yardbarker

OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

Moderators: moocow007, magnumt, NoLayupRule, Knickstape1214, Brooklyn_Yards, j4remi, Thugger HBC, GONYK, Thorn, mrpoetryNmotion

Post#136 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:08 pm by AndroidMan

yaboynyp wrote:
AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:Now as much fun as it has been for the other thousands of posters to read our super hero spat play itself out in the Assault Weapons Ban Clarification Thread if you would like to continue this OT discussion please use the PM...


You don't respond to me and I never have a reason to speak to you ever again, nor would I ever want to. If you call my name or quote one of my posts, expect me to respond. Try using non comic book references as well. Some of us are adults here, and we have no idea what the hell your comic book references refer to. Grow up as well.



Oh he mad ^^^ :lol: I will enlighten you.. homie?

http://marvel.com/universe/Android_Man


Like I said, I don't read comic books, never have. Enjoy them though. They seem to represent your lack of intellect and your immature behavior. Continue on.
AndroidMan
Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 2,631
And1: 110
Joined: May 6, 2010
Top

Post#137 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:14 pm by johnnywishbone

Falstaffxx wrote:
This isn't some short-term thing where people want to have a revolution next year or something. Don't be short sighted. And acting as if preserving the ability to protect ourselves against the government some day down the line is just about "black helicopters" is just willful refusal to think. If you neuter citizens now, it could have an impact for hundreds of years.

By the way, I'm not even necessarily against more gun control. It just bothers me that people refuse to acknowledge that the rights involved are significant.


Saying I need an AR-15 with a 30 round clip to protect me from a potentially corrupt government a few hundred years from now makes as much sense as me saying today that I keep a battle axe in case there is another Viking invasion. The pace of change is accelerating not decelerating.

And if you are worried about your freedoms then you are focused on the wrong issues. Citizens United and the Patriot Act infringe on your rights as a citizen today. And what are you going to do about it? Lead a charge against Washington DC? The only way we are going to change these laws is by developing awareness through education - not a gun.
Play time is over.
johnnywishbone
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 9,332
And1: 1,128
Joined: Sep 4, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...
Top

Post#138 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:26 pm by yaboynyp

AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:
AndroidMan wrote:
You don't respond to me and I never have a reason to speak to you ever again, nor would I ever want to. If you call my name or quote one of my posts, expect me to respond. Try using non comic book references as well. Some of us are adults here, and we have no idea what the hell your comic book references refer to. Grow up as well.



Oh he mad ^^^ :lol: I will enlighten you.. homie?

http://marvel.com/universe/Android_Man


Like I said, I don't read comic books, never have. Enjoy them though. They seem to represent your lack of intellect and your immature behavior. Continue on.


And it goes without saying that you my friend are an expert when it comes to immaturity and lack of intellect..
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
User avatar
Posts: 3,888
And1: 107
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
Top

Post#139 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:17 pm by LoyalFan

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:
alphad0gz wrote:[

Once again, assault weapons are simply not the threat they are made out to be. That is a fact supported universally by statistics. What exactly are you trying to accomplish and why? The opinion that they are unnecessary is completely irrelevant, unless you are saying that the government has the right to tell you what you can have and do without any real reason. Jesus, people on here are stupid. What is the practical reason for having one? The question ia better asked as what is the practical reason for making people give them up? A course to educate people on gun use? Seriously? You think this stuff was an accident or borne out of gun ignorance? You think some kind of law would have stopped even a fraction of this? People committing murder are hardly concerned with the legality of their method. That's like saying a person stealing a car would be worried about a parking ticket.

The bottom line, and it really is the bottom line, is that if people want to shoot people, they will find a way regardless of laws. And by the way, if you think there was bloodshed from these incidents you are talking about, wait til you see what happens when they have to go door to door demanding guns from owners. Not saying I would shoot someone doing so, but I promise you there are scores of people that would.

