Weapons ban act

who agrees with the end on the ban on asault weapons ending?

  • Total voters
    1
Statistics don't lie, I would think assault weapons available to everyone in the country would have something to do with this.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05

The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
 
There was nothing wrong with the ban. nothing has happened yet, but in the near future someone is gonna abuse this privelege.
 
and when the weapons are avaliable the people will kill. The original assualt ban was done because of an raise in killings and different attacks wich were done with asault weapons.
 
And what does one do when some criminal manages to illegaly get an assault weapon and you do not have anything to defend yourself ??!
 
Trevor said:
Statistics don't lie, I would think assault weapons available to everyone in the country would have something to do with this.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Click to expand...

the problem with using 1994 data is that it is 10 years old

According to the USA Today, there were 29,573 gun related deaths in the US in 2001. The 2000 census puts the US population around 285 million. That gives the US a gun related death rate of about 10.3 per 100,000, a decrease of 29% since 1994.

Today's America is different than the one 10 yeard ago.

SOURCE
 
It's also interesting to note that in the US, crime is one of the lowest in Texas, a state with little in the way of gun control laws. And New York and California have some of the highest crime rates, states with a lot of gun control laws.

And as EuroSpike said, guns don't kill, people do. Many people don't realize a gun is a tool, much like a hammer or an ax, it's what you do with them that counts.
 
Desert_Eagle said:
It's also interesting to note that in the US, crime is one of the lowest in Texas, a state with little in the way of gun control laws. And New York and California have some of the highest crime rates, states with a lot of gun control laws
Click to expand...


thats probably helped by the large amount of gangs in New York..
 
I agree with the idea that a gun is something used by a person like a tool. But in texas guns are more used for sport and hunting and for basically what guns were meant to do. But in urban areas like LA and New york city, if a guy can get access to an ak 47, they're not going to use it for hunting. Gang fights have escalated to little wars because of the weapons being used. And cities across the country like miami, chicago, new orleans, and others have this problem. The idea of the ban is on assault weapons used in war. Uzis and m 16's have no place in hunting since you would destroy your target, so hunters wouldn't use them anyway. The idea is to reduce the number of assault weapons in the hands of more violent individuals in areas where bystanders would get fatally hurt. If the ban is only on assauly weapons, then what's the problem. The right to bear arms is something of a responsibility, and if you can bear any other type of arms except assault weapons, how is that infringing on your constituitional right. If you took the amendment literally, then technicly people could have nuclear weapons and other wmds, but no one would say that's not going to far, except charleton heston.
 
I agree with it, and because of it, I know own an AR-15 M4 Model with removable handle, colapsable buttscok, bayonet lug..... rail system....

And I am currently in the process of switching my 9mm magazines from 10 round to 13 round. They are $30.00 each, so it's a slow process.
 
Darcia said:
The original assualt ban was done because of an raise in killings and different attacks wich were done with asault weapons.
Click to expand...

The Original Ban was a another bit of feel good, knee jerk, legislation passed into law by the liberal democrats to fix a perceived problem. And had no real impact on street crime.

Look at the some of the specs

Pistol grip

more than ten round detachable magazines

Flash suppressors.


And my favo-rite bayonet lug.

Now tell me when was the last documented bayonet charge by the Crips against the Bloods?
 
The 2% increase doesn't prove anything unless the murders committed with assault weapons increased 2%.
 
I don't agree that assault weapons (full auto) should ever be legal to the general populace. All the other mentioned weapons are ok. Mini 14 is my favorite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top