the ban on semi-automatic assualt rifles was lifted in 2004

[Bern80]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

I'll bet it pretty cool to go out to a range and fire an AK-47. Looks like it might even be fun.

Can't you have just as much fun with a single-shot rifle? That would be more challanging.

So would composing a piece of music with a guitar with only one string.

 

[tjvh]

the 10 years that it was in effect, 1994 - 2004, there was 1 (ONE) mass shooting, and that, as we all know was Columbine. Since the ban was lifted, 8 years ago? We have had 8

Oh gee... Here we have a list of school shootings... And many happened during the assault weapons ban... How is this possible???? Simple... The ban has nothing to do with it. Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings — Infoplease.com

 

[JKVegas]

See, again, paranoia inflating a perceived threat into something 100 times greater.

How many people on this board have EVER been assualted or robbed?

I'm sure some of you have. And if said assualted or robber got the jump on you, were you able to do anything about it.

My wife goes out alone at night occasionally. She KNOWS enough to NOT but herself in a position of jeapordy. She watches her surroundings, keeps the car locked up - she doesn't make herself into an easy target. Criminals, as always, are a cowardly lot and very uninclined to play fair. Like the animals they are, they look for the weakest victim.

Besides, I taught her a couple of moves I learned from a drummer who was a 3rd degree black belt. They will get you out of trouble almost instantaneously, even if someone has a chokehold on you.

But if a sniper wanted to get her, or ME, in their sights, I guess we'd be dead.

Unless he didn't have a high-powered weapon.

Make one tougher to get. What is WRONG with that?

Your "they get them anyway" argument is as silly as the pro-MJ argument. If they're so easy to get, and no one can "do anything about it, why is it necessary for them/it to be legal? Apparently, you can get all you like with little fear of recrimination?

Because when it's illegal, it IS harder to obtain. Certainly not as safe. Less people will get it/them.

 

[JKVegas]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

But it's not insane to ensure only crazies and criminals have such weapons? That's what your ban accomplishes.

As I've stated previously, I encountered two armed intruders in my family's home as a teenager. They both had semi automatic firearms with large capacity magazines. I adverted a disaster and ensured NO ONE was harmed (including the bad guys) with a firearm that would be banned. I could not have done so with a single shot weapon.

You're free to remain unprepared. Don't impose your victim mentality on others.

Explain this situation.

Did you "know" that they had intent to shoot you? If you had fled with your family, would they have chased you down and killed you? Why were they IN your home - to steal something? That's why you have insurance, isn't it? I myself have fallen victim to a house fire, but I don't live in paranoia that it will happen again. Were the doors open? Was a window unlocked? Were they familiar with your house, or your neighborhood?

I don't MAKE myself into a victim. That's why I've never been. And I've never owned a gun.

There's no need to, if you're careful.

I always tell my wife, "The ONLY reason anyone would want to break into this house would be personal vengance."

Did you torque off these people? Perhaps someone you allowed into your house noticed that it would be an easy target?

REAL theives don't act on passion. And from your description, they sound like real theives or someone with a grudge.

Having a gun does NOTHING to prevent you from being a victim. You are an example of that. YOU had a gun, did it STOP them from breaking in? Maybe they KNEW you had it, and were trying to steal it.

There was SOME reason other than randomness which caused you be get assailed.

 

[eflatminor]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

But it's not insane to ensure only crazies and criminals have such weapons? That's what your ban accomplishes.

As I've stated previously, I encountered two armed intruders in my family's home as a teenager. They both had semi automatic firearms with large capacity magazines. I adverted a disaster and ensured NO ONE was harmed (including the bad guys) with a firearm that would be banned. I could not have done so with a single shot weapon.

You're free to remain unprepared. Don't impose your victim mentality on others.

Explain this situation.

Did you "know" that they had intent to shoot you? If you had fled with your family, would they have chased you down and killed you? Why were they IN your home - to steal something? That's why you have insurance, isn't it? I myself have fallen victim to a house fire, but I don't live in paranoia that it will happen again. Were the doors open? Was a window unlocked? Were they familiar with your house, or your neighborhood?

I don't MAKE myself into a victim. That's why I've never been. And I've never owned a gun.

There's no need to, if you're careful.

I always tell my wife, "The ONLY reason anyone would want to break into this house would be personal vengance."

Did you torque off these people? Perhaps someone you allowed into your house noticed that it would be an easy target?

REAL theives don't act on passion. And from your description, they sound like real theives or someone with a grudge.

Having a gun does NOTHING to prevent you from being a victim. You are an example of that. YOU had a gun, did it STOP them from breaking in? Maybe they KNEW you had it, and were trying to steal it.

There was SOME reason other than randomness which caused you be get assailed.

My mother and my little sister were asleep upstairs. The had nowhere to escape to. The thieves had robbed several other homes in the area. They thought we were not home (Dad was out of town, Mom's car in the garage). They broke through a locked window. I heard them, confronted them with a .223 Ruger mini14 with a 20 round magazine. I told them not to move and when one did, I put a round into the couch. One shit his pants (I think he actually did) and the other started to go for his gun. I put the muzzle at his head and told him I would empty the magazine if he moved again. They froze, until they were told to lay down, arms outstretched. By that time, Mom had called the police, who promptly arrested the scum, thanking me in the process.

This kind of thing happens all the time across the country, though you'll never hear the regular press report on it.

So, I know they were going to shoot because one went for his gun. Had I had a single shot firearm, I would have had no ability to stop him.

There was no way to "flee". Not without going past the intruders.

We ALWAYS locked doors and windows. There was no invitation to steal.

Even if we had insurance, why in the hell should our insurance rates increase because someone else feel entitled to our belongings?

How do you know that if I hadn't been at home, or if I had no means by which to defend the family, that these scumbags would not have taken advantage of my mother and sister? You may have some belief that even criminals are inherently good people...I do not.

Lastly, my situation, and millions of others, prove you wrong. Having a firearm can ABSOLUTELY prevent you from becoming a victim. Again, why you would want to ensure the criminals are better armed than law abiding citizens is beyond comprehension.

p.s. After the incident, several neighbors that had been robbed by these guys sent notes of thanks...and one sent a pie!

 

[JKVegas]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

I'll bet it pretty cool to go out to a range and fire an AK-47. Looks like it might even be fun.

Can't you have just as much fun with a single-shot rifle? That would be more challanging.

So would composing a piece of music with a guitar with only one string.

Being a lousy composer, it wouldn't matter. But you COULD.

You still can't kill anyone very easily with a guitar, no matter HOW many strings it has.

 

[tjvh]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

I'll bet it pretty cool to go out to a range and fire an AK-47. Looks like it might even be fun.

Can't you have just as much fun with a single-shot rifle? That would be more challanging.

So would composing a piece of music with a guitar with only one string.

Being a lousy composer, it wouldn't matter. But you COULD.

You still can't kill anyone very easily with a guitar, no matter HOW many strings it has.

I'm pretty sure a Les Paul over your head will have you rethinking ^ that very quickly.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

the 10 years that it was in effect, 1994 - 2004, there was 1 (ONE) mass shooting, and that, as we all know was Columbine. Since the ban was lifted, 8 years ago? We have had 8

And what you are some how concluding from this is that inanimate objects cause increases in mass shootings?

Of course not.

We need to lift the ban on private citizens owning nuclear weapons.

 

[Valerie]

the 10 years that it was in effect, 1994 - 2004, there was 1 (ONE) mass shooting, and that, as we all know was Columbine. Since the ban was lifted, 8 years ago? We have had 8

And what you are some how concluding from this is that inanimate objects cause increases in mass shootings?

Of course not.

We need to lift the ban on private citizens owning nuclear weapons.

With Liberty and Plutonium for all!

 

[JKVegas]

They broke into several OTHER houses in the area.

What kind of an area is this? Jeez ................................. why was it targeted, did anyone ever find out?

They broke into your house. You were indeed a victim, and your gun didn't prevent them from doing that. And, as you said, if you hadn't BEEN there, it wouldn't have made a difference. Perhaps your mere presence would have prevented anything else from happening. Perhaps the criminal got scared when he saw YOUR gun, and tried to pull his for self-protection. ONE of them was scared - the one that crapped his pants. YOU don't have a gun, perhaps they simply run away. It sounds like they assumed that the property was unoccupied. Maybe the shock of being misinformed would have turned the trick.