I think the issue is not so much assault rifles, but high capacity magazine. A high capacity magazine is a threat because it allows one to inflict a large amount of damage in a short amount of time. I think the policy is, we won't stop mass-shootings, but with lower capacity magazines, the death counts won't be so high.




do you even have the slightest clue how long it takes to reload a gun with a new magazine?
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#140 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:19 pm by LoyalFan

seren wrote:Jon Stewart had a nice segment on the issue about the laws on the books and how NRA and its representation in the congress made it impossible to implement many of those laws.

The most interesting tidbit in the segment was that 53 percent of guns used in violent crimes could be traced to 1 percent of sellers.



this is a lie of unimagineable proportions. i hope you realize that. 1% of sellers. seriously. thats so funny it cant even be called a joke.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#141 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:23 pm by LoyalFan

GONYK wrote:
alphad0gz wrote:
And for you, the last time, as well........If laws have no impact on actions, what is the purpose of the law? Law-abiding, sane people already obey the law and act in a manner that is consistent with the "purpose" of any new proposed laws. Since any new laws provide no real difference, what is their purpose? Come up with laws that can keep guns from those that would use them against innocent citizens, and I will give it honest consideration, provided the law is enforceable.


No law in the history of laws has prevented or completely abolished a person's ability to do something. All laws are ineffectual and merely reactive to a certain degree. By your logic, there should be no laws.

Now, I understand what you are saying, that the law is essentially lumping in the vast majority of law abiding and responsible gun owners with the comparatively small minority of criminals and treating them all the same. There is merit to that thought.

On the other hand, you have not made a case as to why any civilian needs that kind of weapon with that kind of high capacity magazine. You only talk about this potential uprising against tyranny. Even then, your point is undercut because you admit these laws can't stop people from getting the guns if they really want them.

So really, I ask you again, what is your alternative?

From where I'm sitting, doing the imperfect something that has gotten some measure of results before is better than doing the nothing that has made it easier for gun crimes to occur.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2



i would like you to explain to me why our previous 10 year ban on assault weapons and magazine restrictions had 0 effect on crime.
explain to me how, as obama puts it, chicago is the model city for gun control yet is the murder capital of the country


explain to me how if there are 2-5 billion 'high capacity' magazines already that making a new restriction on them will solve a problem
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#142 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:25 pm by LoyalFan

HawthorneWingo wrote:On all of the gun issues (military style weapons ban, universal registration, closing the gun show loophole, etc.), the polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (75%) support those measures. It's going to be difficult for Congress not to act without repercussions on Election Day.


"Duh Winning"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



where exactly did they take these polls? who exactly did they ask?
were they all taken in new york and california? do you think they were taken in places like goergia or texas or arizona?


its real easy to make a poll say what you want by asking a specific question in a specific place.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#143 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:30 pm by GONYK

LoyalFan wrote:
seren wrote:Jon Stewart had a nice segment on the issue about the laws on the books and how NRA and its representation in the congress made it impossible to implement many of those laws.

The most interesting tidbit in the segment was that 53 percent of guns used in violent crimes could be traced to 1 percent of sellers.



this is a lie of unimagineable proportions. i hope you realize that. 1% of sellers. seriously. thats so funny it cant even be called a joke.


What's your proof that it's a lie? Because Stewart had real sources, and so did the Washington Post and the ATF. I'm not sure the NRA even denies it.
Image

I will not trade future draft picks for past draft busts
GONYK


Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
User avatar
Posts: 40,585
And1: 3,675
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Top

Post#144 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:34 pm by johnnywishbone

LoyalFan wrote:i would like you to explain to me why our previous 10 year ban on assault weapons and magazine restrictions had 0 effect on crime.
explain to me how, as obama puts it, chicago is the model city for gun control yet is the murder capital of the country


explain to me how if there are 2-5 billion 'high capacity' magazines already that making a new restriction on them will solve a problem


I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

SYDNEY, Australia

IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.

Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.

The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.

For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 17, 2013


An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a journal that published an article finding that the country’s gun-buyback plan had cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. It was The American Law and Economics Review, not The American Journal of Law and Economics.
Play time is over.
johnnywishbone
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 9,332
And1: 1,128
Joined: Sep 4, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...
Top

Post#145 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:36 pm by GONYK

LoyalFan wrote:
GONYK wrote:
alphad0gz wrote:
And for you, the last time, as well........If laws have no impact on actions, what is the purpose of the law? Law-abiding, sane people already obey the law and act in a manner that is consistent with the "purpose" of any new proposed laws. Since any new laws provide no real difference, what is their purpose? Come up with laws that can keep guns from those that would use them against innocent citizens, and I will give it honest consideration, provided the law is enforceable.


No law in the history of laws has prevented or completely abolished a person's ability to do something. All laws are ineffectual and merely reactive to a certain degree. By your logic, there should be no laws.

Now, I understand what you are saying, that the law is essentially lumping in the vast majority of law abiding and responsible gun owners with the comparatively small minority of criminals and treating them all the same. There is merit to that thought.

On the other hand, you have not made a case as to why any civilian needs that kind of weapon with that kind of high capacity magazine. You only talk about this potential uprising against tyranny. Even then, your point is undercut because you admit these laws can't stop people from getting the guns if they really want them.

So really, I ask you again, what is your alternative?

From where I'm sitting, doing the imperfect something that has gotten some measure of results before is better than doing the nothing that has made it easier for gun crimes to occur.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2



i would like you to explain to me why our previous 10 year ban on assault weapons and magazine restrictions had 0 effect on crime.
explain to me how, as obama puts it, chicago is the model city for gun control yet is the murder capital of the country


explain to me how if there are 2-5 billion 'high capacity' magazines already that making a new restriction on them will solve a problem


The number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the ban was in effect, and the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired.

The original assault weapons ban was rife with loopholes, easy to get around, and still managed to have that sort of impact.

The problem with banning assault weapons is you need to do it Australia style, and get them all off the street. They actually did curb gun violence in a very significant way. But America won't do that.

Like I said before, the imperfect something is better than the enabling nothing.
Image

I will not trade future draft picks for past draft busts
GONYK


Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
User avatar
Posts: 40,585
And1: 3,675
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Top

Post#146 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:36 pm by johnnywishbone

LoyalFan wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:On all of the gun issues (military style weapons ban, universal registration, closing the gun show loophole, etc.), the polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (75%) support those measures. It's going to be difficult for Congress not to act without repercussions on Election Day.


"Duh Winning"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



where exactly did they take these polls? who exactly did they ask?
were they all taken in new york and california? do you think they were taken in places like goergia or texas or arizona?


its real easy to make a poll say what you want by asking a specific question in a specific place.


This reminds me of the Mitt Romney is going to get elected because all the polls are lying argument. Did you also believe that one? Or do you think that the election was rigged?

p.s. It's nice to see Mugzi has made a return in a new guise.

edit: I just saw this and I feel it's very apropos.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — One of the first black students who enrolled at the University of Alabama a half century ago in defiance of racial segregation has died. James Hood of Gadsden was 70.
Officials at Adams-Buggs Funeral Home in Gadsden said they are handling arrangements for Hood, who died Thursday.
Then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace made his infamous "stand in the schoolhouse door" in a failed effort to prevent Hood and Vivian Malone from registering for classes at the university in 1963.
Hood and Malone were accompanied by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach when they were confronted by Wallace as they attempted to enter the university's Foster Auditorium to register for classes and pay fees.
Wallace backed down later that day and Hood and Malone registered for classes.


Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/articl ... z2INFBm6MD



I wonder if you took a poll of people in Georgia, Texas and Arizona in 1963 and asked them should James Hood be allowed to attend the University of Alabama what the results would have been? We know that Civil Rights legislation turned all Dixie from Blue to Red so I think it's safe to infer that they would have been against it. Are we supposed to do the wrong thing to satisfy a section of our society that traditionally drags it heels when it comes to the changing times?
Play time is over.
johnnywishbone
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 9,332
And1: 1,128
Joined: Sep 4, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...
Top

Post#147 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:28 pm by LoyalFan

GONYK wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
seren wrote:Jon Stewart had a nice segment on the issue about the laws on the books and how NRA and its representation in the congress made it impossible to implement many of those laws.

