Should the US institute a ban on assault weapons.

24567…28

Comments

  • Lifted
    Lifted Posts: 1,836
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    dignin said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Exactly, the rifle at top probably has a 14 round tube magazine that cannot be reloaded easily, quickly, or even at all under the direst of circumstances. It is unwieldy for crowded areas, can easily be grabbed, and is very hard to conceal.
    The same rifle, when converted to gun porn status, can fire thousands of rounds in tens of minutes. It is easily concealed to the point of the use, easily weildable in tight spaces, and can be fired accurately from the hip, making it a much more deadly weapon for mass casualty scenarios.

    Wrong, the top rifle also accepts the same magazines as the lower. And there is no such thing as accurate firing from the hip.
    And all that a person would have to do to make the top rifle into the bottom is change the stock. How exactly is that going to be stopped? Not to mention all a person would have to do to make the top one "more concealable" is saw off the stock to make it more akin to a pistol.
    I believe most "sawed off" guns are already illegal. I may be wrong.
    You are right, although that doesn't really stop a person from getting a hack saw and doing it.
    Well by making murder illegal we haven't stopped murders. So what's your point?
    Murder is an act and a gun is an inanimate object. I'm all about harsh penalties for people that commit crimes with guns. Funny how people say "how can you compare guns to cars" and what not, yet you are comparing owning a gun to murder? I get that you want to turn ar-15 owners into felons, but come on...
    Cars serve a legitimate purpose which doesn't include killing. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. This analogy is so idiotic. Furthermore, driving a car is seen as a privelage, not a right, and driving privelages are regulated much more than gun ownership. Doesn't seem too radical to strive for, at the very least, similar regulations when it comes to gun ownership.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    dignin said:

    PJPOWER said:

    dignin said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Exactly, the rifle at top probably has a 14 round tube magazine that cannot be reloaded easily, quickly, or even at all under the direst of circumstances. It is unwieldy for crowded areas, can easily be grabbed, and is very hard to conceal.
    The same rifle, when converted to gun porn status, can fire thousands of rounds in tens of minutes. It is easily concealed to the point of the use, easily weildable in tight spaces, and can be fired accurately from the hip, making it a much more deadly weapon for mass casualty scenarios.

    Wrong, the top rifle also accepts the same magazines as the lower. And there is no such thing as accurate firing from the hip.
    And all that a person would have to do to make the top rifle into the bottom is change the stock. How exactly is that going to be stopped? Not to mention all a person would have to do to make the top one "more concealable" is saw off the stock to make it more akin to a pistol.
    I believe most "sawed off" guns are already illegal. I may be wrong.
    You are right, although that doesn't really stop a person from getting a hack saw and doing it.
    Well by making murder illegal we haven't stopped murders. So what's your point?
    Murder is an act and a gun is an inanimate object. I'm all about harsh penalties for people that commit crimes with guns. Funny how people say "how can you compare guns to cars" and what not, yet you are comparing owning a gun to murder? I get that you want to turn ar-15 owners into felons, but come on...
    You completely missed the point.

    I will put the analogy another way. We have made drinking underage illegal, kids still drink. We have made drunk driving illegal, people still drive drunk. So should we just say, FUCK IT! Some people are going to break laws so whats the point in having laws? No, we don't do that because were not idiots.

    Do you get it?
    So shooting people with gun is illegal, right? Alcohol and cars are still legal though, right? Damn, you made me do it. Just compared guns and cars, lol. For the record, you started it.
    For the record, alcohol kills way more people and is probably way more detrimental and costly to society than all guns combined. Maybe we should make it illegal...wait already tried that. I propose psychological tests, waiting periods, permits, annual drinking tests. If your IQ is lower than 140, no alcohol for you!
    Edit: damn, now I'm just being facetious. Time to take a break from this topic- sorry for not taking you seriously.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    No
    Free said:

    There are 2 uses for assault weapons.

    1. Target practice
    2. To kill

    If you're not going to the shooting range why would one own an assault weapon?

    You just contradicted your own vote...target practice is enough of a reason


  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    Lifted said:

    PJPOWER said:

    dignin said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Exactly, the rifle at top probably has a 14 round tube magazine that cannot be reloaded easily, quickly, or even at all under the direst of circumstances. It is unwieldy for crowded areas, can easily be grabbed, and is very hard to conceal.
    The same rifle, when converted to gun porn status, can fire thousands of rounds in tens of minutes. It is easily concealed to the point of the use, easily weildable in tight spaces, and can be fired accurately from the hip, making it a much more deadly weapon for mass casualty scenarios.

    Wrong, the top rifle also accepts the same magazines as the lower. And there is no such thing as accurate firing from the hip.
    And all that a person would have to do to make the top rifle into the bottom is change the stock. How exactly is that going to be stopped? Not to mention all a person would have to do to make the top one "more concealable" is saw off the stock to make it more akin to a pistol.
    I believe most "sawed off" guns are already illegal. I may be wrong.
    You are right, although that doesn't really stop a person from getting a hack saw and doing it.
    Well by making murder illegal we haven't stopped murders. So what's your point?
    Murder is an act and a gun is an inanimate object. I'm all about harsh penalties for people that commit crimes with guns. Funny how people say "how can you compare guns to cars" and what not, yet you are comparing owning a gun to murder? I get that you want to turn ar-15 owners into felons, but come on...
    Cars serve a legitimate purpose which doesn't include killing. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. This analogy is so idiotic. Furthermore, driving a car is seen as a privelage, not a right, and driving privelages are regulated much more than gun ownership. Doesn't seem too radical to strive for, at the very least, similar regulations when it comes to gun ownership.
    You are right, idiotic. So why then go on to say they should have similar regulations? They are not related to each other in the least. Guns are seen as a right, not a privilege. I think people have an inherent fear that politicians might use registration as a tool for confiscation. I cannot say that those fears are totally unwarranted.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Lifted
    Lifted Posts: 1,836
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    Lifted said:

    PJPOWER said:

    dignin said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Exactly, the rifle at top probably has a 14 round tube magazine that cannot be reloaded easily, quickly, or even at all under the direst of circumstances. It is unwieldy for crowded areas, can easily be grabbed, and is very hard to conceal.
    The same rifle, when converted to gun porn status, can fire thousands of rounds in tens of minutes. It is easily concealed to the point of the use, easily weildable in tight spaces, and can be fired accurately from the hip, making it a much more deadly weapon for mass casualty scenarios.

    Wrong, the top rifle also accepts the same magazines as the lower. And there is no such thing as accurate firing from the hip.
    And all that a person would have to do to make the top rifle into the bottom is change the stock. How exactly is that going to be stopped? Not to mention all a person would have to do to make the top one "more concealable" is saw off the stock to make it more akin to a pistol.
    I believe most "sawed off" guns are already illegal. I may be wrong.
    You are right, although that doesn't really stop a person from getting a hack saw and doing it.
    Well by making murder illegal we haven't stopped murders. So what's your point?
    Murder is an act and a gun is an inanimate object. I'm all about harsh penalties for people that commit crimes with guns. Funny how people say "how can you compare guns to cars" and what not, yet you are comparing owning a gun to murder? I get that you want to turn ar-15 owners into felons, but come on...
    Cars serve a legitimate purpose which doesn't include killing. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. This analogy is so idiotic. Furthermore, driving a car is seen as a privelage, not a right, and driving privelages are regulated much more than gun ownership. Doesn't seem too radical to strive for, at the very least, similar regulations when it comes to gun ownership.
    You are right, idiotic. So why then go on to say they should have similar regulations? They are not related to each other in the least. Guns are seen as a right, not a privilege. I think people have an inherent fear that politicians might use registration as a tool for confiscation. I cannot say that those fears are totally unwarranted.
    Well i voted yes to an assault weapons ban. Not because I think that would rid us of our gun problem; I think the only way to affect major change in that aspect is through strict regulations involving training, right of ownership, and the manufacturing and distribution of firearms across the board at the federal level. Im still in favor of an assault weapons ban however, because I think they serve zero purpose other than to inflict mass casualties and/or for gun lovers to get off on at a shooting range. The idea thrown around by gun enthusiasts that somehow someone in favor of banning certain weapons should also be in favor of banning cars is idiotic to me, because cars have a purpose other than to kill.

    I do think it's rational in the spirit of consistency in regards to public safety that we, at the very least, approach gun ownership as strictly as we do driving privelages.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    Fair enough, we all have a right to opposite opinions and votes. Seems like a bit of a rediculous poll for a group of mostly liberals in a Pearl Jam forum though. Hope it was not for scientific research purposes, lol
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • lolobugg
    lolobugg BLUE RDGE MTNS Posts: 8,195
    Yes
    alcohol is legal but I have the right to not partake/ drink it and ultimately kill myself.
    I don't, unfortunately have the right to choose whether or not some crazy asshole with a gun will decide to shoot me.
    that is why there should be laws in place to protect the innocent.
    I guess the gun nuts will have to find another hobby that doesn't include shooting up a cardboard target of a human.

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446

    1995- New Orleans, LA  : New Orleans, LA

    1996- Charleston, SC

    1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN

    2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN

    2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA

    2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)

    2006- Cincinnati, OH

    2008- Columbia, SC

    2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2

    2010- Bristow, VA

    2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL

    2012- Atlanta, GA

    2013- Charlotte, NC

    2014- Cincinnati, OH

    2015- New York, NY

    2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA

    2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY

    2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2

    2020- Nashville, TN 

    2022- Smashville 

    2023- Austin, TX x2

    2024- Baltimore

  • Amongst the Ani
    Amongst the Ani @Wobbie Posts: 7,790
    Yes
    Ban assault riffles and completely close the gun show loop hole. All gun sales should go through the background check system. Pump some funds into making the background check process instantaneous on new checks. With technology and the databases available it should be possible. It is insane to me that any person can obtain many high powered weapons in a private sale with no check needed.
    Tom Brady & Donald Trump, BFF's
    Fuckus rules all
    Rob
    Seattle
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,295
    PJPOWER said:

    Automatic or semi-automatic? There is a difference. There is already a ban on "automatic" rifles. They can be obtained, but it takes a major process.

    Plus it costs around $30K to buy one. A guy I worked with was going through the process and I about crapped when he said how much he was spending.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    other
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    Exactly, the rifle at top probably has a 14 round tube magazine that cannot be reloaded easily, quickly, or even at all under the direst of circumstances. It is unwieldy for crowded areas, can easily be grabbed, and is very hard to conceal.
    The same rifle, when converted to gun porn status, can fire thousands of rounds in tens of minutes. It is easily concealed to the point of the use, easily weildable in tight spaces, and can be fired accurately from the hip, making it a much more deadly weapon for mass casualty scenarios.

    Wrong, the top rifle also accepts the same magazines as the lower. And there is no such thing as accurate firing from the hip.
    And all that a person would have to do to make the top rifle into the bottom is change the stock. How exactly is that going to be stopped? Not to mention all a person would have to do to make the top one "more concealable" is saw off the stock to make it more akin to a pistol.
    Well then let's limit those magazine sizes so scumbags at least have to reload!
    Accurate firing isn't necessary for mass casualty scenarios, and besides, you are equivocating, you know the truth is that pistol and fore grips make a rifle more maneuverable and accurate in a mass casualty scenario.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,576
    Yes
    It's not even close how many of us here want something to be done instead of the folks that just want status quo to continue, every couple of months a massacre happens no big deal let's just cut it as collateral damage !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Force Of Nature
    Force Of Nature York, England Posts: 1,134
    Yes
    What is stopping a ban on guns in the US? Or at least stricter laws?

