Personally I wouldn't own an assault rifle anyway. 500 rounds per minute. I mean what's the point. Get an Uzi at 1700 rounds per minute is the way to protect yourself and your loved ones.
Helpful comment.
An effort to show the stupidity of allowing assault rifles. No fllipen intent.
Does anybody believe that ANY ban, on ANY type of gun, would cause people to turn them in? What would be left after law-abiding people complied?
How many accidental deaths and injuries a year in the homes of law abiding gun owners? They might drop for a start
It's about the same as car accidents, but far fewer than accidental poisonings. Stupidity and carelessness to blame in most cases. Maybe we should ban cars as well?
No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here. I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.
So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?
I have no need for one myself.
That wasn't the question as you know.
I see no need for civilians to own these weapons, but I know people who have them. I wouldn't deny these people the right to own them because I don't see them (the people) as dangerous.
And that is the US's problem.
There is no need for Assult rifles and they are used by mass murderers but that is trumped by people should be able to own them if they want to and it's their right".
A sensible step would be to ban assult rifles but allow you to keep your shot gun. You would actually be safer but the absolutist policy of no gun control whatsoever is more important.
Even though gun freedom isn't working for the US and gun control has been shown to work as in Australia nothing must ever be allowed to stop your nice friends owning an assult rifle.
Does anybody believe that ANY ban, on ANY type of gun, would cause people to turn them in? What would be left after law-abiding people complied?
People caught with guns thereafter are automatically criminals... same as in Australia after they banned guns and have not suffered a spate of shootings of innocent civilians since despite their law abiding citizenship being unarmed.
If nobody had a gun, obviously nobody would get shot. If everyone had a gun would nobody get shot? Or would the overall murder rate be lower than if nobody had a gun but used knives? Just wondering what the optimum gun ownership rate to preserving human life might be.
For all that limeygent is getting unrelenting stick and incredulity here, bear in mind that his position is very typical of Americans, and moderate compared to many. Terrifying but sadly true
No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here. I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.
How many intruders have there been in your neighbourhood in the last year that have killed or assaulted the residents?
That the existing gun laws are so flouted should be an indication of how effective any new laws would be.
New laws worked in the UK after Dunblane. They worked in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting. Mass shootings in both those countries are now shocking by way of being so rare. In America, it's another week, another story. And the difference is not the laws, it's the fact that in America people try to justify deadly modern weapons by rules written several hundred years ago when a gun meant musket, not assault rifle.
The shooter allegedly pledged allegiance to Daesh. Trump says that this shooting proves his point. Trump will try to use the shooting for his own political ends and to deflect any criticism away from the country's gun laws.
Daesh wants Trump as this fits into their aim of dividing all people between christian / muslim as they think this is leading to a big confrontation, which they think will win. Daesh are an Anti human death cult. Daesh also want Trump to win, as his actions and what he says, creates further division, which is what Daesh are all about. The hardline conservatives / hawks on both sides feed off each others actions for their own ends.
I cannot see how anyone can justify owning an assault rifle in peacetime in a " civilised" country. If I was somewhere where I felt the need to own one for my safety, then I would not consider I was in a civilised place. Luckily I am somewhere that I don't feel requires me to arm myself to the teeth for that level of protection. The other point I would like to make, is what level of gun is unacceptable - machine gun, howitzer, where is the line drawn? Mass shootings in America will not stop, until there is a major shift in US thinking on their gun laws.
I haven't read all the posts on here but it seems that the FBI/Law Enforcement Agencies were aware that the gunman had made Anti Gay/pro islamic extremist statements more than once but even so was allowed to keep his weapons as he 'worked in security' This incident could well play into the hands of Donald Trump .. Islamic extremism/ murderer married to a Muslim immigrant .. the USA continues to be in a mess without any type of clean up in sight
Personally I wouldn't own an assault rifle anyway. 500 rounds per minute. I mean what's the point. Get an Uzi at 1700 rounds per minute is the way to protect yourself and your loved ones.
the vast majority of assault rifles have a much greater muzzle velocity and larger calibre ammunition than your Uzi .. Uzis are deadly in the right circumstances but as a rule, the good old assault rifle gives far more killing potential bang for your buck
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
The sole purpose of a gun is to inflict massive injury or death to whatever it is fired at. There is zero reason for anyone to own one. Plus im pretty sure the constitution has been amended once or twice so the right to bear arms bollocks doesnt really stand up to scrutiny
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
By the law he has prevented a crime as the intruder had no legal right or reason to be in his home, the intruder would have also entered the house knowing that the home owners could very well be armed.
Comments
There is no need for Assult rifles and they are used by mass murderers but that is trumped by people should be able to own them if they want to and it's their right".
A sensible step would be to ban assult rifles but allow you to keep your shot gun. You would actually be safer but the absolutist policy of no gun control whatsoever is more important.
Even though gun freedom isn't working for the US and gun control has been shown to work as in Australia nothing must ever be allowed to stop your nice friends owning an assult rifle.
Daesh wants Trump as this fits into their aim of dividing all people between christian / muslim as they think this is leading to a big confrontation, which they think will win. Daesh are an Anti human death cult. Daesh also want Trump to win, as his actions and what he says, creates further division, which is what Daesh are all about. The hardline conservatives / hawks on both sides feed off each others actions for their own ends.
The other point I would like to make, is what level of gun is unacceptable - machine gun, howitzer, where is the line drawn?
Mass shootings in America will not stop, until there is a major shift in US thinking on their gun laws.
This incident could well play into the hands of Donald Trump .. Islamic extremism/ murderer married to a Muslim immigrant .. the USA continues to be in a mess without any type of clean up in sight
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.