The most interesting tidbit in the segment was that 53 percent of guns used in violent crimes could be traced to 1 percent of sellers.



this is a lie of unimagineable proportions. i hope you realize that. 1% of sellers. seriously. thats so funny it cant even be called a joke.


What's your proof that it's a lie? Because Stewart had real sources, and so did the Washington Post and the ATF. I'm not sure the NRA even denies it.



do you know anything of guns other than what you read in the news?
do you have the first clue of how many guns are sold in this country on a yearly basis
use your own common sense for just a minute. do you seriously HONESTLY believe that over half of the guns used in violent crimes from from 1% of gun sellers.
i dont have to pull any stats at all to tell you that is not possible even if you fake the numbers.


get a clue. seriously
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#148 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:29 pm by LoyalFan

johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:i would like you to explain to me why our previous 10 year ban on assault weapons and magazine restrictions had 0 effect on crime.
explain to me how, as obama puts it, chicago is the model city for gun control yet is the murder capital of the country


explain to me how if there are 2-5 billion 'high capacity' magazines already that making a new restriction on them will solve a problem


I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

SYDNEY, Australia

IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.

Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.

The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.

For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 17, 2013


An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a journal that published an article finding that the country’s gun-buyback plan had cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. It was The American Law and Economics Review, not The American Journal of Law and Economics.




do you know what it means in law enforcement circles when they talk about "cooking the books"
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#149 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:40 pm by LoyalFan

[/quote]

The number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the ban was in effect, and the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired.

The original assault weapons ban was rife with loopholes, easy to get around, and still managed to have that sort of impact.

The problem with banning assault weapons is you need to do it Australia style, and get them all off the street. They actually did curb gun violence in a very significant way. But America won't do that.

Like I said before, the imperfect something is better than the enabling nothing.[/quote]

mass shootings are a political tool. since columbine we have averaged 4 per year. in the big picture of overall crime, gun crime specifically, it is in the low single digit percentages at best

so the root question here is reducing gun crime, not just mass shootings. of murders overall 2 times as many people are killed with hands and feet than any sort of long rifle, never mind those categorized as an "assault rifle. more people are even killed with clubs and knives.

this brings us back to everyday murders. and those are overwhelmingly being done with handguns. so if your goal is to reduce crime, even mass murders, than your real mission would be to ban hand guns, not rifles.

you are never in a million years going to do here what they did in australia. why might you ask. because even as that prime minister pointed out, unlike them we have "PEOPLES RIGHTS" spelled out in a BILL OF RIGHTS that is the basis of our CONSTITUTION. and in our CONSTITUTION it specifically says that the PEOPLE have the right to bare arms


now as for the original assault weapon ban. it was not a failure because it was rife with holes. it was a failure simply because criminals dont obtain guns illegally in the first place. much like drungs. you can not remove something from an equation when people want it, for good or bad reasons. and since you can not blanketly remove guns from america like they did in australia than anything you do is pointless.

what you are doing is the equivalent of trying to empty an olympic size swimming pool with a plastic red party cup. and there is a garden hose turned onto full blast constantly refilling that pool from multiple locations


so ultimately you are saying we have to do something about gun violence. so lets enact laws that only effect people who follow them anyway. we did it before and it didnt work. but we are going to do it again just to tell people we did something.

genius
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#150 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:46 pm by LoyalFan

johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:On all of the gun issues (military style weapons ban, universal registration, closing the gun show loophole, etc.), the polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (75%) support those measures. It's going to be difficult for Congress not to act without repercussions on Election Day.


"Duh Winning"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



where exactly did they take these polls? who exactly did they ask?
were they all taken in new york and california? do you think they were taken in places like goergia or texas or arizona?


its real easy to make a poll say what you want by asking a specific question in a specific place.


