The more the gun nuts fight the assualt weapons ban, the more attention it gets

"You do not fight back by creating more sheep!" The Emperor Obama thrives on sheep.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ex-secret-service-agent-suddenly-going-viral/

 

If your position was correct, that folk are seeing the NRA as full of nut jobs, then the tens of millions of new arms bought and the gazillion rounds of ammo sold and the massive, unprecidented growth in groups like the NRA would not have happened. Unfortunately for your position, guns and ammo are flying off the shelves and Firearms Groups are rapidly growing...

 

Yes, but the OP owns handguns so he doesn't want to talk about that.

In the dictionary, if you look up hypocrite, there is a picture of a person with a handgun in one hand and a sign that says "Ban assault weapons" in the other.

 

The NRA doesn't put guns into the hands of anyone. They lobby to protect the rights of people who want to own guns.

Do you have a source on that 2000 body count? If so, can you tell me how many of those were suicides or law enforcement using firearms in the line of duty, vs how many were killing sprees?

The problem with background checks is that people are only criminals AFTER they commit crimes. First time criminals (most shooting spree initiators) will pass the check. The downside for legal gun owners is that they are added to a database of gun owners which could later be used for confiscation purposes. Private sales of private property are none of the government's business.

 

I''ll bet that those .00004% who died would rather be alive.

 

Maybe they would, or maybe they are dead and no longer have opinions. Either way, I think the point of bringing up the miniscule fraction of a percent is to show that the proposed solutions don't actually address safety in a meaningful way.
All of this gun control talk is a direct reactionary response to a problem. The response does not actually address the problem though. More people die from fists than die from "assault rifles". Many more people die from alcohol or even medical treatments, but those things are not sensational because the body count is spread out. We see 20 people shot in one event on the 24 hour news cycle and we imagine this epidemic that does not actually exist, because the event is sensational. Most gun owners are not criminals, and given the millions of assault rifles in circulation, the number of crimes committed with them is extremely small.

 

Maybe more deaths occur from fists then assault rifles, but then the government cannot regulate fists, but the can with guns. One death is one too many if we as a society value human life.

If I were you I wouldn't take out my anger on the government, I'd take it out on the criminals; if everyone were "law abiding", then there would be no issue with people having guns. But the government has to do something to protect those who either do not have guns or cannot afford them.

 

Pure BS, but don't let that stop you gun grabbers from trying to push your pathetic fear mongering on decent citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

The government can do nothing to protect anyone from crime. Legally even the police have no duty to protect a citizen from crime. Your best defense is yourself whether you carry mace, a knife, a gun, or in the case of the silly liberals, pee on yourself.

 

I think you are generally correct.

And also, I don't see the need for individual civilian citizens to have military levels of firepower.

Still, it isn't only MY view worth considering. For that reason, I am very pleased that this conversation has come OFF of the America's back-burner in a most significant way. We should have had this discussion a very long time ago.

 

Then you should be satisfied that they don't.

 

I disagree. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

'
You disagree from ignorance. The law does not protect anyone but provides a means of punishment if you break the law. The police have been excused by the courts from having to protect a citizen.

 

If people had any idea what they were talking about, i bet they would want to ban the firearms responsible for the 99.9996%.

But they don't know what they're talking about, which is the problem in this debate

 

It is unrealistic to try to regulate every single thing that can lead to death. You can die from drinking too much water (technically hyponatremia), but that doesn't mean it is the responsibility of the state to regulate citizens water intake. Everyone of us will die one day, and no amount of regulation will prevent that. By having irrational legislation for every fear du jure, we are eroding all of our rights. The choice here is a spectrum of freedom and security. Too far one way or the other on this continuum will lead to a degradation of the quality of life for our citizens. I believe the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights have worked for us pretty well for this nation's history.
I don't have anger for the government. It has a role to play in ensuring a stable society. However, we have a role in ensuring our own safety. The supreme court has already ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you, so why legislate away your ability to protect yourself?

 

By that logic you've got a lot of banning to do. We have many things that we don't need that cause death. Cars, bathtubs (hell any slippery surface), electrical sockets, I mean I could keep going. If we live in a society where one death is one death too many then we have a lot of work to do in order to bubble wrap everything. Personally I think it's a retarded idea and that life comes with risk. I also don't think there is anything we can do to stop murder or violence from ever happening. In the end, I figure the best we can do is just live our lives and leave each other alone. So long as people don't harm others then who cares what they do?

Anyway if we can agree that we live in a society of risk, a society where we have POVs, bikes, allow people to face dangerous bath tubs and have things like stoves that are ready to jump out and kill entire apartment complexes at a moments notice, then I think we can handle firearms. After all it seems to be working out well; the vast, vast, vast majority of firearms owners harm no one.

 

If life comes with risk, then why the need for firearms? Take the risk that you'll never need a firearm; millions of Americans take that risk every year and seem to do alright.

 

Or we could stop trying to legislate all choices and let people choose for themselves.
I will say that banning guns did not make the UK safer. Violent crime has risen since the ban took effect, and it is now the most violent region in the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

 

I was responding to MyFing's position that life comes with risk. I haven't seen any statisics in UK regarding violent crime so I cannot comment on that.

 

I just saw and read the link you supplied. It appears that a majority of crimes were not committed with guns, rather other weapons such as knifes, etc. It would appear that there have been fewer crimes committed with a gun.

 

I originally said violent crime, not gun crime. If the problem is people being hurt or killed, and that number goes UP after banning guns, then the solution doesn't address the real problem. Make sense?

 

I don't know the actual specs of certain weapons, but I do know that some weapons systems afford one the ability to kill lots of people in a very short amount of time.

The kind of firepower (capability) a military member or law enforcement would possess... should not be in the hands of the average citizen.

 

And you can quantify the above is absolutely true? (I'm fairly certain you cannot.)

Can you show THAT in writing, please.

For SOME people that may be true, certainly not for ALL.

 

Thats nice. But, I must ask you, what is an "assault weapon"?

- - - Updated - - -

Civilians typically do not have access to military weapons.

Why do the police need more powerful weapons than citizens?

 

Why should they be in the hands of military members and law enforcement then? Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald were military members. Christopher Dorner was law enforcement. I think they've shown themselves to be too irresponsible to own firearms. If I could get 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. military member and law enforcement, turn 'em all in...

 

Wait, what does two thousand killed by guns have to do with anything?!? I thought we are talking about those "assualt weapons" here. How many are killed in mass shootings by assault weapons?

Just seems to me there is little reason for banning any additional types of guns. These "assault weapons" are really not any more dangerous than any other type of gun. Is it just that gun grabbers want to ban ALL guns, but all they can manage to do is slowly ban one type of gun at a time?