neutral
genius of compression, Forum Moderator
Popmartijn said:
BTW, anyone wants to bet when the first killings with these weapons occur? I wanted to say today, but I'll take a conservative guess and say this week.
I'd say over the weekend
MERGED: Assault Weapons
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'd say over the weekend
nbcrusader said:
Perhaps a compromise can be reached, then. The sale of assault weapons would be allowed, but their owners would have to store and use them at the firing range of their choice. That way they could have the enjoyment of firing the gun, and the rest of us would be a little safer. If someone didn't want to abide by this restriction then they could buy a different, non-banned gun.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
I think you are on the right track....
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
From what I understand many of the gun manufacturers got around the assault weapons ban by renaming and/or simply modifying their existing models.
I find it incredible that a government (mine) would not resign this legislation. A right to bear arms is one thing, when it is an automatic weapon, it is ridiculous.
Is an automatic rifle not a weapon of mass destruction? In one round I can murder more people outside my office than most states have in a year.
If I am allowed to own one of these guns, why am I not allowed to own a bomb that can kill the same number of people?
I am in shock.
I find it incredible that a government (mine) would not resign this legislation. A right to bear arms is one thing, when it is an automatic weapon, it is ridiculous.
Is an automatic rifle not a weapon of mass destruction? In one round I can murder more people outside my office than most states have in a year.
If I am allowed to own one of these guns, why am I not allowed to own a bomb that can kill the same number of people?
I am in shock.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Does owning an assault weapon automatically mean you will use it to kill people?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Should automobiles travel faster than 15 MPH? Is the risk worth the benefit?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Interesting. Over 17,000 deaths, nearly 3 Million injuries, no constitutional right to own a car.....
We can go around in circles forever on this. I would be just as happy to have the ban in place as anyone else. But the thought process that gets us there is uneven and unprincipled.
We can go around in circles forever on this. I would be just as happy to have the ban in place as anyone else. But the thought process that gets us there is uneven and unprincipled.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
But you have to earn a license in order to drive a car. At least, I hope they aren't giving them away in the USA...
nbcrusader said:
I asked for a comparison of the benefits, but you gave me the risk.
I don't think that applying a risk/benefit analysis to determine a ban is uneven or unprincipled. If you can make the case that free access to assault weapons is as beneficial to society as access to cars is, then I'll agree that the ban on assault weapons shouldn't exist.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
ThatGuy said:
I don't need to show the benefit of free access because I already have a right to free access. You have to show how a limitation can be carefully crafted to eliminate the risks (unlawful use) while not depriving the rights for lawful citizens.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Popmartijn said:But you have to earn a license in order to drive a car. At least, I hope they aren't giving them away in the USA...
Take our test - it is hard not to pass....
You don't have the right to free access any more than I have the right to completely free speech. I think that the laws regarding the limitation of freedom of speech were made using the risk/benefit analysis I mentioned earlier. Otherwise why limit speech at all?
Last edited:
pax
ONE love, blood, life
This raises an interesting question: if one must take a test to drive a car, but not to own a gun, why the inconsistency? Should there be a licensing test for guns? (I would not be opposed to this.)
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
ThatGuy said:
Actually, the ability to restrict free speech is very difficult, especially for the general area of political speech. Strict scutiny is much more than a risk/benefit analysis.
For example, flag burning as a form of speech is potentially dangerous with, for sake of argument, questionable benefit (there are safer ways to express the same idea). Under a risk/benefit analysis, you might decide that flag burning regulations are rational.
BAW
The Flower
paxetaurora said:
Very good question.
Even with his police training and knowlege of firearms, my husband still had to test at the firing range every few years to keep his CCW permit and retirement ID.
If retired police officers have to take a test to carry a city issued gun permit, why shouldn't the average citizen?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
ThatGuy said:
I personally would be fine with registration, a gun safety course, trigger locks or other safe storage requirements.
It would be nice to individually identify each gun, have them registered and require owners to report lost, stolen or missing guns. Add an extra offense if a crime is committed with a gun that is not registered to you. Perhaps we could expand the Patriot Act in this area.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
I believe so - essentially a way to (i) collect revenue and (ii) put a name to a gun.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
ThatGuy said:
Wow, imagine if that was how the DMV worked.
Well, it's not like the DMV test is a real challenge.....
nbcrusader said:
True, but I remember taking a class that lasted several weeks, taking the written test, then taking a few driving lessons before the test at the DMV. It was more than just signing my name and giving them a check. If we're going to test people to drive a car it would seem natural that we should test them to use a gun.
BAW
The Flower
ThatGuy said:
I'm not quite sure how other states do it, but I *think* California requires a minimal background check and some sort of waiting period, along with the fee.
As for any kind of testing, I don't believe that its required.
neutral
genius of compression, Forum Moderator
I looked up a few things about gun permits etc earlier. Some states do require a Handgun Safety Course before one can get a license to carry a handgun. I looked up a few and some require hefty fees along with the course, while my state requires no class and a $5 fee. But then I live about 30 miles from a town that requires all citizens to have a loaded gun in their homes. 
Last edited:
pax
ONE love, blood, life
It would be better if there was a federally mandated gun course before any state could give a gun license. At least it's something.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
It must be noted that these automatic weapons are still only single shot at a time deals. There is no unloading a full clip of ammunition like Rambo. It is point and shoot, point and shoot. Also most gun violence is commited with handguns, now handguns have no real purpose other than killing, rifles even Automatic ones have applications but handguns, not so much.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
On a side note, no jokes about DMV tests--I didn't get my driver's license until a couple of months ago (I'm 21), and I sweated and cursed the whole way through the test. 
