ImageImageImageImageImage

OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

Moderators: dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule, GONYK, mpharris36, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully

User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,030
And1: 1,060
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#41 » by E86 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:52 am

alphad0gz wrote:Interesting reading for the anti assault weapon people:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2 ... -the-data/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2912115/posts

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30307


So tell me again why these weapons are being targeted?


Yeah, it's really bizarre. But I think it's obvious why "assault weapons" are being targeted. Because a) assault weapons sound like we have people out there with tommy guns, b) due to the aforementioned scary terminology it's easier to get people behind, and c) it accomplishes nothing while looking like you're doing something and that's the governments favorite past time.
User avatar
[GR]
RealGM
Posts: 16,435
And1: 1,947
Joined: Apr 22, 2011
       

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#42 » by [GR] » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:54 am

lliiknicksiill33 wrote:
[GR] wrote:
ccvle wrote:can someone explain to me why the NRA is so powerful? Banks lobby the congress too, but that didn't stop financial regulations being passed in recent years or atleast not with this much outrage.

They're not as powerful as people would like to believe. Just look at how fast NY passed this legislation.


What part of NY's newest legislation or King Obama's executive orders would've stopped the shootings in Aurora or in CT from happening? Please explain, in detail.

What does that have to do with my post?
Image
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,030
And1: 1,060
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#43 » by E86 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:01 am

GONYK wrote:
alphad0gz wrote:Interesting reading for the anti assault weapon people:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2 ... -the-data/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2912115/posts

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30307


So tell me again why these weapons are being targeted?


So what's your solution?

Is doing absolutely nothing a better alternative?


Let's not pretend like the statistics in general aren't skewed, because they are. Most gun violence isn't random, and generally gang related.

What banning guns does is it treats you like children, where you have to lock the cabinets so we all don't drink the bleach. Let me channel my inner Ayn Rand by saying a ban on guns (and even a ban on drugs) is saying we're too stupid to think for ourselves.

Perhaps that's true, but in the end wouldn't have prevented Holmes or Lanza from going on some type of rampage. Maybe a psyche evaluation should be needed to own a gun, and deeper background checks. I just know that I don't want the cabinets locked permanently if I have a legitimate need for the bleach.
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,419
And1: 41,903
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#44 » by GONYK » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:04 am

E86 wrote:
GONYK wrote:
alphad0gz wrote:Interesting reading for the anti assault weapon people:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2 ... -the-data/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2912115/posts

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30307


So tell me again why these weapons are being targeted?


So what's your solution?

Is doing absolutely nothing a better alternative?


Let's not pretend like the statistics in general aren't skewed, because they are. Most gun violence isn't random, and generally gang related.

What banning guns does is it treats you like children, where you have to lock the cabinets so we all don't drink the bleach. Let me channel my inner Ayn Rand by saying a ban on guns (and even a ban on drugs) is saying we're too stupid to think for ourselves.

Perhaps that's true, but in the end wouldn't have prevented Holmes or Lanza from going on some type of rampage. Maybe a psyche evaluation should be needed to own a gun, and deeper background checks. I just know that I don't want the cabinets locked permanently if I have a legitimate need for the bleach.


When does a legitimate need for the weapons that have been restricted arise? Short of this "militia rise against the police state" thing?
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,030
And1: 1,060
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#45 » by E86 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:18 am

GONYK wrote:When does a legitimate need for the weapons that have been restricted arise? Short of this "militia rise against the police state" thing?


Well, I'm not advocating automatic weapons as viable means for anything aside from heavier military resistances. But I think if a revolution were to ever take place in this country the people revolting wouldn't have much trouble getting a hold of AK-47's or something. The "assault rifles" that these legislators are talking about have virtually no use in combat. The "assault rifles" that are sold today and that people own are generally low calibre (.22's are just a tad bigger than BB's) which wouldn't get past a kevlar vest, and they are semi-automatic so while they might not over heat they aren't really efficient enough for a military conflict.

So the legitimate use for what's out now is nothing short of either defending your home, or just recreational. I used to own a calico, which would be classified as an assault weapon and it was the most pathetic little thing ever. Which just makes me chuckle at bills like these because if I had ever tried to shoot anybody with it it would have probably broken a spring. There is a reason Lanza left his bushmaker in the trunk of the car.
User avatar
ComboGuardCity
RealGM
Posts: 25,580
And1: 4,547
Joined: Jul 10, 2010

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#46 » by ComboGuardCity » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:47 am

So the argument against gun control is being afraid of not being armed in case of a revolt? Maybe you guys can go out and buy some drones too.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 90,644
And1: 55,444
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#47 » by HarthorneWingo » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:01 am

My extended family and friends (NRA members) who have guns and rifles, for home protection and hunting, have no problem with the ban on military weapons, the registration requirements or eliminating the gun show loophole.
No self-respecting hunter would use and AR-15 to hunt down deer. And if you're hunting bear, if you don't get him good with the first shot, you're dead meat.
Free Palestine
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,030
And1: 1,060
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#48 » by E86 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:23 am

HawthorneWingo wrote:My extended family and friends (NRA members) who have guns and rifles, for home protection and hunting, have no problem with the ban on military weapons, the registration requirements or eliminating the gun show loophole.
No self-respecting hunter would use and AR-15 to hunt down deer. And if you're hunting bear, if you don't get him good with the first shot, you're dead meat.


