Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80
  1.    #1  
    Reading the news and ran accross this article. I think it will stir up some interesting discussion. I was particularly amused by the authors last name. TOTALLY appropriate. Enjoy!

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DGAG8LODG1.DTL

    Please note that this is a post to launch a discussion. I have not indicated an opinion either way (except on the authors name). PLease spare me the flames and just discuss the topic.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. #2  
    I never understood bans on weapons of any kind. Doesnt it just keep these firearms outta the hands of law-abiding citizens and gives the criminals an inherent advantage? I mean I dont think gangbangers are gonna turn in their Uzis because a ban is put in place. The only people that will are the people who wouldnt use them to stick up a liquor store anyway. It just doesnt make much sense to me...
  3. #3  
    The ban was put in place after someone killed many people in a McDonalds years ago.

    While the first amendment gives us a right of free speech, it does not give us a right to slander, lie to police, or call "fire" unnecessarily in a crowed theater.

    The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but I believe with in the same bounds of reason. Hence you cannot currently own anti-aircraft weapons, grenade launchers or howitzers (to name a few). We must balance the rights of individuals to own weapons and the danger that poses to society.

    I believe that fully automatic weapons pose a great danger to society and I do not see any compelling reason to own one. This leads me to favor a ban. Will this keep them out of the hands of criminals? Not totally, but it will in many cases, and it gives our government more charges against the criminal when they do have or use one.
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    .... and it gives our government more charges against the criminal when they do have or use one.
    Which really makes no sense at all. If you kill someone with a single shot weapon versus an automatic, they are still dead and you are still guilty of murder. Murder has been illegal for quite sometime now regardless of the weapon. I don't think it makes any difference to th victim what sort of weapon was involved. Dead is dead.

    If we want to use the automatic feature as a reason for banning we should ban automatic air powered hammers, because I am sure someone has been killed with a 'single shot' hammer and the automatic is just far more dangerous. God forbid someone kills someone with a hand can opener. Of course that will add to the space on my countertop.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5. #5  
    It does make sense. With a ban you may arrest a criminal before they kill. Without a ban, you have to wait for someone to be killed before you can arrest them. It is the difference between being proactive (reduce the use by banning the weapon) and being reactive (take action only after people have been killed).

    I agree that dead is dead. The number of people who can be killed or wounded is far greater with a fully automatic weapon than a single shot weapon. That is why they are preferred in war.

    Your analogy comparing fully automatic weapons to air powered hammers is faulty. Air power hammers have a peaceful and productivity enhancing use and are inefficient as a weapon used to kill. Fully automatic weapons are designed to be efficient at killing and nothing else.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    It does make sense. With a ban you may arrest a criminal before they kill. Without a ban, you have to wait for someone to be killed before you can arrest them. It is the difference between being proactive (reduce the use by banning the weapon) and being reactive (take action only after people have been killed).

    I agree that dead is dead. The number of people who can be killed or wounded is far greater with a fully automatic weapon than a single shot weapon. That is why they are preferred in war.

    Your analogy comparing fully automatic weapons to air powered hammers is faulty. Air power hammers have a peaceful and productivity enhancing use and are inefficient as a weapon used to kill. Fully automatic weapons are designed to be efficient at killing and nothing else.
    Oh so anyone who owns a semiautomatic weapon is now a criminal? Or anyone who owns a semiautomatic weapon is planning to kill someone?

    Great now I am a criminal. Sheesh that sucks. Hmmm, could you please tell me who it is I am planning to kill so efficiently.

    Actually if you talk to most military wepons experts they will tell you that single shot weapons are far more efficient for killing because they can be controlled. Automatics are rather wild when you get them going and you rarely hit anything. I personally could do lots more damage with my Ruger 10/22 long rifle than with say my Uzi carbine. You however can believe what you want.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7. #7  
    The article could have mentioned Espinosa. Patrol officers should be given assault weapon training and access.

    http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=24021
    http://www.sfindependent.com/article...i/071004n_guns
  8. #8  
    Did I say Semi-Automatic weapons? If you read my post I said fully automatic weapons, and until tomorrow it is illegal to own one.

    Sure a single shot gun has more control. That is why fully automatic weapons can also be semi-automatic. If you want to spray bullets through a McDonalds to kill and wound as many as possible (which was done) a fully automatic weapon is much better.

