-
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated.
Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?
If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.
-
cereal killah
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
I don't have a good reason because I think they should be banned alongside handguns. The only firearms I think should be allowed are hunting rifles and shotguns for home protection and those should be heavily regulated.
It's time. The need for non hunting guns has run it's course. Guns are designed for one thing and that's killing there's no other use for them so why have them around. The recent events have made it clear changes need to be made.
I'll keep my shotguns and the cap and ball, give up the Beretta.
-
High School Varsity 6th Man
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by ripthekik
The probability that a death is caused by alcohol is smaller than winning a lottery, getting in a planecrash, or getting hit by thunder.
-
7-time NBA All-Star
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by DonDadda59
Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?
If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.
Saw this on another site. Liked it:
I think this is very much a worthwhile discussion. Amendment 2 did make sense at one point, especially for a small nation without a standing military. It does not today fall on the individual citizen to protect the country from foreign invasion, and modern wars are not fought that way. We have a fantastic military that is exceptionally capable of defending the nation's shores.
Even the argument that an armed populace is the last defense against tyrannical government doesn't make much sense in the drone age. Your ability to engage in a firefight is worth very little against the largest standing military on the planet. In truth, the best safeguard against tyrannical government is the conscience, compassion and individual values of our service members and law enforcement personnel, like the Egyptian soldiers who refused to fire on unarmed civilians.
I do believe in the principle of private ownership, but we're not using our right to own guns to defend or shores or keep our government in check. We're using them to kill each other. I'm fine putting Amendment 2 on the table. Effective government should be a running experiment, not unwavering devotion to the best ideas of previous centuries.
-
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by DonDadda59
Well then we agree on the ban. But pouring money into securing schools from mass shootings (don't know how you would even be able to do that in a huge college campus effectively) does absolutely nothing to address the real issue. After Aurora, there were police stationed at most theaters across the country during TDKR's run. That was to make sure no more mass shootings occured in a movie theater. Then a shooting occurred in a mall... now in a school. If you pour all your effort into beefing up security in schools and pass that off as doing something to address the issue, what do you do when the next attack happens in central park, or in a bus, etc? Do we just keep moving the goal posts and do the whole 'oh, guns don't kill people' thing?
If this wasn't a wake-up call, then I don't know what it will take. Guess we'll just do the usual- deflect and then twiddle our thumbs and wait on the next one.
You're right. Even if we protect one soft target, these kinds of people will find a multitude of other soft targets.
People are ignorant of how many people die from firearms daily because it is not news worthy unless something like the elementary school shooting happens. A significant portion of this country accept that those daily deaths are an acceptable price to pay for gun possession. Unless public ignorance and attitude changes, we have to figure out how to fix a psychological/cultural problem without infringing on a large portion of the US that believes that gun possession is their civil liberty.
-
NBA sixth man of the year
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by Droid101
I think this is very much a worthwhile discussion. Amendment 2 did make sense at one point, especially for a small nation without a standing military. It does not today fall on the individual citizen to protect the country from foreign invasion, and modern wars are not fought that way. We have a fantastic military that is exceptionally capable of defending the nation's shores.
That is a point I made in another thread. If your actual military has fallen I'm afraid that is it for you.
-
Local High School Star
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Hold on.
I'm all for shortening clips though but what is the definition of an "assault weapon"?
Also, aren't hand guns responsible for the majority of gun related deaths on top of being more easily concealed/portable, readily available, and cheaper? If so, couldn't this actually cause an influx of handguns and therefore, possibly more violence on the streets?
-
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
-
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/
While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.
-
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by bmulls
Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/
While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.
So? Gun control is about reducing crime committed with guns, not reducing the total crime rate. That's its purpose.
-
______________________
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
So? Gun control is about reducing crime committed with guns, not reducing the total crime rate. That's its purpose.
How bout we put it together...less people with guns....less people have to protect themselves....easier to take advantage of....more crime.
-
3-time NBA All-Star
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
One of the less publicizied heinous acts of the Bush Administration was letting the assault weapons ban expire. It's awesome that Feinstein is going to bring this bill back.
-
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by Balla_Status
How bout we put it together...less people with guns....less people have to protect themselves....easier to take advantage of....more crime.
What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.
-
______________________
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.
Actually there's pretty good info that would support my hypothesis.
-
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.
Dude, a dead body is a dead body. It doesn't matter if they were killed with a gun or a knife or a chainsaw. If gun control doesn't reduce the total number of dead bodies, what is the point?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|