64 replies to this topic

[Moldova96]

Bjm there is a big difference between what a violent crime is in the US and what a violent crime is in the UK. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” this is anything from including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses". Whilst the FBI, only counts aggravated assaults and forcible rapes as a violent crime. That's why you end up with a very high figure for the UK and a very low figure for the US.

[TheOmnipotentAmerican]

Moldova, in my comment I stated that the scond statistic was the what the statistic would be as defined in the USA, and it is still much higher.

 

Steve, over 75% of the country opposes the patriot act, such a unconstitutional piece of trash the act was, was passed on a wave of fear mongering.

[Concagh98]

Benjamin Disraeli (former PM of UK) said that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" What he's saying is that statistics can be bent to prove whatever point you want to make, on any side of an argument, even more so on this one.

[Stevphfeniey]

We still passed it though, Bjm, and we're sure as s*** not going to get rid of it anytime soon  

[TheOmnipotentAmerican]

We still passed it though, Bjm, and we're sure as s*** not going to get rid of it anytime soon

I wouldn't be so sure, the republican party is taking a swing toward libertarianism, It won't be around at the start of 2020, mark my words.

[Stevphfeniey]

Aside from run of the mill rumblings about the act, I don't see any real opposition to it.

[TheOmnipotentAmerican]

Aside from run of the mill rumblings about the act, I don't see any real opposition to it.

 

Rand Paul spoke about it quite a bit during his father's presidential campaign, and he is emerging as a possible leader for a new GOP, a libertarian one. If him or one of his ideological colleagues run a good campaign in 2016, it will get national attention, and the result of that will likely be a repeal, no matter who wins the election. as when polled a large majority of Americans would like the act repealed.

 

That's how I think it's gonna happen.

[ChiJohnAok]

Aside from run of the mill rumblings about the act, I don't see any real opposition to it.

There was quite a bit of opposition against it among some on the left (while Bush was in office); and some opposition among libertarians.


Now that a Democrat is president, nary a peep from many of those same people on the left.

Dennis Kucinich is still vocally opposed to it but few pay much attention to him now.

[sputnik23]

http://data.huffingt.../03/gun-deaths   (Copy it and paste it into search bar. DO NOT CLICK!)

[Sheepy]

DO NOT CLICK!)

Why?

[sputnik23]

Why?

Because the link doesn't work... Type it in.

[TheOmnipotentAmerican]

Plain-Old clicking doesn't work. At least not for me.

 

 

On gun control and stuff, apparently an AR-15 or whatever only fires one bullet per trigger pull in civilian models... If this is the case, and the rate of fire is no better than other comparable rifles, i see no reason to ban it just for looking scary.

 

Except maybe that you may go "Oh, it's a harmless guy with his AR-15" and Really he has a proper military rifle capable of shooting down a helicopter...

I remember seeing on TV a month or so back, a marine shot his semi-automatic AR-15 and his semi-automatic hunting rifle, and he was able to unload more ammo in one minute with the hunting rifle.....

[Sheepy]

Because the link doesn't work... Type it in.

Fair enough, but it helps to explain that in the post.

I like to know why I'm not doing something, so I can determine if it's a good enough reason.

[ChiJohnAok]

>>>>>

On gun control and stuff, apparently an AR-15 or whatever only fires one bullet per trigger pull in civilian models... If this is the case, and the rate of fire is no better than other comparable rifles, i see no reason to ban it just for looking scary.

[Sheepy]

Because then you can ban ones similar to the AR-15 for being more/similarly powerful.

 

Wouldn't say that's a bad thing, necessarily, though...

[ChiJohnAok]

For whatever reason my prior post is not completely appearing.
Try his again:

FoxTrident's prior comment:

On gun control and stuff, apparently an AR-15 or whatever only fires one bullet per trigger pull in civilian models... If this is the case, and the rate of fire is no better than other comparable rifles, i see no reason to ban it just for looking scary.

----
My response:

The AR-15 is a one bullet per trigger pull rifle.
Each time you want to fire another bullet, you have to pull the trigger again.
It is semi-automatic, it does not fire like a machine gun.

Here are someone else's word on what assault weapons are:

The term assault weapon, when used in the context of assault-weapon laws, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[3]
------

So what the lawmakers are attempting to ban are weapons that "look scary".
Functionally, a semi-automatic assault rifle is essentially similar to a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

[ChiJohnAok]

Because then you can ban ones similar to the AR-15 for being more/similarly powerful.

Wouldn't say that's a bad thing, necessarily, though...

Rifles more powerful than an (semi-automatic) AR-15 would generally be fully automatic rifles (ie machine guns).

Fully automatic weapons in the US are already highly restricted.

Can they be legally purchased?
Yes, but the process is onerous, may take months, and the cost to obtain the required license from the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to possess one may run into the thousands of dollars.

And there are a very limited number of dealers who are allowed to sell automatic weapons.

And, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a shooting in the US that involved a legally purchased fully automatic /machine gun.
(With the possible exception of the gangster/Prohibition era back in the 1920s and 30s; before those restrictions were in place).

[Stevphfeniey]

Just thought I'd revive this debate

 

Refer: 

 

Can't argue with this kid. He's got his s*** together.

[Oggey]

The internet is one hell of a drug...

[Kirkland]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

Basically, you can bear arms if you're in a well regulated militia.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean you and Uncle Bob's gun club. It means an actually 50+ member militia with restrictions and regulations that's point is not to hunt.

 

However, the supreme court did rule that you can keep guns like that for self defense and hunting. But I don't think you need a machine gun to kill a deer.