Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[Nosmo King]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

You're asking the wrong questions. It's not which laws didn't work, it's about finding some that do. Bad laws get bad results, we all know that. But that's not to say that there aren't any good laws that work. Or that we shouldn't keep trying to find the right laws that work. You could start asking: why do other countries not have these kinds of massacres, and what are their laws regarding firearms? This would be a good place to start.

You really don't have a clue in the world, do you?


The Top 5 Worst Gun Massacres by an Individual

Perpetrator Location Date Victims

1 Anders Behring Breivik Utøya Island, Norway 22 Jul 2011 77 killed, (151 wounded)

2 Woo Bum-Kon Sang-Namdo, South Korea 26 Apr 1982 57 killed, (35 wounded)

3 Martin Bryant Port Arthur, Australia 28 Apr 1996 35 killed, (21 wounded)

4 Seung-Hui Cho Blacksburg, Virginia USA 16 Apr 2007 32 killed, (25 wounded)

5 Campo Elí*as Delgado Bogota, Colombia 4 Dec 1986 30 killed, (15 wounded)

When you sent me negative rep, you said that my statement that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous is a lie. Do you contend that a device designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate is a perfectly safe device? Don't you realize or respect the power of such guns? Or don't you believe that something so lethal could ever actually be a danger?

 

[WinterBorn]

You're asking the wrong questions. It's not which laws didn't work, it's about finding some that do. Bad laws get bad results, we all know that. But that's not to say that there aren't any good laws that work. Or that we shouldn't keep trying to find the right laws that work. You could start asking: why do other countries not have these kinds of massacres, and what are their laws regarding firearms? This would be a good place to start.

You really don't have a clue in the world, do you?


The Top 5 Worst Gun Massacres by an Individual

Perpetrator Location Date Victims

1 Anders Behring Breivik Utøya Island, Norway 22 Jul 2011 77 killed, (151 wounded)

2 Woo Bum-Kon Sang-Namdo, South Korea 26 Apr 1982 57 killed, (35 wounded)

3 Martin Bryant Port Arthur, Australia 28 Apr 1996 35 killed, (21 wounded)

4 Seung-Hui Cho Blacksburg, Virginia USA 16 Apr 2007 32 killed, (25 wounded)

5 Campo Elí*as Delgado Bogota, Colombia 4 Dec 1986 30 killed, (15 wounded)

When you sent me negative rep, you said that my statement that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous is a lie. Do you contend that a device designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate is a perfectly safe device? Don't you realize or respect the power of such guns? Or don't you believe that something so lethal could ever actually be a danger?

In and of itself, no gun is dangerous. In the hands of the wrong person they can be very dangerous. In the hands of the right person they can be safe or even a life saver.

Your contention that they are "designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate" is sensationalistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

These rifles do not "spray lead bullets at a rapid rate". They don't "spray" them at all. The civilian models do as they were designed to do and shoot them accurately in the direction in which they are aimed. And the do so once for each pull of the trigger.

The idea that a mechanical object is dangerous simply ignores the fact that the operator is the one responsible.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You really don't have a clue in the world, do you?


The Top 5 Worst Gun Massacres by an Individual

Perpetrator Location Date Victims

1 Anders Behring Breivik Utøya Island, Norway 22 Jul 2011 77 killed, (151 wounded)

2 Woo Bum-Kon Sang-Namdo, South Korea 26 Apr 1982 57 killed, (35 wounded)

3 Martin Bryant Port Arthur, Australia 28 Apr 1996 35 killed, (21 wounded)

4 Seung-Hui Cho Blacksburg, Virginia USA 16 Apr 2007 32 killed, (25 wounded)

5 Campo Elí*as Delgado Bogota, Colombia 4 Dec 1986 30 killed, (15 wounded)

When you sent me negative rep, you said that my statement that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous is a lie. Do you contend that a device designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate is a perfectly safe device? Don't you realize or respect the power of such guns? Or don't you believe that something so lethal could ever actually be a danger?

In and of itself, no gun is dangerous. In the hands of the wrong person they can be very dangerous. In the hands of the right person they can be safe or even a life saver.

Your contention that they are "designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate" is sensationalistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

These rifles do not "spray lead bullets at a rapid rate". They don't "spray" them at all. The civilian models do as they were designed to do and shoot them accurately in the direction in which they are aimed. And the do so once for each pull of the trigger.

The idea that a mechanical object is dangerous simply ignores the fact that the operator is the one responsible.