What if they had simply stolen your gun and left without doing anything else. Guess what? That GUN would now become part of the underground cache of weapons. You sound like the type that would keep it secured, so they probably couldn't have. But they could have wrested it away from you.

Hey, my instinct to protect and will to do so is just as strong as yours. If I was with my wife and she was being assualted, you bet I'd step in. Consequences be damned. And if THEY were armed, they better NOT let me get ahold of it. I might claim "self-defence", ya know?

As far as where you lived, I'd have been more attuned to moving than arming myself, if this area was so crime-ridden.

 

[tjvh]

the 10 years that it was in effect, 1994 - 2004, there was 1 (ONE) mass shooting, and that, as we all know was Columbine. Since the ban was lifted, 8 years ago? We have had 8

And what you are some how concluding from this is that inanimate objects cause increases in mass shootings?

Of course not.

We need to lift the ban on private citizens owning nuclear weapons.

^ dumbest post of the day.

 

[JKVegas]

So would composing a piece of music with a guitar with only one string.

Being a lousy composer, it wouldn't matter. But you COULD.

You still can't kill anyone very easily with a guitar, no matter HOW many strings it has.

I'm pretty sure a Les Paul over your head will have you rethinking ^ that very quickly.

I said you could El Kabong someone. Maybe you're too young to get the reference. I'll explain if you like.

You could kill with a hammer. Just not 30 people in a 3 minute span, unless they hold very still..

The body count is important, not the method.

ONE person saved is enough.

 

[eflatminor]

They broke into several OTHER houses in the area.

What kind of an area is this? Jeez ................................. why was it targeted, did anyone ever find out?

They broke into your house. You were indeed a victim, and your gun didn't prevent them from doing that. And, as you said, if you hadn't BEEN there, it wouldn't have made a difference. Perhaps your mere presence would have prevented anything else from happening. Perhaps the criminal got scared when he saw YOUR gun, and tried to pull his for self-protection. ONE of them was scared - the one that crapped his pants. YOU don't have a gun, perhaps they simply run away. It sounds like they assumed that the property was unoccupied. Maybe the shock of being misinformed would have turned the trick.

What if they had simply stolen your gun and left without doing anything else. Guess what? That GUN would now become part of the underground cache of weapons. You sound like the type that would keep it secured, so they probably couldn't have. But they could have wrested it away from you.

Hey, my instinct to protect and will to do so is just as strong as yours. If I was with my wife and she was being assualted, you bet I'd step in. Consequences be damned. And if THEY were armed, they better NOT let me get ahold of it. I might claim "self-defence", ya know?

As far as where you lived, I'd have been more attuned to moving than arming myself, if this area was so crime-ridden.

Good grief man, this was in farm country, rural Midwest.

They could not have gotten my weapons because they were locked in a safe. They could not have 'wrested it away' from me because I have studied tactical security. I compete in IDPA, IPSC and other shooting events. I put at least 15,000 rounds down range every year. Further, you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about what these fuckers might or might not have done. You're free to remain unprepared. I choose differently.

Bottom line, they were armed, they were intruding, and they were known criminals. My firearm ensured me and my family remained safe, and it stopped two criminals from continuing their string of burglaries.

 

[eflatminor]

The body count is important, not the method.

ONE person saved is enough.

Yep, and the problem with your method of dealing with the problem is to ensure the body count increases for the good guys as your bans and restrictions only give the advantage to the bad guys, while doing NOTHING to prevent mass killings and massacres.

 

[JKVegas]

Guns are a different animal than cars, cigs or mugs of beer. Very rarely does someone get behind the wheel of a car (even blind drunk) with the INTENTION of killing someone. Happens a LOT more often with guns.

You need to make the distinction. To paraphrase:

"These guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you likes to drank some whiskey
You might even SHOOT yourself
So why don't we dump, all people
To the bottom of the sea
Fore some ol' fool come around here
Wanna shoot either YOU or me ......................."

Don't know who wrote that

Good Lord, how young ARE you people?

Lynyrd Skynyrd - "Saturday Night Special" - last verse.

Ed King and Ronnie Van Zant.

 

[JKVegas]

The body count is important, not the method.

ONE person saved is enough.

Yep, and the problem with your method of dealing with the problem is to ensure the body count increases for the good guys as your bans and restrictions only give the advantage to the bad guys, while doing NOTHING to prevent mass killings and massacres.

I'll bet the body count decreases on BOTH sides. As well as the massacres.

What's the weapon of choice in these matters?

I doubt Adam Lanza had enough control of his faculties to acquire an illegal weapon.

But he COULD get to one that was legally owned.

And while I'm at it, his Mom (RIP) didn't sound all that stable either. I'm sorry she's dead, but jeez ..............................

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the 10 years that it was in effect, 1994 - 2004, there was 1 (ONE) mass shooting, and that, as we all know was Columbine. Since the ban was lifted, 8 years ago? We have had 8

Connecticut has the exact same ban that you are talking about.

 

[Bern80]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

But it's not insane to ensure only crazies and criminals have such weapons? That's what your ban accomplishes.

As I've stated previously, I encountered two armed intruders in my family's home as a teenager. They both had semi automatic firearms with large capacity magazines. I adverted a disaster and ensured NO ONE was harmed (including the bad guys) with a firearm that would be banned. I could not have done so with a single shot weapon.

You're free to remain unprepared. Don't impose your victim mentality on others.

Explain this situation.

Did you "know" that they had intent to shoot you? If you had fled with your family, would they have chased you down and killed you? Why were they IN your home - to steal something? That's why you have insurance, isn't it? I myself have fallen victim to a house fire, but I don't live in paranoia that it will happen again. Were the doors open? Was a window unlocked? Were they familiar with your house, or your neighborhood?

I don't MAKE myself into a victim. That's why I've never been. And I've never owned a gun.

There's no need to, if you're careful.

I always tell my wife, "The ONLY reason anyone would want to break into this house would be personal vengance."

Did you torque off these people? Perhaps someone you allowed into your house noticed that it would be an easy target?

REAL theives don't act on passion. And from your description, they sound like real theives or someone with a grudge.

Having a gun does NOTHING to prevent you from being a victim. You are an example of that. YOU had a gun, did it STOP them from breaking in? Maybe they KNEW you had it, and were trying to steal it.

There was SOME reason other than randomness which caused you be get assailed.

Most everything you say here is patently false Vegas.

I repeat, neccessity has nothing to do with this debate. It is a wholly asanine argument to argue that someone shouldn't be able to have something because they don't need it. A country that is supposed to be free is that way so that people can pursue their wants and if I want an Uzi for no other reason than a decorative conversational piece there is no logical reason to deny a person that right.

Second, you can't begin to know why someone would break into your house, though the most common reason wouldn't be vengeance. Statistically you're most likely to be broken into because a junkie needs something of value to get their next fix. Junkies being a rather unintelligent lot tend not to discriminate much about who's home the break into. It has nothing to do with how well you think you've treated your fellow man. If the above is what your telling your wife she should know you're lieing.

Third and the most obviously false is the blanket statement that a gun doesn't prevent you from being victimized. Of course they can. It is a means of stopping someone from doing something where said means would not exist if they didn't have a gun.

 

[JKVegas]

They broke into several OTHER houses in the area.

What kind of an area is this? Jeez ................................. why was it targeted, did anyone ever find out?

They broke into your house. You were indeed a victim, and your gun didn't prevent them from doing that. And, as you said, if you hadn't BEEN there, it wouldn't have made a difference. Perhaps your mere presence would have prevented anything else from happening. Perhaps the criminal got scared when he saw YOUR gun, and tried to pull his for self-protection. ONE of them was scared - the one that crapped his pants. YOU don't have a gun, perhaps they simply run away. It sounds like they assumed that the property was unoccupied. Maybe the shock of being misinformed would have turned the trick.

What if they had simply stolen your gun and left without doing anything else. Guess what? That GUN would now become part of the underground cache of weapons. You sound like the type that would keep it secured, so they probably couldn't have. But they could have wrested it away from you.

Hey, my instinct to protect and will to do so is just as strong as yours. If I was with my wife and she was being assualted, you bet I'd step in. Consequences be damned. And if THEY were armed, they better NOT let me get ahold of it. I might claim "self-defence", ya know?

As far as where you lived, I'd have been more attuned to moving than arming myself, if this area was so crime-ridden.

Good grief man, this was in farm country, rural Midwest.

They could not have gotten my weapons because they were locked in a safe. They could not have 'wrested it away' from me because I have studied tactical security. I compete in IDPA, IPSC and other shooting events. I put at least 15,000 rounds down range every year. Further, you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about what these fuckers might or might not have done. You're free to remain unprepared. I choose differently.

Bottom line, they were armed, they were intruding, and they were known criminals. My firearm ensured me and my family remained safe, and it stopped two criminals from continuing their string of burglaries.

What difference does it make if it's rural or urban? It was still "targeted". Anyone ever figure out WHY? Did you and your neighbors makes changes if a reason was given? The forst thing I'd want to know would have been "Why?", not "Where's the gun store?"

From what I've written, how do you assume I'm "unprepared"? I'm fully prepared. I just don't need a gun to be in that position. Phone is at the ready. Dogs prepared to warn of anyone's approach. And they are VERY good at this. Almost TOO good - cripes, they bark when a stick brushes against the house. That's real fun at 3 AM, to be launched out of slumber like the Space Shuttle by a LabChow doing his Cujo impression ..........

Nobody gonna get the drop on me, sir. First line of defense. Never take your eye off your opponent. Or your dog's supersences ............................

 

[Bern80]

They broke into several OTHER houses in the area.

What kind of an area is this? Jeez ................................. why was it targeted, did anyone ever find out?

They broke into your house. You were indeed a victim, and your gun didn't prevent them from doing that. And, as you said, if you hadn't BEEN there, it wouldn't have made a difference. Perhaps your mere presence would have prevented anything else from happening. Perhaps the criminal got scared when he saw YOUR gun, and tried to pull his for self-protection. ONE of them was scared - the one that crapped his pants. YOU don't have a gun, perhaps they simply run away. It sounds like they assumed that the property was unoccupied. Maybe the shock of being misinformed would have turned the trick.

What if they had simply stolen your gun and left without doing anything else. Guess what? That GUN would now become part of the underground cache of weapons. You sound like the type that would keep it secured, so they probably couldn't have. But they could have wrested it away from you.

Hey, my instinct to protect and will to do so is just as strong as yours. If I was with my wife and she was being assualted, you bet I'd step in. Consequences be damned. And if THEY were armed, they better NOT let me get ahold of it. I might claim "self-defence", ya know?

As far as where you lived, I'd have been more attuned to moving than arming myself, if this area was so crime-ridden.

Good grief man, this was in farm country, rural Midwest.

They could not have gotten my weapons because they were locked in a safe. They could not have 'wrested it away' from me because I have studied tactical security. I compete in IDPA, IPSC and other shooting events. I put at least 15,000 rounds down range every year. Further, you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about what these fuckers might or might not have done. You're free to remain unprepared. I choose differently.

Bottom line, they were armed, they were intruding, and they were known criminals. My firearm ensured me and my family remained safe, and it stopped two criminals from continuing their string of burglaries.

What difference does it make if it's rural or urban? It was still "targeted". Anyone ever figure out WHY? Did you and your neighbors makes changes if a reason was given? The forst thing I'd want to know would have been "Why?", not "Where's the gun store?"

From what I've written, how do you assume I'm "unprepared"? I'm fully prepared. I just don't need a gun to be in that position. Phone is at the ready. Dogs prepared to warn of anyone's approach. And they are VERY good at this. Almost TOO good - cripes, they bark when a stick brushes against the house. That's real fun at 3 AM, to be launched out of slumber like the Space Shuttle by a LabChow doing his Cujo impression ..........

Nobody gonna get the drop on me, sir. First line of defense. Never take your eye off your opponent. Or your dog's supersences ............................

Now you're being just plain hypcritical. For a guy that claims to be so concerned about WHY a break in occurred you seem to want to remain decidely obtuse about why gun violence occurs at all. Hint: It isn't about access to guns.