WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Assault Weapon Ban. Months and months later?

kilo_juliet

i have a nuke fetish
65
0
0
#1
Several months have gone bye now since the Assault Weapon Ban expired. Has there been any streets running red with blood due to machine gun battles in your local area?
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#2
Why do you ask?
Put on the Communist News Network (CNN) and you'll see if it happens. :cool:
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,970
1,391
487
#3
kilo_juliet said:
Several months have gone bye now since the Assault Weapon Ban expired.
Including a link in these types of threads helps out a lot. As well as posting more than a single sentence about it.
Has there been any streets running red with blood due to machine gun battles in your local area?
No, but that's an awful vague question. Why do you ask? What's your reasoning behind this? What are your streets like?

Try to put an effort into your post, you'll receive a much better response. People shouldn't have to research your post, just to reply to it. Moreover, if you're going to pose a question, at least offer us your answers or views.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#4
Well...
I can guess..

Kilo Julliet sounds a bit military to me. KJ has been in the military, or feels linked with it. The fact that he opened a thread about assault weapons confirms that.

The question seems rhetoric to me, and I expect an answer from him like..
"Look and see how dumb the Clinton administration was to ban assault weapons!".. Or something like that.
 
685
0
0
#5
Well, regardless of whether or not KJ is military, his point is implicit. Has there really been anything out there that supports the existence of the Assault Weapons Ban? I haven't come across anything that screams, "HEY! People are running all willy-nilly through the streets with weapons that have pistol-grips and removable magazines and shooting people."
But then, we won't have any real data to look at for another year or so. The only thing we can say at this point is, "Look, Mr. Clinton, the world didn't end when we lifted the Assault Weapons Ban"... or ... "Hey, anti-gun lobbyist, the slippery-slope wasn't so slippery after all."
Only time will tell whether or not lifting the Ban actually contributed to anything. Besides, potato, potata. The only thing we really know is that any law just keeps an honest man honest.
 
405
1
78
#6
I've got mixed feelings about the assualt weapons issue.
On one hand it is a constitutional right to bear arms(the idea is protection both from outside agressors and protection from the government in the even of it losing its way) and I'm all for keeping constitutional rights and following through with them. On the other hand there are some psychos who would go and use assualt weapons occasionally for the wrong purposes.
 

BrIONwoshMunky

EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!
Staff
9,571
1,275
387
#7
Yeah, just like people who take their hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns out and do crazy shit.
 
405
1
78
#8
BrIONwoshMunky said:
Yeah, just like people who take their hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns out and do crazy shit.
I'm just saying it can be a little worse when a guy has a full auto assualt weapon in a shopping mall as compared to same guy with a pistol...
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,970
1,391
487
#9
WILD said:
I've got mixed feelings about the assualt weapons issue.
On one hand it is a constitutional right to bear arms(the idea is protection both from outside agressors and protection from the government in the even of it losing its way) and I'm all for keeping constitutional rights and following through with them.
I agree, it's kind of grey area. Our right to bear arms was originally to protect citizen's rights to hunt and protect themselves. However, assault rifles aren't commonly used for hunting and are probably the stupidest choice for self protection. The only people who really lose out with the assault rifle ban would be hobbyist or enthusiasts, and I think they should be able to own these guns under their constitutional right. I don't think there is really a good way to solve this, or at least none I can think of. I definitely don't want my neighbor sporting an Ak-47 for home protection though.
 
685
0
0
#10
WILD said:
I'm just saying it can be a little worse when a guy has a full auto assualt weapon in a shopping mall as compared to same guy with a pistol...
You're absolutely right. Just as it could be a lot worse if someone had access to fertilizer and fuel-oil. Oh...wait...Oklahoma City..
My point is that the legality of purchase or ownership of a weapon will not prevent bad things from happening. You'll have some data to support the opposite, but nothing earth-shattering or even substantial. If someone really wants to get it done, they'll figure out a way....i.e. run a plane into a building.
Legislating ourselves to death isn't protecting society from anything...it's only enabling the idiots to run free.
 
1,723
90
112
#11
Well, an Uzi is not used to hunt deer. The only use for assault weapons is to kill people, hunting rifles are used for hunting, as are shotguns, pistols are used for self-defense, and yes, I admit that they are used to kill people, but an assault rifle is going a bit overboard, don't you think? Do you really need an M-16 for home defense? Why do you even want a fully automatic weapon in your house? What is the point?
 
405
1
78
#12
FlipTheState said:
You're absolutely right. Just as it could be a lot worse if someone had access to fertilizer and fuel-oil. Oh...wait...Oklahoma City..
My point is that the legality of purchase or ownership of a weapon will not prevent bad things from happening. You'll have some data to support the opposite, but nothing earth-shattering or even substantial. If someone really wants to get it done, they'll figure out a way....i.e. run a plane into a building.
Legislating ourselves to death isn't protecting society from anything...it's only enabling the idiots to run free.
I wasn't arguing agaisnt owning weapons, I'm more for than agaisnt assualt weapons being legal under the idea that bad people would do what they need to do to carry out their plans regardless. The thing is though that if someone who wasn't planning to do something horrible in the first place lost it it would be better if all that guy had in his house to shoot around with was a pistol or hunting rifle as compared to an assualt rifle.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,970
1,391
487
#13
canadian_pov said:
Do you really need an M-16 for home defense?
My point exactly. Keeping an assault rifle for home protection is almost an assurance that you'll take out the neighbors while trying to shoot your burglar. The same goes for pistols, but they have more practical use. Personally, I think you're a fucking moron to use anything other than a shotgun for home protection though.
Why do you even want a fully automatic weapon in your house? What is the point?
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal in the US unless you're law enforcement, so that point is moot. Assault rifles are generally just high caliber rifles that aren't suitable for hunting.
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#14
kilo_juliet said:
Several months have gone bye now since the Assault Weapon Ban expired. Has there been any streets running red with blood due to machine gun battles in your local area?
They aren't worried they'll blame it on Doom.

