99.99% of all murders and all manner of violent crimes are NOT done with an "Assault-type" firearm--period. That being said, not to mention everything stated above, I'm am not sure what a new and "improved" AWB is suppose to accomplish but infringe on the constitution and waste our time. To me, it does in fact seem like a very large step against the United States Constitution for what could only promise to be an utterly minuscule gain in our public safety. If any at all . . .
We ALREADY have volumes of existing laws that COULD HAVE and SHOULD BE solving problems like these if they were only better implemented. I believe the debates of gun control on both sides should be predominated with the grossly failed implementation of our already exiting laws, and ONLY that has a chance of fulfilling the role that this new ban is supposedly meant to play.
It is incredibly short sighted to think that implementing more laws would positively effect anything if it was the inadequate enforcement of the old laws in the first place that effectively helped create a favorable environment for these kinds of events, and that had, sadly, aided in the formation of the problems in question. The anti-gunners must try to understand that the pro-gunners also "say no" to gun totting drug dealers (who possess any kind of firearm) who are a danger to the common good of our society.
THE CASE OF THE LONE PSYCHOPATH:
On many sites several cases are stated where a madman has killed a group of innocent bystanders with a firearm that would have otherwise been on the ban list. It is conveyed in a manner that suggests that if the gun men did not have access to such a type of firearm, that the event in question could have been somehow tempered or averted all together.
However, let us not be so short-sighted as to forget those poor kids at Columbine, (nor all of the would-be school shootings that it sparked that followed it one after the other). Those two teenagers were using handguns and standard pump action shotguns to reek their havoc, as well as, let's not forget, easily constructed pipe bombs. Timoth Mcvay, for instance, blew up an entire building with a vehicle full of fertilizer of all things, and does anyone remember Eric Robert Rudolph? The man who bombed multiple abortion clinics? . . . the list is so endless that it cannot be counted. Every now and then, sadly, a crazy person walks into the likes of a fast food resturant and opens fire. Very sadly, it is a thing that cannot be avoided. Even if all firearms magically disappeared, the insane have proved themselves capable of finding equal and alternative means, time and time again, to inflict their madness . . . it is just an unfortunate and very tragic reality of the world we live in.
As I said before, even if all of the firearms in the world suddenly disappeared, maniacs would find other means to inflict their madness upon others. Note the cases above; bombs can be made from the likes of household cleaners and fertilizer. Be careful when you read things like "shootings with assault-type style firearms are on the rise." Note that statistics can be interpreted in many ways, all too often for self-serving ends. Ask yourself, how many of such types of events have occurred over all, in the past year, five years, ten years--twenty years. If an epidemic of such instances are on the rise (meaning all public shootings in general regardless of type of firearm used in them) then, the high profile and very negative representation by the media of one specific type of firearm is incredibly bias. Also, those websites that site several of such tragic events but go further as to name the type of firearm used and effectively demonizes one kind above all the rest, the question we should ask is why? Why and how do these particular handful of events compare or exceed the multitude of identical tragedies that have also been committed during the same allotment of time, and that are not being followed by the media so intently due simply to a different kind of firearm being involved in the shooting? How does one justify following only (or mainly) the public shootings that involve only one particular kind of firearm (that has in factuality only been involved in a marginal amount of overall liken incidents) and ignore all of the rest?
Some people claimed it's about the potential body count, but in reality there is very little correlation in the real world between firearm type and amount killed. In a few very minuscule cases yes, but that is by no means the norm. For instance, a man with a firearm that possess a 30 round magazine could just as easily carry multiple firearms and multiple magazines in to a crowded area. Either way, it will take several minutes for law enforcement, at their very best, (that will seem like hours to those involved mind you) to finally arrive at the location and put a stop to the madness. We must be savvy enough to take the time to look at the other comparable cases in question, so we may objectively compare the death lists of these other liken tragic events.
The location the madman chose is the more deciding factor than the firearm type, as is the premeditation that went into his heinous deed as well as his awareness of the chosen location in question. ALL of these factors come into play. The real truth is that firearm type, in actuality, plays a much much smaller role in these cases than some people will have us believe.
IN CONCLUSION:
Do not expect any site (including this one), website, forum or petition to change the mind of someone who has either a personal agenda or whom has already made up their mind. That too is short-sighted and will not speak true in the real world. In the end, unless a substantial movement comes forward, we will see a new and "improved" weapons ban in the next 2 to 5 years time and it will most likely become the new norm for American society for the foreseeable future, how we see ourselves, and how we interpret the second amendment. Such a bill is likely to be cosmetic more than anything else, like placing a bandaid on the present day fears of this nation. It will most certainly make allot of people feel better, but as was clearly demonstrated above, it will in fact do absolutely nothing in terms of our common domestic safety. Pre-ban America will be identical to post-ban America, except for those collectors, sportsmen and hobbyists that value such historical and well-made firearms that in their own minds have become a kind of symbol of our patriotic liberties and freedoms.
The fact of the matter is that for as many respectable owners of firearms that there are in this nation, there are many more people in America right now who would be willing to throw every gun that had ever been made into a massive bonfire and melt them down if it would only return a sense of safety to our society. As short-sighted as it is, it is in fact a basic human response to the world that we now live in . . . and really it is quite understandable at the end of the day.
However, there is no real basis, fact, study or statistic that even remotely suggests that this ban will make us even a tiny measure safer. In actuality, around the world the removal of guns from society has shown itself to be not only entirely noneffective in terms of lowering the incidences of violent crime, it has actually (and repeatedly) INCREASED the incidences of violent crime. Thus for whatever the reason might be, stringent gun legislation ends up being grossly counter productive to its intended goal. Understanding peoples' fear may one day become the proverbial paved road to hell for this nation if it follows suit with the likes of England and Russia in terms of gun control. In the end, only time will tell. Most people who don't own these types of firearms won't care. But few will consider the disturbing truth that once we begin to dilute even one small part of our constitution (do to misplaced fear, lack of true facts and uniformed, biased ideas) it becomes entirely possible that more aspects of our nation's constitution could one day also be subject to alteration, reinterpreted and diluted as time passes. Take our freedom of speech for example: what if such a stipulation was subtly editing our guaranteed freedom of the press? Some could argue that to a certain point that is already happening, but I am not an alarmist . . . I am a realist. I submit that AWB is not just about firearms legislation, it is about our constitution, and more than that, such a potential ban, if enacted, steps dangerously close to doing exactly what our forefathers absolutely did not want--the subjugating of the guarantees promised to all people of this great nation.
In this country you are in fact free to decide for yourself, I only submit that you gather all the true facts at hand so you may first come to a truly informed decision . . . and so someone else does not end up making your decision for you without you ever even knowing it.
END OF PT 3.
We ALREADY have volumes of existing laws that COULD HAVE and SHOULD BE solving problems like these if they were only better implemented. I believe the debates of gun control on both sides should be predominated with the grossly failed implementation of our already exiting laws, and ONLY that has a chance of fulfilling the role that this new ban is supposedly meant to play.
It is incredibly short sighted to think that implementing more laws would positively effect anything if it was the inadequate enforcement of the old laws in the first place that effectively helped create a favorable environment for these kinds of events, and that had, sadly, aided in the formation of the problems in question. The anti-gunners must try to understand that the pro-gunners also "say no" to gun totting drug dealers (who possess any kind of firearm) who are a danger to the common good of our society.
THE CASE OF THE LONE PSYCHOPATH:
On many sites several cases are stated where a madman has killed a group of innocent bystanders with a firearm that would have otherwise been on the ban list. It is conveyed in a manner that suggests that if the gun men did not have access to such a type of firearm, that the event in question could have been somehow tempered or averted all together.
However, let us not be so short-sighted as to forget those poor kids at Columbine, (nor all of the would-be school shootings that it sparked that followed it one after the other). Those two teenagers were using handguns and standard pump action shotguns to reek their havoc, as well as, let's not forget, easily constructed pipe bombs. Timoth Mcvay, for instance, blew up an entire building with a vehicle full of fertilizer of all things, and does anyone remember Eric Robert Rudolph? The man who bombed multiple abortion clinics? . . . the list is so endless that it cannot be counted. Every now and then, sadly, a crazy person walks into the likes of a fast food resturant and opens fire. Very sadly, it is a thing that cannot be avoided. Even if all firearms magically disappeared, the insane have proved themselves capable of finding equal and alternative means, time and time again, to inflict their madness . . . it is just an unfortunate and very tragic reality of the world we live in.
As I said before, even if all of the firearms in the world suddenly disappeared, maniacs would find other means to inflict their madness upon others. Note the cases above; bombs can be made from the likes of household cleaners and fertilizer. Be careful when you read things like "shootings with assault-type style firearms are on the rise." Note that statistics can be interpreted in many ways, all too often for self-serving ends. Ask yourself, how many of such types of events have occurred over all, in the past year, five years, ten years--twenty years. If an epidemic of such instances are on the rise (meaning all public shootings in general regardless of type of firearm used in them) then, the high profile and very negative representation by the media of one specific type of firearm is incredibly bias. Also, those websites that site several of such tragic events but go further as to name the type of firearm used and effectively demonizes one kind above all the rest, the question we should ask is why? Why and how do these particular handful of events compare or exceed the multitude of identical tragedies that have also been committed during the same allotment of time, and that are not being followed by the media so intently due simply to a different kind of firearm being involved in the shooting? How does one justify following only (or mainly) the public shootings that involve only one particular kind of firearm (that has in factuality only been involved in a marginal amount of overall liken incidents) and ignore all of the rest?
Some people claimed it's about the potential body count, but in reality there is very little correlation in the real world between firearm type and amount killed. In a few very minuscule cases yes, but that is by no means the norm. For instance, a man with a firearm that possess a 30 round magazine could just as easily carry multiple firearms and multiple magazines in to a crowded area. Either way, it will take several minutes for law enforcement, at their very best, (that will seem like hours to those involved mind you) to finally arrive at the location and put a stop to the madness. We must be savvy enough to take the time to look at the other comparable cases in question, so we may objectively compare the death lists of these other liken tragic events.
The location the madman chose is the more deciding factor than the firearm type, as is the premeditation that went into his heinous deed as well as his awareness of the chosen location in question. ALL of these factors come into play. The real truth is that firearm type, in actuality, plays a much much smaller role in these cases than some people will have us believe.
IN CONCLUSION:
Do not expect any site (including this one), website, forum or petition to change the mind of someone who has either a personal agenda or whom has already made up their mind. That too is short-sighted and will not speak true in the real world. In the end, unless a substantial movement comes forward, we will see a new and "improved" weapons ban in the next 2 to 5 years time and it will most likely become the new norm for American society for the foreseeable future, how we see ourselves, and how we interpret the second amendment. Such a bill is likely to be cosmetic more than anything else, like placing a bandaid on the present day fears of this nation. It will most certainly make allot of people feel better, but as was clearly demonstrated above, it will in fact do absolutely nothing in terms of our common domestic safety. Pre-ban America will be identical to post-ban America, except for those collectors, sportsmen and hobbyists that value such historical and well-made firearms that in their own minds have become a kind of symbol of our patriotic liberties and freedoms.
The fact of the matter is that for as many respectable owners of firearms that there are in this nation, there are many more people in America right now who would be willing to throw every gun that had ever been made into a massive bonfire and melt them down if it would only return a sense of safety to our society. As short-sighted as it is, it is in fact a basic human response to the world that we now live in . . . and really it is quite understandable at the end of the day.
However, there is no real basis, fact, study or statistic that even remotely suggests that this ban will make us even a tiny measure safer. In actuality, around the world the removal of guns from society has shown itself to be not only entirely noneffective in terms of lowering the incidences of violent crime, it has actually (and repeatedly) INCREASED the incidences of violent crime. Thus for whatever the reason might be, stringent gun legislation ends up being grossly counter productive to its intended goal. Understanding peoples' fear may one day become the proverbial paved road to hell for this nation if it follows suit with the likes of England and Russia in terms of gun control. In the end, only time will tell. Most people who don't own these types of firearms won't care. But few will consider the disturbing truth that once we begin to dilute even one small part of our constitution (do to misplaced fear, lack of true facts and uniformed, biased ideas) it becomes entirely possible that more aspects of our nation's constitution could one day also be subject to alteration, reinterpreted and diluted as time passes. Take our freedom of speech for example: what if such a stipulation was subtly editing our guaranteed freedom of the press? Some could argue that to a certain point that is already happening, but I am not an alarmist . . . I am a realist. I submit that AWB is not just about firearms legislation, it is about our constitution, and more than that, such a potential ban, if enacted, steps dangerously close to doing exactly what our forefathers absolutely did not want--the subjugating of the guarantees promised to all people of this great nation.
In this country you are in fact free to decide for yourself, I only submit that you gather all the true facts at hand so you may first come to a truly informed decision . . . and so someone else does not end up making your decision for you without you ever even knowing it.
END OF PT 3.
Can this be repaired?
but I just tried it and it worked just fine. So give it a shot.