The good gun bad gun solution! Sorry, Do you think that some nut-job bent on killing can’t kill a bunch of people with a pump action shotgun? That has never been considered an “assault” weapon.
Longer waiting periods? Why? This just shows how little you really know about this subject. We have an instant check. Gun shops enter your personal info into the computer and get an answer back from the government in seconds. If you pass why wait a month? Most people that submit to this are lawfully buying an ADDITIONAL firearm.
By your logic we can stop DWI if we stop making and selling cars. Millions already exist, in the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens. Maybe you support disarming the masses. I’m sure every criminal will line up at the local P.D. to turn in his ALREADY ILLEGALLY owned firearm.
What if your not buying a gun to hurt someone, but to protect yourself. How many times have we heard about the wacko ex-bf or other situations that a girl, or anyone needs to protect themself, 1 month is probably too late.
What is an assault rifle? don’t google it, you tell me. If your in rochester NY it means that it has a bayonett lug and a “shrouded barrel”. WTF is someone gonna do with a bayonett lug, if your gonna stab someone, just tape a knife to a dam broom. Shrouded barrel, soo if its a “hunting rifle” then there is a cover over 90 percent of the barrel, but if it goes over the top, now its an assualt rifle? What is a hunting rifle used for? KILLING ANIMALS, what are humans. People think that the EBR (evil black rifle) is sooooooooooo scary. “Oh hunny, looks its a rifle painted black OMFG, its got a shroud, run run he’s gonna shoot up a mall!!!”. If I wanted to take out someone at long distances, I would get a bolt action .308, and you could pick people off from 400 yards all day. Close range, shotgun of course, some 000 buck could take out 4-5 people in one shot.
All in all, silly laws won’t work. People will get guns from canada, mexico. We have made narcotics illegal for many many years now. I think its easier to get illegal narcotics now than ever before. Laws just punish the good people.
Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began.
According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06.
Also, government officials report that most gun crime is committed by children and teenagers under 18 years old.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, told the Telegraph: "What this shows is that the majority of these crimes are committed by youngsters under 18.
“The government’s policy has failed with the group most responsible for this increase in crime. It is long past time the Government stopped believing its own propaganda, and took measures to get a grip.”
4671 gun crimes in two years - 2005-2006. This in a population of 60,587,000. That’s a rate of 3.85 per 100,000 population.
OTOH, in the US we have 388,897 gun crimes in 2006 alone, in a country of now over 300,000,000 - for a rate of 129.9 per 100,000 population.
Oh, and for those inclined to argue the statistics, the US and UK do define “gun crime” differently: “gun crime” in the US only includes homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault. UK statistics are pretty much the same, though simple assault is included in “violent” crime. So, if anything, the UK includes more than the US in their definitions.
So, the question is - do gun bans work? Hard to tell, as the UK never had the “cowboy” mentality of gun ownership. Yes they hunted, yes they shot for sport, but no, they did not have a gun-based society.
And the concern over what the Supreme Court is deciding - if the Second Amendment truly gives an individual right to bear arms, then ALL gun-restrictive laws become by definition unconstitutional. Noone who has not been convicted of a felony may own a firearm - technically even those who have been committed to a psychiatric institution (if they’ve not committed a crime).
You see, the only proscriptions we have on the other rights in the Constitution are those that impact others - namely, restrictions on falsely shouting “Fire” in a theater, inciting riot, libel or slander in the case of the First Amendment.
Therefore, if the SC rules for an individual right, then anyone can do what they wish with a gun, and we can’t do anything about it until he pulls the trigger.
It’s too bad that this is the same court that ruled lethal injection as unconstitutional. Of course, we could do mandatory sentencing for gun crimes, but then again, we’re in a country that already has 1% of its population behind bars (over 1,000 per 100,000. Compare that BTW to the UK, where it’s 142 per 100,000 http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf).
And I’d wonder what the pro-gun people would do for those accidentally wounded/killed by a gun? I mean, if you have someone defending himself with his firearm, and happens to hit a bystander, then what? What if someone at Virginia Tech had a gun and tried to shoot that psycho - and hit someone else? How many people truly practice with their firearms to be accurate in such a situation? Even the cops who train more than the average person can’t be that accurate under stress.
Is that the price of personal safety we have to pay?
