It's silly. If I wanted to go commit vehicular homicide in a Civic I'd damn well do it.
I just realized that for most of my posts here, I had a revolver on my hip.
Why would anyone need a sports car? They're unnecessarily fast and dangerous, we should outlaw them and have everyone stick to their priuses.
I still think it'd be fun to own a .22 rifle or 9mm pistol, just to bring to the range and maintain every once in a while.
regardless of your laments, the US gov't won't do anything to ban guns
nothin at all
nothin at all
nothin at all
cause everyone knows banning stuff stops it right
like how nobody commits crime ever
or like how the prohibition totally made everyone stop drinking alcohol
There are many items designed expressly to hurt or kill which we have no qualms about. You can kill someone with pest control poison just as surely as with a handgun. While the intended purpose is to hurt or kill, that purpose is not implicitly directed against human beings. There are many uses for firearms that don't involve killing other people- and even when they do, it can be for a justified purpose, like home defense.
The intended purpose is a significant factor, but it alone is not a valid reason to oppose firearm ownership.
No, I don't think they'll outright ban guns in America, but they'll make it really hard to purchase them, and they'll tax ammunition to the point where it will be cheaper to fire wads of cash out of the barrel of a gun instead of bullets.
As for being attacked on the street, it's all well and good to wax philosophy about how you should just hand over your money and have no reason to be afraid. Spend some time in a hostile, dangerous city, maybe get mugged yourself, and see how long that noble perspective lasts. The reality is that people get hurt or killed in these situations all the time and being willing to throw your wallet at someone the instant they ask politely and just hoping you come out unscathed is foolish. I'm not advocating everyone go out and buy a handgun and shoot everyone who looks at you funny, but it's not okay to insist that people not even try to defend themselves.
I honestly do not see why people think assault rifles are more lethal than a handgun, shotgun, etc... In fact I'd go as far as saying a shotgun is more lethal because of some of the shells you can purchase online.
If someone comes up to you and sticks a gun in your face it doesn't matter what type, caliber, or size, you honestly do not want any gun pointed at you. So what does banning assault rifles do? Currently the only arguments I have heard is that it limits a shooters ammo capacity and their ability to be accurate. Look at Virginia tech's massacre; he used a glock for many of the murders.
With the argument of ammo capacity it would be just as easy to buy a tactical vest with molle pouches that can fit 4 standard 9mm pistol mags in a single puch. If you have four pouches that is 16 mags filled with ammunition, not counting one in the gun already.
Sure it might take longer to reload but anyone who practices can reload a handgun in less than 2 seconds; there are specific training courses for it.
In regards to the accuracy argument what people don't realize is the gun doesn't make the shooter more accurate, though it does help, a marksman is a marksman for a reason. It takes a lot to control recoil and keep your target in the sights regardless of the weapon you choose. Anyone can take a proper course to become proficient in multiple types of weapons, not just assault rifles.
So in reality, banning assault rifles is essentially a cheap way to give people who are afraid of guns peace of mind because the big nasty AK-47 is no longer allowed to be purchased by your neighbor.
What he means by that is that there were not many people who owned them, yet you jumped on him and demanded he show all the numbers, as if everyone and their dog had a gun.
It's quite relevant.
If you want to decrease the amount of firearms-related crimes, the LAST thing you do is go after the legitimate suppliers. If you do that first, not only does that leave innocent citizens defenseless, it gives criminals the motivation to commit more crimes because nobody can defend themselves anymore. No, instead of that, the first thing you do is give criminals less reasons to commit crimes. Most crimes are crimes of desperation, the criminal needs something that they, for some reason (usually poverty), cannot gain through legitimate means. If you decrease their need for these things, then they won't need to commit crimes, and therefore decreases their need to acquire firearms to aid in committing these crimes. That weakens the illegal gun suppliers (remember, most criminals don't acquire their weapons through legitimate means) to the point where they can be driven away so they can't sell any more guns. THAT'S when you start putting restrictions and shit on the legitimate suppliers, since civilians have less of a need to carry a gun for self-defense (since crime rates have lowered and now they feel safer). This will also prevent crazies like the Aurora Shooter who actually did purchase their guns legally. In a way, it's like internet piracy. You don't fight back by placing restrictions that only serve to hurt the innocent people while having no effect on the bad guys, you have to give the bad guys less of a reason to do the shit they do so they eventually stop doing that shit themselves.
Unfortunately, to do all this would require a LOT of time and money, and nobody would be willing to pay, which is the worst thing about all this. Everyone wants things to be better, but they don't want to pay for it. They expect things to get better because they want it to get better without realizing how expensive and time-consuming it would be. And if they DO realize they'll immediately demand that a better, cheaper, quicker way is discovered, which is why people think that simply banning the sale of firearms will make everything better instantaneously. It doesn't work that way. Take a look at Washington, D.C. and you'll see why. Strictest firearms regulations in the country, highest firearms-related crime-rates in the country. Obviously something went wrong there.
Also why do people think that gunowners need more training before they can own a firearm? To me that just sounds silly, most people take training courses, and if I'm correct many states require some form of training first. Plus, don't you want a shooter to be as inefficient with a weapon as possible? Look at James Holmes, his rifle jammed and didn't know how to properly clear it which spared quite a few lives that might have otherwise been lost if he knew the few simple steps it takes to clear a jam.
Unskilled gangbanging criminals handling weapons is scary, but I think I'd be even more afraid of a rampage killer who knew exactly what he was doing.
"Lol no the reason for gun crime in America is because there's bullets all over the street!" exact same thing. I refuse to argue with any of you any further because you're posting stupid immature arguments I couldn't care less about answering. Feel free to look over all the other posts in this thread to have your repetitive posts proven wrong.
A lot of people in this thread don't understand the 2nd amendment very well.
First of all, on the immature arguments point, you are a fucking hypocrite.
Secondly, if nobody knows how many people owned guns, then how is the guy who "told him his point is entirely wrong" right, if nobody knows the facts for sure?
And how is what you're doing not "talking absolute shit about nothing and guessing at it"?