Banning assault weapons again.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I live close to Columbus, Ohio and they are now talking about banning so called assault weapons. While talking about the issue they show a guy shooting a fully automatic rifle.


Columbus City Council member Michael C. Mentel, Safety Committee Chair, continues his in-depth investigation of unsafe and unregulated weapons. Mentel hosted a public briefing to kick off the effort December 9, and a demonstration of specific assault weapons was conducted on January 27th. This initial briefing session included City Attorney Richard Pfeiffer and Division of Police personnel providing an overview on the types of weapons that have recently surfaced in Columbus, and relevant legal issues raised by any attempt to limit their availability and use.

Why can't they let this issue die. They said crime would go up after the concealed carry law passsed. They say assault weapons are bad and crime will run rampant if not banned but more people are killed with knives than assault weapons. polititians!!!!


[edit on 21-7-2005 by Thomas Crowne]




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
yeah and maybe macheties and baseball bats and butter knives and clenching your hand into a fist should be banned to


Don't forget the video games and music and movies that make us so violent


How about we pull the roots out instead of trimming the leaves.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Americans can keep there guns along with lawsuits and your health system. After you have been shot by an armed robber (he/she is preventing crime by robbing a petrol Station) and you dont have have health insurance thus unless your rich your Screwed.

Guns dont cause crime be themselvs it takes a person to pull the trigger. Take the gun away and the trigger cant be pulled. The argument that countries that dont have guns have seen crime go up that isnt valid. Take Aust for example crime has gone up because the size of the population as increased not because of guns.

Example. You keep a gun to keep your family safe in order to confront the intruder in your home you have to get the gun out of lock & key chances are by the time you are able to get your gun the intruder has robbed your house and is pointing his/her gun at you and your family (dont forgot he/she is preventing crime.)



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I think we should have the rights to ANY and ALL semi-automatic weapons out there, xcept like nade launchers and stuff. Im cool with the banning of full auto's but not the semi's.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I just love the expression "assault weapon"
As opposed to a weapon that does what?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I believe assault/semi-auto weapons should be available to the public but there should be some kind of law about using the weapons.Something like a kind of rules of engagement as they say in the military.Only fire when fired upon.That kind of law you see.

Anyways,in my country,they don't even allow owning a replica of a gun/rifle unless you have a permit and license by the police.Even carrying objects such as a papercutter or a baseball bat everywhere you go,could cause you to get a fine.

There was one case in my country about this guy robbing a bank with a replica revolver and he was shot in the head by the security guard on duty.Luckily,the bullet didn't penetrate any vital parts and he survived.

Personally,I don't mind banning weapons of any sort.Though I would love the freedom to own one here in Singapore.

[edit on 4/2/05 by Heartagram]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
I believe assault/semi-auto weapons should be available to the public but there should be some kind of law about using the weapons.Something like a kind of rules of engagement as they say in the military.Only fire when fired upon.That kind of law you see.


Only one problem every joe bloggs who commited a murder will claim they
were fired on first.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
That's up to the crime investigators and detectives to determine which joe or jane shot first.We can only set the law,the rest is justice's job to handle.Moreover,with the technology and knowledge we have now,I believe almost all of such cases can be resolve through tedious investigation but I'm not saying our justice system is perfect either.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
That's up to the crime investigators and detectives to determine which joe or jane shot first.We can only set the law,the rest is justice's job to handle.Moreover,with the technology and knowledge we have now,I believe almost all of such cases can be resolve through tedious investigation but I'm not saying our justice system is perfect either.


Why give people an excuse to kill?
Chances are by the time you have already been fired upon you are already dead anyway.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Making guns illegal, guns of any sort, only guarantees one thing; only criminals will have guns. That's not the sort of society I want to live in. I think any one who is responsible should be able to own a firearm, a knife, a mace, whatever they decide they need for personal protection, hunting, sport, etc..

Make all guns illegal in the states, watch and see, the number of Taser robberies will skyrocket. Make Tasers illegal, the number of baseball bat robberies will skyrocket. Etc. Etc.

Fix the problem of violence by changing the infected society. Don't remove a citizens only defense against his fellow (insane) countrymen.

The 2nd ammendment was designed to protect American Citizens from being marginalized and criminalized by a power-drunk ruling class. It appears the 2nd will show its true worth soon..



