Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
If they're clever, they could classify it a rocket launcher.
#NRAlogic
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I hope it holstered while we speak, anything else would make this a bit weird for me.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
dude do you even own a gun ???? First you were saying ALL firearms with detachable mags will be banned. Now after I called your false info out, you screaming about people not being able to put a silencer on a firearm or fire 100 rounds without burning your fucking hand. Not having a barrel shroud or a threaded barrel does not hinder your rights to carry arms. My home is defended by my shot gun. Nine pellets of .33 caliber ball will put an end to your entry. Outside the home is defended by either my g23 or my g27. Neither comes close to being banned. nor the 9mm from my service days.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Lol @ banning the 10 round magazine, semi automatic, extended length barrel PS90 and not the 30 round, fully automatic "hide under your jacket" type P90.I'm not a gun expert so I've stayed out the fringe arguments. I can't hold a candle to the knowledge you guys have shared on guns. I'll put up the list that Feinstein's bill bans and you guys can argue the merits.
An M93r would've been a good choice for pistols too.
Stop crying Londonfag, noones listening.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Maybe that's the problem with you... You trying to listen to the words I type. Try reading the words. You might learn something. I hope you have now learned that ALL detachable weapons will not be banned. You really need to stop talking like you know anything about firearms. The full auto p90 you can't own now anyway without a stamp ( its a full auto
)...The ps90 was the civilian version. I think the ban is for the fact it can still use the standard mags of the p90, which holds 50. Having a fully automatic "hide under your jacket" type P90...is illegal
deprave
New Member
You really don't get it, It doesn't matter if "NOT ALL DETATCHABLE MAGAZINES" would be banned tomorrow.Maybe that's the problem with you... You trying to listen to the words I type. Try reading the words. You might learn something. I hope you have now learned that ALL detachable weapons will not be banned. You really need to stop talking like you know anything about firearms. The full auto p90 you can't own now anyway without a stamp ( its a full auto
woody333333
Well-Known Member
Buck.............did u miss this it seems perfect http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/nra-500-suicide_n_3082119.html
kelly4
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that UB condones Nascar fans from Texas committing suicide...no matter how it's done.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
He missed my quote about laws being easily amended after the fact.
He also seems to have missed my point about "stepping stone" laws, where this bill would be the first of progressively more harsh gun legislation.
Its happened time and again across the world and across recorded history.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
What you don't get is people being misinformed and talking what they don't know. I mean the guy actually thinks you can walk around with a full auto P90 legally. I mean if we are to have a discussion stick to fucking facts. We had a similar ban before and the world did not end. In fact the 1994 Fed. Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf .
The right to bare arms does not give you the right to have a 50 mag assault rifle to use, when a shotgun or a decent hand gun could do the job. What next you feel the need to also be allowed to carry around a weapon equipped with a M203. WTF
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Murder rates by gun have dropped since the ban expired. In fact, the murder rate stopped declining until the ban was lifted and started dropping again. Does this mean banning the ban reduced gun murders? Stats and charts are fun!
londonfog
Well-Known Member
link to said chart would be nice .... I try to always provide link to my info..You do the sameMurder rates by gun have dropped since the ban expired. In fact, the murder rate stopped declining until the ban was lifted and started dropping again. Does this mean banning the ban reduced gun murders? Stats and charts are fun!
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
sorry man, I usually try to do that too. This is where that chart came from.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7056
I googled murder by guns since assault weapons ban expired and there is a litany of choices to link if you want more. I can't find any that aren't obviously biased though. Each article uses the stats to show a ban is useless. You won't like them.
What is obvious is murder and violent crime are dropping all over the world, maybe we are evolving?
edit for discussion: If it's true that murder by gun rates have dropped since the ban expired, what does this mean to you?
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7056
I googled murder by guns since assault weapons ban expired and there is a litany of choices to link if you want more. I can't find any that aren't obviously biased though. Each article uses the stats to show a ban is useless. You won't like them.
What is obvious is murder and violent crime are dropping all over the world, maybe we are evolving?
edit for discussion: If it's true that murder by gun rates have dropped since the ban expired, what does this mean to you?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
The first thing I notice was the drastic drop in homicides when the ban came into play. I do notice that it did stay pretty leveled after the ban expired. Now do we logically think that this low rate will stay the same after the ban is lifted for 10 years ?? The run on guns did not even start until after Barrack Obama became our POTUS, so its really to early to tell seeing how the run on guns just started. I myself feel the ban worked by proof of the chart you supplied. The drop is incredible from 1995-2005, which brought us to the lower numbers of 2010.
The whole point of gun control with banning certain firearms and mag restrictions are to lower the number of deaths caused by firearms. Its crazy to even think that allowing anyone to carry a 30+ mag will REDUCE deaths. Please show me the logic in that. James Holmes had an AR-15 (100 round mag drum), a Remington 870 shotgun and a 40 caliber glock handgun. They recovered 209 live AR-15 rounds and 15 .40 caliber handgun round, also another 33 shots were used to killed 12 people and unknown amount that injured 54 more. We actually got lucky more did not die. Now do you say to prevent this EVERYONE should be able to carry this or do you say we need to ban some of this shit. I vote for the latter of the two.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
If you notice, the drop started before the ban went into effect. If I get to use your same logic as the run on guns is going to create more murders, it just hasn't happened yet, why I can't I then say that the murder rate was dropping until the assault ban was put in place, then it leveled off as it took affect, then after the ban was lifted, it started dropping again.
To reply to the sentence in bold if I may. Our goal should be to reduce murders, I could not care less what method that murder was carried out with. Murder rates are dropping all over the world and that's pretty cool. It gives thought that we may actually be advancing as humans. If you could show how gun control measures in US cities have worked compared to other cities without, we can have an apples to apples to discussion. I haven't seen any stats on this and think it might be informative. I'd like to see the drop in murder rates and violent crimes of cities like Detroit, Gary Ind, Birmingham Al and compare those to cities like NYC, DC, Chicago that have enacted gun control laws.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I notice the drop and I notice when the drop was drastic. Look at your chart and tell me what 5 years did it drop the most ???
lol @comparing Birmingham to Chicago ... different beast
Genesisgrower
Member
Hey check out Freakonics on the drop in major crime rates if yall get a chance. Basically states less criminals are being born.
Here is the quote that London thinks is some kind of fact, emphasis added so that stupid people can see where the problem lies.
And it was STATE to boot, not federal like London states it is.
In other words: London told a big fat lie.
Again.
Edit: And I wanted to add: