abcnews.go.com— Today at a news conference in Washington Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would seek a new Assault Weapons Ban.
Feb 26, 2009View in Crawl 4
If tougher times are to come and there will be more robbing and killing of innocents... doesn't it make sense that innocent like myself be able to defend himself? I think most people are worried about their right to hunt, basic self-defense against criminals, and target shooting.
Way to be a dumbass. Guns kill fewer people, total AND per capita, then cars do. Go ahead and check it out:<a class="user" href="http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html">http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html</a>That doesn't even include the problems cars cause due to pollution (and they're the second largest contributor), including asthma, bronchitis, and global warming. They've also been tied to fueling obesity rates (hey, why walk or jog when you could drive) and they've been definitively tied to leading to urban sprawl. Where are all the calls to ban cars? The National Crime Survey indicates there are at least 80,000 legitimate uses of guns to save one's life every year -- way more than the number of people who die due to guns. Oh, and I also dug up a peer-reviewed scientific article, and just to make sure you can find it, here are the details:Author: Koper and Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology (which is at U of PA)Title: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation.Their conclusion? "We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations."
As soon as you explain to me why cars go faster than 70 miles per hour, have built-in LCDs capable of playing movies (yeah, up near the driver), 23" rims that spin, and even wings then I'll explain why other inanimate objects have superfluous features.Hint: it's mainly because people want them and so long as they're not violating others' rights, it's their right to do as they please.
Anti-gunners are completely irrational. They fear ONE type of inanimate weapon. In relevance to this discussion, there's really just one peer-reviewed scientific study relating to the last assault weapons ban, and it said "We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations." This study was by Koper and Roth at the University of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology and it was titled _The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation_. There was only one other, unpublished and NOT peer reviewed (here's to hoping you know the difference) study and that was done by the government, specifically the Department of Justice. It was titled _Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets andGun Violence, 1994-2003_ and even though they biased the truth to show the assault weapons ban "worked" they still admitted that "Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."Additionally, if you're going to *rationally* fear guns or otherwise consider them a menace, then you must fear cars as a complete menace to sciety as they kill more people EVERY year. Here, I'll even give you a link to the source:<a class="user" href="http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html">http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html</a>Note that more people die from cars in total AND per capita. Go ahead, give me a rational response.
How stupid! It's incredible. "A semi-automatic does the trick." What?! Do you know what the assault weapons ban, both in the past, and its attempt at renewal does??? Ban specific _semi-automatic weapons_ arbitrarily.
Holder says that it's the flow of guns from the United States that is fueling violence in Mexico.Holder wants to stop the sale of semi automatic(one trigger pull one shot) assault weapon look a likes.All the numbers are made up lies to allow the passage of a new "Assault Weapons Ban"<a class="user" href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/" rel="nofollow">http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos- ...</a>Even the ABC News article says the guns are automatic(one pull of the trigger multiple shots) and that grenades are used buy the drug cartels. Grenades are not something that you can buy in a south west Texas gun shop. Nor are automatic rifles.What the government fears is the people having the means to fight back against increasing levels of tyrnnay.
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2009
Umm where did I say I was stocking up on guns?I'm going to assume you replied to the wrong comment, otherwise you are a complete assclown.
jwkpiano1Feb 27, 2009
No kidding, dumbass. Way to get extremely hostile. I was giving an example of when gun control makes sense.
figgypowerMar 5, 2009
What's a "military-style" gun? Go ahead and define it for me. Why is it that some firearms that have wood stock, when switched to plastic automatically become an "assault weapon" -- EVEN when they are functionally the same internally??? Be educated:<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0</a>
figgypowerMar 5, 2009
If tougher times are to come and there will be more robbing and killing of innocents... doesn't it make sense that innocent like myself be able to defend himself? I think most people are worried about their right to hunt, basic self-defense against criminals, and target shooting.
figgypowerMar 5, 2009
Way to be a dumbass. Guns kill fewer people, total AND per capita, then cars do. Go ahead and check it out:<a class="user" href="http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html">http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html</a>That doesn't even include the problems cars cause due to pollution (and they're the second largest contributor), including asthma, bronchitis, and global warming. They've also been tied to fueling obesity rates (hey, why walk or jog when you could drive) and they've been definitively tied to leading to urban sprawl. Where are all the calls to ban cars? The National Crime Survey indicates there are at least 80,000 legitimate uses of guns to save one's life every year -- way more than the number of people who die due to guns. Oh, and I also dug up a peer-reviewed scientific article, and just to make sure you can find it, here are the details:Author: Koper and Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology (which is at U of PA)Title: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation.Their conclusion? "We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations."
figgypowerMar 5, 2009
As soon as you explain to me why cars go faster than 70 miles per hour, have built-in LCDs capable of playing movies (yeah, up near the driver), 23" rims that spin, and even wings then I'll explain why other inanimate objects have superfluous features.Hint: it's mainly because people want them and so long as they're not violating others' rights, it's their right to do as they please.
figgypowerMar 5, 2009
Anti-gunners are completely irrational. They fear ONE type of inanimate weapon. In relevance to this discussion, there's really just one peer-reviewed scientific study relating to the last assault weapons ban, and it said "We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations." This study was by Koper and Roth at the University of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology and it was titled _The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation_. There was only one other, unpublished and NOT peer reviewed (here's to hoping you know the difference) study and that was done by the government, specifically the Department of Justice. It was titled _Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets andGun Violence, 1994-2003_ and even though they biased the truth to show the assault weapons ban "worked" they still admitted that "Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."Additionally, if you're going to *rationally* fear guns or otherwise consider them a menace, then you must fear cars as a complete menace to sciety as they kill more people EVERY year. Here, I'll even give you a link to the source:<a class="user" href="http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html">http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html</a>Note that more people die from cars in total AND per capita. Go ahead, give me a rational response.
figgypowerMar 5, 2009
How stupid! It's incredible. "A semi-automatic does the trick." What?! Do you know what the assault weapons ban, both in the past, and its attempt at renewal does??? Ban specific _semi-automatic weapons_ arbitrarily.
jabibApr 20, 2009
It just takes a few assh**es to ruin it for the rest of us who use them responsibly. Holding onto my M4 for dear life now...
bobbknightAug 18, 2009
Holder says that it's the flow of guns from the United States that is fueling violence in Mexico.Holder wants to stop the sale of semi automatic(one trigger pull one shot) assault weapon look a likes.All the numbers are made up lies to allow the passage of a new "Assault Weapons Ban"<a class="user" href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/" rel="nofollow">http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos- ...</a>Even the ABC News article says the guns are automatic(one pull of the trigger multiple shots) and that grenades are used buy the drug cartels. Grenades are not something that you can buy in a south west Texas gun shop. Nor are automatic rifles.What the government fears is the people having the means to fight back against increasing levels of tyrnnay.