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

[KevinWestern]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

 

[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.

 

[KevinWestern]

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 don't know about that. It's not very fair to pin a murder on a law-abiding citizen who got his house broken into and gun stolen, right?

And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles in the USA (I'm speaking in relative terms to all the other problems we have).

According to statistics there are generally less than 350 homocides by rifle in any given year in the USA (and 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?


.

 

[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 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.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

 

[Spoonman]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

let's take a look at how often these guns actually kill people. yea, you are right, this assault weapons ban is a total waste of time

 

[KevinWestern]

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 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.

Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to all objects that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?

I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?

By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...

.

 

[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.

Why? every one has the same rights to own a gun. that makes no sense at all. You libs get more off the wall with your ideas everyday.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

so we're going to hold automakers liable when a car kills someone too?

 

[there4eyeM]

From one who is against all censorship and repression of freedom for adults, allow this question:
Which is easier to ban, firearms or stupidity?

People are getting fed up with the misapplication of weapons like this. You and I may know that it is not the object that by itself wrecks havoc, but a solution is being demanded. Intransigence is not going to win the day.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to all objects that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?

I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?

By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...

.

hammers outpaced all rifles combined.

 

[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.

Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to all objects that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?

I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?

By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...

.

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..

 

[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.

so we're going to hold automakers liable when a car kills someone too?

NEWSFLASH: They are in many cases.

 

[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.

so we're going to hold automakers liable when a car kills someone too?

NEWSFLASH: They are in many cases.

yea, if they are a faulty product. get real. you are off the wall

 

[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.

Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to all objects that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?

I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?

By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...

.

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.

 

[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.

Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to all objects that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?

I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?

By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...

.

Nope.

 

[Sallow]

Let me quickly ask, would you agree that this law should apply to all objects that can be used as weapons like bats and knives?

I need to check the numbers, but I believe bats are implicated in an equal amount of murders every year (in the US by US citizens) as rifles?

By the way, I'm not against meaningful and effective gun regulations...

.

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.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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 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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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