This reminds me of the Mitt Romney is going to get elected because all the polls are lying argument. Did you also believe that one? Or do you think that the election was rigged?

p.s. It's nice to see Mugzi has made a return in a new guise.

edit: I just saw this and I feel it's very apropos.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — One of the first black students who enrolled at the University of Alabama a half century ago in defiance of racial segregation has died. James Hood of Gadsden was 70.
Officials at Adams-Buggs Funeral Home in Gadsden said they are handling arrangements for Hood, who died Thursday.
Then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace made his infamous "stand in the schoolhouse door" in a failed effort to prevent Hood and Vivian Malone from registering for classes at the university in 1963.
Hood and Malone were accompanied by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach when they were confronted by Wallace as they attempted to enter the university's Foster Auditorium to register for classes and pay fees.
Wallace backed down later that day and Hood and Malone registered for classes.


Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/articl ... z2INFBm6MD



I wonder if you took a poll of people in Georgia, Texas and Arizona in 1963 and asked them should James Hood be allowed to attend the University of Alabama what the results would have been? We know that Civil Rights legislation turned all Dixie from Blue to Red so I think it's safe to infer that they would have been against it. Are we supposed to do the wrong thing to satisfy a section of our society that traditionally drags it heels when it comes to the changing times?




times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble, one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#151 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:00 pm by johnnywishbone

LoyalFan wrote:
times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble,



Definition of Projection wrote:Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]


I live in a bubble?

LoyalFan wrote:
one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................


The times aren't changing? We have an African American President, Gay people can serve in the Army and George Bush has been banished to Texas. I'm sure you have a problem with all three of those too.
Play time is over.
johnnywishbone
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 9,332
And1: 1,128
Joined: Sep 4, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...
Top

Post#152 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:17 pm by LoyalFan

i didnt stutter and i said everything in english, though if need be you could have used google translator

i could easily have spent a few minutes here and a few minutes there with google and went tit for tat on articles and statistics. i actually tried to use a common sense approach with you even though i knew better.

ill say it for you 1 more time. ill even put it in capital bold letters for you


6 months from now you people will not even remember this. it will be lost on you. stuck in a box somewhere sitting next to your trayvon martin hoodie.....................................
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#153 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:09 pm by LoyalFan

The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime
Article
Comments (1400)
MORE IN OPINION »
smaller
Larger
facebook
twitter
google plus
linked in
EmailPrint
Save
↓ More
By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

Warning about "weapons designed for the theater of war," President Obama on Wednesday called for immediate action on a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He said that "more of our fellow Americans might still be alive" if the original assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, had not expired in 2004. Last month, in the wake of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) promised to introduce an updated version of the ban. She too warned of the threat posed by "military weapons."

After the nightmare of Newtown, their concern is understandable. Yet despite being at the center of the gun-control debate for decades, neither President Obama nor Ms. Feinstein (the author of the 1994 legislation) seems to understand the leading research on the effects of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In addition, they continue to mislabel the weapons they seek to ban.

Ms. Feinstein points to two studies by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth for the National Institute of Justice to back up her contention that the ban reduced crime. She claims that their first study in 1997 showed that the ban decreased "total gun murders." In fact, the authors wrote: "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)."

Messrs. Koper and Roth suggested that after the ban had been in effect for more years it might be possible to find a benefit. Seven years later, in 2004, they published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice with fellow criminologist Dan Woods that concluded, "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

Moreover, none of the weapons banned under the 1994 legislation or the updated version are "military" weapons. The killer in Newtown used a Bushmaster .223. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is "no reason" for such "military-style weapons" to be available to civilians.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images
Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Yes, the Bushmaster and the AK-47 are "military-style weapons." But the key word is "style"—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns.

The civilian version of the Bushmaster uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. No self-respecting military in the world would use the civilian version of these guns.

A common question is: "Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?" The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon.

