Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[Hedberger]

No. But a gun offers power. And power tempts.

Anyone who would illegally kill another person with a gun will have no qualms about obtaining that gun illegally. The only thing a gun ban does is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens; the kind that would only use those guns against one human to protect another human life. What if one of those lives someday is your own? Are you going to give a crap whether it was a hand gun or an "assault weapon" that saved your life?

Gun bans have taken more lives than they've saved (the latter is zero, in case you were wondering).

There was a school shooting many years ago (I can't recall when or where, but can dig up the info if anyone's truly interested). Several children were killed, more children and some faculty were injured. One of the teachers on duty that day normally carried a gun in his car. One day, someone thought it would be a good idea to make the school a "gun free zone" (oddly enough, the shooter didn't seem to be impaired by this restriction). The teacher continued to carry the gun in his car, but had to park something like 2 miles away. When the shooting began, he had to run ~4 miles round-trip to retrieve his gun and return to take out the shooter. He could have prevented all of the deaths, and most (if not all) of the injuries had his car (with gun) had been in the parking lot.

Every gun-grabber who has ever lived has the blood of these children on their hands. Any of you care to share with us how that feels?

So what you basically is suggesting is that everyone always carries a gun instead of trying to get rid of them altogether?

 

[BabySinclair]

There's a great law in the US called the "Castle" law. If someone threatens you any any place that you can call your dominion (ie. Home or vehicle) you have the right to use lethal force, which incidentally, gives civilians the right to shoot before the cops do. The police have to identify themselves and then, if the suspect visibly threatens someone can the cop fire. Quick example of how this is taken way beyond the intended meaning to legalize murder. A taxi driver drove a drunk (severely drunk and borderline incapacitated) man back to his apartment from a bar. The drunk left the cab without paying and started heading to his apartment, bottle in hand. The driver exited his vehicle, and approached him demanding the cab fare. The drunk threatened him at which point the cab driver returned to his car, opened the glove compartment from the drivers' side, drew his revolver and shot the drunk in the chest. The body was still a good distance from the vehicle which states that the drunk was either too incapacitated to chase him and therefore posed no physical threat, or that the drunk made no attempt to carry out the threat and the driver shot him in cold blood. In either case, the driver used self defense against the charges and wasn't charged even though is was clearly evident that he had the ability to drive away as the keys were still in the ignition.

Point is, civilians already have more legal leeway than the police and military, they don't need better firearm (side note: the civilian {semi-auto} version of the AK-47 is ridiculously easy to make full-auto and should probably be incorporated in any assault weapon ban.)

 

[Hedberger]

Hey Obama: Suck my machine gun.

Why do civilians need assault weapons? They have the right to use the most effective weapons to defend their family, themselves and their property. A criminal does not obey the law, thusly, will have the most effective weapons they can get. So a civilian deserves to have the same ability to defend as a criminal does to attack.

Also, to people who say you can't fight the government with your 'civilian' weapons, you're right. But there's an expression from New Hampshire you should read: 'Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.'

Also also, inb4flames from people who usually don't own guns, haven't fired guns and haven't been in a real-world combat scenario (everyone else might actually have a valid point).

But if you don't give guns to civilians at all the criminals won't get any either. Sure they'll have a stockpile of guns but it'll eventually run out. Criminals don't get their guns from the military they get them from other civilians. As long as they are legal to import privately you won't see an end of the spiral.

About that last thing. Are you seriously going to arm yourself and attack the military if the government don't follow your wishes but rather the wishes of the majority? Isn't that terrorism?

 

[[Gavo]]

I'm totally for it. Civilians should not have access to military-grade weapons, fully automatic firearms.

Of course Obama is talking about banning assault weapons. Next, he'll ban hunting firearms too. It's one of the steps needed for total control of a people by a socialist government. It's hard to rule the people when they can still fight back. This kind of thing is exactly why the writers of the Constitution put in the amendment to protect the citizens right to keep and bear arms. They'd lived in countries in Europe where the crowns didn't allow them to have weapons and didn't want to have to endure that in the New World. What they didn't forsee, was that in the future, the politicians and far too many of the citizens would choose to ignore the Constitution and give up their rights anyway. The U.S. is going to turn into the very sort of socialist state that it's founders escaped from in the first place. Sad really.