"YOUR VIOLENT GAMES INSPIRED MY SON TO BUY AN AK-47 OFF THE STREETS IN THE BLACK MARKET AND SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE IN SCHOOL, EVEN THOUGH YOU SAVE HUMANITY FROM DEMONS IN THE GAME AND ARE HUMANITY'S SAVIOR! WE'VE ESTABLISHED A CLEAR LINK!"

That's how the U.S. Government works - they never make a mistake so they are the best government in the world. It's all the civilian artist's fault. Rock and roll and comic books and Dungeons and Dragons kills too.
Junglizm said:
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal in the US unless you're law enforcement, so that point is moot. Assault rifles are generally just high caliber rifles that aren't suitable for hunting.
Yes, because they are generally weak and horrible snipers. An AK-47 makes holes in a watermelon while a 5.57mm sniper rifle literally liqifies it.
 
685
0
0
#15
junglizm said:
Keeping an assault rifle for home protection is almost an assurance that you'll take out the neighbors while trying to shoot your burglar.
Acutally, most assault-style weapons make better home defense weapons that a pistol or even some shotguns. it's really a matter of skill and training. The problem is, if person A has the skills and training to use an assault weapon efficiently and person B doesn't...how do we know who's who? You're right, any idiot off the street with an assault weapon is a messy situation waiting to happen. An AK-47, I don't think people should own...but a civilian model M-16 or M-4 (AR-15/CAR-15) are perfect...if you know what the hell you're doing. I know there are few weapons that I'd prefer over an M-4 inside a building.
junglizm said:
Assault rifles are generally just high caliber rifles that aren't suitable for hunting.
It's not the caliber of the weapon that gets it filed in the "Assault Weapon" category. The CAR-15 and AR-15 are classified as assault weapons and they shoot a .223 projectile, only slightly larger than a .22
Oh, and you absolutely can hunt a deer with that weapon, and without going all "Full Metal Jacket" on it. Not saying everyone should...or could...but it can be done.

One last thing, some assault-style weapons and even pistols and shotguns are awesome sport weapons, especially if you've got reaction training.
Anyways, I'm not saying everyone should have one, just that Congress shouldn't have to legislate everything down to the Nth degree. Or, if it has to be done, at least come up with a definition of "Assault Weapon" that makes sense...currently it's just a pistol grip and removable magazine...unless my head is in my ass.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,970
1,391
487
#16
FlipTheState said:
Acutally, most assault-style weapons make better home defense weapons that a pistol or even some shotguns. it's really a matter of skill and training. The problem is, if person A has the skills and training to use an assault weapon efficiently and person B doesn't...how do we know who's who? You're right, any idiot off the street with an assault weapon is a messy situation waiting to happen. An AK-47, I don't think people should own...but a civilian model M-16 or M-4 (AR-15/CAR-15) are perfect...if you know what the hell you're doing. I know there are few weapons that I'd prefer over an M-4 inside a building.
That's both ridiculous and incorrect. It has nothing to do with skill (especially since most gun owners are horribly untrained), rather the distance and velocity at which the projectiles will travel. Even a .22 has the power to pierce insulation and siding, and enter an adjacent home. As well as possibly traveling up to a mile after that.

Moreover, a shotgun, aside from being exponentially safer, provides a better chance of hitting your target, and from a wider ranger of firing positions. Especially since most home encounters would place the assailant less than 10 feet away. I could fire a shotgun from the hip and still hit someone 99.9% of the time at that distance.

I'm an Army veteran and have trained with both the M4 and M249s, as well as maintaining a Sharp Shooter qualification my entire enlistment. I still think it's a fucking idiotic idea to use an assault weapon for home security.
It's not the caliber of the weapon that gets it filed in the "Assault Weapon" category. The CAR-15 and AR-15 are classified as assault weapons and they shoot a .223 projectile, only slightly larger than a .22
You’re proving you ignorance here. A .22 has much less stopping power and velocity than a .223 (5.56mm) does. If it didn’t the military would use .22 caliber weapons. It's absurd to judge the power of ammo by the size of it's projectile.

For refrence, here are images of both .22 and .223 rounds. .22 caliber rounds are less than an inch in total length, .223 are well over 3 inches, and contain a much more powerful charge. In fact, an entire .22 shell (casing included) is about the same size as the projectile of a .223 round. HUGE difference.

.22


.223

Oh, and you absolutely can hunt a deer with that weapon, and without going all "Full Metal Jacket" on it. Not saying everyone should...or could...but it can be done.
I didn’t say it was impossible, just impractical…
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#17
junglizm said:
I didn’t say it was impossible, just impractical…
As well as illegal in many states, if I am correct. But it should be made legal to fix the deer overpopulation problem we have in America.
 

gummi_

Tenderony
166
0
0
#18
The thing that comes to my mind when the words 'assault weapons' or 'assault rifles' in particular are mentioned, is automatic weapons such as M-16's... AK-47's...

Now i know that there are many more than that, but that is irrelevant to why i am posting, unless models i am unaware of kill 'cleanly'.

Why, Descent, should they be legal to take care of the deer population? Semi-automatic rifles would do the same job, just as well, if not better. The kill is cleaner, and less traumatic for the deer itself... as well as being more humane in my view.

If you were just joking around with that comment, sorry my bad.
 

gummi_

Tenderony
166
0
0
#20
Then could you possibly elaborate as to the reasons why you believe using that kind of weaponry is a better solution than semi-automatic rifles?