The one thing I think everyone agrees on is that we'd like safer streets, airports, schools, malls, etc, etc.    The problem is how to get there.   IMO, the "We gotta ban assault weapons" mantra is just a knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook.   Of course, as of late, the fact that the psycho played violent video games has been getting a lot of play.    Maybe, if you're the parent of a child(young adult) living in your home filled with locked up guns, you should think about what he's doing in his free time.  I know the mother paid the ultimate price for less-than-stellar parenting but some of the fault lies with her.   Should we introduce legislation pertaining to parenting?

I think we need less government and more community and individuals.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
If I said "I want to fire 100 rounds into a crowd really quickly", don't you think my weapon of choice would be an AW?  That's what the left is telling you.

That said, the obvious counter is "How many times has that happened?"     The answer is "one".    Now the question is "Do we want to infringe upon individual rights due to one incident?"   Some people think that's enough.    I don't happen to agree.

I'm not interested in an assault weapon ban because of what has happened.  That's clearly the wrong reasoning.  You generate a ban because of what you have reasonable fear WILL happen.  The reality is that even at Sandy Hook, similar carnage could easily have been enacted with conventional weapons, given the circumstances.  But I would rather have a ban BEFORE 3 guys with automatic weapons kill 1000 people in 10 minutes than AFTER that incident.

It HAS happened, just not here.  The Tian Mingjian Incident in China involved 1 man killing and injuring upwards of 100 people with a Chinese military assault rifle.  The Uiryeong Massacre saw one South Korean police officer kill 57 people with an M2 automatic rifle and some grenades.  The history is there.

I don't want as big a ban as many democrats, but I would at least like to ban anything automatic and live grenades.  If tanks are illegal, grenades sure as hell should be.  They're a lot easier for the average person to use.

If one can defend themselves with a handgun, why do they need an assault weapon?

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2013 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
If I said "I want to fire 100 rounds into a crowd really quickly", don't you think my weapon of choice would be an AW?  That's what the left is telling you.

That said, the obvious counter is "How many times has that happened?"     The answer is "one".    Now the question is "Do we want to infringe upon individual rights due to one incident?"   Some people think that's enough.    I don't happen to agree.

I'm not interested in an assault weapon ban because of what has happened.  That's clearly the wrong reasoning.  You generate a ban because of what you have reasonable fear WILL happen.  The reality is that even at Sandy Hook, similar carnage could easily have been enacted with conventional weapons, given the circumstances.  But I would rather have a ban BEFORE 3 guys with automatic weapons kill 1000 people in 10 minutes than AFTER that incident.

It HAS happened, just not here.  The Tian Mingjian Incident in China involved 1 man killing and injuring upwards of 100 people with a Chinese military assault rifle.  The Uiryeong Massacre saw one South Korean police officer kill 57 people with an M2 automatic rifle and some grenades.  The history is there.

I don't want as big a ban as many democrats, but I would at least like to ban anything automatic and live grenades.  If tanks are illegal, grenades sure as hell should be.  They're a lot easier for the average person to use.

You'll have to define "reasonable fear".

FWIW, men armed with boxcutters, something you can buy at Home Depot for 4 bucks, crashed planes into American institutions.   There is a "reasonable fear", IMO, that it could happen again.   If you think such objects aren't on your plane, I'm sure you're mistaken.    I could make a belt buckle pretty damn sharp.

Good luck getting into a cockpit.

At least you'd have to aim your belt buckle at what you were trying to stab.

I thought you were kidding about the sharpened belt buckle...lol, really?

Serious question. How exactly are you gong to sharpen the belt buckle?