Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The one thing that to keep in mind regarding this topic, is that the so called "assault" weapon's prohibitted under this ban are less powerful than your average hunting rifle. These weapon's are banned strictly because of cosmetics not lethal abilities. They are banned because someone thinks they are "scarry looking" not because the are anymore dangerous. A BB Gun can a person if used recklessly or with malicious intent. The same goes for these banned guns. In the wrong hands, anything can be used to commit crime or murder.
Banning these items based on how they look is ridiculous. It would be like banning SUV's from the roads. They are bigger, more comfortable and make driving more fun than compact cars, but if driven recklessly can cause a great deal more damage to a "victim" (another car and its occupants) if involved in an accident. The SUV is unnecessary to use, you can by a compact car and still get around, but they are more fun and more comfortable to drive. The same goes for the so-called "assault weapons". They are fun to shoot, desireable for recreational shooters, home defense, and yes people do hunt with some of them. They are no more dangerous than any other firearm or weapon in the hands of the wrong person. "Gun's do NOT kill people, PEOPLE kill people". Sick scum will continue to victimize innocent people, and they will not care if the weapon they are using is banned or not. Remember that under federal law, you must clear a background check to purchase any firearm. Banning these only prevents those law-abiding people from owning and using these banned firearms.

Just doesn't my two-cent's. It doesn't make sense to me.

I fail to see why we need guns, being civillians, but meh.

If you are going hunting, you do not need an ak47 to take out a squirl (unless you have really crappy aim)

That is absolutely true, hunter's do not need and AK47 to go hunting with...I prefer my Remington PSS over anything else on the planet.

It really isn't a question of whether we need them or not. According to the second amendment we have a constitutional right to own them. To own guns, not to kill people with them. You can kill a man with many useless household objects. I don't suppose you'd tell me I couldn't own my cuisinart?
Truthfully, the majority of the population doesn't seek to own full automatic weapons so they can mow down their neighbors, despite what popular video game sales may suggest. A lot of people just like guns, and want these weapons for the purpose of range shooting. It's a form of recreation that is only harmful if the participants are irresponsible or imbalanced. That can be said of many things, and it doesn't warrant a government ban on those activities.

At 7/19/04 12:42 PM, Gooie wrote: I fail to see why we need guns, being civillians, but meh.

where do i start, lets take a lesson from say, NAZI Germany.
hitler dis-armed the population, but his army and police still had guns. and guess what happend? the killing of 7 million people

or the sovit union, communist china, rwanda, sudan ect, ect, ect...

At 7/19/04 01:57 PM, mabzie wrote: where do i start, lets take a lesson from say, NAZI Germany.
hitler dis-armed the population, but his army and police still had guns. and guess what happend? the killing of 7 million people

Gun control didn't result in the genocide of millions. It was a planned step towards that. It wasn't the cause.

Most of European civillians are without firearms, with many countries banning even handguns and shotguns - doesn't seem too bad to me.

And then there's Switzerland.

I see, so Great Britain, where guns are illegal for civilians is going to now slaughter their people like sheep, or perhaps round up all the circus clowns or something now that they've finally disarmed those radicals. And if you even begin to believe that the US is trying to faze out guns, then could you please explain to me how that works when one of the largest, I think it is only second to the AARP, or maybe more, I haven't checked, but I'm almost certain that those two groups are the biggest groups, lobbyist groups is adamantly for 2nd Amendment rights (the NRA, in case it wasn't obvious enough)? I can see how it would happen if there weren't millions of people actively supporting the right to bear arms, and if the government tried to, they would almost certainly revolt. And I posted before, that it takes 2% of a population to overthrow a government. In the case of the US, that's about 500000 people. I'm not sure of the exact figure of the NRA, but I know it's at least 3 times that. I've looked for the exact number but I can't find anything specific, could someone who knows post it?

At 7/17/04 05:23 AM, Spookshow wrote: And besides didn't the LA, bank robber shootout happen in 1997?

Let's see...

One of the most heavily regulated states.
One robber was using an AK-47 (A true one, FULL auto)
This happened 3 years after the ASB.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::

Are any of you aware of the facts?

That bank robbery where the men used full auto ak47s proved one thing. Full auto is useless.(in an outdoor setting... You cannot hit your target when unloading an ak47.) Semi auto is the only effective way to hit a target from distance.

Both men involved in the robbery, were killed that same day. They also did not kill one single person during the robbery!!!!!!