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
That's why I said our justice system isn't perfect either.Not every decision made by the court is justice.It depends on how you define justice.

Why give people the excuse to kill?Why give people the right to bear arms and defend themselves?It's the same thing if you ask me.One would handle a weapon and have nasty thoughts of abusing it by killing people while the other have nice happy thoughts of protecting his/her family.

A weapon is still an object.It takes a sicko to want to abuse the right and it takes a hero to use it for the good of mankind.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Wyrde One is completely right: do you think that outlawing firearms will cure the problem? Criminals will always get the hands on black market goods... see New Zealand and Japan, where firearms are completely banned, yet the local mobsters still manage to have AK47s, M16s and automatic pistols in large numbers. And even in the countries were firearms are allowed, unregistered black market weapons are always favored because they are unregistered, can't be traced down, there's no background check and you have access to weapons usually unavailable on the legal market: just pay cash and you have what you want. Where they come from, you ask? There's plenty of supplies: Eastern European countries, crooked military, dishonest firearms makers... just choose the one you fancy.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I live in New Zealand and I hate to breake this to you but it is a lot harder to obtain a gun by legal and illegal means then it is in the USA.
You dont ever wonder how so many guns end up on the black market sure some find there way into the USA . More guns would end up on the black market in the USA because guns that are legaly owned would be stolen and sold on.
I know this is hard for some Americans to grasp but outside of the USA guns dont make up a part of the fabric of society so there is less demand for them.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
I know this is hard for some Americans to grasp but outside of the USA guns dont make up a part of the fabric of society so there is less demand for them.



And as a result there is less gun crime, murders, 5 year olds blowing away their friends accidently and not criminals rampaging around terrorising the defenceless poulation as guns nuts would have us believe.

I think its sad that people are so insecure that they feel the need to own guns to feel complete or safe.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
I just love the expression "assault weapon"
As opposed to a weapon that does what?

Heck, I would think that a butter knife sticking out of some ones neck would obviously have crossed the threshold from “dinner utensil” to “assault weapon” lol.




And as a result there is less gun crime, murders, 5 year olds blowing away their friends accidently.

If a child finds his fathers gun and shoots himself or one of his friends, it was the fault of the father for making the weapon obtainable to the kid not the fault of the gun for doing the shooting.

I was raised around guns so to me they are no more dangerous than a hammer or any other tool. It all comes down to how they are used.

There are no gun accidents, only lapses in peoples judgment, decisions or reasoning.


[edit on 4-2-2005 by Ruins]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Good points ruin,

I will say also, if a 5 year old shoots his brother/friend/self, it is the fathers duty to explain to the child what the gun does, how dangerous it can be, and must teach that child to FEAR and RESPECT that weapon.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone

I will say also, if a 5 year old shoots his brother/friend/self, it is the fathers duty to explain to the child what the gun does, how dangerous it can be, and must teach that child to FEAR and RESPECT that weapon.


There is nothing wrong with educating a child about the danger of guns.
Any responsible person would keep there gun under lock and key.
So how dose a gun under lock & key protect your family?
other then giving the intruder something to steal. Chances are the next time a house is robbed they will use the gun they stole from you.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
perhaps when they are in the house they should keep the firearm on them? in a holster. 2ndly , teach their kids about guns so its not such a cool thing.

arent only semi autos banned under "assualt rifle ban"? i think ak47 are sill illegal even though that bill expired.

I dont like the fact that I have to be dependent on a police force that is at least 5-10 mins away for my security (on average ... ) , which is kind of the same as keeping your gun locked up, so why should we have police


j/k. we should have both, both are in the 2nd ammendment. state militia and the right to bear arms of the populace.

***that means that we shouldnt have federal police forces either (were getting there)... maybe fbi only since corporations span state lines.

[edit on 2005-2-4 by NuTroll]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Nice tactic they use with the video of a full-auto weapon being discharged. Problem with that is they have been illegal to own for ages under some bill which I cannot remember the name of. As for the whole pro/anti argument I think its obvious this thread is simply beating a dead horse; its been covered here to the point of insanity. Maybe if we had more people in this country with the balls to take some responsiblity for their actions the focus of court cases and legislation would shift from the tools used in crime to the person RESPONSIBLE!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join