"Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:40 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:If a man rapes a man, yes, it's a crime...
If a woman rapes a man, she has to be ugly as hell for it to be a crime, because otherwise, it's just "consensual sex"... :)
I remember a story of some Russian crazy chick who forced a man to cuff himself to a heater and she kept him for a while, playing with a knife and his dick or something...
Well then, this would be sex between a man, a woman and a knife, so yes, rape and possibly assault...
But a woman without a weapon?
I stand by my earlier assessment... ;)











I hope you guys realize I'm kidding right?
If a woman forces herself onto a man, no matter how beautiful, it is rape, or at least sexual assault, and should be punishable by the same type of sentences that men get...
For us in Quebec, that would be a slap on the wrist... :(

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Cocytus » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:36 pm

Praeothmin wrote:I hope you guys realize I'm kidding right?
If a woman forces herself onto a man, no matter how beautiful, it is rape, or at least sexual assault, and should be punishable by the same type of sentences that men get...
For us in Quebec, that would be a slap on the wrist... :(
It's all good. I have run into some really nasty feminists who believe such nonsense as "erection equals consent." I guess they've never seen a guy try to psych out a chubby by thinking about baseball and cold showers.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:24 pm

Praeothmin wrote: Which still cited no sources...
Considering all the times "serious" magazines ran articles that were revealed bogus after fact (in Canada as in the US, we're all equal in bad journalism), I tend not to believe until I see a source... :)
And everything I've been able to check in those articles seems to be correct. Canada had a hard time enforcing its gun control laws, and repealed some of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Praeothmin wrote: Actually, you can usually joke about pretty much anything with me, like the fact I'm Quebecois, thus french, like the fact Canada has the market on the letters "e" and "h", eh, but in this case I didn't know about the video (and I can't currently watch it as I am at the office)...

It's just that, you sometimes throw lines that may seem like "mild insults", and the way you responded to my posts I thought this was one, thus my "mild insult" about gunpowder (I hope the smiley clued you in to the fact it was meant as a joke?)...
The gun powder remark just seemed like it came out of nowhere until I realized my remark didn't make sense unless you saw the skit.

Praeothmin wrote: Actually, your crime rates in Minnesota are still higher than ours, yet Minnesota shares the same weather as southern Ontario/Quebec, and the lower prairie Provinces...
And our highest crime rates happen to be in the Coldest places, like the Northwest Territories and Yukon...
Most of the USA does not have weather like Minnesota.

Most people don't live in the coldest areas. The situation involving those areas are very different from the rest of the areas people live. Just keep in mind that cramming a number of people into a small space will cause problems.

Praeothmin wrote: Oh really?
Toronto has seen a steady decrease in crime rates in the last 10 years, yet, with 2420.22 persons per square mile, is a densely populated as many large US cities, like Phoenix (2800 per square mile) and Indianapolis (2175), but bigger than Jacksonville (1061)...
U.S.A. about 315, 591,000 or about 88.6 people per square mile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Canada about 33,476,688 or about 8.3 people per square mile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

Wikipedia lists the U.S.A. as the third most heavily populated country on Earth. Canada stands at 35th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... population

I'm fairly certain that Indianapolis is not a major city, but a suburb of Chicago like Milwaukee. ^_^

Praeothmin wrote: I know that, in fact I said that:
Which begs the quest as to why bring up the fact that there is a multi-national drop in crime?

Praeothmin wrote: And if the parents had more restricted access to guns, so would the kids...
I realize the author is very pro-second amendment/anti-gun control, and the article is some what dated, but how true is his description of Canada's gun control laws?
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Mags/The-Fa ... ontrol.htm
The article makes it sound like the kids who do these school shootings would have no trouble getting their parent's guns.

From what I've read here and there it seems areas in the USA with tighter gun control tend to have more crime for some reason. It isn't clear what those reasons are

To be honest, I don't think guns are the problem given that the Swiss keep military grade weapons in their houses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... witzerland

Copycats have been a problem for a long time, and the school shootings seem to be a small part of a larger problem.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24036.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shooter
Praeothmin wrote: Really?
Columbine had bombs?
Minneapolis (2012) had bombs?
Binghampton (2009) had bombs?
How many of these mass killings actually used bombs?
You'll have to forgive me for thinking the site of your source is on seems to be run by bleeding heart idiot. The Swiss prove that military grade weapons being in the home does not lead to using them for murder. The dishonesty just makes me sick.

