless you make an effort to go to a dangerous area, you will be fine.


Another ridiculous statement, based in fantasy.

It's apparent that you are completely out of touch with reality.

Tell me you've never heard a news report of people sleeping in their beds at night when 4 masked men break into their house.......in an "affluent" (read SAFE) part of town, the robbers then tie everyone up and ransack the home looking for drugs, money or jewlrey, then kill the family and run off into the night.

A simple Google search will reveal hundreds of cases just exactly as I've described here.

You are not safe in America.

Last time I dialed 911 it took something like 27 minutes for the police to get to my home. Several nights later I WALKED to the same police station that they were dispatched from in under 15 minutes. Yeah call 911, by the time they get there THEY will call the Medical Examiner to determine your cause of death.

[bvmjethead]

The topic discussion was flawed from the jump because the thread started did not have his facts straight.

Automatic weapons were never illegal to own in the USA. They were not a part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to promote throughout every post I've made in this thread.

Misinformation based in an emotional response to a perceived problem that does not exist is bad politics.

Next........

[HampsterOnSpeed]

If you wanna take it to the next level...life is a huge risk itself, so not being safe in America...I don't know just kinda sounds redundant to me...I mean, you know what I mean, hehe and No, I'm not saying anything just leave it at that. But jethead I just wanted to point out...you said a lot of people are just blurting out things that are driven by total emotion...and bash everybody who doesn't have any sign of intelligence, reasoning capabilities (didn't say specifically, but...), and to get the facts straight, and yet, you come with that little droning of yours that proclaims statements about Sadam that seems to be driven by emotion in itself. If you are really concerned about CRUEL leaders and what not why don't you look at Cuba...North Korea...and the list goes on...face it...you KNOW that American government is pure and complete pragmatist that does only to its own self interest...

[Joseph]

You do NOT need to own an semi-automatic weapon. End of story. Thats how Baghdad is in the mess it is..

Remember David when the US Apache's went into Bagdad? The people didn't just sit back and let those helfires blow them up. At the signal of 2 flashing lights every man , woman , and child went out with their AK'es, small arms, and RPG's and shot everything they had into the sky. The American pilots were shocked at this. I find something attractive in a town where the citizens refuse to lay down their freedom. :)

[Joseph]

America is safe. Unless you make an effort to go to a dangerous area, you will be fine.


Another ridiculous statement, based in fantasy.

It's apparent that you are completely out of touch with reality.

Tell me you've never heard a news report of people sleeping in their beds at night when 4 masked men break into their house.......in an "affluent" (read SAFE) part of town, the robbers then tie everyone up and ransack the home looking for drugs, money or jewlrey, then kill the family and run off into the night.

A simple Google search will reveal hundreds of cases just exactly as I've described here.

You are not safe in America.

Last time I dialed 911 it took something like 27 minutes for the police to get to my home. Several nights later I WALKED to the same police station that they were dispatched from in under 15 minutes. Yeah call 911, by the time they get there THEY will call the Medical Examiner to determine your cause of death.

Same thing happneed to me. When i was younger some members of rival gangs had a shootout in my front yard street with shotguns and glocks. the police didn't come until the MORNING. (though I do not think anyone called till then) by that time, the men who weren't in the hospital were running through our damn yards, hiding in bushes and such, and even PICKED UP EVERY SHELL the next morning so there wouldn't be evidence.

[tern]

America is safe. Unless you make an effort to go to a dangerous area, you will be fine.


Another ridiculous statement, based in fantasy.

It's apparent that you are completely out of touch with reality.

Tell me you've never heard a news report of people sleeping in their beds at night when 4 masked men break into their house.......in an "affluent" (read SAFE) part of town, the robbers then tie everyone up and ransack the home looking for drugs, money or jewlrey, then kill the family and run off into the night.

A simple Google search will reveal hundreds of cases just exactly as I've described here.

You are not safe in America.

Last time I dialed 911 it took something like 27 minutes for the police to get to my home. Several nights later I WALKED to the same police station that they were dispatched from in under 15 minutes. Yeah call 911, by the time they get there THEY will call the Medical Examiner to determine your cause of death.

Isolated incident. We have a country of 300,000,000, some people do very evil things. This is the work of Satan againtt people who are good and it disgusts me. Other people live their lives and never get shot. I know I have not.

