Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

[volkov2006]

I don't think I have anything "on topic" to add to this thread...I've already stated my position on guns in several threads.

Just a short rant while it's on my mind.

Cigarettes serve no "purpose" other than to get you to buy more cigarettes. They are a poisonous commodity that does nothing other than get you hooked on an item that, more often than not, either slowly destroys your health or kills you outright. Any pleasure a person derives from smoking them is purely psychological and usually based on the mind's response to an addiction. They don't really create an actual high as we know it...and I've seen far more people (including friends and family members) die slowly (sometimes quickly) from cigarettes than guns. Period.

I wouldn't use them as a comparison to guns because guns do actually serve a defensive purpose in life. They are an actual tool. How that tool is used and regulated is up to us....
...but cigarettes are just garbage.
As a matter of fact - if my only choice was to completely outlaw the production and sale of either guns or cigarettes.....it wouldn't even be close.

rant over ...sorry to derail the thread.

The two items have nothing to do with each other, so no sense in using them as a comparison either positive or negative.

I was not using them as a comparison I was responding to my my my who first made the comparison take that up with him.

I was meaning to say that cigarettes do not necessarily serve a purpose but that it is not a 100% that you will die from them you may get ill but not necessarily die, gun on the other hand we created with one purpose in mind unlike cigarettes. Guns we created to kill only not to chop wood or cook food.

Cigarettes may have served a purpose in days past just like heroine and cocaine were used by doctors to treat illness. Although cigarettes may not serve that purpose anymore there were crated for that purpose. Guns were not created to help over come any human trial, they were created to kill and only that.

Knives, axes, cars, tools, saws, forks, scissors, and shovels were created to serve a purpose that help us in our daily lives. They all have been used to kill people, although the amount of people they have killed has gone down since the industrial revolution, and now only number in the hundreds yearly. On the other hand guns were created to kill ONLY, and those deaths number in the 10s of thousands.

Guns were not made to hunt, or to shoot targets, guns were made to kill humans first and final. Only until the recent history have they been used for sport shooting and recreation. And until about the 1400s were they used for hunting because it was better to use a bow. Also there are other less violent was to protect your family including non lethal means, pepper spray, tasers, and others. You don't need to kill just to protect your family from being killed. Would you kill someone who just broke into your house to save his life from the weather, or someone who just stole a little bit of food to prevent from starvation. Also most guns in criminal hands right now are weapons bought by responsible people and stolen from them, THAT IS A FACT!

That is the point as to why guns are not a good thing.

[fred41]

Although cigarettes may not serve that purpose anymore there were crated for that purpose.

They were not created for that purpose.

otherwise give me a credible link.

[fred41]

...and guns don't just kill either. They can protect...they can defend...they can create a psychological defensive position....and they don't always automatically kill - depending upon the ammunition used - one of the purposes of regulation.

[Skylancer81]

Another very good read.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/3779...l-initiatives/

A Columbine tragedy survivor. Spot on.

Proves the point a criminal and or a murder will either jump through all the hoops or bypass them and break whatever law you put in place. Gun control hurts law abiding citizens no one else.

[fivekatz]

It is rather amazing to me that those who oppose gun regulations argue that any regulation will not first, stop all senseless killing (no shit) and take the argument to the absurd which is that the First Arab, Communist, Pagan President of the USA will be leading 18 wheelers into everyone's neighborhood to collect every single fire arm in the country.

Registration of every weapon (just like a car), a license to use (just like a car) and restriction on capacity (just like a car) will do just fine.

And then while we are at it we can deal with the shameful lack of attention we have paid to mental health in the country.

hardly anyone wants to eliminate firearms from the USA and most of those who think it wouldn't be a bad thing realize we can't.

But the situation is not in control. Firearms kill more occupants of their homes from suicide or accident than they strike down thieves or assailants. High capacity magazines are used far more in crime than defense and have no sporting purpose in hunting. Want to be real hunter, use a bow and arrow like Bo Jackson.

Prohibition never works and last I saw nobody in America pretends that there will be a prohibition of firearms in the US. But registration, license and for that matter liability insurance wouldn't be a bad idea.

Chris Rock went a great rant once how he thought a bullet should cost $5000. His theory was that when one guy got really pissed at another he'd say, "I'd blow your f'ing brains out motherf'er if I could afford it!"

[robertlouis]

Chris Rock went a great rant once how he thought a bullet should cost $5000. His theory was that when one guy got really pissed at another he'd say, "I'd blow your f'ing brains out motherf'er if I could afford it!"

That's a very interesting analogy. Don't know if it's the same in the US, but here in the UK successive governments have consistently raised taxes on tobacco products well beyond the rate of inflation, to the extent that a pack of 20 now costs between £6 and £7 between $10 and $12, and it has made some impact on the incidence of smoking.

Perhaps if guns and ammunition were treated similarly, their ownership and use would drop too. Feed the family or that new assault rifle...hmmm.

[fred41]

Another very good read.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/3779...l-initiatives/

A Columbine tragedy survivor. Spot on.

