Ban Assault Weapons
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Concerned Citizen

United States

#1 Dec 18, 2012
I agree that everyone has the right to bare arms &be able to protect their homes &families. However, assault weapons are a lil much &can destroy alot in just a few mins. If these weapons are ban could it help in these situations of mass carnage??
1 post removed
fyi

Princeton, WV

#3 Dec 18, 2012
Most of the so called rationale put forth by the gun enthusiasts are not really based on the realities that these people just want to own guns Yes some get them for self-defense of emergency or for hunting - but those who are collecting more than one gun are going beyond that objective One can only fire one gun at a time. this is especially true of the semi automatics.

All one needs to do is Do a search on the internet of how the USA compares to other countries and one finds
1 - The USA deaths by gun is higher than almost every other country and way higher than those in the western world.
2 - Most other western countries have gun controls and a lower crime rates
Then there are those who argue it is too late - there are already too many guns My reply to that is to stop the sale of ammunitions. You can own the gun but can't get the ammunition for it
Yes - this will be a change. However, we have never been afraid of change in order to make a more perfect union.
imanone

Pearisburg, VA

#4 Dec 18, 2012
Would a ban on assault weapons have stopped the murder of those children and teachers in CT? No, if this guy was that crazy he was going to find a way to kill, that's just a fact. In China, last week as well over 20 children were killed by a man with a knife.

Just because Joe Manchin is feeling guilty for all the money he has taken over his political career from NRA is not the "trend" setter for us here in WV.

We need to look at : Better back ground checks at gun shows, gun magazine capacity and a certified training course for anyone under the age of 25(unless they have military experience). The rest of our focus should be on securing schools, proper teacher training and efficient plans in case of a emergency.

Banning certain guns is not going to solve this issue, do you really think a criminal would give back his AR-15 or AK-47? Not likely

I think the above are reasonable changes that need to be made, but I am 100% against the banning of assault rifles. God bless those poor children and teachers in CT.
June

Princeton, WV

#5 Dec 18, 2012
How would "teacher" training protect people in theaters, malls, and on street corners? More needs to be done. Why does anone need an assault rifle anyway? Explain that to me? I do not know anyone who actually hunts with one.
imanone wrote:
Would a ban on assault weapons have stopped the murder of those children and teachers in CT? No, if this guy was that crazy he was going to find a way to kill, that's just a fact. In China, last week as well over 20 children were killed by a man with a knife.
Just because Joe Manchin is feeling guilty for all the money he has taken over his political career from NRA is not the "trend" setter for us here in WV.
We need to look at : Better back ground checks at gun shows, gun magazine capacity and a certified training course for anyone under the age of 25(unless they have military experience). The rest of our focus should be on securing schools, proper teacher training and efficient plans in case of a emergency.
Banning certain guns is not going to solve this issue, do you really think a criminal would give back his AR-15 or AK-47? Not likely
I think the above are reasonable changes that need to be made, but I am 100% against the banning of assault rifles. God bless those poor children and teachers in CT.
gunz

United States

#6 Dec 18, 2012
Let's ban cars , knives, rope, anything else that has caused death .
wwjd

Princeton, WV

#7 Dec 18, 2012
guns are not the issue here ..we need to tighten up on security even in the little ones schools metal detectors security gaurds..but this costs money so i suppose we will continue paying with the lives of our little ones and our own
Concerned Citizen

United States

#8 Dec 18, 2012
imanone wrote:
Would a ban on assault weapons have stopped the murder of those children and teachers in CT? No, if this guy was that crazy he was going to find a way to kill, that's just a fact. In China, last week as well over 20 children were killed by a man with a knife.
Just because Joe Manchin is feeling guilty for all the money he has taken over his political career from NRA is not the "trend" setter for us here in WV.
We need to look at : Better back ground checks at gun shows, gun magazine capacity and a certified training course for anyone under the age of 25(unless they have military experience). The rest of our focus should be on securing schools, proper teacher training and efficient plans in case of a emergency.
Banning certain guns is not going to solve this issue, do you really think a criminal would give back his AR-15 or AK-47? Not likely
I think the above are reasonable changes that need to be made, but I am 100% against the banning of assault rifles. God bless those poor children and teachers in CT.
These weapons can not be used for hunting &can cause mass carnage..what is the purpose of everyday citizens owning these weapons?? I disagree, bc assault weapons can cause alot of damage in a short time..maybe so many would not have been killed if an assault weapon was not used!!

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#9 Dec 18, 2012
imanone wrote:
Would a ban on assault weapons have stopped the murder of those children and teachers in CT? No, if this guy was that crazy he was going to find a way to kill, that's just a fact. In China, last week as well over 20 children were killed by a man with a knife.
Just because Joe Manchin is feeling guilty for all the money he has taken over his political career from NRA is not the "trend" setter for us here in WV.
We need to look at : Better back ground checks at gun shows, gun magazine capacity and a certified training course for anyone under the age of 25(unless they have military experience). The rest of our focus should be on securing schools, proper teacher training and efficient plans in case of a emergency.
Banning certain guns is not going to solve this issue, do you really think a criminal would give back his AR-15 or AK-47? Not likely
I think the above are reasonable changes that need to be made, but I am 100% against the banning of assault rifles. God bless those poor children and teachers in CT.
Those 20 children attacked in China by a maniac with a knife did NOT die....none of them. Get your facts straight.

Ban all assault weapons!
umm

Princeton, WV

#10 Dec 18, 2012
this weapons does not kill people
people kill people
SHTZMGR

Lerona, WV

#11 Dec 18, 2012
At Columbine 13 people were killed and 21 were injured. This was during the time that assault weapons were banned and yet such a tragedy still happened. April 16, 2007 - 32 people died and 17 injured without the use of an assault rifle. April 19, 1995 168 lives were lost without the use of an assault rifle.
Old Timer

Rupert, WV

#12 Dec 18, 2012
I need an an assault rifle because I am not a very good shot. If anyone forces their way into my home they had better be ready to meet their maker. God pity the poor person that thinks they are coming to take it away from me, they will surely have fight on their hands.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#13 Dec 18, 2012
Fertilier bombs such as the one that Tim McVeigh used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City are no longer able to be made because changes were made to the fertilizer. If the Connecticut maniac had not had access to an assault weapon that he was able to shoot 100 times in less than ten minutes then the number of people killed would not have been 26 (twenty of them 6-7 year old children). We can't save everybody but we can make some commonsense changes that can lessen the carnage that one person is able to wreak, like banning assault weapons and their ammo.

We need to start now.
wow

Bluefield, WV

#14 Dec 18, 2012
SHTZMGR wrote:
At Columbine 13 people were killed and 21 were injured. This was during the time that assault weapons were banned and yet such a tragedy still happened. April 16, 2007 - 32 people died and 17 injured without the use of an assault rifle. April 19, 1995 168 lives were lost without the use of an assault rifle.
Exactly.

Those that argue for tighter gun laws are trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease. If you look at the stats ( gunpolicy.org , but the data is about the same from any unbiased source), gun related deaths per 100,000 have remained steady, not only through the years of Clinton's assault rifle ban, but even after its expiration.

And for those that there is no need for assault rifles, especially those that want to make the "hunting" argument, clearly you do not understand the definition of the word "militia". the second ammendment was not just written to ensure that people could own guns to hunt. The second ammendment was to protect peoples right to form a "well regulated militia" for two reasons: 1. military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.(help protect the US from foreign invasion).
2.A military force that engages in rebel activities(help protect the US from its own government).

If a sick person decides they want to hurt someone they WILL find a way, whether it's with a gun or not. The focus should be on mental health, getting rid of the stigma associated with mental illness, and getting these people the help they need so they don't resort to this type of violence in the first place.
45 acp
#15 Dec 18, 2012
im going to say this once for all the panty waist liberals....the definition of assault weapon is any FULLY AUTOMATIC firearm and they are already banned and illegal to posess. you people better get to work on spoons as they cause fat people.
Jennifer

Saint Albans, WV

#16 Dec 18, 2012
The original intention of our founding fathers in creating the second amendment was to allow landowners to protect themselves and their families. They did this by having arms. The same arms used by criminals, the military and everyone else. We still need to be capable of protecting our homes and families. If foreign military for example were to invade and begin going house to house could we defend ourselves with a single shot .410? That wouldn't even work against gangs.
Perhaps we need to go the other way and ISSUE assault weapons to qualified citizens. Imagine the reduction in crime if villains knew EVERYONE was armed to the teeth!

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#17 Dec 18, 2012
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Those that argue for tighter gun laws are trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease. If you look at the stats ( gunpolicy.org , but the data is about the same from any unbiased source), gun related deaths per 100,000 have remained steady, not only through the years of Clinton's assault rifle ban, but even after its expiration.
And for those that there is no need for assault rifles, especially those that want to make the "hunting" argument, clearly you do not understand the definition of the word "militia". the second ammendment was not just written to ensure that people could own guns to hunt. The second ammendment was to protect peoples right to form a "well regulated militia" for two reasons: 1. military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.(help protect the US from foreign invasion).
2.A military force that engages in rebel activities(help protect the US from its own government).
Yeah? How did that work out during the Civil War?

As with the first amendment, the second admendment to the Constitution has its limitations. Individuals are not allowed to own drones or nuclear weapons and shouldn't be allowed to own assault weapons that can fire 100 times in ten minutes.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#18 Dec 18, 2012
45 acp wrote:
im going to say this once for all the panty waist liberals....the definition of assault weapon is any FULLY AUTOMATIC firearm and they are already banned and illegal to posess. you people better get to work on spoons as they cause fat people.
I submit the definition should be any gun that can fire 100 times in ten minutes. I read one report that said the guns used in Connecticut could fire five times in one second. Who needs a gun like that except some nutjob.

Losing one person in an incident like this is unacceptable and when it comes to twenty children 6-7 years old then something has to be done..and it will be.

You're on the losing end of this argument.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#19 Dec 18, 2012
Jennifer wrote:
The original intention of our founding fathers in creating the second amendment was to allow landowners to protect themselves and their families. They did this by having arms. The same arms used by criminals, the military and everyone else. We still need to be capable of protecting our homes and families. If foreign military for example were to invade and begin going house to house could we defend ourselves with a single shot .410? That wouldn't even work against gangs.
Perhaps we need to go the other way and ISSUE assault weapons to qualified citizens. Imagine the reduction in crime if villains knew EVERYONE was armed to the teeth!
I have a gun to protect my home and we have the police and military to protect neighborhoods and the country. We don't need a lot of Rambos running around enforcing their own rules with the help of their assault weapons. I don't want them in my neighborhood.
SHTZMGR

Lerona, WV

#20 Dec 18, 2012
Lesson Learned - If 100 rounds in ten minutes or 10 rounds a minute is your definition of an assault weapon, then almost all guns except for muzzleloaders would be banned.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#21 Dec 18, 2012
SHTZMGR wrote:
Lesson Learned - If 100 rounds in ten minutes or 10 rounds a minute is your definition of an assault weapon, then almost all guns except for muzzleloaders would be banned.
Now that I do the math I think you're probably right...but what about firing five times in one second....does that meet the test? That was one report I heard about the CT killer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Princeton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
does princeton seem like welch with all the dru... (Nov '10) 37 min lamont 20
Exotic illusions 46 min Straight curious 2
Mercer Mall-Chick-fil-a (Nov '10) 3 hr Angry dude 8
Pretty blonde at Applebee's 3 hr Big Dill 10
Are there any trans in Princeton area 4 hr Maybe 1
New hooker 6 hr Soap Opera 11
Got to thinking... 8 hr Sah 3

Princeton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Princeton Mortgages