So maybe we should show a little caution about who is allowed to buy them? Maybe expanding background checks isn't such a bad idea?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're asking the wrong questions. It's not which laws didn't work, it's about finding some that do. Bad laws get bad results, we all know that. But that's not to say that there aren't any good laws that work. Or that we shouldn't keep trying to find the right laws that work. You could start asking: why do other countries not have these kinds of massacres, and what are their laws regarding firearms? This would be a good place to start.

You really don't have a clue in the world, do you?


The Top 5 Worst Gun Massacres by an Individual

Perpetrator Location Date Victims

1 Anders Behring Breivik Utøya Island, Norway 22 Jul 2011 77 killed, (151 wounded)

2 Woo Bum-Kon Sang-Namdo, South Korea 26 Apr 1982 57 killed, (35 wounded)

3 Martin Bryant Port Arthur, Australia 28 Apr 1996 35 killed, (21 wounded)

4 Seung-Hui Cho Blacksburg, Virginia USA 16 Apr 2007 32 killed, (25 wounded)

5 Campo Elí*as Delgado Bogota, Colombia 4 Dec 1986 30 killed, (15 wounded)

When you sent me negative rep, you said that my statement that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous is a lie.

Correct-- you did not lie about this as you are ignorant of the fact that semi-autos as a class are no more or less dangerous than any other sort of modern firearm.

You did, however, lie about the NRA crafting the 1994 AWB in such a way that it effectively banned nothing.

Thus, two examples of how you, typical of all anti-gun loons, can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now, how about addressing the questions asked in the OP?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you sent me negative rep, you said that my statement that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous is a lie. Do you contend that a device designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate is a perfectly safe device? Don't you realize or respect the power of such guns? Or don't you believe that something so lethal could ever actually be a danger?

In and of itself, no gun is dangerous. In the hands of the wrong person they can be very dangerous. In the hands of the right person they can be safe or even a life saver.

Your contention that they are "designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate" is sensationalistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

These rifles do not "spray lead bullets at a rapid rate". They don't "spray" them at all. The civilian models do as they were designed to do and shoot them accurately in the direction in which they are aimed. And the do so once for each pull of the trigger.

The idea that a mechanical object is dangerous simply ignores the fact that the operator is the one responsible.

So maybe we should show a little caution about who is allowed to buy them? Maybe expanding background checks isn't such a bad idea?

Maybe you could address the questions asked in the OP?

 

[M14 Shooter]

206 posts and not a single supporter of the 1994 AWB has even tried to address the questions in the OP.
Huh. Wonder why.

 

[WinterBorn]

When you sent me negative rep, you said that my statement that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous is a lie. Do you contend that a device designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate is a perfectly safe device? Don't you realize or respect the power of such guns? Or don't you believe that something so lethal could ever actually be a danger?

In and of itself, no gun is dangerous. In the hands of the wrong person they can be very dangerous. In the hands of the right person they can be safe or even a life saver.

Your contention that they are "designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate" is sensationalistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

These rifles do not "spray lead bullets at a rapid rate". They don't "spray" them at all. The civilian models do as they were designed to do and shoot them accurately in the direction in which they are aimed. And the do so once for each pull of the trigger.

The idea that a mechanical object is dangerous simply ignores the fact that the operator is the one responsible.

So maybe we should show a little caution about who is allowed to buy them? Maybe expanding background checks isn't such a bad idea?

Expanding them how? We already require them for every sale from a firearms dealer. The biggest problem is not the background checks nor is it the availability of the guns. The various agencies do not report the names of those who should not be allowed to buy a gun. Look at the most recent mass shootings. The shooter was seeing a shrink or had seen one, but his name was not reported so he was able to buy them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In and of itself, no gun is dangerous. In the hands of the wrong person they can be very dangerous. In the hands of the right person they can be safe or even a life saver.

Your contention that they are "designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate" is sensationalistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

These rifles do not "spray lead bullets at a rapid rate". They don't "spray" them at all. The civilian models do as they were designed to do and shoot them accurately in the direction in which they are aimed. And the do so once for each pull of the trigger.

The idea that a mechanical object is dangerous simply ignores the fact that the operator is the one responsible.

So maybe we should show a little caution about who is allowed to buy them? Maybe expanding background checks isn't such a bad idea?

Expanding them how? We already require them for every sale from a firearms dealer. The biggest problem is not the background checks nor is it the availability of the guns. The various agencies do not report the names of those who should not be allowed to buy a gun. Look at the most recent mass shootings. The shooter was seeing a shrink or had seen one, but his name was not reported so he was able to buy them.

Simply "seeng a shrink" is not, and never should be, grounds for denying someone the right to keep and bear arms - you have to be imvoluntarily committed to an institution or adjucated mentally infirm to lose that right - and so, even if he had been reported the background check woudl not have stopped him.

 

[Jarlaxle]

To bad you all couldn't (or wouldn't) put up a couple photos of what you gun nuts consider "assault weapons".

Or are they not assault weapons because they are not fully auto?

Is that they ONLY difference between what I can walk in and buy and what the military has available? Full auto vs single shot?

How long does it take a competent gunsmith to convert a wannabe assault weapon to a fully automatic assault weapon?

Or are you gonna claim that converting to full auto is not possible? Can you convert, lets say a 30.06 rifle to a fully automatic assault rifle? How about my .22 single shot rifle? Can you convert an AK47? AR15?

Depends on the specific weapon. Early AR-15's, easy. (They used the same recievers as full-auto M-16's.) Later ones, need access to a machine shop. Some .22's, a toothpick.



I know exactly what it is: it is a meaningless buzzword used by the ignorant, the stupid, and the evil.

Hey winterborn. You hunt deer with a bayonet? Then why you need a bayonet mount on your hunting rifle?

Anyone who shoots at night will understand why a flash suppressor might be nice!

I always kinda liked the fire when shooting at night. Although I do know it ruins my night vision for a bit.

Ever shot the Dragons Breath shells in a 12 ga? Very cool.

Actually, it's more that it spoils everyone ELSE'S night vision.

Never heard of Dragon Breath shells.

 

[WinterBorn]

Depends on the specific weapon. Early AR-15's, easy. (They used the same recievers as full-auto M-16's.) Later ones, need access to a machine shop. Some .22's, a toothpick.



I know exactly what it is: it is a meaningless buzzword used by the ignorant, the stupid, and the evil.



Anyone who shoots at night will understand why a flash suppressor might be nice!

I always kinda liked the fire when shooting at night. Although I do know it ruins my night vision for a bit.

Ever shot the Dragons Breath shells in a 12 ga? Very cool.

Actually, it's more that it spoils everyone ELSE'S night vision.

Never heard of Dragon Breath shells.

12 gauge shells loaded with magnesium flakes. So you can have a pump action flame thrower.

 

[Spoonman]

When you sent me negative rep, you said that my statement that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous is a lie. Do you contend that a device designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate is a perfectly safe device? Don't you realize or respect the power of such guns? Or don't you believe that something so lethal could ever actually be a danger?

In and of itself, no gun is dangerous. In the hands of the wrong person they can be very dangerous. In the hands of the right person they can be safe or even a life saver.

Your contention that they are "designed to spray lead bullets at a rapid rate" is sensationalistic at best, and ridiculous at worst.

These rifles do not "spray lead bullets at a rapid rate". They don't "spray" them at all. The civilian models do as they were designed to do and shoot them accurately in the direction in which they are aimed. And the do so once for each pull of the trigger.

The idea that a mechanical object is dangerous simply ignores the fact that the operator is the one responsible.

So maybe we should show a little caution about who is allowed to buy them? Maybe expanding background checks isn't such a bad idea?

and maybe voter ID and a little background check to make sure they are up on current events isn't a bad idea

 

[freedombecki]

Considering what they call an assault style weapon is repsonsible for less than 200 deaths a year, way too much emphasis is being put on them. it is not the type of gun that is an issue. in all honesty, guns themselves really aren't the issue. Its the total disregard for life that is a problem. the fact that someone will so easily take a life is a real problem in our society.

What worries me is the assault on the Bill of Rights that cancels the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves from extraordinary attackers who have no compunctions about breaking any and all gun laws to suit their acquisitions of other people's assets. Oh, my goodness. That's what Congress gets off on doing--taking power away from the people and expropriating all that power for themselves through payroll control.

 

[Spoonman]

Considering what they call an assault style weapon is repsonsible for less than 200 deaths a year, way too much emphasis is being put on them. it is not the type of gun that is an issue. in all honesty, guns themselves really aren't the issue. Its the total disregard for life that is a problem. the fact that someone will so easily take a life is a real problem in our society.

What worries me is the assault on the Bill of Rights that cancels the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves from extraordinary attackers who have no compunctions about breaking any and all gun laws to suit their acquisitions of other people's assets. Oh, my goodness. That's what Congress gets off on doing--taking power away from the people and expropriating all that power for themselves through payroll control.

becki, that is what should be pissing everyone off. this isn't just about guns, this is about rights. and it totally blows my mind that people who don't like guns are so willing to allow government to take away a right.

 

[KNB]

The US Federal government has been waging a war on drugs ever since 1972 when the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse advised that marijuana should be legalized. Under current Federal law, possession of marijuana is a crime. Possession of a firearm and marijuana is an even more serious crime. Not only do right-wing gun-molesters not care about this infringement on the rights of the People, but the right-wing actually supports this agenda because the right-wing doesn't have a clue what they believe.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US Federal government has been waging a war on drugs ever since 1972 when the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse advised that marijuana should be legalized. Under current Federal law, possession of marijuana is a crime. Possession of a firearm and marijuana is an even more serious crime. Not only do right-wing gun-molesters not care about this infringement on the rights of the People, but the right-wing actually supports this agenda because the right-wing doesn't have a clue what they believe.

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now - did you want to take a stab at answering the questions asked in the OP?

 

[CorvusRexus]

Considering what they call an assault style weapon is repsonsible for less than 200 deaths a year, way too much emphasis is being put on them. it is not the type of gun that is an issue. in all honesty, guns themselves really aren't the issue. Its the total disregard for life that is a problem. the fact that someone will so easily take a life is a real problem in our society.

What worries me is the assault on the Bill of Rights that cancels the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves from extraordinary attackers who have no compunctions about breaking any and all gun laws to suit their acquisitions of other people's assets. Oh, my goodness. That's what Congress gets off on doing--taking power away from the people and expropriating all that power for themselves through payroll control.

becki, that is what should be pissing everyone off. this isn't just about guns, this is about rights. and it totally blows my mind that people who don't like guns are so willing to allow government to take away a right.

One word.
Wait, two words.
Sorry, maybe three words.
Lack of education.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Tax the crap out of them and they become much less prevalent. Worked with cigarettes and it will work with guns. Make owners buy insurance on them as we do cars and they become even less appealing.

Simple...

Obviously the rest of the world is doing something right and we are doing something wrong here...the murder rates speak for themselves.

Because if that darn 2nd Amendment won't let us ban weapons, let us just tax them into oblivion! That way, no-one can defend themselves!

The current situation is untenable with the comparatively low tax rates. I don't have time to explain economics 101 to you but there is a supply curve and a demand curve. Manufacturers of every thing under the sun want to produce just enough to hit the demand curve so there is no waste in their process. When you lower the demand through taxing and ostracizing the product (as we did with cigs), you reduce the number supplied. But instead of the price dropping to meet the demand that is now lacking, the price stays artificially high. So when a 16 year old decides he wants to take someone's car or whatever, they don't have access to the firepower they once had due to there being fewer made year in and year out.

The people can't even threaten rebellion without some sort of weapon to use! Now we can do whatever the hell we want because we're greedy self-serving politicians! YAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Pal, you can't threaten a rebellion now; you never could.

You see, there seems to be a problem with your reasoning.

No, only with trying to explain it to knuckle draggers who think that 10,000+ deaths due to firearms is just dandy when quite clearly, the rest of the civilized world has it figured out.

Oh, so you want there to be not enough guns for people to have for defense? Brilliant.
I'm not threatening revolt, that was a reference to the militias.
According to the CDC (FASTSTATS - Accidents or Unintentional Injuries), 33,687 people died from automobile accidents in 2010. By your logic, automobiles should be reduced in number until people can no longer find them to buy; that way, people can't die from automobile related deaths!

 

[Trinnity]

I would only ban assault weapons for the govt against Americans. See how they like it...haha

 

[CorvusRexus]

I would only ban assault weapons for the govt against Americans. See how they like it...haha

 

[WinterBorn]

The US Federal government has been waging a war on drugs ever since 1972 when the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse advised that marijuana should be legalized. Under current Federal law, possession of marijuana is a crime. Possession of a firearm and marijuana is an even more serious crime. Not only do right-wing gun-molesters not care about this infringement on the rights of the People, but the right-wing actually supports this agenda because the right-wing doesn't have a clue what they believe.

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now - did you want to take a stab at answering the questions asked in the OP?

Still no takers on the question in the OP? What a surprise.

I think most people understand that the '94 ban was a farce. The amusing part is to see them try and blame the NRA and gun owners for it's failure.