And the police officers WENT TO A LOCAL GUN STORE, to get a couple of m-16 rifles to stop the men. If not for the gun stores carrying the guns you are trying to ban....those 2 men might have gotten away or killed someone!!!!!!

The reason the men were so hard to stop was that they had full body armor. If they didn’t have that the 1st time they were shot by a the police officers they would have been stopped. (of course no one talks about controlling body armor.)

(Also, if people know citizens are packing heat they wont do stupid shit like that because, they would get shot by some one as soon as they pull out their guns.)

And one thing none of you realize is that AK47s and assault rifles are very very rarely used in crimes!!! They account for around 1% of violent crimes.

**** THE NUMBER ONE MURDER WEAPON IN AMERICA IS******
************** a small 9 shot .22 cal pistol ****************

A .22 is what people are murdered with NOT A Freaking AK47 or any type of assault rifle for that matter. (its much easier to stick a .22 in your pocket and walk into a persons house then shoot them in the back of the head with it. than carrying around a big ass ak.)

Even the Freaking DC sniper didn’t use an assault rifle. He used a single shot rifle. Same goes for that crazy guy in that bell tower in texas!!!!!!!!!

GoD help you ignorant people!!!!

*****Criminals prefer unarmed victims*****

If America is at war with terrorism, WHY TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY???????????????

-----Ignorance is fueled by Ignorance------

Yeah, thats right, there are some countries in Europe that have banned firearms for all those except Law Enforcement and the Military...the difference between us and them is the 2nd amendment. Are assault weapons for everyone, probably not, as we have identified on this post there are certain groups of people who have no reason to own one, or any firearm for that matter. Yet, if one day they develop a reason, their right to do so is protected by our forefathers who established this amendment.

In Israel, you very unlikely to see a purse snatching. In fact, one of my friends who visited Israel saw someone try something and got 5 guns pulled on them. Not 22's, we're talking uzi's, rifles, the works. I'll tell you something, they have serious problems over there, but I'll bet nobody's worried about getting mugged. The only thing you gotta watch out for are people with Semtex jackets and Primacord trim strutting around and a missile hitting your village. Which have nothing to do with weapons control, unless you want to verify the point that we shouldn't be allowed to strap plastic explosives to ourselves or own helicopter gunships.

They'd be a really funny thing to try and justify...

"Yes officer, really, I have a permit for that Cobra gunship."

Good call.

GoD help you ignorant people

I don't believe anyone here on this post is ignorant, we were having an intelligent, well mannered conversation, I suggest you keep those kind of comments for the chat rooms where they belong.
You made some valid points, they'll go a lot further without those kind of comments.

*****Criminals prefer unarmed victims*****

Why yes they do, that's why it's important to support legislation to keep gun shows, where criminals can access any weapon they please, shut down, and to enforce strict policy to keep guns out of the hands of those criminals. We are not safer with everyone walking around town with a six-shooter old west style, more people die and what could have been a bloodless negociation becomes a slaughter.

If America is at war with terrorism, WHY TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY???????????????

Because Bush is just trying to scare you into submission so that you'll give him your whole support. By keeping the public blind to the truth and afraid of what may be we'll rally around the flag, I dont' buy it jack. That's just a bit too pessimistic for me.

You actually believe we're safer with the man that has turned the world against us, failed to stop 9/11 and has taken so many of our precious freedoms away and has made everyone think that by having a gun on their hip, less people will die.

-----Ignorance is fueled by Ignorance------

I couldn't agree more.

Oy, were still arguing about this? OK, Prune sumed it up pretty good. The fewer guns we have, the fewer guns are going to get into the hands of criminals. So, fewer crimes will be comitted! Wow, pretty conveluted logic....

It's not basic arithmatic, I agree. But when guns are less available, then the casual criminal will have a hard time getting their hands on one. However, the casual criminal also does not have the cahones to shoot up a bank. Anybody really serious about getting armed can easily get the firepower they need. Limiting the supply of guns, in turn, only ends up keeping them out of the hands of people who want to protect their family but aren't keen on going through a bunch of crap to get a gun.

If you have a gun, and a robber enters your house, and you try to use the gun against the robber, you are more likely to get killed than the robber. I need to get the stats on that one, so gimme a sec.

Using proper training, not hunting him down that is NOT true. I.e someone breaks into my house. I have my vest AND a shotgun soon to be with a tactical light. I flip over the night stand (To use as a barracade. I can be in my vest, shotgun in hand within 45 seconds. I also have a dog that sleeps next to my bed. I know when someone uses the bathrroom here. Use the cell phone also next to my bed to call 911. Sit there and wait for the cops. The people who get killed usually are running out the front door or surprise the cops and get shot by them.

