Assault Weapons Ban- Yea or Nea?

on the other hand, my uncle got shot in the back because they were out back shooting cans, and a bullet deflected off a can, and hit my uncle, who bled to death... They had also drank a little bit too much, and probably weren't as carefull as they could have been. Still, if there weren't any guns around, he'd still be here.,..

chances are with enough alchohol he would have foud another way to kill himself with a car a boat etc.

Wouldn't a security system be more effective? How about instead of guns, a government program to place a panic button in every home that links instantly with the police?

Not sure how fast the cops are in your town, but they take at least 10 minutes where I live. and besides are you going to carry a panic button with you everwhere you go, and have one within reach everywhere in the house?

When my wife was chased home, by a total stranger, she made 14 trips around the block blowing her car horn to get someones attention, when she escaped and got into the house, her car was eventually re located by that same lunatic, and he stopped and got out of his car. I met him on the front lawn, and the two of us waited for another 12 minutes before the cops finally arrived. they were called while she was still driving around the block. So had we not been prepared to defend ourselves, he easily could have done any number of things in the time he had and still gotten away.
Take it from someone who has defended his wife and home with a gun, they can be used to deter and if need be to stop crime completely. I store my guns safely in my home and how I store them is my buisiness and no one elses, furthermore I take full responsibility for what may or may not happen in my home.I carry a gun when I feel the need. There have been times in my life when I had to risk prosecution to do so, and I'm sure there will be times when have to take that risk again. I have been a victim, because I tried to abide by this countries stupid gun laws, and it will not happen again. I don't play games nor do I allow my children to play games (paint ball lazer tag etc.) that involve shooting people, I don't use targets that look like a human being and I handle firearms with a great deal of respect. I will not relinquish my ability to protect myself my family or even my neighbor if the situation warrants it, And I sicerely hope the people of this country don't allow themselves to fall into the same fate that the germans did in the late 30's.

As far as non-violent uses for firearms,
Competetion shooting, recreational shootiing
in addition, guns are used for meat processing, varmint control, euthanasia, and of course hunting. they are a tool, and a work of art in many cases, and a lot of fun when used properly and safely.

those guns that shoot off hundreds of bulletts at one pull of a trigger, Rambo type guns etc etc etc... As someone else said, a crackhead can get a gun illegally now, why should they be made illegal so that law abiding citizens can't get one? Making them illegal will not take them out of the hands of criminals.

Just an FYI, contrary to the poular media propaganda, there are over 20,000 laws already on the books nationwide dealing with firearms and ammo in one aspect or another. Of course since it would be unpopular to prosecute and actual punish a criminal ( we'd rather give them a free ride and an education so they can be released and commit more crimes), the people as a whole want more laws to appease them, when the reality is no one will be held accountable to the new laws either
And the Rambo type guns (fully automatics) were regulated clear back in 1934 ( I think, could have been '36) and have been illegal to own without special permit and registration since. It's really quite simple, I won't give up my ability to defend myself while I am still alive, and I have no dillusions about how quickly I would be shot when the time comes. It has happened too many times throughout history, and history will repeat itself here or somewhere else.

And here goes any popularity I might have had on the boards!!

On the subject of Columbine, whatever you think of Moore's film, the fact is if guns hadn't been so easy to procure, not as many kids would have died (based on what I saw of the footage of the killing spree). Yes a knife can be used to kill people, but so can a chair, or a sack full of oranges; but it's not as easy as using a gun (and it makes me wonder about the people who say knife = gun if they think otherwise).

The most intruiging question is this, if the bombs had gone off like they were supposed to do you think the American people would try to make it illegal for teenagers to buy bombs?

Hey there were cops at Columbine, men who were paid by the public to protect their children and were glad to take an oath and cash the check. lets see did any of them get shot in the line of duty? nope did any of them try to defend the kids? nope, If memory serves the cop on duty hid and called for back-up which allowed the the shooters time to go inside and hav their fun. too bad they didn't have a panic button in the high school linked right to the police station, they could have prevented the whole mess with one of those.

By the way, did any of the neglegent parents get Prosecuted?, how does a teenager procure illegal weapons and bombs over a period of several months without Mom or Dad noticing? My son couldn't procure a cigarette lighter without my wife knowing.
 
Originally posted by daveedka

--------------------------------------------------------
Hey there were cops at Columbine, men who were paid by the public to protect their children and were glad to take an oath and cash the check. lets see did any of them get shot in the line of duty? nope did any of them try to defend the kids? nope, If memory serves the cop on duty hid and called for back-up which allowed the the shooters time to go inside and hav their fun. too bad they didn't have a panic button in the high school linked right to the police station, they could have prevented the whole mess with one of those.

-------------------------------------------------------
Memory refresher of Columbine school shootings--

On April 20, 1999

11:19 a.m.
Harris & Klebold begin shootings at Columbine High School.

11:24 a.m.
Sheriff deputy Neil Gardner exchanges gunfire with Harris.

11:26 a.m. (starting and continuing)
More deputies assist escaping students from school buildings, providing cover fire.
More exchanges of gunfire from shooters in school and deputies outside.

11:35 a.m.
Last victim of shooting inside of school.

11:52 a.m.
SWAT teams ordered to enter school.

12:06 p.m.
First SWAT team enters school.

12:08 p.m.
Harris & Klebold commit suicide in school cafeteria.

daveedka:
None of the officers got shot, but they did get shot at.
"Hiding" and taking cover from gunfire are two different things, especially from an opponent with superior firepower.
Law enforcement officers did put their lives at risk helping the students escape from the school.

Bill in WI
 
Last edited:
Everyone who was shot after 11:24 was shot while under the active protection of a law enforcement officer, If I remember correctly that would be everyone shot that day, It has been a long time since I watched the film I do know that at one point the deputy was between theshooters and the rest of the children. The deputy allowed the shooters to enter the school and kill other students very simple, very straightforward. The deputy was not incapacitated, he simply didn't protect the children he was hired to protect, but chose to prtect his own life instead. If he didn't ever want to be shot at he should have picked a different occupation. I find it amazing that no-one thinks it is odd for two untrained teenagers to be able to pin down a deputy, but it seems normal for the deputy to not be able to pin down the shooters, or better yet remove them from existance completely.

Everyone keeps saying we should rely on the police to protect us, Columbine is absolute proof that the law enforcement cannot be trusted to protect us, and re-enforces the fact that we need to be prepared to protect ourselves. I will never understand how a trained law enforcement officer could fail to defend a high school against two teenage boys with almost no training or experience.

But no matter what the fact still remains that we need to make it illegal for teenagers to own bombs, even though the bombs didn't work they are scarier than the guns, and I for one think we need a law that makes bombs illegal in school so something like columbine can never happen again. Additional laws will help a lot.
All I know is that my home will always be safer without them.

That is exactly the type of naive thinking that allowed Hitler to dis-arm the general population of Germany in the 30's, Peolpe knew they were safe living in a civilized world, so they relinquished their weapons.
 
One thing that bugs me about the aftermath of Columbine is what about the bullies? What about the kids who broke the psyches of these, granted stupid, children? How is it that there hasn't been a massive vocal outcry against bullying in our society, movies still show it as a comedic stand by where the bully always gets his comeuppance by the end. This is not real life.

Daveedka, I agree with you, the idea of the panic button wasn't great (kind of a rushed thing ;) ). And I see that there are instances where a gun can be useful. However, your situation is atypical of the scare tactic usually employed when people talk about guns.

All I can say about packin' heat when you go out is shame on you. But we clearly have two very different perspectives on the world, and that is the basis of our respective moralities.
 
Originally posted by daveedka


That is exactly the type of naive thinking that allowed Hitler to dis-arm the general population of Germany in the 30's, Peolpe knew they were safe living in a civilized world, so they relinquished their weapons.

Are you serious??? lolol.. And you see that happening in this day in age? ? C'mon man...

When living at home, I don't have the mentality that someone might walk in at any time and cause harm. I don't think I'll be needing a gun to shoot at anyone. I wouldn't think that while I'm out, I'd have to stick out a gun and use it on someone. If you do, and that's your reason for having a gun at home, then I don't know if it's me being naive, or you being paranoid...
 
Originally posted by slipknottin
...

History will show that trying to ban a substance/device from the public on the terms of the ban being good for society will always do more harm than good.

All the vices should be legal and regulated, at least there is some control by the goverment. If you make them illegal, the goverment has no control at all...



Wow, I agree with slip on something. Being a fan of gun control I am obviously in favor of the automatic weapons ban. But since the Supreme Court seems to ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment, then I'm left with the realization that it may be time for gun control advocates to stop tap dancing around the issue and try to remove the 2nd Amendment. Chuckles to himself... If you thought that this country was divided now or that we wasted too much energy on abortion, well, this would certainly be a dandy...
 
Cecil Adams of the straightdope.com says the only honest thing to do is amend the Constitution, if one wanted stringent gun control, but there would be a furor over that (but the same bloodthirsty people wanting a marriage amendment would go nuts if that second amendment was touched).

In anycase, I agree with Cheech 100%, not in my home, ever. Guns lead to more violence and I see no purpose in any being in my house. If this country gets so dangerous that it's the wild west every time I step out the door I have no problem leaving it.

History will show that trying to ban a substance/device from the public on the terms of the ban being good for society will always do more harm than good.
Again, I'm no expert, just speaking the language, reading the history, particpating in the culture, and going out with a Nihonjin girl (who grew up there for 18 years) but I continue to say Japan seems to prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by slipknottin . . .
. . . All the vices should be legal and regulated, at least there is some control by the goverment. If you make them illegal, the goverment has no control at all...

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. When government legalizes vices it gives the impression that they are no longer vices. That's one heck of a slippery slope. I think it's bad enough that many state governments have a vested interest in turning their citizens into gambling addicts. I sure don't like the idea of government sanctioned brothels, crack houses, child pornography websites, etc. Vices are not an area where "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" should become government policy.
 
Originally posted by kikuchiyo

Again, I'm no expert, just speaking the language, reading the history, particpating in the culture, and going out with a Nihonjin girl (who grew up there for 18 years) but I continue to say Japan seems to prove otherwise.

Youve already admitted that crime in japan is treated differently than it is here. The number of guns wouldnt change japans crime rate much at all.

Why do you keep comparing it to japan when there are significant differences besides just gun control? Why not compare it to south america, canada, europe, mexico, etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
AquariaCentral.com