That's the saddest thing I've ever read. How come every other country where most people aren't gun-toting penis-extension phallic symbol wielding maniacs is literally doing better then USA in most things that matter? Yeah.

And even if you had to fight against your government for whatever stupid reason, guess what? Even with automatic weapons, Army would still kick your ass. Even without actually hurting people that much. There is such thing as tanks, at least for sheer intimidation. There is such thing as grenades, and not even mandatorily lethal ones.

And there is difference between socialistic state and monarchy. Your country isn't capitalistic. No, it's not. And you can trust me, if it was a purely capitalistic state you would want your ticket out of there real fast.

Pretty much what I would have said in response.

 

[similar.squirrel]

"Nobody needs a 30-round clip of rounds capable of piercing police body armour and quarter-inch steel for home defense or hunting; let alone an assault weapon for concealed carrying"

I think that settles it. There's no excuse for owning something designed exclusively to end human life.
Handguns can be used for self-defence,rifles and shotguns for hunting, but assault rifles and submachineguns have no ambiguity concerning their intended purpose.

 

[Agayek]

Doesn't that mean an endless spiral of threats? Sort of like the cold-war balance but this time it's everyone threatening everyone.

Like I said earlier, preferably it'd be out decency, but some people do not understand anything but violence. One way or the other, the government should not have any say in the matter. The government should only be able to punish actions taken that directly harm another, no more. Giving any government more power than that is begging for someone to abuse the system and establish an oligarchy, which the US is well on its way towards.

How about the cases where a child plays with a gun and shoots itself? Or when someone shoots someone else with a nearby gun during a fight and immediately regrets it? Or one of the many possible misunderstandings or accidents where someone gets unintentionally shot?

Also, criminals would use their guns less quickly if they wouldn't suspect every citizen of carrying a firearm himself.

If everyone were educated about the, at the very least, fundamentals of gun safety. The accidental discharges are almost universally because someone that has no idea what they're doing tries to look cool and ends up blowing their head off. If people choose to ignore the danger and get themselves killed, I feel no remorse for them being dead. Also, there is no such thing as someone getting unintentionally shot. When you pull the trigger on a gun, you mean to kill something. Period. If people cannot understand that and shoot someone, willfully or not, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (and preferably with some flogging).

You do not accidentally shoot someone, ever. Every time a gun discharges, the intent is to kill. It's gun safety 101. You do not ever point a gun at something you don't want dead, regardless of whether or not it's loaded, or the safety is active, or anything else.

For your other point, small children would have no access to firearms if their parents locked up the weapons as they should. Gun cabinets with hefty locks exist for a reason.

And your final point: Criminals that want to shoot someone are going to shoot them, regardless of who has what kind of guns. If someone wants someone else dead badly enough to get a gun and hunt them down, they are going to shoot, regardless of all other circumstances.

Edit:

About that last thing. Are you seriously going to arm yourself and attack the military if the government don't follow your wishes but rather the wishes of the majority? Isn't that terrorism?

If the government wishes to take away my freedom, I am seriously going to arm myself and attack my government. I do not care how it is perceived or taken. If the government wishes to alter the foundation upon which it was built, I will attack the men in charge.

I would probably fail spectacularly, regardless of what kind of hardware I have, but as someone said before, there are worse things than death.

 

[hippo24]

Well I actually have less of a problem with automatic rifles then I do with handguns.
I honestly think handguns should have a longer waiting period and be controlled even more then they are now.

and its not like banning assult rifles is going to stop people from using conversion kits anyway.

 

[Perryman93]

unlucky, we are not even allowed hand guns here in great britain it sucks

 

[LINKXIII]

I agree with the ban. you don't need an AK to protect your home.

 

[johnman]

I agree with you 100%. Assault weapons are unnessescary for civilian use and for those that complain that they are the easiest to use and other weapons not, then they should not posses a gun.

In my opinion a six round revolver and double barreled shotgun are more than adeqeut for pesronal defence.

 

[Leorex]

Im a democrat, but in this case the constitution says that every american has the right to bear arms. and so i beleave that it is every ones right to own weapons, even if they are assault weapons.

