Surprisingly they are banned! They've been banned for years! You can't carry them at all in public, some are even restricted within the confines of your home. Being caught with a weapon like knives or knuckle dusters is a offence which comes with prison time.
The difference is, people can still use things like kitchen knives, and you can't ban kitchen knives, even then the purchase and movement of kitchen knives is even age restricted. They're a lot easier to smuggle into a country than firearms, making them harder to control, but you bet your sorry redneck ass they're controlled.
Maybe like, think, before somehow making everything about guns?
6
deleted
· 4 years ago
If they're banned, then how did someone use one to stab the donkey?
In the U.K. You can't walk outside with a kitchen knife but in Texas you can brandish a sword for self defense in the public space. Simultaneously big dick energy and compensating for something.
Well if course you can't, it's still a knife lol.
Dude even pepper spray is illegal here
( -_- )
I understand making weapons illegal but pepper spray? It's for self defence
Never said that at all, don't jump to conclusions.
I don't have anywhere near all the answers , I'll be the first to admit, but criminalising firearms is a somewhat preventative measure, not some blanket "we stopped the bad guys rule".
The fact of the matter is, many of the mass shooters which are being referred to, within the greater gun control topic, are known to law enforcement before an attack, and because the 'second amendment' is totted so much you don't take preventative measures, such as removing access to firearms or even making a preemptive arrests and questioning. The firearms aren't confiscated and are left in the hands of people , who are otherwise not criminals until the shooting occurs.
It should be an offence to carry / own a working rifle unless strict vetting or outstanding circumstances requires it. Even here in the UK, we have around 6,700 firearm incidents a year, causing death or injury, but not only are these all perpetrated with pistols or shotguns...
... which farmers can own, but our last mass shooting occured in 2010... Not hundreds per year....
Also, comparing the US to Mexico or Brazil, countries with stricter gun control but mass poverty and severe political and socioeconomical divides, is by no means a positive comparison. America is a first World Country which is rather unfortunately leading the way in gun violence in developed, first world, western countries.
You never arrest before a crime is committed. I don't care if it's a Minority Report bullshit or SWATing, it's intolerable in any nation that even wants to pretend to value liberty or justice.
Why are people so fixated on shootings? Y'all's murder rate never changed because you stripped away a civil liberty. What matters is that people are dying. Is it somehow more righteous for people to be ran down, blown up, burned, or beat to death?
"don't arrest before the crime is commited" is great, until they commit a crime which allows them to take 17 lives in a few mere minutes.
Making the the ownership of such firearms a fineable offence or require them to undertake better training / vetting. Not every citizen needs the right to own an assult rifle.
The barrier for entry is too easy and widely available that's what's making gun violence an epidemic
No assault rifles have been used in any recent mass shootings in the United States. As far as I know, it hasn't been since the St. Valentine's Day Massacre that any automatic weapons were used in a mass shooting in the United States.
Also, rights are not needs. You don't need to pray. You don't need to speak. You don't need to assemble. You don't need privacy. You don't need a trial.
No just people can tolerate any kind of punishment or persecution before a crime is committed. No free people should be able to even imagine it without being sickened.
I will never tolerate any such fascist and evil measures. You think you can save 17 people by preemptively arresting someone? I guarantee that far more people will die if authorities try to carry out such measures. The tree of liberty will be wet by the blood of tyrants.
We kinda need to be clear on the definitions here. In the industry and military- to be an assault riffles a weapon MUST have selective fire. In other words it needs to be more than semi automatic and must have burst (fires more than one round per trigger squeeze) or full automatic fire and or single round fire modes as selectable fire modes. A weapon which fire modes aren’t SELECTABLE but it capable of single or multi shot operation through controlled pressure of the trigger group is generally a variant of machine gun, light machine gun, etc if it fires riffle rounds, possibly a submachine if it fires a pistol cartridge.
Battle riffles, etc are all different classifications a weapon can fall into. A weapon BASED off the general design of a military assault riffle like an M16 or M4 or “AK” family riffle, but possessing a receiver incapable of anything but single round release with a trigger pull, or lacking a selectable fire control group etc and this only capable of single shot operation- is NOT by definition an “assault riffle” but is instead based off of or a non assault variant of the given family group of one lacks the proper vocabulary to describe the weapon. “Sport Rifle” or similar is another civilian designation for such riffles when chambered in a non centerfire small caliber cartridge.
To be clear I am not commenting an endorsement either way at this point or an opinion- but it is very common that these definitions get mixed up, and in many cases such as when the .50 cal was banned in California- unscrupulous politicians, media, or lobbyists will pass off a military and or police grade weapon that isn’t available to the civilian market as an example of the types of weapons a certain action effects- when in reality such weapons were already inherently illegal to civilians even IF a manufacturer or gun shop would break the law and would sell to them.
To be clear- many Chevy cars have an “LS” series engine- from the flagship sports Corvette to the Top of the line Camaro, to many trucks. In fact- the LS and LT find their roots in trucks. But just because chassis parts and whole engines are from the same family does not make a Corvette a truck nor a Chevy Suburban a Grand Touring Sports car. The Honda CRV 4cyl and the Honda Civic Si 4cyl were also a “K series” engine of the same overall design and origin- however the engine tuning, cam shafts, pistons/compression ratio, fuel systems, intake and exhaust, etc etc. are different so that even if both are the same engine block and to the relative layman “the same engine” not only are they not completely interchangeable 1:1 but perform very differently.