Proves the point a criminal and or a murder will either jump through all the hoops or bypass them and break whatever law you put in place. Gun control hurts law abiding citizens no one else.

Because he was a victim (according to this) at the Columbine slaughter, I gave this letter some extra respect and started reading it....but being present at a slaughter does not add intelligence ...and I'm sorry, but I have a hard time getting past his simplistic protestations against background checks.

[fivekatz]

That's a very interesting analogy. Don't know if it's the same in the US, but here in the UK successive governments have consistently raised taxes on tobacco products well beyond the rate of inflation, to the extent that a pack of 20 now costs between £6 and £7 between $10 and $12, and it has made some impact on the incidence of smoking.

Perhaps if guns and ammunition were treated similarly, their ownership and use would drop too. Feed the family or that new assault rifle...hmmm.

Varies by state by state in the US but in California not only do the taxes now make a pack of 20 smokes just under $5 US, by the state invested millions in anti-smoking campaigns. And while I can't remember the specifics now (aging sucks) there was recently an article that estimates that the reduction in smoking due to restrictions in where people can smoke, high taxation and the campaign (print, radio, TV) against smoking that the State had seen a 25x return on their advertising investment and saved 100's of M of $ for individuals and insurance companies.

But except at the state level right now taxation in the US is not likely to ever pass through this congress which will site in objection to taxation while also understanding that higher taxation of firearms and ammunition would piss off on of their most trusted lobbies.

But increasing cost + education certainly has worked with smoking in the US and particularly California which hopped on this in the late 80's. In fact my only trip to the UK was in 2002 and I was surprised how easy it was to smoke in public still since we had so many bans in my home state. OTOH I paid no attention to price since I had quit the habit in 1998 due to health concerns.

[trish]

Guns are DESIGNED to kill. You can put them to other uses. You use them to threaten. You can use them to hammer nails. But they are designed to kill.

Cigarettes were designed for smoking. They are nicotine delivery systems. They also happen to be carcinogenic and causes of lung and heart disease. But that is not what they are designed to do. Still, it's not a good idea to smoke, nor to give government subsidies to tobacco companies nor to make a constitutional amendment that guarantees that every citizen has a right to smoke. Note, not having a constitutional guarantee is distinct from having an all out ban. Even though we don't have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the legal right to smoke, plenty of people legally smoke.

Cars are designed to transport people from place to place. They can be used for other things. You can make your home in a car. You can use it murder pedestrians. Driving entails risks to others. That's why we require drivers to take a test, obtain a license and buy insurance. There's no constitutional guarantee for car ownership. There's no right to own a car. Still lot's of Americans own cars.

Why do we need a constitutional guarantee to own a semi-automatic weapon? We don't. The 2nd Amendment clearly applies to muzzle loading muskets. There's a hundred years or more of precedent for extending the interpretation to manually operated (non-semi-automatic and non-automatic) hunting rifles and shotguns. There is no need to extend it further. If you need to fire thirty rounds in less than a minute to hit your target, then you aren't doing it right. Try aiming.

Look we don't need to ban semi-automatic weapons, but we can interpret the Constitution rationally so that not all citizens are guaranteed the right to buy them.

[my my my!]

I think I'll do just that. You're clearly someone with whom it's simply impossible to have a rational argument, with your bizarre view that your ownership and use of items whose sole purpose is to maim and kill is infinitely more important than the right of innocent citizens not to get mown down ever more frequently in mass shootings simply because idiots like you will brook no infringement on your so-called right to carry weapons. Wallow in your self-righteousness as the bodies pile up.

What a total fuck-up.

I'm glad I live in the UK where we have I guess a pretty draconian attitude to gun ownership. Oh, and why is that? Because on the blessedly rare occasions that we have a mass shooting (3 times in 60 years), we are proactive and make the ownership and use of firearms increasingly tougher.

And our rate of gun deaths relative to the USA, taking population into account (UK 60m/USA 300M) ? 2%. 2 FUCKING PERCENT!!!! Read and absorb, assuming you're capable of doing so. Actually, I don't believe you're stupid, I just think that you have a blind spot the size of Saturn where guns are concerned.

Your country has a disease. And you're one of the bacteria. Moron.

And you are a self admitted ass Kisser who grovels at all the ladies here. Really classy act you are. Grow some balls first before coming into a conversation about American Gun Rights and Gun Control. Your opinion is worthless. Why? Because you can't do anything about it. I can, my vote actually will matter, and I will accept the outcome whatever it may be. You on the other hand, are just a rambling Brit.

You really care about people dying "unjustly"? Go donate all your money to an African charity. After all those are human lives worthy of being saved right? I'm pretty sure you wont do that. Show that you care through your wallet, and post your receipts here. Show some proof. Accept the challenge? Or is what is going on in America more important than the drought stricken areas of Africa?

Stop worrying about what is going in America or move over here so you can actually influence gun control through a vote. Other than that, what you say does not matter, really.

That's like Americans trying to convince the UK to get rid of your monarchy isn't it? You welcome or reject the opinions, but the truth is Americans don't have a say in the matter.