Maybe if the couple had a gun they could protect themselves from harm? Robbers don't like it when their victims fight back. Perhaps they'd piss their pants and run if they were greeted by a coupla' barrels, rather than screams of fear? The glorious thing about America is that I live without fear.

[DavidAlizée]

we need to build a 50ft wall around baghdad to keep the American and British troops out to stop them getting hurt by these animals. Then when all the troops are back home with their familys.. we can then fill baghdad full of water and end this war once and for all.

[Ayan]

we need to build a 50ft wall around baghdad to keep the American and British troops out to stop them getting hurt by these animals. Then when all the troops are back home with their familys.. we can then fill baghdad full of water and end this war once and for all.
I heard the people in Baghdad have bombs, so your idea doesn't really hold water.

[tern]

we need to build a 50ft wall around baghdad to keep the American and British troops out to stop them getting hurt by these animals. Then when all the troops are back home with their familys.. we can then fill baghdad full of water and end this war once and for all.

Reminds me of Noah's ark, cleansing the world of evil....

I support all coalition troops. Thank you.

[bvmjethead]

America is safe. Unless you make an effort to go to a dangerous area, you will be fine.


Another ridiculous statement, based in fantasy.

It's apparent that you are completely out of touch with reality.

Tell me you've never heard a news report of people sleeping in their beds at night when 4 masked men break into their house.......in an "affluent" (read SAFE) part of town, the robbers then tie everyone up and ransack the home looking for drugs, money or jewlrey, then kill the family and run off into the night.

A simple Google search will reveal hundreds of cases just exactly as I've described here.

You are not safe in America.

Last time I dialed 911 it took something like 27 minutes for the police to get to my home. Several nights later I WALKED to the same police station that they were dispatched from in under 15 minutes. Yeah call 911, by the time they get there THEY will call the Medical Examiner to determine your cause of death.

Isolated incident. We have a country of 300,000,000, some people do very evil things. This is the work of Satan againtt people who are good and it disgusts me. Other people live their lives and never get shot. I know I have not.

Maybe if the couple had a gun they could protect themselves from harm? Robbers don't like it when their victims fight back. Perhaps they'd piss their pants and run if they were greeted by a coupla' barrels, rather than screams of fear? The glorious thing about America is that I live without fear.


Could you please make up your mind?

First you say don't go places that are dangerous and you wont need a gun.

Then you post this.

Which is it?

FYI, nothing in my post was an "Isolated incident", I read reports about the two different situations I refferred to in my post almost every day. (1. unarmed homeowners getting murdered by criminals in their own homes.... and 2. Horrible 911 response times from all over the USA) Our liberal media chooses not to report the truth for fear of "panicking" the masses.....

[bvmjethead]

we need to build a 50ft wall around baghdad to keep the American and British troops out to stop them getting hurt by these animals. Then when all the troops are back home with their familys.. we can then fill baghdad full of water and end this war once and for all.


When you say "animals" exactly who are you referring to?

[tern]

Looks the same to me. If you get in the middle of a gang war, you will get shot. If you don't, chances are you won't. I'm willing to bet on it. If I get shot and killed, I will give you $100. Prolly hope I die now, don't you?

Btw, I don't own and gun and don't plan to.

[Joseph]

we need to build a 50ft wall around baghdad to keep the American and British troops out to stop them getting hurt by these animals. Then when all the troops are back home with their familys.. we can then fill baghdad full of water and end this war once and for all.


When you say "animals" exactly who are you referring to?

The sheep that roam around the town. Also, it could be the citizens dogs, or cats. Or it could be a pet canary. Do you have a pet canary? I don't have a pet canary.

[Brn2FlyGuy]

The term "Assault Weapons" is entirely the creation of politicians seeking to impose ever greater restrictions on the types of firearms that a citizen is allowed to own. There is such a thing as "assault rifles", but alas the ownership of these firearms is largely limited to--at least in the U.S.--the military, the police, and a few rigorously screened collectors. Anti-gun politicians frequently try to mislead the American public (and presumably those of other countries as well) into believing that the weapons which they are attempting to ban, are identical to those carried by soldiers on the battlefield--but this is not the truth. The similarity between battlefield versions of any given "assault rifle" and the authorized civilian market version of these firearms, are almost entirely superficial. Externally they appear very similar, but the functional capabilities of civilian versions are limited one round fired for each pull of the trigger--in other words, semiautomatic action. What's more is that even though it is true that in some of the pre-ban firearm designs in the years immediately following the passage of the ban on full-auto firearms some thirty years ago, it may have been relatively easy to modify the internal mechanism of a civilian version of a gun to allow full automatic fire, these designs have been replaced with post-ban designs which--rather than being simply re-worked automatic designs--are developed from the start to be immune (at least without a complete remanufacture of the trigger-group and associated components) to such modifications.