But the point isn't to help hunters. Semiautomatic weapons also protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require you to physically reload the gun may not do people a lot of good when they are facing multiple criminals or when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker.

Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people. One should also bear in mind that just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

Ms. Feinstein's new proposal also calls for gun registration, and the reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but in reality it hardly ever works that way. Guns are very rarely left behind at a crime scene. When they are, they're usually stolen or unregistered. Criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns that are registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered guns are left at crime scenes, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Canada recently got rid of its costly "long-gun" registry for rifles in part because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police could not provide a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a gun murder.

If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it's time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Had some citizens been armed, they might have been able to stop the killings before the police got to the scene. In the Newtown attack, it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the school after the first calls for help.

The Bushmaster, like any gun, is indeed very dangerous, but it is not a weapon "designed for the theater of war." Banning assault weapons will not make Americans safer.

Mr. Lott is a former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, third edition, 2010).
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#154 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:11 pm by LoyalFan

MILLER: Tax dollars for gun control
Sneaky executive order bankrolls anti-Second Amendment propaganda
COMMENTS (226)SIZE: + / -PRINT
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on redditShare on linkedinShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services
By Emily Miller-The Washington Times Friday, January 18, 2013


Enlarge Photo

“This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe,” ... more >
Ads by Google
Top Ranked MBA From UNC
UNC's MBA Online Program For Working Executives. Learn More!
www.OnlineMBA.unc.edu
STORY TOPICS
Politics
Michael R. Bloomberg
White House
Congress
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School Of Public Health

FOLLOW US ONFACEBOOKQUESTION OF THE DAY
Do you think Sen. John F. Kerry should be confirmed as the next secretary of state?

Yes

No

Undecided

Other


View results

The directives on gun violence President Obama signed Wednesday were meant to seem harmless. A closer look at the president’s first memorandum reveals it to be a sneaky assault on congressional authority in order to fund gun-control propaganda.

Getting this done has been on the White House “to do” list for some time. In his 2013 budget submission, Mr. Obama deleted the prohibition that has been in effect since 1995 on the use of federal funds to advocate or promote gun control.

Mr. Obama is trying to steamroll the Democratic and Republican majorities that kept the ban intact by labeling the advocacy as research. “While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” said Mr. Obama.

Under the terms of the memo, CDC may “sponsor” another entity to conduct the research, which is a handy way of funneling taxpayer cash to sympathetic gun-control groups.

Earlier this week, anti-gun activists, including New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, spent a lot of time at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore discussing how the government-spending prohibition was hampering their plans.

Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the school, backed the president’s plan. “I agree that the CDC should be free to fund high-quality research into the causes and solutions to gun violence, one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. that affects not only deaths and injuries, but mental health as well,” he told The Washington Times.

Congress clamped down on the spending after President Clinton used the CDC and National Institutes of Health to create material advancing his theme of treating gun ownership as a public health issue, rather than a constitutional right. Millions in taxpayer funds were blown on junk science, such as $2.6 million used to determine if teenagers who are shot are more likely to have been drinking and carrying a gun. An additional $2 million went to figure out whether moving bars and liquor stores would prevent gun violence in communities.

By calling gun violence a “public health crisis” on Wednesday, Mr. Obama echoed Mr. Clinton’s model. It’s a move that could cost lives, as shifting funding away from fighting disease creates severely misplaced priorities. In 2010, 780,213 Americans died from cardiovascular disease and 574,743 from cancer, compared with 11,078 firearm homicides.

Under the Bush administration, the CDC already conducted a two-year independent study of the laws, including bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The scientists concluded in 2003 that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

Congress must reassert itself and override this executive action so that more tax dollars aren’t wasted. If Mr. Bloomberg wants more propaganda, he can pay for it out of his own deep pockets.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2IOJy8yWL
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#155 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:13 pm by LoyalFan

LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 27
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

PreviousNext

Return to New York Knicks


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2010, bballoctober, Fury, kerry kittles, omerome, Orange21, zilby