In technology terms, two computers can have the same case and externally look almost identical, they can have the same motherboard, share many other components, but if one has twice the RAM and a different processor, or one uses an SSD and a different TYPE of RAM and the other is an optical drive with old school basic RAM- they will be totally different. The same graphics card which enables Hogg end gaming or design work can be used for the GPU to mine crypto currency- but if you see two seemingly similar PC’s running high end graphics cards you can’t call the gaming rig a “crypto mining rig” can you?
It may seem like semantics but it IS a big part of the problem in the gun dialog. How can two people even agree wether “assault weapons” should be banned if neither one is taking about the same weapon when they say “assault weapon?” How can the public make an informed decision on what weapons they feel are the biggest threat when they don’t even know what weapons are actually being used asides the fact that like many machines to people not informed or familiar with them- they all look very much alike and some far more than others? While VERY potentially dangerous guns go overlooked because they aren’t black polymer and don’t have “scary” features like pistol grips- but do have detachable magazines, are cheap with tight grouping, and fire rounds that can pierce body armor or other features that make them a genuine potential danger?
Now this part is just opinion- mine. But firstly, as emotional as the subject can be for people all sides need to work on leaving that at the door when discussing guns. So too must we leave rhetoric and sensationalism and “what if’s” because in the “gun nut” fantasy everyone is armed and there’s almost no crime because of it, and in the “gunphobic” camp a world where any gun is legal is one where everyone is a gun victim someday. In between extremes are varying degrees of such sentiments but it’s all hypothetical except what is fact.
The inability to discuss the matter using proper language and understanding of basic concepts of the item being discussed is a huge barricade to both communication and credibility however. You probably wouldn’t feel too good having someone passing laws on air travel who couldn’t tell an airplane from a helicopter or a drone from a jet fighter would you?
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
Well, the people I wanted to have a conversation with seem to have quit. I just wanted to say I'm disappointed that when I asked if you would concede a point, you say that you "never said that". I never said you did say that. I wanted to know if you would agree with the point I was trying to make.
.
I also want it clear that I believe that preemptive arrests are a clear sign of a fascist executive branch. It is the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty", and I can't stand for it.
@unclethan- yes. I think it’s an issue of inability to distinguish finer details. If we have reason to believe a person is plotting a bombing- we arrest them BEFORE the bombing. We then must PROVE that they were making a threat or credible threat, try them for those charges, and convict. “This person has a lot of guns...” isn’t probable cause to arrest them for any crime alone. “This person has a lot of guns and has made threats..” is probable cause to detain them on charges of threat and investigate evidence of intent for a shooting spree- but we can’t simply arrest people for lawful behavior which we find bizarre or even suspicious. That’s not even a gun issue-
Just imagine a world where police could arrest you because you MIGHT commit a crime- not from evidence that you plan to or show a serious and probable danger to- but because you theoretically could if you wanted to. Imagine a world where simply having alcohol and a car- at your home or in your access, was grounds to arrest you for DUI because you COULD drink and drive if you decided to. We’d save a lot of lives- in theory. Many more than are lost to mass shootings- but at what cost? Combine all alcohol related deaths per year and you quickly see that by the numbers and nature of the thing we could argue there is no responsible or safe threshold and an outright ban would theoretically save the most lives. I certainly wouldn’t be effected by such laws- but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about the rights of those who would be.
The difference is, people can still use things like kitchen knives, and you can't ban kitchen knives, even then the purchase and movement of kitchen knives is even age restricted. They're a lot easier to smuggle into a country than firearms, making them harder to control, but you bet your sorry redneck ass they're controlled.
Maybe like, think, before somehow making everything about guns?
Dude even pepper spray is illegal here
( -_- )
I understand making weapons illegal but pepper spray? It's for self defence
I don't have anywhere near all the answers , I'll be the first to admit, but criminalising firearms is a somewhat preventative measure, not some blanket "we stopped the bad guys rule".
The fact of the matter is, many of the mass shooters which are being referred to, within the greater gun control topic, are known to law enforcement before an attack, and because the 'second amendment' is totted so much you don't take preventative measures, such as removing access to firearms or even making a preemptive arrests and questioning. The firearms aren't confiscated and are left in the hands of people , who are otherwise not criminals until the shooting occurs.
It should be an offence to carry / own a working rifle unless strict vetting or outstanding circumstances requires it. Even here in the UK, we have around 6,700 firearm incidents a year, causing death or injury, but not only are these all perpetrated with pistols or shotguns...
Also, comparing the US to Mexico or Brazil, countries with stricter gun control but mass poverty and severe political and socioeconomical divides, is by no means a positive comparison. America is a first World Country which is rather unfortunately leading the way in gun violence in developed, first world, western countries.
Making the the ownership of such firearms a fineable offence or require them to undertake better training / vetting. Not every citizen needs the right to own an assult rifle.
The barrier for entry is too easy and widely available that's what's making gun violence an epidemic
Also, rights are not needs. You don't need to pray. You don't need to speak. You don't need to assemble. You don't need privacy. You don't need a trial.
No just people can tolerate any kind of punishment or persecution before a crime is committed. No free people should be able to even imagine it without being sickened.
I will never tolerate any such fascist and evil measures. You think you can save 17 people by preemptively arresting someone? I guarantee that far more people will die if authorities try to carry out such measures. The tree of liberty will be wet by the blood of tyrants.
.
I also want it clear that I believe that preemptive arrests are a clear sign of a fascist executive branch. It is the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty", and I can't stand for it.