Obama to reinstate assault weapons ban. - Page 3

South Carolina is the most violent state in the country. It allows you to carry concealed firearms, without waiting to buy them, registering them, taking a proficiency test, without a background check at gun shows, don't have a police force doing background checks... hell, you don't even need a liscence or permit to buy one, you just get one and go.

How about Alabama? Same murder rate as South Carolina in recent years, mind. You don't need a permit or liscence to buy yourself a shotgun or rifle, you don't even need to register it. In fact, the thing you DO need to have a permit for is a handgun, which you don't need to register, and the permit is needed to carry it, not to own it. No records are kept of purchases, and no waiting period to buy one.

Louisiana, which had a higher murder rate than both, only required a permit to carry a handgun. Permits, liscences, waiting periods, registration, are otherwise not mentioned. They do have tougher laws, such as 21 years of age to buy it and no history of violence, alcoholism, drug user or having committed a felony/crime, but the laws are still lax in keeping track of firearms and still allows for those who have not yet caused problems to freely buy them without permit and without record. Concealment of a firearm also extends to the police in that state -- they are not allowed to have concealed firearms.

Nevada is quickly growing to be the most violent state in America. They do have laws stopping you from having a concealed weapon without purchase and the NICS system for firearm transactions. Nothing else is covered.

Gun regulation is a predominant factor missing in the four states I looked up. Interesting, no?

However, I do feel we are getting off the point here -- the removal of assault weapons from commercial use. Increasing gun regulations to restrict weapons such as this and not firearms as a whole is fine with me -- they are wholly unnecessary and have far more potential to cause damage, both intentionally or by mistake. Criminals may still go out there and "do their thing" but hopefully removing assault weapons from commericial use wiill make it more difficult for small-time muggers or murderers or school shooters to get their hands on weapons which can cause much more harm. Less firepower in the mans of any hand is worth it, imo.

to be honest.
I think Barack wants a weapon ban so he doesn't get assassinated..lol
But hes a good guy.

quote Daedric Prince

It's a right to defend myself against an oppressing government. Now of course, when one thinks of the US government, the first thing that comes to mind is generally not "oppression". It's always good to be prepared, in my opinion. Who knows what could happen. If the government ever does end up sending troops out to "deal" with "Un-American" citizens, a hand gun or a bolt-action rifle isn't going to cut it. The troops will be packing the big guns, so we would need the big guns.

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, wouldn't you then be better off being allowed to have nuclear warheads as well?

While i believe it is perfectly acceptable to own multiple fire arms, i do realize that there should be a limitation as to what weapons you can or can not own. Really, what need does an average individual have for an assault rifle? You can not use them for hunting of any kind, you can only carry them in specific marked areas, and they are really no good for target shooting.

so i ask, if you any individual have an assault rifle, why not let them have a tank? Where does the line get crossed?

quote Moonrise

Koloth, the logic you just used is exactly what you just said somehow didn't apply to people that were against the assault rifle ban in the first place. Sorry, but talking in circles isn't helping your case.

Not talking in circles at all. Never said I was for or against the assault rifle ban. I just said that it doesn't matter unless you're a collector because assault weapons serve no functional non-military purpose.

Hand guns, rifles, and shotguns have functional non-military purposes. Namely hunting and home/personal protection. Frankly I see no reason to ban any of them. I think guns need to be well regulated, licensed, and certified everywhere. But I don't really care if a collector can or can't get an AK-47. All I care about is that the crazy guy writing his manifesto and driving to the local college campus can't get a hold of one.

The destructive capability of an assault rifle is just as incredibly high. One could easily take such a weapon, walk down any main street during peak traffic hours, and kill dozens, if not hundreds of people.

Handguns can be used for hunting game and competitive shooting. There is an amount of fundamental skill and challenge in sporting or competing with hand guns...that is the major difference between the two.

comparing hand guns to assault rifles is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit, but they are completely different in form and use.

quote Moonrise

Koloth, your very first post said you thought it was funny to see people concerned about an assault rifle ban, and in your most recent post you said you didn't understand why someone would want a ban on handguns. That would be talking in circles.

Not at all. I said I found it funny to be concerned about it. I didn't say I was for it or against it. You seem to think I'm of two mind about this. I'm not. As I have said several times I see useful purposes for handguns, rifles and shotguns.

I see no useful purpose for assault weapons. However just because I see no useful purpose for them doesn't mean I think they should be banned. I just don't think anyone should care unless they are a collector. And I find it ammusing for people to get upset about the ban as if it infringes on any important rights. You can still buy guns, just not one particular type of gun.

To me, the whole notion of whether or not guns are legal in some states will increase or decrease violence rates is kind of pointless. I'm sure it will have some effect but not enough. Criminals will always have weapons and even if we had the strictest gun laws in the country, criminals could still get their hands on guns. Do I support the ban of assault weapons (or any guns in general)? Yeah, which is sort of hypocritical if you read what I posted above. To me, the correlation between violence and gun legality is nonexistent. It all just has to do with cultures, traditions, and upbringing. Am I saying that people in Tokyo are more civilized than say, us here in the United States? I dunno, but they're not running around shooting each other.

So I'm iffy on the subject, but I bet I'd still support Obama's decision. Any sort of act against violence, whether it will even work or not, is alright with me (please don't take that last line out of context and blow it out of proportion).