New shooting. Can anyone defend owning assault weapons?

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You are seriously the biggest idiot here. This is an opinion thread. I state my opinion and you tell me I'm wrong? Seriously if you're that ignorant and think you have the right to tell some that THEIR opinion is wrong.. Re-evaluate your purpose in life kid.

He's right. Get over yourself. You're not as smart as your mother said you were.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

aphhpa: i want to give you some FACTS, not opinions.

I can also give you sources on my FACTS, not opinions...... although i tend to agree with Kaput on his opinion of you, but thats besides the point

FACT: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”

FACT: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban

FACT: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

FACT: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.

FACT: In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then. Ironically, firearm use in crimes has DOUBLED in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns.






We do not need to go after the gun- as it is just a tool.

We have strict drug laws in the US, and we certainly don't have any problems with drug use or drug trafficking.
Laws don't stop violence. Fear of retribution, however, works quite well.

Originally Posted by bigugly

aphhpa: i want to give you some FACTS, not opinions.

I can also give you sources on my FACTS, not opinions...... although i tend to agree with Kaput on his opinion of you, but thats besides the point

FACT: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”

FACT: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban

FACT: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

FACT: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.

FACT: In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then. Ironically, firearm use in crimes has DOUBLED in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns.






We do not need to go after the gun- as it is just a tool.

Quit it with the actual facts already. This isn't about facts, it's about emotion. I just heard CNN suggest that police officers be posted at schools to make kids feel safe. It's not about actual safety but the ruse and illusion of safety.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by Stankia

As a Libertarian I believe people should do whatever the fuck they want

Couldn't agree more.


Absolutely no other human being on this earth has the right to dictate what I may or may not posses. It doesn't matter if it's an assault rifle or a piece of cheesecake.

A cop at every school... I wonder who is going to pay for the extra officers they'd have to hire?

Originally Posted by tock172

Couldn't agree more.


Absolutely no other human being on this earth has the right to dictate what I may or may not posses. It doesn't matter if it's an assault rifle or a piece of cheesecake.

Most cheesecake is an insult to cheesecake. Some of it should be banned.

Originally Posted by Reedo302

A cop at every school... I wonder who is going to pay for the extra officers they'd have to hire?

Obama bucks foo'!

Originally Posted by tock172

Couldn't agree more.


Absolutely no other human being on this earth has the right to dictate what I may or may not posses. It doesn't matter if it's an assault rifle or a piece of cheesecake.

That train of thought always works until you include other people into the picture.

Some people just have it in their mind that "assault" rifles are the thing to blame, when it's really themselves.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You are seriously the biggest idiot here. This is an opinion thread. I state my opinion and you tell me I'm wrong? Seriously if you're that ignorant and think you have the right to tell some that THEIR opinion is wrong.. Re-evaluate your purpose in life kid.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

Same to you.

You're entitled to your opinion as everyone is. You're confusing our right for speech for validity. Just because you speak an opinion, doesn't mean it's the correct one. Until you provide anecdotal evidence stating that buying an 'assault rifle' increases your chances of becoming a serial killer, your argument is terrible.

Until then, according to your logic, anyone that can buy a bolt-action can assassinate a president.

I don't think you need to ban guns. Just increase the requirements for obtaining a license. Put in a $3,000 license fee (other costs not included). Increase background checks to immediate family members and enforce adequate storage responsibilities for increased risk license holders. How does that look ?

Originally Posted by Saintluk2

I don't think you need to ban guns. Just increase the requirements for obtaining a license. Put in a $3,000 license fee (other costs not included). Increase background checks to immediate family members and enforce adequate storage responsibilities for increased risk license holders. How does that look ?

Why should I spend $3000 for a license fee. We should make beer cost $75 a bottle to help stop drunk drivers and cars have a $5000 background check to make sure the person doesn't have a record of drinking and driving.

So a de facto ban on guns then. Just as effective and worthwhile as an actual one.

why would you make it COST money for a right i should be freely able to use?


do i have to charge you every time you speak? Should you have to pay for a human right that you were born with?

I already have to pay 200 dollars for class III weapons and items, the cost is rediculous.


i will agree that a background check could be better for mentaly unstable individuals, and CHL owners should have to pass a more rigourous shooting practical, with traning be mandatory-

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

So a de facto ban on guns then. Just as effective and worthwhile as an actual one.

yup, cause a ban on drugs really works, huh?

Originally Posted by Saintluk2

I don't think you need to ban guns. Just increase the requirements for obtaining a license. Put in a $3,000 license fee (other costs not included). Increase background checks to immediate family members and enforce adequate storage responsibilities for increased risk license holders. How does that look ?

Such a requirement would restrict lawful use of firearms for self defense to the privileged few with money to afford what would essentially be a tax. The second amendment extends to every citizen of the US, not just the privileged. So that doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Saintluk2

I don't think you need to ban guns. Just increase the requirements for obtaining a license. Put in a $3,000 license fee (other costs not included). Increase background checks to immediate family members and enforce adequate storage responsibilities for increased risk license holders. How does that look ?

Maybe a $10,000 driver's certification that makes sure the driver is capable of driving an M3, since it has the potantial to become lethal. Add that to a $6000 "sports car license" and a $3200 annual tax. Those pesky teens and their STIs are responsible for a lot of deaths.

Originally Posted by Saintluk2

I don't think you need to ban guns. Just increase the requirements for obtaining a license. Put in a $3,000 license fee (other costs not included). Increase background checks to immediate family members and enforce adequate storage responsibilities for increased risk license holders. How does that look ?

It looks hilarious to anyone with common sense

Hi! I just stole a gun from someone for free

So... Who does it hurt to make all these requirement mandatory for?

Originally Posted by bigugly

yup, cause a ban on drugs really works, huh?

Did you duck, cause that went right over your head.