Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[Sallow]

I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?

And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.

According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).

However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?


.

I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.

Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.

Not a problem at all.

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.

 

[Sallow]

Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.

FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.

So the FBI statistics are only for Federal crimes? Every murder is now a federal crime? Lie much?

Under what circumstances is murder a Federal offense? - Yahoo! Answers

Basically..yeah.

Why exactly do you think the NRA went after the CDC?

Huh?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

I would gladly take responsibility for any actions of my guns. Any time one of my guns attacks someone, or commits a crime, I will punish the gun according to the severity of the action it has taken. You're cool with that?

 

[eflatminor]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated. Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?

You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

It is. Clearly.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns.

The "same thing" already exists. You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.

Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner.

Wow. Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?

The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

Not a single one. It's that daft an idea.

 

[Spoonman]

The numbers on gun deaths have been "questionable" since the NRA had legislators pass to laws to squash them.

Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg

Has been since 1996. Even with the suppression, the numbers gathered by independent auditors are staggering.

Dunno why any "law abiding" gun owner would be against this..

Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.

FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.

Why don't you just make shit up.

 

[Sallow]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

I would gladly take responsibility for any actions of my guns. Any time one of my guns attacks someone, or commits a crime, I will punish the gun according to the severity of the action it has taken. You're cool with that?

Nope.

The owner is responsible.

After all..guns don't kill people, right?

 

[Sallow]

Which has nothing at all to do with FBI statistics so get off your spin wagon.

FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.

Why don't you just make shit up.

What part of the Clean Debate Zone, aren't you getting?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.

What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.

The absurd notion came from you folks.

That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".

Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.

It's not an industry.

So, anyone who has used a gun to shoot any kid in the face should be forbidden to have guns. I'm for that.

 

[Sallow]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated. Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?

You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

It is. Clearly.



Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.



The "same thing" already exists. You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.



Wow. Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?

The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

Not a single one. It's that daft an idea.

As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.

Or anyone for that matter.

 

[Spoonman]

I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.

Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.

Not a problem at all.

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.

well that and the black market. oh yea, and eric holder

 

[eflatminor]

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

Not true. Not even close.

According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.

 

[Sallow]

What you should be asking ,how many rational people would go along with that.

What an absurd notion, If said gun owner commits a crime,we already have a solution in our legal system.

The absurd notion came from you folks.

That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".

Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.

It's not an industry.

So, anyone who has used a gun to shoot any kid in the face should be forbidden to have guns. I'm for that.

Not exactly..

 

[Spoonman]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

how's this one for you. as long as my guns aren't committing any murders put no restrictions or limitations on them. You know, just like our bill of rights says.

 

[Sallow]

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

Not true. Not even close.

According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.

They were manufactured illegally?

Really?

Man..this is bigger then I thought.

 

[eflatminor]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated. Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?

You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?



It is. Clearly.



Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.



The "same thing" already exists. You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.



Wow. Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?



Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

Not a single one. It's that daft an idea.

As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.

Or anyone for that matter.

Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.

But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.

Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.

Not a problem at all.

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.

I dont manufacture weapons.
I go to great (see expensive) lengths to protect my guns from theft and to keep them out of the hands of children. Now your average crackhead will lay his fully loaded piece of shit raven .25 on the coffee table with half a dozen yard apes running around.
So who is the dangerous one here?

 

[Sallow]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

how's this one for you. as long as my guns aren't committing any murders put no restrictions or limitations on them. You know, just like our bill of rights says.

Except..that's not what the bill of right says. It's not even what the case law that allows you to have guns says..

 

[gallantwarrior]

I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?

And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.

According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).

However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?


.

I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.

Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.

Which brings us back around to the question: "Why does the government really want to criminalize the law-abiding citizens?" They won't enforce the laws they already have. They acknowledge that the laws they want won't affect criminals. They will use this fact to demand even more extensive gun laws because the ones they have don't work, we need more. Liberal logic 101.

 

[eflatminor]

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

Not true. Not even close.

According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.

They were manufactured illegally?

Really?

Man..this is bigger then I thought.

No, but that's not what you said. You said "Most criminals are getting their guns from law abiding citizens".

That is patently false.

 

[Sallow]

Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.

Not a problem at all.

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.

I dont manufacture weapons.
I go to great (see expensive) lengths to protect my guns from theft and to keep them out of the hands of children. Now your average crackhead will lay his fully loaded piece of shit raven .25 on the coffee table with half a dozen yard apes running around.
So who is the dangerous one here?

It should not be a problem for you then.