Despite the wishful thinking of gun-control advocates, guns are not the cause of "gun-crime", rather they are simply the reason we label it "gun"-crime and not "knife"-crime, or "baseball-bat"-crime. Gun-ownership has always been high among the citizenry of America, but the rise of so-called gun-crime as we know it today, is a fairly recent occurrence of the last fifty to sixty years.

[tern]

Oh and also "assault" sounds so much more likea vicious attacking word rather than "rifle" or other such euphomisms.

[Ayan]

I heard there was a similar thread in a Beyoncé forum aswell.
Quick! Someone go there and make a bunch of new users in order to teach those weapon-newbies a thing or two about why weapons are good.


But yeah, it's somewhat good to see all these smart people coming to a little forum just so they can educate weapon-newbies such as myself. Thank you for joining a singer's fansite btw.

[DavidAlizée]

But yeah, it's somewhat good to see all these smart people coming to a little forum just so they can educate weapon-newbies such as myself. Thank you for joining a singer's fansite btw.

haha, i noticed this too, seems to be happening alot :P

[ArlettyFan]

Or lightsabers, lightsabers are cool too.
They are as effective as firearms, but not so dangerous.
Press F5 on your keyboard to vote for lightsabers!!






.....I dont have anything reasonable to say here actually.

Ya no, Ayan, i had a bad experience with those in my last life.

:walks out onto the his american street, looks around, walks back in:
Oh god no! don't give these people access to more weapons, we're crazy here!

[tern]

I heard there was a similar thread in a Beyoncé forum aswell.
Quick! Someone go there and make a bunch of new users in order to teach those weapon-newbies a thing or two about why weapons are good.


But yeah, it's somewhat good to see all these smart people coming to a little forum just so they can educate weapon-newbies such as myself. Thank you for joining a singer's fansite btw.

Alright, what the crap. Is this sarcasm?

[NATESOR]

Automatic weapons HAVE NOT been legal without special permit in the United States since the 1920's! Get your facts straight. All the "assualt weapons ban" did was ban guns that "look scary". That is, basically, they couldn't look like a military rifle. This whole law functioned mainly as an annoyance to gun shooters (myself included) and an appeasement to soccer moms. Additionaly, no magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds could be made or imported. Since the law only effected newly made rifles and magazines(clips) all it did was jack up prices so the drug dealer down the street had no problem paying twice as much but the average joe could no longer afford it. Automatics (1 trigger pull = more than 1 shot) were never allowed. Semi-automatics (one trigger pull = one shot + reload) were and still are allowed. Big difference.

I don't blame people for not knowing this. Every clip on the news shows a crazy hick firing his ak-47 full automatic or some gun collecter with an m-60 belt fed machine gun going rock and roll and say, "the assault weapon ban keeps these life-destroyers off the streets and stops these machines of death from killing helpless babies!"

Just know that the only real effect of this law was to make these "assualt weapons" more inaccessable to the everyday shooter (not everyone who has a gun is homicidal... If you've ever shot a gun at some pop cans or milk jugs you know how fun it is.)

Yah, so never let anyone say, "those savage Americans allow fully-automatic machine guns in the hands of right-wing racist nuts!" Correct them, "No, those savage Americans only allow SEMI-automatic RIFLES in the hands of right-wing racist nuts!"

[Le Fidèle]

^ lmao, i litle late on the post huh?

thanks for the info though, NATESOR?

btw welcom to the forum. 8)

[Joseph]

Lol. I made this topic when i was liek 4 years old.

[Ned]

Well to post for this, about this, what do you think it would be better, to have guns and fight an imaginary enemy (like Bush Jr. lied the american citizens), or don't have guns at all and stay peaceful. They legalized them in order to create a bigger chaos than it already is right now. Just think about all the high-school students out there in U. S. who own an automatic. Violence everywhere. Fighting an enemy? It's rather fighting against ourselves not an imaginary terrorist grou