    I still stand by my point that the fully automatic weapons are dangerous to society and I do not see a reason to own one. Perhaps you could tell me why you have and Uzi and why you might want a fully automatic weapon?
  9.    #9  
    Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades and are not going to become legal monday nite. The ban that is expiring is on "assault weapons" all of which by law in this country must be sold as semiautomatics.

    Do you even know waht we're talking about here?

    And I have an Uzi cause I wanted one. Bought it preban because it was a helluva lot of fun to shoot, and it's a fine example of Isreali craftsmanship. You got a problem with that? Also it is a semiautomatic as prescribed by federal law and not full auto. You know much about guns?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  10.    #10  
    to clarify in my previous post my use of the word automatic was refering to the semiauto nature of the assault weapons affected by the ban. I was not indication fully automatic weapons should be kefalk. They havent been for decades.

    Also single shot refers to a weapon that must be cocked or a new round chambered prior to each shot. Semi auto means that this is not necessary
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #11  
    I stand corrected on the ban.

    I do believe that the one's right to weapons must be balanced with their inherit danger to society. I am skeptical of any reason not to renew the ban.
  12.    #12  
    people are the danger not the weapons. Guns are incapable of killing without human intervention, regardless of how many shots they can fire without reloading.

    Ones right to own guns should be based on their (the person's) inherant danger to society. My guns are not the least bit dangerous to society because I don't use them to commit crimes.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13.    #13  
    This article has some interesting tidbits about assualt weapons and such.

    Please no flames about the source.

    http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...duke091204.htm
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #14  
    I do think it's somewhat illogical to ban semi-auto weapons and not single shot. Single shot weapons should be banned as well.
    As far as I'm concerned the argument isn't just about criminals - when people go nuts and commit a massacre it tends to be people who've been law-abiding until then. With all due respect Woof anyone can develop mental illness, and they do, if it happened to you then you would be far more dangerous with an uzi than without. Of course we're talking about a small minority of people but I believe it right to restrict the rights of the majority to control the minority in this case.
    If you do extend the argument to crime you'll find that criminals have a much harder time getting hold of guns in a gun free society. The majority of gun crime in britain is committed with converted air-pistols (which are very unreliable and are literally single shot), for which reason we're going to ban that type of air pistol next.
    Animo et Fide
  15. #15  
    Re-reading your post Woof, you mentioned a person's inherent danger to society. Quite right, you may be a happy well-adjusted individual with thoughts of nothing but the highest purity, but inherently you've got the same psychological triggers that everyone has. That means that everyone is inherently dangerous and no-one should have any guns.
    Animo et Fide
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I do think it's somewhat illogical to ban semi-auto weapons and not single shot. Single shot weapons should be banned as well.
    As far as I'm concerned the argument isn't just about criminals - when people go nuts and commit a massacre it tends to be people who've been law-abiding until then. With all due respect Woof anyone can develop mental illness, and they do, if it happened to you then you would be far more dangerous with an uzi than without. Of course we're talking about a small minority of people but I believe it right to restrict the rights of the majority to control the minority in this case.
    If you do extend the argument to crime you'll find that criminals have a much harder time getting hold of guns in a gun free society. The majority of gun crime in britain is committed with converted air-pistols (which are very unreliable and are literally single shot), for which reason we're going to ban that type of air pistol next.
    And when the criminals resort to using cricket bats will you ban those too?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  17.    #17  
    Peter I love your sig too.

    So all guns should be banned in your view? What are you going to do for protection in the event your country is invaded by an overwhelming force and you are forced to defend your home and family? Trot out the golf clubs?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. #18  
    [QUOTE=DHAnderson]The ban was put in place after someone killed many people in a McDonalds years ago.

    Actually it was the shooting in a San Francisco law firm that prompted the legislation to ban assault weapons.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    people are the danger not the weapons. Guns are incapable of killing without human intervention, regardless of how many shots they can fire without reloading.

    Ones right to own guns should be based on their (the person's) inherant danger to society. My guns are not the least bit dangerous to society because I don't use them to commit crimes.
    .....yet
  20.    #20  
    Not to worry. I don't have any desire to be 'in the system' as they say. I only use my guns for target practice and (hopefully never) self defense.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions