Assault weapons ban

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Nebor
I could hammer a car at 100 yards with a pistol... A person is another matter. Especially if that person has a bullet hose aimed at you. That whole situation was unavoidable. A freak occurance. How often does something like that happen?

Oh, and silencers aren't illegal. They just require a license from the feds. Texas has no state laws governing them. You can order them on the internet. I've looked into them for some of my handguns.

Hell, I could too. But in a stressful situation? I wouldn't want to bet on it. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

I checked the regulations governing silencers. They are heavily restricted by the BATF and they are not legal for sale or use in CA by individuals.

Each state has different laws. If they are allowed all that is required is a $200 tax stamp, background check, and a CLEO sign off.

<---lives in Illinois so no full auto, SBRs, or silencers for me

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Nebor
I could hammer a car at 100 yards with a pistol... A person is another matter. Especially if that person has a bullet hose aimed at you. That whole situation was unavoidable. A freak occurance. How often does something like that happen?

Oh, and silencers aren't illegal. They just require a license from the feds. Texas has no state laws governing them. You can order them on the internet. I've looked into them for some of my handguns.

Hell, I could too. But in a stressful situation? I wouldn't want to bet on it. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

I checked the regulations governing silencers. They are heavily restricted by the BATF and they are not legal for sale or use in CA by individuals.

Give it 10 years and sporks will not be legal for sale or use in CA by individuals.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Mookow

No police snipers use a 9x19mm as their primary weapon, AFAIK.

EDIT: also, the police to have to worry about what happens after that 7mm exits the target.

This is completely false (unless you're talking about their service pistol, which is irrelevant to their work as snipers). There's no such thing as a sniper rifle built around 9mm Luger ammo, and police snipers can and do use powerful rifle rounds.

Unlike the military in combat, police can and do use hollowpoint rounds, which are prohibited under the Geneva Convention in military settings because they inflict unnecessary cruelty. In fact I recall a documentary about the LAPD snipers in which they used a rifle with .50 BMG ammo, a round that is not typically used for antipersonnel purposes in the military (though it is not, per a common urban legend, illegal under the law of war).

Obviously, police snipers do have to be highly cognizant of their environment, to avoid unnecessary collateral damage if they miss or their round overpenetrates.

I said no police snipers use the 9x19mm in their primary weapon (ie, rifle), so I dont see why you brought that up. On to the rifles... most of the time I hear about them using rifles in .308. The 7mm Remington Mag is rather more powerful, though now that you mention it I do remember that Ronnie Barrett (of Barrett Firearms) wrote an open letter to the LAPD saying that he protested their usage of his weaponry in a press conference. I dug it up.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Well don't you think that's a GOOD thing for once? I don't think people should be handling firearms in the first place.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Well don't you think that's a GOOD thing for once? I don't think people should be handling firearms in the first place.

😕

Did you read the thread?

 

[thirdlegstump]

Why should I? If guns can be obtained, it can be used in any way, even stolen by robbers and easily used in malicious ways. I just don't think it's a great idea for civilians to own guns. You can NRA this n that but the fact of the matter is, guns are dangerous no matter how careful you are with it.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Well don't you think that's a GOOD thing for once? I don't think people should be handling firearms in the first place.

The most dangerous words in the English language: "They ought to be a law..."

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Why should I? If guns can be obtained, it can be used in any way, even stolen by robbers and easily used in malicious ways. I just don't think it's a great idea for civilians to own guns. You can NRA this n that but the fact of the matter is, guns are dangerous no matter how careful you are with it.

You really think you can ban 700+ year old technology. I sit in awe of your theory.

 

[thirdlegstump]

They ban beheading..why not guns? They ban slavery..why not guns? I could go on and on.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
They ban beheading..why not guns? They ban slavery..why not guns? I could go on and on.

Those are actions. Guns are objects. And there are millions of them in the USA alone. All a ban will do is remove them from the hands of people who are not likely to commit crimes with them anyway.

Take a look at how well the gun bans have been working for the Aussies and English, then come back and argue if you want.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Why should I? If guns can be obtained, it can be used in any way, even stolen by robbers and easily used in malicious ways. I just don't think it's a great idea for civilians to own guns. You can NRA this n that but the fact of the matter is, guns are dangerous no matter how careful you are with it.

Guns can ALWAYS be obtained. As Mookow pointed out, 700+ year old technology cannot be made not to exist. Therefore, you must think accordingly, and not according to some fantasy that Pandora's box can me made closed again. It can't.