AR-15's aren't M-16's. You could theoretically go small game hunting with an AR-15, but that's besides the point. A ban on AR-15's is just mind boggling misplaced. James Holmes AR-15 jammed, Lanza never took his out of the trunk. These "assault rifles" look bad ass but they aren't as big of a threat as the media, pundits, and government officials lead on. Hand guns are more refined, easier to handle, and in some cases more lethal.

I'd hate for a complete ban on guns, but it sure seems more logical to do that than target these "assault rifles." It's pure and utter BS politics, nothing more.

Also you would never go bear hunting with a AR-15, the bear would kill you. The .22 caliber bullets would just annoy the hell out of it.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 90,644
And1: 55,444
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#49 » by HarthorneWingo » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:41 am

E86 wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:My extended family and friends (NRA members) who have guns and rifles, for home protection and hunting, have no problem with the ban on military weapons, the registration requirements or eliminating the gun show loophole.
No self-respecting hunter would use and AR-15 to hunt down deer. And if you're hunting bear, if you don't get him good with the first shot, you're dead meat.


AR-15's aren't M-16's. You could theoretically go small game hunting with an AR-15, but that's besides the point. A ban on AR-15's is just mind boggling misplaced. James Holmes AR-15 jammed, Lanza never took his out of the trunk. These "assault rifles" look bad ass but they aren't as big of a threat as the media, pundits, and government officials lead on. Hand guns are more refined, easier to handle, and in some cases more lethal.

I'd hate for a complete ban on guns, but it sure seems more logical to do that than target these "assault rifles." It's pure and utter BS politics, nothing more.

Also you would never go bear hunting with a AR-15, the bear would kill you. The .22 caliber bullets would just annoy the hell out of it.


Lanza used a Bushmaster, which as you know is a semi-automatic weapon to kill those kids.
Free Palestine
duetta
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,130
And1: 12,313
Joined: Aug 28, 2002
Location: Patrolling the middle....

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#50 » by duetta » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:53 am

alphad0gz wrote:Not likely since that is not how she considered him. I agree that she is responsible, if that is what you are saying. If that is not what you are saying, it should be. We only want the government to have minimal intrusion into out lives. They only mess things up the more they control. They are like bloodsucking vampires and just like vampires, they are the most dangerous when willingly invited into your house (life).


Yes, I believe that she was responsible - as is everyone else who has a child / family member like that, and yet has that kind of firepower around the house.

As your for opinions on government...the less said, the better...
rammagen
Head Coach
Posts: 6,027
And1: 778
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#51 » by rammagen » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:06 pm

E86 wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:My extended family and friends (NRA members) who have guns and rifles, for home protection and hunting, have no problem with the ban on military weapons, the registration requirements or eliminating the gun show loophole.
No self-respecting hunter would use and AR-15 to hunt down deer. And if you're hunting bear, if you don't get him good with the first shot, you're dead meat.


AR-15's aren't M-16's. You could theoretically go small game hunting with an AR-15, but that's besides the point. A ban on AR-15's is just mind boggling misplaced. James Holmes AR-15 jammed, Lanza never took his out of the trunk. These "assault rifles" look bad ass but they aren't as big of a threat as the media, pundits, and government officials lead on. Hand guns are more refined, easier to handle, and in some cases more lethal.

I'd hate for a complete ban on guns, but it sure seems more logical to do that than target these "assault rifles." It's pure and utter BS politics, nothing more.

Also you would never go bear hunting with a AR-15, the bear would kill you. The .22 caliber bullets would just annoy the hell out of it.

I am sorry but the ar 15 is the civilian version of the m16 same gun the difference is the barrel size in some cases and no 3 round burst. the m4 is shortened m16 with a removable handle....
same caliber
Quote from ESPN’s Bill Simmons posted on Twitter “28 FT’s to 5. I don’t watch rigged NBA games, I’m switching to hockey”
alphad0gz
Analyst
Posts: 3,284
And1: 405
Joined: Oct 10, 2008

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#52 » by alphad0gz » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:32 pm

E86, in the interest of full disclosure, the majority of AR-15 type weapons are .223 caliber. And while the diameter of the actual bullet may be close to a .22, the mass and velocity are not close. Make no mistake, the .223 has no problem stopping deer or people and is absolutely a caliber used in military weapons. That being said, it is also a popular rifle cartridge.