Columbine included bombs. They were dealt with by the police before they went off. So, one third of the examples you provided involved bombs. I'd have to do a lot of research into the others you listed, but I'm not going to trust that site if they leave out information like the bombs at Columbine..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_ ... l_massacre

Praeothmin wrote: Well, I disagree with this point of view, but I understand yours better now...
Thanks...
It was a worsted case scenario known basically first hand by the founders of the United States of America.
Praeothmin wrote: I hope you guys realize I'm kidding right?
If a woman forces herself onto a man, no matter how beautiful, it is rape, or at least sexual assault, and should be punishable by the same type of sentences that men get...
For us in Quebec, that would be a slap on the wrist... :(
I couldn't tell you were joking around, laws can be that sick and twisted like that, and some people honestly believe what you were saying.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:35 pm

Lucky wrote:Just keep in mind that cramming a number of people into a small space will cause problems.
Oh, I agree, but Germany has a population density of 600.52 per square mile and has less violent crimes than the US, less than Canada even, and the most densely populated centers in Canada don't necessarily have higher violent crimes than less populated ones...
I'm fairly certain that Indianapolis is not a major city, but a suburb of Chicago like Milwaukee. ^_^
Well, this site says it is one of the largest in the US... :)
Which begs the quest as to why bring up the fact that there is a multi-national drop in crime?
Well, I got the impression you were showing your drop in crime rates as proof that having guns work as crime deterrents, while I showed you ours to show that even not having a gun in every room in one's house didn't affect crime rates being lowered... :)
The article makes it sound like the kids who do these school shootings would have no trouble getting their parent's guns.
Which confirms my point:
If parents had less access to guns, or access to less powerful guns, then the kids, having only access to their parent's weapons, would then have less access to more dangerous or powerful guns...
To be honest, I don't think guns are the problem given that the Swiss keep military grade weapons in their houses
Weapons which they all learned how to use in their obligatory Military service, and which laws force them to keep in their homes under lock and key, with special restrictions on transportation and use...
They have their guns at home, the not the ammo, which is kept by the local authorities and only distributed in cases of necessity...
Aside from their military weapon, all other weapons require a license and getting this license is as stringent as getting one in Canada, from what I could read...
Not the same picture as the US where you can get many gun types at Wal-Mart... :)

Concerning the bombs, how many actually resulted in dead people compared to the guns in the aforementioned massacres?
Face it, the bombs aren't a big part of the body count, and if the killers had only wielded six-shooters, even with their bombs, the death toll would have been much, much lower in many cases...
I couldn't tell you were joking around, laws can be that sick and twisted like that, and some people honestly believe what you were saying.
That's why I felt I needed to clarify I was joking...
Last edited by Praeothmin on Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:46 pm


From what I've read here and there it seems areas in the USA with tighter gun control tend to have more crime for some reason. It isn't clear what those reasons are
Does crime include the selling of black market weapons?
And could it mean that the lack of weapons possessed by peaceful civilians allows criminals to be total dicks ?

Reality is, as the economy and welfare in the US is going to continue to plummet, the acquisition of high caliber guns is going to become a necessity.
Efficiency in killing won't matter. Efficiency in terror against the enemy will.
And overkill firepower will just do that, especially when facing a gang.
That a gang uses full automatics or not won't make much of a difference against you when you're alone or with a friend, lover or the family. The amount of lead thrown at you, past a certain point, won't dramatically change death rate and there will be a huge amount of wasted ammo on their part.
But the full auto on your side, though, will prove much more intimidating and useful, if only as a barrage weapon, than a limited semiauto handgun.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Khas » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:10 am


Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:21 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Does crime include the selling of black market weapons?
As far as I know they are talking about violent crime in areas with stricter gun control laws when compared to similar areas with more lax laws.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: And could it mean that the lack of weapons possessed by peaceful civilians allows criminals to be total dicks ?
Criminals don't care about laws, but I don't recall ever seeing something that says gun control lowers crime rates.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Reality is, as the economy and welfare in the US is going to continue to plummet, the acquisition of high caliber guns is going to become a necessity.
Efficiency in killing won't matter. Efficiency in terror against the enemy will.
And overkill firepower will just do that, especially when facing a gang.
That a gang uses full automatics or not won't make much of a difference against you when you're alone or with a friend, lover or the family. The amount of lead thrown at you, past a certain point, won't dramatically change death rate and there will be a huge amount of wasted ammo on their part.
But the full auto on your side, though, will prove much more intimidating and useful, if only as a barrage weapon, than a limited semiauto handgun.
You sound rather pessimistic. Things have been steadily improving where I live.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-12/news/ct-oped-0412-zorn-20130412_1_gun-debate-gun-rights-advocates-mandatory-background-checks wrote: Widely seen surveillance video of the attack shows a robber at the counter firing a handgun repeatedly at Quizhpe, 62, as he swings a baseball bat in self-defense. Only one of the bullets strikes him — in the leg, luckily — and the gunman and his accomplice eventually run off.

Are pistols really that erratic in the hands of the inexperienced? If so, is it any wonder that concealed-carry skeptics don't want to allow armed citizens on buses and trains?

I also don't understand how you can watch this video, which became the subject of news stories worldwide, and argue that store owners such as Quizhpe are better off because of Chicago laws that prohibit store employees from carrying handguns.

No, we don't want every stickup to result in a shootout — especially given the apparently random path taken by so many of the bullets — but we do want would-be predators to think twice before acting, and we don't want would-be victims to have to meet a Smith & Wesson with a Hillerich & Bradsby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3H18bkKyG8
I'd think you would want a gun that looks scary while being just big enough for the job. Two to the chest and one to the head to win their hearts and minds.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:23 am

Praeothmin wrote: Oh, I agree, but Germany has a population density of 600.52 per square mile and has less violent crimes than the US, less than Canada even, and the most densely populated centers in Canada don't necessarily have higher violent crimes than less populated ones...
Sorry for not being more direct about my point. I was trying to say that Canada and the USA have different problems do to different demographics

Praeothmin wrote: Well, this site says it is one of the largest in the US... :)
In all seriousness, the first time I knowingly visited a different city then Chicago, I thought I was in the outskirts of it until my brother (who had been living there for a few years) told me we were in down town Dallas Texas. Dallas is constructed in a manner that makes it look like your average Chicago suburb! it isn't simply size that make places like New York city and Chicago different.

It's rather interesting that the top 4 cities on that list are almost twice as large as the rest.

Praeothmin wrote: Well, I got the impression you were showing your drop in crime rates as proof that having guns work as crime deterrents, while I showed you ours to show that even not having a gun in every room in one's house didn't affect crime rates being lowered... :)
No, I was taking the multi-national drop in crime as being evidence that gun control was not a deciding factor.

Praeothmin wrote: Which confirms my point:
If parents had less access to guns, or access to less powerful guns, then the kids, having only access to their parent's weapons, would then have less access to more dangerous or powerful guns...
That article seemed to make it sound like that while purchasing a gun in Canada is a pain, but few who want guns are told no.

In all honesty I do not think you can make the firearms for sale in the USA any less powerful without targeting hunting rifles.

The problem is that the school shootings are planned weeks, months, and possibly years in advance, and the weapons tend to be taken from legal gun owners, and both pistols and rifles are used.

Praeothmin wrote: Weapons which they all learned how to use in their obligatory Military service, and which laws force them to keep in their homes under lock and key, with special restrictions on transportation and use...
They have their guns at home, the not the ammo, which is kept by the local authorities and only distributed in cases of necessity...
Aside from their military weapon, all other weapons require a license and getting this license is as stringent as getting one in Canada, from what I could read...
It isn't hard to get or even make ammunition if you want it. Laws are only followed by the lawful.
Praeothmin wrote: Not the same picture as the US where you can get many gun types at Wal-Mart... :)
I don't recall seeing firearms in my local Walmart in a long time.
Praeothmin wrote: Concerning the bombs, how many actually resulted in dead people compared to the guns in the aforementioned massacres?
None as far as I know, but that doesn't mean that bombs aren't part of the weapons used
Praeothmin wrote: Face it, the bombs aren't a big part of the body count, and if the killers had only wielded six-shooters, even with their bombs, the death toll would have been much, much lower in many cases...
Speed Loaders make reloading revolvers rather fast, kinda like changing a magazine.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:43 pm

It is only temporary and is becoming seriously limited in its war options, unless it manages to shake off the European hold on Africa, instate AFRICOM and seize opportunities there. Of course, the US economy that matters really is the domestic one, not revenues made oversea.
The US society is cracking at the seams.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:50 pm