Unbelieveably flawed “utopia” logic here. First of all, what about all the guns already here? Second, whats about the MILLIONS produced all over the world legally and illegally? What about the ability to manufacture them in their entirety if need be? Do you really think your average machine shop couldnt copy one? Thats OLD SCHOOL TECH… any idiot with a machine shop and enough time could copy an existing design easily.
1 month waiting period? WHY? If someone has 5 guns already… do you really think they would buy another one just to blow someones head off? Another example of flawed logic that makes NO SENSE.
And assault weapons… are you serious? do you realize the classification system for “assault rifles” is VISUAL FEATURES? These have nothing to do with anything in the first place!
Are you one of those people who seems to think assault rifles are “full-auto”?
Do some research son, on GUN WEBSITES, not the liberal propaganda websites you obviously frequent. You are going to believe THEM over all of US normal people, WITHOUT an agenda and who are hands on about how this shit really works?
Liberals want to change the world if they have to take away every right we have and spent every dollar of our money to do it.
The rest of us, I think we can say, just want to be left the fuck alone!
I already answered it for you. Someone who wants to kill someone THAT bad will just use something else to get the job done.
People who have multiple weapons arent going to buy a new one just to put a round into someone else. And someone buying a pistol already had to wait MANY MONTHS for the permit around here in the first place.
No way in hell you would get a permit in 2 months anyway. I dont have a big problem with 3-4 days, but seriously… if the guy has other weapons and they know it, uh, who gives a shit?
And its fucking ridiculous. Its just a deterent to trying to get one… they think you wont bother. I didnt for a long time, but now its “fuck you” time and I am filing the paperwork.
it only takes one bullet to get the job done… so should we limit the number to 1? Magazine counts dont make much sense either, and wont stop a damn thing. The fact is, virtually every pistol is limited to <15 by size alone many MUCH less, and most gun crimes are with pistols… so what have we stopped? nothing. You only impacted a small percentage of weapons used illegally in the first place. The current limit is 10 rounds Post-Ban. I dont know about you, but if I am on the receiving end of a criminals weapon, I would like every round I can fit in the fucking thing!
I can see going overboard with a 100+ round spiral mag, but 20? 30? even 40? who gives a shit, seriously. I wouldnt even give a shit if someone has a 100… it would be too fucking heavy to use effectively. The only place its useful is saving reloading time on the range, or with full-auto weapons, which we dont have access to anyway.
Positives - One can’t kill or maim up to 40 people on one clip. I know that if I was pissed off and took my rifle I could accurately hit 40 people with 40 rounds in a populated setting.
Negatives - You can have as many 10 round clips as you’d like to. I could just as easily pre-load as many 10 round clips as I could buy. Oh and trust me, it doesn’t take any more then a fraction of a second to swap out a clip for a loaded one.
Yup, Typical political BS. Make it look like you’re doing something. Instill fear in people, then show them how the government will save them. Another big government project to suck your money with little result, other than more appointed patronage jobs!
I’d argue that if the SC strikes down the DC ban, then there’d be no restrictions on obtaining full-auto weapons. If you can’t restrict one type of weapon on the grounds of public safety, then you can’t restrict another. Personally, I’m loving the idea of a Browning M2 on my lawn for “personal defence”
haha… wishful thinking. They would remain unattainable in any case.
While its true in some states you CAN buy and own them, many people fail to realize that ONLY pre-ban weapons can be bought (read: few available) and the prices and paperwork is INSANE. Short of owning a “rental shooting range” that can charge whatever it wants for the opportunity to fire one, it doesnt make sense to own one in any case due to cost and hassle. Best case, this restriction would be lifted, though there arent many of these weapons around to begin with that COULD ever make it to DC.
Just curious - how does this (^^^) change things for DC? What if they don’t ban handguns but charged $10k for a permit - and then mandated a 5-year sentence for an “unregulated” firearm?
Because even if the SC rules that there’s an individual right to a firearm, the only thing that will keep me from my Ma-deuce is that one word in the Amendment - e.g. “regulated”. Otherwise, what’s to stop people from selling converted semi-automatics (of which there are more of)?
In any case, I think the argument of a handgun for home defence is somewhat spurious - as a shotgun is probably better suited for that. I mean, would you really want to shoot an intruder with a high-powered pistol, knowing that only two 1/4" layers of sheetrock are the only backstop between bad-guy and your kids?
