How do we know which ones are the law abiding citizens?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
BVS

BVS

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
41,232
Location
between my head and heart
Courthouse shootout leaves three dead

Friday, February 25, 2005 Posted: 8:05 AM EST (1305 GMT)

TYLER, Texas (AP) -- A man angry about being sued for unpaid child support opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and a man trying to help the couple's adult son.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/25/tx.town.square.shootings.ap/index.html


---------------------------------------------------

I often here that "law abiding citizens" should have the right to carry guns. Well I'm sure this man was a "law abiding citizen" at one time.

And why the hell did he own an AK-47?
 
There was a little thing called the assault weapons ban, but W let it expire

I think what "pushed him over the edge" was his lack of anger management and self control, perhaps.
 
AK-47's have never been illegal in the U.S.--only fully automatic weapons.

People really need to stop with this "assault rifle" nonsense. Any gun can be used as an assault weapon in the hands of the wrong person. I guarantee that a skilled hunter or sportshooter could cause a hell of a lot more damage with a plain ol' fashioned bolt action hunting rifle than a lot of these loonies who open fire with an AK-47 or SKS do.
 
ImOuttaControl said:
AK-47's have never been illegal in the U.S.--only fully automatic weapons.

People really need to stop with this "assault rifle" nonsense. Any gun can be used as an assault weapon in the hands of the wrong person. I guarantee that a skilled hunter or sportshooter could cause a hell of a lot more damage with a plain ol' fashioned bolt action hunting rifle than a lot of these loonies who open fire with an AK-47 or SKS do.
Click to expand...

AK-47s were specifically named by Congress in the "assault rifle" ban.

Please tell me how a bolt action rifle that holds 3 in the chamber and a semi-automatic weapon that holds 30+ in a clip is the same. I'd like to know. Even the most skilled shooter can't get nearly the same amount of shots fired from a bolt action vs an AK-47.
 
ImOuttaControl said:
AK-47's have never been illegal in the U.S.--only fully automatic weapons.

People really need to stop with this "assault rifle" nonsense. Any gun can be used as an assault weapon in the hands of the wrong person. I guarantee that a skilled hunter or sportshooter could cause a hell of a lot more damage with a plain ol' fashioned bolt action hunting rifle than a lot of these loonies who open fire with an AK-47 or SKS do.
Click to expand...


and a trained assassin with a knife could kill even more


so make all weapons legal in public

like Texas does
 
What is the issue? Has there been a massive increase in murders involving "assault weapons" since the ban expired? Is this case remarkable in any particular way ~ man with grudge opens fire against person he must hate killing them and another. He deserves to be put away for a very long time but how should this one case illustrate anything?
> When did he get the gun?
> Where did he get the gun?

from the link BVS posted
The AK-47 was one of the assault weapons banned by Congress by name in 1994. However, the AK-47 is still available in both pre- and post-ban configurations. (Slight cosmetic modifications take such post-ban guns out of the federal definition of "assault weapon."
Click to expand...
doesn't that make them legal?
 
Last edited:
Well, weapons are used to *prevent* crimes from happening every now and then.

I remember trying to research this for a paper once, but the estimates I got for number of crimes prevented by the use of firearms were so wildly divergent that it was hard to extract any useful information from them.
 
speedracer said:
Well, weapons are used to *prevent* crimes from happening every now and then.

I remember trying to research this for a paper once, but the estimates I got for number of crimes prevented by the use of firearms were so wildly divergent that it was hard to extract any useful information from them.
Click to expand...

the NRA spikes the data

we only need look at societies where guns are scarce

looking at DC or NYC where guns are controled but easily available is worthless
 
deep said:


the NRA spikes the data

we only need look at societies where guns are scarce

looking at DC or NYC where guns are controled but easily available is worthless
Click to expand...

Well, of course a scarcity of guns will lead to a scarcity of gun-related crimes.

Do restrictions on gun ownership lead to spikes in violent crimes not involving guns? I have no idea.
 
A_Wanderer said:
What is the issue? Has there been a massive increase in murders involving "assault weapons" since the ban expired? Is this case remarkable in any particular way ~ man with grudge opens fire against person he must hate killing them and another. He deserves to be put away for a very long time but how should this one case illustrate anything?
> When did he get the gun?
> Where did he get the gun?
Click to expand...
What does it matter? Why should someone who's capable of snapping(which is anyone) have acess to a weapon that can take out several people less than a minute? And this is a great example of why.
A_Wanderer said:

from the link BVS posteddoesn't that make them legal?
Click to expand...
Well it matters if it's modified or not.:huh:
 
Fine then I guess that a total firearms ban with tight control would work in reducing the violent crime rate?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Fine then I guess that a total firearms ban with tight control would work in reducing the violent crime rate?
Click to expand...

It would reduce murder rate eventually. Eventually a ban would eliminate the black market. It would take awhile but yes it would reduce the murder rate.
 
Hasn't happened here, we have a snazzy ban ~ take the weapons away from farmers and the like and out violent crime rate has remained more or less constant. US is a different country with a different history and different socio-economic conditions but a total ban would not eliminate illegal weapons ~ they are always going to be smuggled in and the people that use them are going to get their hands on them.

Tighter regulations and technology on legal firearms may be a good idea (biometric scanners etc.) but bans have little effect other than robbing citizens of the ability to posess weapons for sport or self-defence.
 
What type and how long has your ban been in place?

I don't believe in a total ban. But if you ban certain weapons those that are used primarily in crimes and have no hunting uses. Where will the black market get their guns? Once the ban is in place it will take awhile but eventually the supply won't be there. For where do the guns in the black market come from but from the major manufacturers. Yes maybe an insurgent of guns will come from out of the country, but how many gang members do you think have contacts with arms dealers?
 
A ban on all automatic and semi-automatic firearms , pump action shotguns and a strict licencing system ~ they had an entire buyback scheme but who went through that? the honest citizens so basically the crims kept their illegal weapons and those with an interest in supplying the demand for illegal weapons kept on doing it. There is still the same ammount of gun violence in Australia today as there was before the ban and this violence still occurs among the same sections of the community, and then you also have the old fashioned ways where people just stab eachother to death. The best antidote to gun violence is a responsible population with rights, unfortunately in every society there is poverty and crime and that is where the problems come from.
 
Last edited:
America is the only place where bans don't work. Ok, that might be a bit of a stretch, but seriously consider my proposition.
In America we like our smugglers - perhaps this is because our founding fathers were such.
If we were serious about riding this country of assault weapons we could. Our government doesn't have the stomach to honestly oppose the NRA.
 
One other point I'd like to make. I've noticed that many people who support people owning guns for self-protection are against other nations having nuclear weapons. By their logic wouldn't our world be safer if everyone had a nuke?
 
If you can't stop illegal immigrants and drugs from getting into a country how can people expect guns to be kept out.

As far as the proposition of nuclear weapons ~ the answer is no. A licenced gun owner without a criminal record or history of mental illness who has to go through a whole manner of checks with a cooling off period is entiely different to a nuclear weapon that can kill millions in the hands of every person.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BoMac
The dangers of online chatting. Do we even know who we're chatting with?
Replies
27
Views
1K
intedomine
I
J
Oh, no...now the ba***rds have Special Ops. Cody
Replies
4
Views
305
pax
pax
M
Anyone Want to Read about the Marshall Plan?
Replies
6
Views
677
Lilly
Lilly

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom