assault weapon ban again

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Yea! More guns! That will definitely make things better. We keep shooting all these terrorists on American soil while keeping the population safe. Wait, stop, oh that's right, no terrorists caught here but school kids and innocent bystanders keep dying by psychos who love automatic/assault weapons. Why do you need 40 guns? Can you fire them all at once, or are they placed strategically ever 2 feet from you in your home? Yup, that sounds safe AND sane.
Continue on with the gun love fest.

Aloha Tony, I don't need 40 guns. Just like I don't need 400,000 baseball cards. I collect, enjoy, hunt, and invest with firearms. All are in a vault except the 2 handguns I usually carry everywhere I go. Some are works of art, some are marvels of engineering. Peace and Love, Dave.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Aloha Tony, I don't need 40 guns. Just like I don't need 400,000 baseball cards. I collect, enjoy, hunt, and invest with firearms. All are in a vault except the 2 handguns I usually carry everywhere I go. Some are works of art, some are marvels of engineering. Peace and Love, Dave.

See, now that's what gun control should be about. A gun owner responsibly being in control of his guns.

I don't think there's any reasoning with people who hate guns so much. I guess they think guns have a brain of their own and decide to go shoot people all by their own design. They load themselves up, make a plan, go to the scene and fire away, all without the help of the human being.

Turn off CNN and come back to Earth.

Sincerely, Clayton

[quinnsryche]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I don't think there's any reasoning with people who hate guns so much. I guess they think guns have a brain of their own and decide to go shoot people all by their own design. They load themselves up, make a plan, go to the scene and fire away, all without the help of the human being.

Not at all. No gun, no shooting deaths. Plain and simple. It's not the gun, it's the psycho/criminal who uses it. I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true. Guns give a disconnect from the crime. Most people wouldn't have the guts to commit a crime/murder if they had to do the job physically. Hammer/bat/crowbar crimes would not rise significantly if guns were banned.

[vintagetoppsguy]

You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

[Cardboard Junkie]

Guns don't kill people.......bullets do! (written in jest.)

[yanksfan09]

Criminals would have a field day if they knew all guns were out of honest law-abiding citizens hands. Criminals don't follow gun laws, only good people who follow laws do. Guns are necessary for home defense, I never understood how people can't see that. That's all I have too say, as I hate political threads in my cards place.

[Leon]

Personally I think this needs to be a mental health debate more than a gun debate. Don't take the guns away from law abiding people. Then the only ones with them will be the criminals. I think everyone should own a gun (who is able to), personally. It would give shooters some pause. I also like the idea of school administrators packing heat too (when licensed to do so).

[quinnsryche]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

[daywalker2029]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it.

but where do you technically draw your line ? you suggest no semi-automatic weapons? but then suggest handguns for protection ? do you mean only revolvers and not semi-automatic handguns ? if thats the case what about a double action vs single action revolver ?

also what technically defines a weapon as an "assault weapon" ?? - the reason i ask is b/c i live in NY (where we also have some of the strictest gun laws on record) - right after sandy hook ny gov't rushed to pass new restrictions - the ironic thing is that my modern AR15 is no longer allowed to be bought/sold in the state and next month will need to be registered with NY state for me to maintain legal ownership, while my fathers WWII M1 carbine is not affected at all - funny thing is his old carbine is by the definitions outlined in the orig 94 ban MORE of an "assault weapon" than my modern AR15 is

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

Tony,

I disagree with you on the gun issue, but I couldn't agree with you more on the stricter penalties. I read somewhere that only 1/10th of one percent of applicants caught lying on a gun purchase application are prosecuted. That is ridiculous! I think we need to work on enforcing the gun control laws that we do have before talking about enacting new laws. I also agree with the idea to build more prisons. Overcrowding has the scumbags getting out early.

[teetwoohsix]

Building more prisons will not fix the problems, because prisons only house criminals around more criminals-there is no rehabilitation, no program to change the criminal into a productive member of society when they get out. So, in essence, what you get is a criminal who completed his/her sentence hitting the streets with no new skills & not much of a chance to rebuild their lives. That is why the recidivism rate is so high. If you want to fix the problems, fix the criminals.

California built what, 33 prisons? Compared to how many Universities? Building prisons is not the answer-unless they are rehabilitated while in prison. They need to learn trades, skills, and transition into society with employers who will employ ex-felons. Locking people in cells for years, just to release them into the real world doesn't fix anything. Go to South Central Los Angeles, or Oakland California, and then tell me more prisons work These places are still warzones & have been for decades.

And, you can have all of the gun restrictions and bans you want, but you are only hurting law abiding citizens because criminals don't get guns the legal way-so they don't care about gun laws, etc. This is the point.

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true.

Then you just got proven wrong yesterday in Pennsylvania.

When someone wants to hurt/kill others, they will use any means they can.

[Runscott]

Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

Well, let me put it back in your court. How many examples does it take to prove a point?

And if that toddler is annoying you too much, go tell your teacher. If that don't work, change daycares.

[Runscott]

David, it's still in your court. You made a blanket statement, based on a single incident, in response to Tony. I happen to agree with him, but I understand the guns argument. I began avoiding these discussions when a poster stated that he wanted to carry guns around in order to protect himself and others. I'm really okay with the police department - not perfect, but better than Net54 members trying to do the job.

Unfortunately, the toddlers were at the coffee shop where I go to work and do research, and there aren't many alternatives out here.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

22 children's lives were saved because a gun was not accessible to one mentally unstable kid.

Jason, you're absolutely right...and if he would have had a gun, it could have been even higher than 22.

But the point I was trying to make though is that even when guns aren't accessible, mentally ill people will still find others ways to mass harm or kill people - knives, bombs, driving a car into a crowd, poison Kool-Aid, etc.

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.