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

[brickcitybrother]

Wow ... talk about missing the point.

Seung-Hui Cho used handguns ONLY (a Glock 19 and a Walther P22). It wasn't a trick question. And his magazines were not extended mags or subject to a federal ban.

[fivekatz]

Wow ... talk about missing the point.

Seung-Hui Cho used handguns ONLY (a Glock 19 and a Walther P22). It wasn't a trick question. And his magazines were not extended mags or subject to a federal ban.

I did not miss the point. I would think one brick at a time would make sense to brick city brother.

Sure the debate is wider than high capacity mags or even guns, in includes a lack of understanding and treatment of mental health issues and whole lot of other stuff but to repeat my statement:

If assault weapons are such a non-issues shouldn't NRA and all the 2nd Amendment folks just feed them to the bleeding hearts to shut us up?

I still have yet to hear about 12,001 lives saved a year by guns that off set the 12,000 a year that die in their carnage.

This is not an argument of constitutional rights my friend, the congress would trample your rights in a flash if the big money was there to ban guns rather than the big money being associated with allowing gun manufactures to sell their products unfettered.
.

[robertlouis]

Read my original post ... so that you know such a comment misses the point.

From my point you should infer that I would like to address the larger issue of gun ownership and gun deaths and not focus on a tiny scary fraction of them that the media throws in our faces as "Good Television". Too many individuals have fancination with the anecdotal incidents. The focus is just wrong.

I agree entirely on your point in that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides involve a single victim and a single shooter and that the awful totality of the situation gets lost all too often. But surely it's the horror of the large-scale multiple shootings, often using assault and semi-automatic weapons, that sticks in the memory. How could any sentient being not be moved and angered by any lazy jurisdiction which creates the conditions that condone a massacre of children such as at Newtown?

[hippifried]

This thread has the smartest people saying the dumbest shit.

The car/gun ANALogy doesn't work at all. Cars aren't weapons. Guns have no other function. There's no relation in this context. Boats aren't banned because the Titanic sunk, but there's enough lifeboats on every cruise ship nowadays. The song & dance about how everything kills you doesn't work either. The gun debates aren't about people dying. Everybody dies. If it were possible to pass legislation doing away with all or most of the deadly maladies on Buttslinger's "list", just about everybody would cheer. Other than the disease maintenance industry, nobdy's going to shed a tear over the eradication of heart disease or cancer. But all that's irrelevant in this context because the topic of gun debates is murder.

[brickcitybrother]

Sorry most folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Even though I have said there is a much bigger issue then assault weapons - that's the focus of the discussion. My statistics were used to demonstrate the misdirection of funds in comparison to the number of deaths (especially in light that the other deaths are much more preventable than homicides/suicides committed by guns). Even though I suggested and agree that there must be real regulation for every gun and every gun sale, most folks are simply fixated with a 'Shark in the Water' mentality.

Oh well

[my my my!]

Sorry most folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Even though I have said there is a much bigger issue then assault weapons - that's the focus of the discussion. My statistics were used to demonstrate the misdirection of funds in comparison to the number of deaths (especially in light that the other deaths are much more preventable than homicides/suicides committed by guns). Even though I suggested and agree that there must be real regulation for every gun and every gun sale, most folks are simply fixated with a 'Shark in the Water' mentality.

Oh well

You're never going to get through to most of them.Just like they will never get through to us. Most of the people here are stuck in their "guns are bad" stance (and the same could be said about the pro-gun peeps) and can't see the analogies. Still good people.

To those that keep dismissing the car analogy, You're completely wrong in dismissing it. The simplification of saying "guns and cars are totally different things" is just as bad as me saying "guns have never killed". You would not like me saying a general carpet statement like that would you?

Yes guns can be compared to cars. Before you jump on me for saying it.

Please Consider the following :
1st: I don't want cars or guns banned. get it? Ok let's move to 2nd point.

2nd: Guns and Cars serve a purpose. Guns in civilian hands are to shoot a projectile (do you really think the clerk at the gun store really tells us "have a good time killing people" when we buy a weapon?) Cars are to get you from Point A to Point B (do you really think the car dealership sends you off after buying a car with a "go get drunk and run over little kids, and don't pay attention to the road" , of course not). Get it? ok let's move to 3rd point.

3rd: Guns and Cars DEPEND on the human behind them to use properly in society. Get it? ok let's move to 4th point.

4th: When a Gun is not used properly a death or injury results. When a car is not used properly a death or injury results. Get it? Now to the Final.

Final:To finalize , Guns CAN and will be compared to Cars. Dismissing this analogy makes you seem as stubborn as the gun nuts you so vilify. Suggesting a TOTAL (regulations are fine) ban on either one is too extreme and will be met by stiff opposition in a debate.

You guys too easily dismiss when we mention the analogies of cars vs guns, or cigs vs cars or anything else. Please open up you minds a little. It's clear as day.

I'm a gun owner, and even I admit there need to be some things done to prevent violent gun deaths (as well as accidental gun deaths) just as I believe the measures in place against bad drivers (the ones that kill by human "error", or DWI) could use some work.

[trish]

Getting through to the “guns are good” crowd is futile. They’re stuck in their mind set and are quite happy there.

I own several guns. I use them for the purpose they were designed to perform. Killing.
I own a car. I use it for the purpose it was designed to perform. Getting from point A to point B. I drive every day so I don’t need to practice to keep up my skills. On the other hand, I don’t hunt everyday. So once in a great while, I’ll take my rifle to the practice range and “shoot it in.” That is not it's intended purpose.

1. I don’t want to ban all cars from the highway. Just those that are inherently unsafe for the public highways. I don’t want all guns banned for civilian use. Just those that are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life, namely automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

2. Guns and cars serve a purpose. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transportation. Clearly guns require more stringent monitoring and control.

3. Cars are not living agents and therefore do not DEPEND on anything. Neither do guns. Both cars and guns can be dangerous. People depend on other people to use either item with caution.

4. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.

One can always compare any two categories. A proper comparision will point out the features that distinguish the categories. Guns are not cars. They chief difference is the purpose behind their design.

Here are some other differences that shouldn’t exist:

Gun manufacturers in the U.S. cannot be held liable for accidents due to bad design or manufacture. If a gun blows up in your face, good luck sueing the manufacturer. Not so for cars. Car manufacturers are often sued for accidents caused by poor manufacturing processes or design flaws. That is why car manufacturers have recalls and gun manufacturers do not. Gun owners are not liable for accidents, injury, death that involve their guns. Car owners are which is why car owners have to have insurance on each car that is driven.

I am a gun owner. I realize that sport hunting serves a useful purpose in conservation and agriculture. I also realize that no one needs a semi-automatic weapon to defend his home, or his person. If you can’t hit your target without one, you’re not doing it right.

If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

[my my my!]

Getting through to the “guns are good” crowd is futile. They’re stuck in their mind set and are quite happy there.
Same with the anti-gun people. I actually did a list of suggestions, you might not have agreed with any of them.

I own several guns. I use them for the purpose they were designed to perform. Killing.
No, then you're not using them in ALL their capacity, they're also used for not kiling. aka stationary targets and collection/display.

I own a car. I use it for the purpose it was designed to perform. Getting from point A to point B. I drive every day so I don’t need to practice to keep up my skills. On the other hand, I don’t hunt everyday. So once in a great while, I’ll take my rifle to the practice range and “shoot it in.” That is not it's intended purpose.
You're a responsible car owner, like gun owners should be. But if you get in the car drunk , then you would not be using it in it's "intended purpose" or safely would you?

1. I don’t want to ban all cars from the highway. Just those that are inherently unsafe for the public highways. I don’t want all guns banned for civilian use. Just those that are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life, namely automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
I agree. But then again all guns are designed to kill by your own standards. So , why not ban all of them(again, by YOUR standards, they all can kill so are potentially bad right)? You contradict yourself Trish

2. Guns and cars serve a purpose. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transportation. Clearly guns require more stringent monitoring and control.
Guns may have been designed to kill, buy they are SOLD to civilians for other means as well i.e. target shooting, collection. I do agree about the more stringent monitoring and control as it would help bring the deaths by guns down perhaps considerably

3. Cars are not living agents and therefore do not DEPEND on anything. Neither do guns. Both cars and guns can be dangerous. People depend on other people to use either item with caution.
My point exactly. Car deaths by imprudence bother me as much as anyone dying by a gun.

4. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
So when a car is used carelessly and kills someone, it did not kill? When a gun is used properly in MILITARY hands , it kills and neutralizes. When a gun is used properly in CIVILIAN hands it hits an inanimate target or an animal. Smh at this one....

