MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Man, I've tried to eat a fillet with a pocket knife...that doesn't work, unless you bought the ultra expensive ultra tender fillets...now your point is invalid

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Care to explain my point for me then?

deyes

He's grasping at straws. It happens when anti gunner find that there is no logic, to their reasoning.

OneManArmy

iTrader: (7)

woah....ever try to type when you hand is asleep...crazy..haa.

anyways...I love Salty.

I happen to be against the extremity of our gun laws. Friend of mine had and SR-15. registered it as a long rifle...that's what it was set up for. He never got papers to reregister it as an assault rifle. I mean the thing had a fat scope, long barrel. He took it in to get a bipod set up for it. The guy refused to work on it because it wasn't papered as an assault rifle. The gun is gone now.

Illegal...because of paperwork.

every point I could make has been made..so I'll leave it like this...criminals are people that do not obey the law. Whether it be breaking and entering or having an assault rifle. Why disarm the law abiding community?

oh and salty...the shot gun...pistol theory...it revolves around a couple of things...most people that break into homes don't have swat or military training...so they aren't gonna close enough to me to snag my shotgun. Another part is the willingness to fire. More people are willing to fire a smaller round at someone than a large one. You hit someone with a .45 they might live. you hit someone with a shotgun shell for 12 feet...they are not going to live.

just a couple thoughts..in most cases I agree with you. Pistol is better. But in my...well my former case..I'd take my shotgun..haa. pistol grip. short barrel of fun. haa. she is gone.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

...or when I get ganged up on by everyone and their brother...it's not like everyone who is pro-gun is a genious and everyone who is anti-gun is retarded, we have our fair share of smart and dumb people on both sides...so don't try to make it sound like all my points and arguments are completely irrational, it just seems to be a matter of opinion...and at this point it appears that we have reached an impass...

deyes

Facts and elementary logic carry more wieght with me then opinions, and indeed shape my opinions. If a law touted to have an impact on crime does not then why have it?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I pride myself on my logical abilities as well; that's why I am involved in a field of work where logic is all that counts. On this issue, however, a choice is made before any facts are seen and then 'logic' is used to support said choice. Let me ask this...were any of you ever pro gun control? I doubt it...so from the beginning, your opinion was that gun laws are too strict. If I, as a logical person, use this assumption as my starting point I can come up with a good argument (as you all have) for why the AWB was injust. However, if I choose (as I have) to think that they are unnecesary to living a happy and complete life, I can come up with an even better line of logic for why the AWB was fair legislation. I understand we all have different view points on things, and that's why I come to this forum to debate and discuss things. But don't make the false assumption that because someone disagrees with your opinion (however much logic you use to generate your opinion) that that person is neccesarilly being illogical. Refusal to comprehend your oponent's point of view is a true sign of mis-guided logic.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Care to show me the facts that support your opinion of the AWB?



From the beginning my opinion was that gun laws were too strict because I was taught that a weapon's potential, just like anything else, lies in the beholder. Just as a kitchen knife, two ton vehicle and bottle of Tylenol could be potentially dangerous in the wrong hands. It wasn't too hard for me to figure out that an object at rest tends to stay at rest... the same thing holds true for the cold steel of any Kalashnikov rifle.

With your logic you make it seem like those that are raised from pro-gun ideals are done so based on family default. As if my Grand pappy gave me a shotgun without -any- education and said, "this is the right way because the founding fathers and I said so...". Do you see what I'm getting at here?

If I was raised on opinions rather than physical and undeniable facts then my Grand pappy could tell me that racism is okay and the world is flat. Basically my point is that opinion(s) almost always leads to ignorance when the facts are stacked against you... this leads me back to my original question: Care to show me the facts that support your opinion of the AWB?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Basically it says in the short term (~6-12mnths) the ban appeared to do little to limit the number of the weapons in the US but helped a little to get them out of criminal's hands. It also has a lot of parts that are inconclusive. Really, it looks like they weren't allowed to do a real study of the issue. Why?...prolly the NRA had something to do with it, as did anti-gun lobbyists. Either way, it's hard to get factual info on this topic because everyone puts a spin on it. I wasn't trying to say a person inherits their opinion on the subject, just that it's easy to justify either side with quasi-facts and emotionally charged arguments. I agree about the inanimate object thing...I know it's up to the person who picks up the object to mess up or not...but our government does intervine to a certain extent to limit things that they think are dangerous...our opinions differ on where they should set that limit.

subaruguru

All policy questions aside...the assault weapons ban did not, I repeat, did not ban any of those weapons. It banned using certain names on new production ones, and it banned some cosmetic features (like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors.) Virtually every gun on the list continued to be sold in the US under a different name and with a few cosmetic changes. The function of those guns is exactly the same as before the ban; same ammunition, same magazines, same method of operation.

So, any study on the assault weapons ban by necessity is going to come up with conclusions that are totally unrelated to the types of weapons involved. The ban only banned names and cool-looking parts on guns; it did not ban guns by function or caliber or any other substantive measure.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Any of what weapons? The ones in the link? Then what is that whole report about? Nothing?...I know there are weapons discussed in the report that were not banned...they talk about that...but the report is obviously about the ban and it's effects...especially about how it effected the gun market which in turn effected criminals ability to get certain guns...I know it's not revolutionary findings or anything, but it is on-topic...

deyes

The fact of the matter is that the "Assualt Weapons" ban did nothing to keep guns out of criminals hands period. Nor did it do anything to prevent crime or measurably lower the crime rate. Please explain to me why in the states with the MOST relaxed gun laws they have the lowest incidences of crime in the nation? Why in nations that has severly restricted gun ownership have their crime rates risen, Australia, UK? Why in light of these facts do you support gun bans? Gun bans do not work because they do nothing to effect the cause of crime, which are ultimately a problem with the people commiting the crimes and not the means by which they are commited.

subaruguru

The weapons in the study are weapons with the cosmetic features. They are, however, functionally exactly identical to the weapons without the cosmetic features named in the ban. The ban has only two types of criteria for banning a weapon: Name of the weapon, and cosmetic features (flash suppressor, bayonet lug, etc.) Change the name, and change one or two features (all of which are easily changed), and you can legally manufacture and sell the weapon again. You don't even need new machinery to do it. That's exactly what happened after the ban.

So yes, you're right on with "Nothing". The study is bunk.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

[sarcasm]Woah, whoa let me get this straight, Dave...

So if all they did was change the basic cosmetics of the weapons then they're essentialy the same weapons during the ban, right?[/sarcasm]

Why is this concept so hard to grasp?!

FW Motorsports