Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Subyman, Dec 18, 2012.
Maybe try reading, the problem has been mentioned, by me even in this very thread.
Assault rifles are already banned unless you have $25k of disposable income to drop on a rifle.
Please educate yourself before you speak.
When $1000 rifles get stolen, they get sold to pawn shops, not to criminals. Even criminals looking for black market guns are buying in the $100 range.
No, they don't. Police check pawn shops, and run all serial numbers at least weekly. Criminals that want an AR15 for doing dirt are just as likely to steal it themselves.
No pawn dealer would ever knowingly or willing purchase a stolen item. Especially if they want to stay in business and not get shut down by the police who have no problem checking pawn shops for stolen goods. Second of all they'd also need to be licensed to be able to buy and sell firearms. Attaining that license costs a lot of money so they would never allow themselves to buy possibly stolen firearm which would put their license in jeopardy.
So they check pawn shops for no reason then? Think about what you've just said. The common criminal committing random acts of violence DOES NOT want an AR15.
I'm not anti gun, I have guns. I just live in reality. I think the issue is a mental health issue, I also think the issue is the ability for mentally I'll to get guns.
Thanks for your reply. I followed this thread with interest from the start. You addressed quite a few "problems" <---(plural) in it. I was wondering what specific "problem" <----(singular) that you singularly referred to in the post I quoted you from.
But hey, no prob. I just wanted to reply to your post within the context you delivered it in and not throw darts at it. *Moved on*
Lmao of course they don't want to buy stolen goods, the police will confiscate and they are out money. Law enforcement does not fine a pawn shop or used gun dealer for buying stolen guns, they are far more concerned with the dealer selling to someone that they shouldn't. I'm sure there are tolerances built in, but its amazing how delusional people are.
Are you really this clueless? They check pawn shops specifically looking for stolen goods, especially guns. They check stolen gun serial numbers against recently taken in inventory. You are right however about the common criminal not wanting/needing an AR15.
Mental health issues are the problem. Continual infringement on the rights of millions of law abiding citizens because people don't want to address the real problem is bullshit.
Why would they check for stolen guns if they never found any? Were talking about modern departments on strained budgets. Here's a hint from a former cop, its because they find stolen items, including firearms.
There are plenty of "legal" ways to sell a stolen firearm, such as a face to face transfer which has no paper trail. Post a message on an online trading board and sell to someone who wants a gun for legal reasons.
Once in a great while they find a gun, but today most criminals that are smart enough to not be in jail know that you can't sell stolen guns to pawn shops, and especially something as high profile as a AR15. Besides, a pawn shop isn't going to give you more than you can get on the street for one by a long shot.
Right, which doesn't jive with your original statement ...
Eh my main point of the comment is that most of these firearms are going to individuals who legitimately want to own one for non-criminal reasons. Yes, this might include people who can't legally own one but criminally minded individuals simply don't want AR15s.
so are you saying that an otherwise law abiding citizen who is mentally unstable, with a record as such, should be able to buy or have access to a gun?
that is what lotus was arguing against, the mentally ill having access to guns.
if you have someone in your household who could go off the deepend you damn sure better make certain that they can not gain access to your guns or just not have them in your house.
You think Rightists would have applauded the accuracy especially having a tight group of 10-15 bullets in each child's head.
in a cynical view, this tragedy serves many purposes
- news stations extra viewers, more $$
- uniting the majority by blame video games/aspergers/ atheists/ shy w/ever undesired group
- as with any other mass shooting, increased sale of guns (to protect vs "potential" threat).
- gives audience to thousands of nutjobs w/ their armchair psychiatrists/explanations
It's also done a great job of kicking the Fiscal Cliff (or should I say Tea Party Cliff or Republican Cliff) out of the news headlines. It's probably good news for Republicans since it seemed like they were going to take the blame for this mess.
It's almost a comic irony that gun control advocates don't accomplish much other than to increase the sales of guns and ammo.
That's the problem.
People have different definitions of the term "Assault Rifle." I'm guessing you're including selective fire including in some cases full auto in your definition.
Anyway a semi auto rate of fire and ease of reloading is all you really need...
An assault rifle is capable of full auto, by definition. Calling a semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle" is incorrect.
This would be an "assault rifle" under your absurd definition:
So you know what my definition of an Assault Rifle is? ok. /shrug.
I was going to add "to kill or injure a large number of people" to the last sentence in my previous post but didn't feel like going into that at the time.
The point was you don't need an "assault rifle" to kill or injure many people so a new ban wouldn't do much.
You understand people have perverted the definition for a reason right? If politicians had to call it a semiautomatic rifle then they couldnt lump it in with what the military carries. The definition of an assault rifle since the first one came off the line in Nazi germany nearly 70 years ago. And it isnt what an AR-15 is.
then you should ban all semi-automatic weapons, because they can all be used to kill or injure a large number of people?
as a gun-owner, i'm not opposed to REASONABLE measures to prevent these tragedies. the problem is everyone is being unreasonable (and i notice a lot of people ignoring the mental health aspect)
Hopefully the quality of Remington and Marlin firearms will go up as they get new owners. No more Remlins please.