One can always compare any two categories. A proper comparision will point out the features that distinguish the categories. Guns are not cars. They chief difference is the purpose behind their design.
No, the main difference is their use. Guns that are sold to civilians are used to hunt animals and targets. When being Misused they are used to murder people. Cars are sold to civilians for transport, and when being misused the kill people

Here are some other differences that shouldn’t exist:

Gun manufacturers in the U.S. cannot be held liable for accidents due to bad design or manufacture. If a gun blows up in your face, good luck sueing the manufacturer. Not so for cars. Car manufacturers are often sued for accidents caused by poor manufacturing processes or design flaws. That is why car manufacturers have recalls and gun manufacturers do not. Gun owners are not liable for accidents, injury, death that involve their guns. Car owners are which is why car owners have to have insurance on each car that is driven.
Agree with this 100% there should be some liability

I am a gun owner. I realize that sport hunting serves a useful purpose in conservation and agriculture. I also realize that no one needs a semi-automatic weapon to defend his home, or his person. If you can’t hit your target without one, you’re not doing it right.
Disagree about the semi automatic, but can actually UNDERSTAND your reason for saying it, a bad shooter is a bad shooter and no ammount of auto/semi auto is going to make him better lol

If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.
If you don't want people to die AT ALL, then you have to ban just about everything that can result in death. Why are only gun deaths bad? Do you not mourn DWI victims? What if someone hangs themselves? Do you not mourn that? But banning rope is stupid right?

[trish]

You're a responsible car owner, like gun owners should be. But if you get in the car drunk , then you would not be using it in it's "intended purpose" or safely would you?

Correct. And if while sober I shoot a semi-automatic and kill someone, I am using it for it's intended purpose.

I agree. But then again all guns are designed to kill by your own standards. So , why not ban all of them(again, by YOUR standards, they all can kill so are potentially bad right)? You contradict yourself Trish

Where exactly is the contradiction? I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting. Your argument is an example of mutating an opposing argument to make it say what you want it to say so you can attack it. Please refrain from further use of this demeaning tactic.

Guns may have been designed to kill, buy they are SOLD to civilians for other means as well i.e. target shooting, collection.

So you say, but the NRA keeps saying guns are for protection. They (and the gun manufacturers) want a gun in the hand of every college student.

Car deaths by imprudence bother me as much as anyone dying by a gun.

And gun deaths by imprudence, or deaths caused by guns fired rashly in a fits of anger, or guns used in the trough of depression to commit suicide are equally abhorrent.

So when a car is used carelessly and kills someone, it did not kill?

You misunderstood. I'll repeat. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.

Guns that are sold to civilians are used to hunt animals and targets.

Sorry, but you don't hunt targets and you don't need a semi-automatic to hit one. There is no challenge in shooting a target with a semi-automatic weapon. It's not a sport, it's done for erections.

If you don't want people to die AT ALL

You miss the point. The point is about risk. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

[my my my!]

Correct. And if while sober I shoot a semi-automatic and kill someone, I am using it for it's intended purpose.

No, you would not be using it for It's intended civilian purpose.You would me MISUSING it.

Where exactly is the contradiction? I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting. Your argument is an example of mutating an opposing argument to make it say what you want it to say so you can attack it. Please refrain from further use of this demeaning tactic.

It's not a demeaning tactic. You contradicted yourself and I called you out on it. You're saying it's ok for YOU to kill animals, but someone should not have a semi auto , even though they're just using it for target shooting. Therein lies the contradiction.

So you say, but the NRA keeps saying guns are for protection. They (and the gun manufacturers) want a gun in the hand of every college student.

It's not "so I say" , it's the truth. If guns had the sole purpose of killing, they would not be sold to anyone, ever, anywhere right?

And gun deaths by imprudence, or deaths caused by guns fired rashly in a fits of anger, or guns used in the trough of depression to commit suicide are equally abhorrent.
Agree. Hence the cars/guns comparison

You misunderstood. I'll repeat. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
No, I understood perfectly. You don't vilify cars even when though when misused they kill people. I get it. As long as you decide what is bad, that IS what is bad? And other's opinions do not matter.

Not so with a car, So you're saying a misused car CAN NOT Cause bodily harm that does not result in death. You can misfire a gun and only hurt someone, just like you can hit someone with a car and not kill them.

Sorry, but you don't hunt targets and you don't need a semi-automatic to hit one. There is no challenge in shooting a target with a semi-automatic weapon. It's not a sport, its a way to jack-off.

You miss the point. The point is about risk. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

You've been missing points as well