    If the president of the us wanted more laws, couldn't he just enforce them? Is it a public vote and less than 50% want change?
    (Yes I'm ignorant to how US laws come into practice)
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,665
    edited June 2016
    Yes
    While it's the gun and violence culture that really needs to change, I also support gun regulation, and I see absolutely no reason for anyone who is a civilian to own an assault weapon, and there shouldn't be opportunity for a potential murderer to buy them legally. A ban of them would reduce the ability of those who shouldn't have them to get their hands on them (at the very least, people should have to jump through EXTENSIVE hoops to get them - I'm talking full on investigation into their personal lives and shit... just the wait list to get a license this way would probably deter a lot of people). Any reduction in gun violence warrants further regulation IMO. Why the fuck not? I couldn't care less about gun nuts who enjoy their gun hard ons. Doesn't matter to me one bit if they are sad about not being able to get their little rush from firing a stupid AR-15 or whatever at the range.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,409
    edited June 2016
    Yes
    Force Of Nature said:

    What is stopping a ban on guns in the US? Or at least stricter laws?

    If the president of the us wanted more laws, couldn't he just enforce them? Is it a public vote and less than 50% want change?
    (Yes I'm ignorant to how US laws come into practice)

    There will never be a ban on guns in the U.S.

    Basically laws have to get through congress before going to the president.

    He could, I think, do an executive order, but all hell would break loose.
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,112
    edited June 2016
    No
    Bentleyspop said:

    Force Of Nature said:

    What is stopping a ban on guns in the US? Or at least stricter laws?

    If the president of the us wanted more laws, couldn't he just enforce them? Is it a public vote and less than 50% want change?
    (Yes I'm ignorant to how US laws come into practice)

    There will never be a ban on guns in the U.S.

    Basically laws have to get through congress before going to the president.

    He could, I think, do an executive order, but all hell would break loose.
    Plus you have that thing called the 2nd amendment
    Post edited by mcgruff10 on
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,665
    edited June 2016
    Yes
    Force Of Nature said:

    What is stopping a ban on guns in the US? Or at least stricter laws?

    If the president of the us wanted more laws, couldn't he just enforce them? Is it a public vote and less than 50% want change?
    (Yes I'm ignorant to how US laws come into practice)

    Yeah, it doesn't work like this, since it's not a dictatorship.
    You wouldn't believe the power that the NRA/gun lobbyists have managed to gain in government and over Republicans (who hold a majority in both Congress and the Senate right now). Obama can't get around them without basically starting a civil war. If he could he most certainly would.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,050
    Yes
    Force Of Nature said:

    What is stopping a ban on guns in the US? Or at least stricter laws?

    If the president of the us wanted more laws, couldn't he just enforce them? Is it a public vote and less than 50% want change?
    (Yes I'm ignorant to how US laws come into practice)

    what is stopping it? that's easy. the NRA and the republican party.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Yes
    pjalive21 said:

    Free said:

    There are 2 uses for assault weapons.

    1. Target practice
    2. To kill

    If you're not going to the shooting range why would one own an assault weapon?

    You just contradicted your own vote...target practice is enough of a reason


    And how many people with "collections" actually go to target practice?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,050
    Yes
    mcgruff10 said:

    Bentleyspop said:

    Force Of Nature said:

    What is stopping a ban on guns in the US? Or at least stricter laws?

    If the president of the us wanted more laws, couldn't he just enforce them? Is it a public vote and less than 50% want change?
    (Yes I'm ignorant to how US laws come into practice)

    There will never be a ban on guns in the U.S.

    Basically laws have to get through congress before going to the president.

    He could, I think, do an executive order, but all hell would break loose.
    Plus you have that thing called the 2nd amendment
    an outdated poorly written article needs to rewritten, or even repealed.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,112
    No
    Free said:

    pjalive21 said:

    Free said:

    There are 2 uses for assault weapons.

    1. Target practice
    2. To kill

    If you're not going to the shooting range why would one own an assault weapon?

    You just contradicted your own vote...target practice is enough of a reason


    And how many people with "collections" actually go to target practice?
    I do Twice a month. The 200 yard range is fun. I also shoot skeet a few times a year and go shoot my handgun every few months.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......

Categories