 

[Jerious1154]

The assualt weapons ban is pointless as the small percent of gun crimes that are committed are crimes with HAND GUNS.

Correction: with ILLEGAL hand guns. In other words, these people are criminals, so they don't pay any attention to the law. They ignored the law that said, "Don't kill/rob/rape/etc.," so ignoring the law that said, "Don't own/carry/use a gun" wasn't really a big deal to them.

Gun bans are pointless. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Go ahead...cite one instance where a gun ban saved lives. One instance where someone said, "You know, I really want to go kill some folks, but dangit, guns are illegal here. Guess I'll have to find something else to do."

A person shooting someone makes the news. A person wanting to shoot someone does not.

 

[1ronJ4m]

Actually, I don't understand all this gun business. In mid-eastern Europe, we don't even have "gun shops". I don't know whether guns are banned or not, but you sure as hell have to go through a lotta trouble to get one. The only person who I know and has a gun, lives in Germany.

Btw I'm really sure that noone would need weapons. Ah, only if humans weren't just some big mean motherf*ckers who just care about their own sick, selfish desires.

 

[mythbuster343]

If Obama bans guns, were all dead. If a mugger comes up and we don't have a gun (The mugger will cause he's already breaking the law by mugging you)whats gonna happen?

 

[1ronJ4m]

And obviously, you guys never had anyone dying right in your hands.
Cuz if you did, you'd realise that you definitely don't want to kill people. At all.

 

[Zeke109]

I'm going to have to get that Mini-Gun soon, then.
(They're actually legal in most states, as well as flamethrowers and homemade firearms)

 

[Pyre00]

In all honesty I beleive all firearms besides hunting rifles and shotguns should be banned.

Both are useful in hunting and defense. Neither can be easily concealed like a handgun. Nor are they clearly made for offense and killing PEOPLE like an assault weapon.

 

[Pyre00]

I'm going to have to get that Mini-Gun soon, then.
(They're actually legal in most states, as well as flamethrowers and homemade firearms)

Good luck finding a man-portable minigun.

 

[Hedberger]

Doesn't that mean an endless spiral of threats? Sort of like the cold-war balance but this time it's everyone threatening everyone.

Like I said earlier, preferably it'd be out decency, but some people do not understand anything but violence. One way or the other, the government should not have any say in the matter. The government should only be able to punish actions taken that directly harm another, no more. Giving any government more power than that is begging for someone to abuse the system and establish an oligarchy, which the US is well on its way towards.

How about the cases where a child plays with a gun and shoots itself? Or when someone shoots someone else with a nearby gun during a fight and immediately regrets it? Or one of the many possible misunderstandings or accidents where someone gets unintentionally shot?

Also, criminals would use their guns less quickly if they wouldn't suspect every citizen of carrying a firearm himself.

If everyone were educated about the, at the very least, fundamentals of gun safety. The accidental discharges are almost universally because someone that has no idea what they're doing tries to look cool and ends up blowing their head off. If people choose to ignore the danger and get themselves killed, I feel no remorse for them being dead. Also, there is no such thing as someone getting unintentionally shot. When you pull the trigger on a gun, you mean to kill something. Period. If people cannot understand that and shoot someone, willfully or not, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (and preferably with some flogging).

You do not accidentally shoot someone, ever. Every time a gun discharges, the intent is to kill. It's gun safety 101. You do not ever point a gun at something you don't want dead, regardless of whether or not it's loaded, or the safety is active, or anything else.

For your other point, small children would have no access to firearms if their parents locked up the weapons as they should. Gun cabinets with hefty locks exist for a reason.

And your final point: Criminals that want to shoot someone are going to shoot them, regardless of who has what kind of guns. If someone wants someone else dead badly enough to get a gun and hunt them down, they are going to shoot, regardless of all other circumstances.

Terrorbalances are never permanent.

If someone wants to kill someone they'll just wait 'till they drop their guard. When they eat, sleep etc. If anyone ever gets drunk, take drugs or just gets really paranoid they could kill someone. That would upset the balance and you could start a long feud possibly even a civil war.

You still wouldn't have any safety from violence though,even while the balance last, since people are bound to create groups to protect themselves and then the biggest and best equipped group would be in controll.

I think it would be better without any guns at all and the only people that could achiveve that would be the government.