stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is a mental factor in less strict gun control as well that you are forgetting. People of criminal intent can be deterred by the very threat of an assault rifle being present and this is shown in the many pages of statistics posted.

Also, your argument was applied to the American police force a while back: 'There is no good reason for an officer to be armed with anything more than a hand gun. More advanced weaponry is for the SWAT team.' Then the 1997 LA bank heist happened and now almost all police cars have an assault rifle in the trunk.

Handguns are a problem, but I refuse to argue against them. It's a futile attempt to do so and I can see legitimate reasons to have them. Police having automatic weapons in the trunk is not much of an issue. Anyone, police or not, walking around with an automatic rifle slung over their shoulder IS (unless they are summoned to the scene for a specific purpose, like SWAT).

I'm not against owning an automatic rifle in the home. Well, I am, but won't argue against it. It's your house and what's in it is none of my business. The governments take on it, well... I don't blindly follow anyone in politics, ever. But regarding the 'mental factor' thing... if you having a handgun doesn't discourage an attacker chances are nothing will.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Handguns are a problem, but I refuse to argue against them. It's a futile attempt to do so and I can see legitimate reasons to have them.

Can you even argue completely against them if you can see legitimate reasons for having them?

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Police having automatic weapons in the trunk is not much of an issue. Anyone, police or not, walking around with an automatic rifle slung over their shoulder IS (unless they are summoned to the scene for a specific purpose, like SWAT).

You are correct and it just so happens our current gun control laws already state that such things are illegal and very strictly enforced.

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not against owning an automatic rifle in the home. Well, I am, but won't argue against it.

So you are against stricter gun control?

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if you having a handgun doesn't discourage an attacker chances are nothing will.

I am sure there are plenty of people who are more scared of an assault rifle than they are of a 9mm.


From this post, you are not arguing anything and are against the stricter gun control. You are just turned off by the word "Assault Rifle" and therefore think they should be banned.

[OforOppression]

if they dont want to be raped they should stop being so hot (lololol)

[OforOppression]

Also, if you hunt with an AR-15, you're a fucking moran.

[gloine36]

I love the Australian stuff when it's totally bullshit. That story has been kicking around the Net for a while. Check out Snopes.

[Vellatri]

Is it that hard for people to acknowledge the possibility that the mere threat of armed resistance can deter violence before armed resistance actually needs to be used? It's not like criminals prey on the weak or anything...

Originally Posted by gloine36 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I love the Australian stuff when it's totally bullshit. That story has been kicking around the Net for a while. Check out Snopes.

Of course you didn't provide specifics. You can't, because Snopes didn't refute any of the points I listed. Like I said, I even verified the data from an independent source. You're free to do so yourself.

Maybe you were referring to someone else's post. In that case, ignore the above.

[Lexical]

Your argument is silly. It assumes that the majority of violent crimes are being carried out with assault rifles which can't be farther from the truth.

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your argument is silly. It assumes that the majority of violent crimes are being carried out with assault rifles which can't be farther from the truth.

No, my argument is sensible. Using your own argument against me, if the majority are NOT being carried out with, or prevented using, assault riffles then the ban shouldn't affect anyone other than those intending to carry out mass killings.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, my argument is sensible. Using your own argument against me, if the majority are NOT being carried out with, or prevented using, assault riffles then the ban shouldn't affect anyone other than those intending to carry out mass killings.

Heh, this isn't sensible. It is like saying "since aids is typically spread through needles, all needles should be outlawed." If they aren't the problem, then why address them as such?

[Vellatri]

Truth be told, the reason I want an AR-15 is for the kiddies, in case I'm not home. It's quieter than a shotgun and has less kick. It's easier to control and has more stopping power than a handgun. Perfect for the munchkins.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!