Print

[jeti]

[Spency234]

QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 09:48 AM)

Legal gun ownsership lowers crime.

Another fact that nemt successfully pulled out of his arsehole.

[bluedeath]

Those black powder rifles are more powerful than most assault weapons so I guess we need to ban them as well.

[Maximumbeing]

QUOTE

Legal gun ownsership lowers crime.

That's funny, last time I checked, violent crime went down a substantial amount after the ban was initiated.


http://www.ojp.usdoj...lance/viort.htm

[nemt]

QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 04:21 PM)

That's funny, last time I checked, violent crime went down a substantial amount after the ban was initiated. http://www.ojp.usdoj...lance/viort.htm

Violent crime decreased because of the rising popularity of handguns and concealed carry laws, the lengthening of prison sentences, and increases in local and state police funding.  It had nothing to do with a ban on weapons criminals couldn't afford to buy and legally register anyway.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 10:14 PM)

Violent crime decreased because of the rising popularity of handguns and concealed carry laws, the lengthening of prison sentences, and increases in local and state police funding.  It had nothing to do with a ban on weapons criminals couldn't afford to buy and legally register anyway.

The chart that Maximumbeing pointed out does show that after 1994 violent crimes went down at the same time when that assault weapons ban went to effect.  Maybe it could be a coincidence or it can be a fact.

Do you have some proof of what you said?

[HeLiuM]

QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 17 2004, 08:14 PM)

I use them for sport. You can't hunt with most of them anyways because the bullet is too small to kill large game with.

So what you're saying is, they're useless for hunting (which is what I also said).  About the sport, I honestly don't much care if you have to make another choice of weapons to shoot targets with.  What ever happened to the republican view on security first blabla?  NRA conflict I suppose.

QUOTE

I dunno what exactly this means but flash suppressors are for shooting in the dark, and that dc sniper hid in a trunk and shot people during daylight.

That's exactly my point.. You're making more dangerous utilities absolutely useless for legit purposes more available.

QUOTE

I live in the country so that arguement doesnt work on me. Gangs and Terrorists have no problem buying guns in the black market.

You think I care where you live?  I don't care if "that argument doesn't work" on you, because I live near a city.  Alot of Americans do.
And how do you propose stopping the sale of dangerous guns in the black market when you can legally buy them at Jeb's Gun Depot?

QUOTE

So now a group of people? You were talking about a burgular breaking into your home and shooting him with an "overpowered" assault rifle makes no sense. I posted that showing that assault rifles dont shoot very powerful ammo.

Very powerful ammo?  They may not shoot large caliber bullets, but they are meant for range and rapid, aimed fire (yes, I know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic.  Don't make yourself look more of a fool than you have to by saying semi-automatic isn't capable of rapid fire).  You want to defend your home?  You'd have much better luck with a handgun (if you feel you need to protect yourself with a firearm to begin with) for protecting your home.. You simply can't justify the use of these weapons.  The size of these weapons would make them highly cumbersome for most homes anyway, but not so much a bother in larger spaces.

QUOTE

I never emailed you and why would I email a moron. Well i'm disturbed about how you say guns are bad and i bet money on it that you havent held, shot, owned a gun in your life. So dont tell people and me whats good for them.

Congradulations.. You almost caught on to the fact I wasn't seriously implying you had emailed me.  Almost.
The fact that you are disturbed that I say guns are bad, leads me to believe you are overly paranoid and probably not well suited to handle them to begin with.
I'm not telling you whats good for you (but if you do want to know, EDUCATION.  Education and anti-psychotics), I'm telling you whats good for the safety of American citizens, and its not making dangerous weapons more available to whoever has the money and time to buy them.  (Criminals can't afford guns?  What the hell do you think they do?)

Care to back up anything you just said nemt? (Not about the criminals who can't afford guns, because quite honestly you can't.  Ah hell, why not, try anyway.)

[nemt]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 17 2004, 05:34 PM)

The chart that Maximumbeing pointed out does show that after 1994 violent crimes went down at the same time when that assault weapons ban went to effect.  Maybe it could be a coincidence or it can be a fact. Do you have some proof of what you said?

I'd like to find enough reports of violent crimes involving weapons banned in 1994 took place before the ban, and contrast it to the amount after the ban.  Violent crime in general wouldn't stop, or even be curbed.

If Monster Trucks were outlawed, would that stop commuters from driving to work?

[gcskate27]

QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 02:55 PM)

If Monster Trucks were outlawed, would that stop commuters from driving to work?

that analogy is rediculous...  

[Maximumbeing]

All right Nemt, I'll play along and pretend that the ban didn't decrease crime, wouldn't you still agree that crime drastically went down when Clinton was in office?

Or do you hate Clinton too much to agree with that statement?

The burden of proof is on you as far as the Automatic Ban doesn't decrease crime, I've proven that right after the ban went into effect, crime went down.

[nemt]

QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 06:15 PM)

All right Nemt, I'll play along and pretend that the ban didn't decrease crime, wouldn't you still agree that crime drastically went down when Clinton was in office? Or do you hate Clinton too much to agree with that statement? The burden of proof is on you as far as the Automatic Ban doesn't decrease crime, I've proven that right after the ban went into effect, crime went down.

Yes, crime went down when Clinton was in office, and under his administration, a lot was done to support police.  A good portion of the help police received was in the form of harsher prison sentences, to keep criminals off the streets longer, and the spread of concealed carry laws, which have been proven to deter crime in every are they're enacted.

Unless you can prove the entire difference, or even a substancial portion, of the crimes used as data in that survey before involved automatic weapons, your argument is worthless.  All it takes is common sense to shoot down your idiocy.

[Maximumbeing]

Shoot down my idiocy?

You're referring to an accurate graph that readliy supports my opinion.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 10:55 PM)

I'd like to find enough reports of violent crimes involving weapons banned in 1994 took place before the ban, and contrast it to the amount after the ban.  Violent crime in general wouldn't stop, or even be curbed.

By all means, you can do that too.

QUOTE

If Monster Trucks were outlawed, would that stop commuters from driving to work?

It is like saying that everybody has a Monster Truck and then say there should be a law to ban on all Monster Trucks.  

The truth is that there's very few people who actually own a Monster Truck compared to the number of people who own a gun.

[bluedeath]

It comes down to this.  People who are going to actually use assault weapons are not going to buy them from "Ammunation" and fill out a form so the FBI can track them.  They are going to buy them from one of Victor Bout's goons in the kmart parking lot.

[nemt]

QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 06:28 PM)

Shoot down my idiocy? You're referring to an accurate graph that readliy supports my opinion.

So let's say a law was passed in 1994 banning aerosol cans.  Crime went down since then..dramatically.  Does the graph support this as well?

Rent a brain, dipshit, you don't know what you're talking about.

QUOTE (sack of meat bordering on sentience)

It is like saying that everybody has a Monster Truck and then say there should be a law to ban on all Monster Trucks.

Do you even know what you're saying?  Your posts have diminishing coherence.

QUOTE (waste of food)

The truth is that there's very few people who actually own a Monster Truck compared to the number of people who own a gun.

Way to miss the point.  The truth is that there are very few people who commit crimes with assault rifles acquired through legal channels compared to the number of people who commit violent crimes.