And as Robert Heinlein wisely pointed out, "There are no dangerous weapons. Only dangerous men." IMO ignorance makes for the most dangerous men of all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
They ban beheading..why not guns? They ban slavery..why not guns? I could go on and on.

Murder is illegal, with extremely harsh (and appropriate) punishments, yet people do it anyway.

Likewise, if you outlaw guns, people will still own them anyway, but instead of law-abiding people owning them for their own defense, those people who will own guns will be those most likely to commit murder and other serious crimes anyway. Therefore, your argument that outlawing guns will eliminate (or even reduce) crimes committed by guns is disproven by the harsh light of the real world.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
They ban beheading..why not guns? They ban slavery..why not guns? I could go on and on.

BTW... they've banned all sorts of drugs, but I could get practically any one that I wanted by Friday night, if I were so inclined. You really think it would be any different with guns?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Why should I? If guns can be obtained, it can be used in any way, even stolen by robbers and easily used in malicious ways. I just don't think it's a great idea for civilians to own guns. You can NRA this n that but the fact of the matter is, guns are dangerous no matter how careful you are with it.

In the same spirit I propose that we ban cars, alcohol, kitchen knifes, walking, breathing, and eating.

 

[thirdlegstump]

That's ridiculous. We need to breath and eat. We do not need weapons to kill. Banning it and making it illegal will deter many people from owning them, thus, less guns on the streets.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
That's ridiculous. We need to breath and eat. We do not need weapons to kill. Banning it and making it illegal will deter many people from owning them, thus, less guns on the streets.

So you are for banning cars, walking, and kitchen knifes?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
That's ridiculous. We need to breath and eat. We do not need weapons to kill. Banning it and making it illegal will deter many people from owning them, thus, less guns on the streets.

Originally posted by: Mookow
*cough* *cough* and *cough*

First page results from googling "England 'gun crimes'". England banned private ownership of pistols in 1997. The number of crimes committed with guns has gone up. But thats OK, because at least they have the knowledge that the thug pointing a pistol at them is committing an illegal act :roll:

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
That's ridiculous. We need to breath and eat. We do not need weapons to kill. Banning it and making it illegal will deter many people from owning them, thus, less guns on the streets.

What about the loss of jobs and national security interest? A private ownership ban would put every maker out of business, save the ones that produce for the military.

Then what about ammo companies? They'll be put out too. Are you aware a lot of the ammunition being used right now by the military is from public factories? The standard factories the gov buys from simply cannot keep up with what the military needs. How do you propose addressing this?

Many small LEOs purchase their firearms from local shops. What are they going to do when these people go out of business? They can't survive on a couple of LEO purchases a week.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
They ban beheading..why not guns? They ban slavery..why not guns? I could go on and on.

Yes, you could go on and on. And your point would still be moot.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
That's ridiculous. We need to breath and eat. We do not need weapons to kill. Banning it and making it illegal will deter many people from owning them, thus, less guns on the streets.

Are you not reading? It will deter the innocent people from having them - the ones that can use it for self defense. Do you think everyone will turn in their "banned" guns? The only guns will be in the hands of law enforcement and criminals.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The only thing a complete ban on firearms would accomplish is to disarm the law abiding citizens. I'm sure all the criminals are for this. That would make us sheep for them to slaughter.

Would you break into a house knowing the occupant might own a gun? If you knew that he DIDN'T own a gun then you might not feel any trepidation about doing so.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Dat B da problem kno wut I B sayin foo. Ifz gunz be in da handz ov dem crimnalz, we all B gud az dead. Das Y I B sayin, ban dem mofos cuz den we dun wtfbbq son. U B impossible 4 intelligent conversationz kid iiight. Piece to da urth yo!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Dat B da problem kno wut I B sayin foo. Ifz gunz be in da handz ov dem crimnalz, we all B gud az dead. Das Y I B sayin, ban dem mofos cuz den we dun wtfbbq son. U B impossible 4 intelligent conversationz kid iiight. Piece to da urth yo!

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Yo dun B like dat cuz I bust a cap in yo azz upside yo head son cuz I gotz axes to gunz yo! Mah dad ownz dem M-Grenader 1900 1700 gage double gun thingz I B borroin fo mah Engrish clazz so mah teacha dun mezz wit da bezt.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Yo dun B like dat cuz I bust a cap in yo azz upside yo head son cuz I gotz axes to gunz yo! Mah dad ownz dem M-Grenader 1900 1700 gage double gun thingz I B borroin fo mah Engrish clazz so mah teacha dun mezz wit da bezt.

So instead of at least attempting to present some sort of logical argument you are just going to spout off nonsensical crap?