I see that most of the anti-gun people here still are not reading the stats. Shotguns kill more people than rifles, and that includes ALL types of rifles. More people are beaten to death than killed with assault weapons.

So to recap:
1) The laws are aimed at guns that are among the lowest % of causes of fatality, and

2) They would not have prevented any of the recent tragedies

3) The best defense by the people on here is they don't see why people want or need them

Right, got it. Ignorance at it's best.

And Wingo, don't tell me what a self respecting hunter would use for Deer. Check out Outdoor Life or other magazines of their ilk. They are legitimate arms for said activity. They are a rifle with a scope, with a bore large enough to stop the deer. Perhaps you are unaware that there are semi automatic shotguns for deer hunting, as well? Shouldn't speak about what you don't know. You can also hunt deer with semi automatic handguns, as well, as long as they are of sufficient size. Also, there are many reports that the Bushmaster was never taken out of the car. Many.

Duetta, you should move outside you comfort zone and talk to people about their feelings on government.
You would be very surprised. Of that, I have no doubt.

So the argument against gun control is being afraid of not being armed in case of a revolt? Maybe you guys can go out and buy some drones too.


Tell that to the Greeks, the Syrians, and others. Revolt and violence isn't always people vs. military. Sometimes you have to protect yourself when things go a little haywire, ie LA Riots, which would pale in comparison to an epic economic meltdown. Like I said, get outside your comfort zone and open your eyes. IF that happens you'll be crying like a baby, trying to find someway of being safe.

When does a legitimate need for the weapons that have been restricted arise? Short of this "militia rise against the police state" thing?


Protection against looters and criminals in the event of economic collapse would be one answer. It has already happened in other countries. Besides, that's a very irrelevant question. Why take things from people when there is no reason to do so. Because they scare you? For the last time...read the damned statistics on gun deaths. Assault weapons are a near non factor. More people are killed with legs and arms.
duetta
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,130
And1: 12,313
Joined: Aug 28, 2002
Location: Patrolling the middle....

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#53 » by duetta » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:42 pm

Alphad0gz, government is nothing more than a reflection of the people who yearly elect it, comprise it, and too often seek to corrupt it. My attitude is anyone who has a problem with government needs to begin by looking squarely in the mirror.

Government in a participatory democracy is the inescapable reflection of US. When human beings become better, it will naturally reflect that change.
seren
RealGM
Posts: 24,145
And1: 4,204
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#54 » by seren » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:47 pm

alphad0gz wrote:
How does a gun, any gun, help you against drones? Nuclear weapons?

I can definitely understand folks being skeptical about government and demand protection against it. I would expect those folks get together and protest things like wiretapping, illegal shooting of American citizens, drones spying within the borders, extreme military budget, heck even asking for the gold standard makes sense within that framework.


Please be serious. If nuclear weapons are detonated on our soil, it's game over. I'm speaking about domestic threats as well as protection from an abusive government. Drones? If it comes to that you can figure there will be well armed militias able to fight them. They have a lot of the same weapons the military does. As far as the other stuff, protest won't do a damned thing. Its naive to think it will. Show me where an oppressive government has ever been stopped with peaceful protests. I'm not suggesting that these things are imminent, but they are possible. The worse things get here, the more likely theft, looting, and other acts of violence become. Look around the globe. When people get desperate these things happen. I believe I have the right to protect my family and my property by any means available to me. These laws are aimed at preventing me and others from doing exactly that.

I can also tell you that foreign troops have trained on American soil several times Why? And all you anti=gun folks are OK with this? This country is changing very quickly and what you people in the large cities see is far different than what I see and hear. People are pissed.


Protest wouldn't help? Let me tell you something. If there was a single body of non-profit that had the same resources as NRA that was in the ears of every congressman talking about real issues that I listed, TV spots about the domestic spying, drones flying over us, recording of every online communication with a massive federal force, illegal wiretapping, I would tell you that none of these would be possible for the government.

That is what is killing me about these gun folks. The second amendment and the sad reality that government indeed can be very dangerous for its own citizens is simply an excuse they bring up. In reality, they just like their toys and can't live without them. They don't give a dam about tyranny or anything.
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,419
And1: 41,903
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#55 » by GONYK » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:54 pm

alphad0gz wrote:E86, in the interest of full disclosure, the majority of AR-15 type weapons are .223 caliber. And while the diameter of the actual bullet may be close to a .22, the mass and velocity are not close. Make no mistake, the .223 has no problem stopping deer or people and is absolutely a caliber used in military weapons. That being said, it is also a popular rifle cartridge.

I see that most of the anti-gun people here still are not reading the stats. Shotguns kill more people than rifles, and that includes ALL types of rifles. More people are beaten to death than killed with assault weapons.


So you'd support tighter legislation on shotguns?
Falstaffxx
Banned User
Posts: 9,153
And1: 165
Joined: Sep 27, 2010

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#56 » by Falstaffxx » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:11 pm

Starks1994 wrote:Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.


Then you haven't been listening. Fine to have an opinion, but don't cover your ears when the other side talks. One reason that has been repeatedly cited is the preservation of citizens' ability to defend themselved from the government. The constitution even states that people have "the right to overthrow" the government. To those who would say, "well, the government has drones and whatnot, so it would still be impossible," I say, "it's more complicated than that." Governments lose their will to employ the extent of the force available to them.
alphad0gz
Analyst
Posts: 3,284
And1: 405
Joined: Oct 10, 2008

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#57 » by alphad0gz » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:37 pm

Protest wouldn't help? Let me tell you something. If there was a single body of non-profit that had the same resources as NRA that was in the ears of every congressman talking about real issues that I listed, TV spots about the domestic spying, drones flying over us, recording of every online communication with a massive federal force, illegal wiretapping, I would tell you that none of these would be possible for the government.

That is what is killing me about these gun folks. The second amendment and the sad reality that government indeed can be very dangerous for its own citizens is simply an excuse they bring up. In reality, they just like their toys and can't live without them. They don't give a dam about tyranny or anything.


Protests could never get that big or that organized. Why do you think that is? Who do you think is controlling the strings? Who are the people behind the curtain? Like I said, you guys are ignorant about those outside your comfort zone. Some have them for toys, no doubt, and that is their right. There are plenty of people that take the second amendment seriously. People don't get fired up over toys, especially when there are legitimate reasons for the action. In this case there is not. Your entire post is mostly nonsense.

So you'd support tighter legislation on shotguns?


Are you really that dense? The point is that the whole issue with guns is overblown. Shotguns kill more than rifles (of which assault rifles are a small part) and yet nobody is calling for them to be banned. Why assault weapons, then? More people are killed with body parts (hands, legs, feet, etc) than rifles. It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the problem is people. For whatever reason, we have become sociopathic, violent killers in a much larger percentage than ever before. That is the issue...people. We are trying to treat the pain instead of the sickness. Knock yourselves out arguing that. Then spend some thought on how to stop the madness.
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,419
And1: 41,903
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#58 » by GONYK » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:40 pm

alphad0gz wrote:
Are you really that dense? The point is that the whole issue with guns is overblown. Shotguns kill more than rifles (of which assault rifles are a small part) and yet nobody is calling for them to be banned. Why assault weapons, then? More people are killed with body parts (hands, legs, feet, etc) than rifles. It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the problem is people. For whatever reason, we have become sociopathic, violent killers in a much larger percentage than ever before. That is the issue...people. We are trying to treat the pain instead of the sickness. Knock yourselves out arguing that. Then spend some thought on how to stop the madness.


So then I ask, once again, what's your solution? Is doing absolutely nothing in regards to guns the better solution?
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#59 » by LoyalFan » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:44 pm

HawthorneWingo wrote:My extended family and friends (NRA members) who have guns and rifles, for home protection and hunting, have no problem with the ban on military weapons, the registration requirements or eliminating the gun show loophole.
No self-respecting hunter would use and AR-15 to hunt down deer. And if you're hunting bear, if you don't get him good with the first shot, you're dead meat.



this might be the biggest bunch of BS i have heard all week long. nice try though
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#60 » by LoyalFan » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:46 pm

rammagen wrote:
E86 wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:My extended family and friends (NRA members) who have guns and rifles, for home protection and hunting, have no problem with the ban on military weapons, the registration requirements or eliminating the gun show loophole.
No self-respecting hunter would use and AR-15 to hunt down deer. And if you're hunting bear, if you don't get him good with the first shot, you're dead meat.


AR-15's aren't M-16's. You could theoretically go small game hunting with an AR-15, but that's besides the point. A ban on AR-15's is just mind boggling misplaced. James Holmes AR-15 jammed, Lanza never took his out of the trunk. These "assault rifles" look bad ass but they aren't as big of a threat as the media, pundits, and government officials lead on. Hand guns are more refined, easier to handle, and in some cases more lethal.

I'd hate for a complete ban on guns, but it sure seems more logical to do that than target these "assault rifles." It's pure and utter BS politics, nothing more.

Also you would never go bear hunting with a AR-15, the bear would kill you. The .22 caliber bullets would just annoy the hell out of it.

I am sorry but the ar 15 is the civilian version of the m16 same gun the difference is the barrel size in some cases and no 3 round burst. the m4 is shortened m16 with a removable handle....
same caliber



rate of fire is the only difference

Return to New York Knicks