|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 27, 2012 19:53:40 GMT -5
So I guess its still ok to buy semi-automatic assult rifle with a 100-round magazine that can shoot 50-60 bullets a minute cause its fun to do so... Yes. Why does everyone have to make an issue of that? Do you not realize how many competitive shooters exist in this country and how many compete in serious, organized competitions every year? Do you not realize how many are killed each year by guns that do not fire 50-60 rounds a minute? Please, for the love of God, do some damn research so you know what you're talking about. We have a vast array of information at our fingertips yet too many would rather choose to ignore that and instead toss flippant responses as if they somehow convey an intelligent, informed response. It's not working. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJones on Jul 28, 2012 10:33:12 GMT -5
re:Do you not realize how many are killed each year by guns .Please, for the love of God, do some damn research so you know what you're talking about. Ill just take a guess from this Brady report...will that work?  |
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 28, 2012 13:24:28 GMT -5
re:Do you not realize how many are killed each year by guns .Please, for the love of God, do some damn research so you know what you're talking about. Ill just take a guess from this Brady report...will that work? It might. In the Brady Report, does it say how many people are killed by handguns versus assault rifles? I thought your point was that assault rifles need to be banned. |
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jul 28, 2012 15:18:07 GMT -5
Shot by guns and killed by guns are two different things.
There is also a difference between illegal and legal firearms
There is also the matter of those those shot by cops and those shot by civilians.
Just stating how many people are shot, without any other data means very little. More people die each year from legally prescribed drugs while under the care of a doctor in a hospital than which die from guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by muffin on Jul 29, 2012 10:36:29 GMT -5
.....would Canada's gun law requiring three people to vouch for someone purchasing a gun, stop a nut like Homes from getting his hands on one?
|
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 29, 2012 12:19:21 GMT -5
.....would Canada's gun law requiring three people to vouch for someone purchasing a gun, stop a nut like Homes from getting his hands on one? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a good question, and on the surface I think it probably couldn't hurt. But it seems like a process we'd want to be very, very careful about implementing. Lots of things could gop wrong. Ultimately I think it depends on how well they really know the person. Do we really know all the people we think we know? How many times have we seen someone commit an act or crime, and subsequently learn things about them that they kept secret from everyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Zed on Aug 6, 2012 7:48:33 GMT -5
So I guess its still ok to buy semi-automatic assult rifle with a 100-round magazine that can shoot 50-60 bullets a minute cause its fun to do so... Bingo. As they say... even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Zed on Aug 6, 2012 8:04:13 GMT -5
The thread is about AR-15 rifles, which are considered assault weapons. You've made some very good points in this thread. Don't ruin it by falling into using politically charged terms that the antis coined. "Assault weapon is a term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range,"[1] sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2]" "Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms and the definition and value of the "assault weapon" classification is part of gun politics in the United States. Prominent gun-control groups which support restrictions on ownership of these firearms include the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Prominent opponents of assault-weapons bans include the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. Gun-rights groups consider the phrase assault weapon to be a pejorative when used to describe civilian firearms.[4][5][6]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weaponBefore Clinton and the Brady's bastardized the term, assault weapon, by definition refered to 'automatic' weapons. To the uninformed (think Davey), every time the word assault weapon is used they immediately equate that to full auto AKs not military style semi-automatics. And who 'needs' assault weapons? Don't help feed the misconception of the chicken littles. |
|
|
|
Post by muffin on Aug 6, 2012 10:08:28 GMT -5
...since the Wisconsin shooter used a Handgun, will anti Assault Weapon advocates now call for a ban on handguns?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Aug 12, 2012 20:20:04 GMT -5
They will reclassify it as an assault weapon.
|
|