That's opinion Spook, I don't think many people die running out of houses. And there's nothing wrong with having a gun to protect yourself, but more fathers shoot and kill their own children, thinking them as robbers, than actually shoot robbers, so think about that when you think about having a gun... maybe it's better to get ADT than a high powered child-killing weapon.

1 out of 3 familys with guns in the house have a family member shot by their own guns, often in suicide... a gun is such a stupid thing to have because it allows a person to make the worst decisions with no time to think about it.

Guns aren't the answer

Oh man, I saw a disgusting piece on something similar to that on the Discovery Channel. There was this kid that worked at a convenience store. The owner thinks he's a thief, blam, blows half of his skull apart with a .357 magnum. The kid survived and only recently had reconstructive skull surgery. He only had 3/4 of a skull. There was an enormous indention in the side of his head that ran the whole depth of his head to nearly half way across his forehead, it was sick.

Nothing is, but I enjoy them on many levels. I have locks for all my guns and I use them responsibly. So what they aren't for everyone, we can sit here all day and debate the pros/cons. Almost like everything else, there are many on both sides. But for me the pros outweigh the cons. My point is if they aren't for you fine. Don't have one. But for the people that do use them in a good way and are responsible, I invite you to come join me on the range if you're ever in my neck of the woods.

At 7/20/04 12:03 AM, PruneTracy wrote:

That's opinion Spook, I don't think many people die running out of houses. And there's nothing wrong with having a gun to protect yourself, but more fathers shoot and kill their own children, thinking them as robbers, than actually shoot robbers, so think about that when you think about having a gun... maybe it's better to get ADT than a high powered child-killing weapon.

1 out of 3 familys with guns in the house have a family member shot by their own guns, often in suicide... a gun is such a stupid thing to have because it allows a person to make the worst decisions with no time to think about it.

Guns aren't the answer

I'll take my Glock before ADT anyway.
The truth is there is NO ANSWER to this deabte. There will always be a con to every side. Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, alarms systems can be VERY EASILY deactivated from the outside. Unless you can effectively eliminate the human factor from every situation (which by the way is impossible) you're still gonna run into these questions. The answer ISN'T getting the government to ban a right guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.

Also my guns, right there... The police are at LEAST 3 mins away with something like ADT, I live in a small town, in between three others. The police station is no more than a mile from my house. Why should I have to wait three minutes when he comes through that door and gets a chest full of 00 Buck right away?

Not a lot of robbers break into a house intending to kill the occupants, and if do get robbed, and you're without a gun, you wait for the house to be looted and then collect your insurance.

It's very rare for a house to be robbed, and probably very few of us ever will, but even fewer of us will be robbed by a man bent on killing everyone in the house.

Keep in mind that most robberies occur in the inner city, and that it's way more likely that you kill your own child sneaking around with a gun than you become a hero by stopping a robber.

It's common sense. Lock your doors, and don't shoot your kids.

Agreed Spook. Guns are an extremely effecting self-defense weapon. The major problem is that there are a lot of people who are extremely irresponsible with their firearms. A well maintained, securely locked gun is extremely unlikely to accidentally misfire, and proper education of children on firearms, teaching then that they are extremely dangerous, is also a great preventative. There are poisonous chemicals underneath the sink that children could get into. Should we outlaw those simply because irresponsible people don't safeguard them well enough from a curious child? It is very similar with guns.

Not a lot of robbers break into a house intending to kill the occupants, and if do get robbed, and you're without a gun, you wait for the house to be looted and then collect your insurance.

Hate to tell you but in the past two months there has been 4 armed (knife or gun) home invasions resulting in murders. I don't want the same things that happened to those people happen to my grandparents. I teach everyone around me (friend/family) what is safe and unsafe. I plan on using even better locks and keeping things like my sink and garage also locked. I figure, if there's emergency I weigh enough to push the door down meanwhile a child could not open it.

At 7/20/04 12:59 AM, Spookshow wrote: Hate to tell you but in the past two months there has been 4 armed (knife or gun) home invasions resulting in murders.

What... In the world?

Basically, there have been 4 instances in the past 4 months when intruders murdered somebody.

Two happened to the elderly, in BROAD daylight. They stabbed him 60 something times I think, and got off easy because one was a minor.