Lucky wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Does crime include the selling of black market weapons?
As far as I know they are talking about violent crime in areas with stricter gun control laws when compared to similar areas with more lax laws.
IF there is a correlation between higher crime rate and higher gun control, it would be quite ironic.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And could it mean that the lack of weapons possessed by peaceful civilians allows criminals to be total dicks ?
Criminals don't care about laws, but I don't recall ever seeing something that says gun control lowers crime rates.
Law has nothing to do with my point, which is about good civilians possessing deterrent options against thugs.
If push comes to shove, "good" civilians will have to consider forming militias of their own in greater quantity and organization, and obtain by their own merits the security their state is clearly incapable of providing.
It will be close to a state of civil war, but without two big teams.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Reality is, as the economy and welfare in the US is going to continue to plummet, the acquisition of high caliber guns is going to become a necessity.
Efficiency in killing won't matter. Efficiency in terror against the enemy will.
And overkill firepower will just do that, especially when facing a gang.
That a gang uses full automatics or not won't make much of a difference against you when you're alone or with a friend, lover or the family. The amount of lead thrown at you, past a certain point, won't dramatically change death rate and there will be a huge amount of wasted ammo on their part.
But the full auto on your side, though, will prove much more intimidating and useful, if only as a barrage weapon, than a limited semiauto handgun.
You sound rather pessimistic. Things have been steadily improving where I live.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-12/news/ct-oped-0412-zorn-20130412_1_gun-debate-gun-rights-advocates-mandatory-background-checks wrote: Widely seen surveillance video of the attack shows a robber at the counter firing a handgun repeatedly at Quizhpe, 62, as he swings a baseball bat in self-defense. Only one of the bullets strikes him — in the leg, luckily — and the gunman and his accomplice eventually run off.
Aren't gangs' numbers and sizes are in progression, as much as forced prostitution that even hits WASP society women?
Industries hardly are healthy, and the Fed produces tons of cash and even uses it to buy its own bonds. That's pretty bleak.
Any sporadic "improvement", largely irrelevant in terms of magnitude in fact, surely misses the big picture and the rather grim global decay.
Are pistols really that erratic in the hands of the inexperienced? If so, is it any wonder that concealed-carry skeptics don't want to allow armed citizens on buses and trains?
Gun control ends being irrelevant, if the counter argument here is that some civilians are concerned about other civilians carrying weapons in buses and trains.
The real problem isn't that civilians as a whole could own a variety of weapons.
The problem would be that some civilians think they have to carry weapons in public transport.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:13 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: IF there is a correlation between higher crime rate and higher gun control, it would be quite ironic.
You'd have to look at trends in places like Washington D.C. which have stricter gun control laws, and similar areas. I haven't looked very in depth.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Law has nothing to do with my point, which is about good civilians possessing deterrent options against thugs.
If push comes to shove, "good" civilians will have to consider forming militias of their own in greater quantity and organization, and obtain by their own merits the security their state is clearly incapable of providing.
It will be close to a state of civil war, but without two big teams.
The National Guard is suppose to be called in before it comes to that.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Aren't gangs' numbers and sizes are in progression, as much as forced prostitution that even hits WASP society women?
I have no idea, and I do not know where to find those sorts of people.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Industries hardly are healthy, and the Fed produces tons of cash and even uses it to buy its own bonds. That's pretty bleak.
That doesn't sound good, but it doesn't change the fact that the economy is improving.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Any sporadic "improvement", largely irrelevant in terms of magnitude in fact, surely misses the big picture and the rather grim global decay.
As far as I can tell the fire has mostly burnt itself out, and new growth is sprouting from the ashes where I live.

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Gun control ends being irrelevant, if the counter argument here is that some civilians are concerned about other civilians carrying weapons in buses and trains.
The real problem isn't that civilians as a whole could own a variety of weapons.
The problem would be that some civilians think they have to carry weapons in public transport.
Have you ever watched the Andy Griffith Show? Would you really want a bunch of Barney Fife wan-a-bes out there? Untrained people carrying guns is something you need to deal with if you want to have carry laws.

There need not be a logical and rational reason to want to carry a weapon. There are people who honestly believe that there are flying man eating cows trying to get into their bedroom every time the wind blows. I personally know someone who thinks that.

User15084
Welcome the new member!
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by User15084 » Tue May 27, 2014 2:26 pm

Assault rifle and assault weapon are not the same thing. An assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm regardless if it is a pistol, or rifle with a detachable magazine with certain cosmetic features and shot guns with certain features. An assault rifle is a automatic or burst rifle that uses a intermediate cartridge.


_______________________________________
bark river knives

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu May 29, 2014 3:03 pm

Lol, you're all wasting time on laws and whatever. Who cares about these dead people? You? no, their deaths don't prevent you from sleeping and the only thing you can think of doing is talking. You're just afraid that it might happen to you or someone dear you know.
Then, guess what. The best way to avoid this is to move away and create a better community with people you care for. Rep/dem blah blah blah, the shit will be the same in 20 years. No, wait. It will be worse. Much worse. So just take your affairs and settle in a nice little knitted community, where individualism isn't the norm and where rules have meaning, where you can send your kids to school safely, and where people really know each other. Otherwise you're simply wasting your time in discussions that never end.

User avatar
Brickman Catalhoyuk
Candidate
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2023 8:31 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Brickman Catalhoyuk » Tue Jan 31, 2023 8:22 pm

Anyone who supports anti-gun "laws" is evil subhuman garbage and should be killed to protect ourselves from them and their masters.

Post Reply