Hunter Shooting (Assault weapon used)

[iamthebandfanman]

Think people are happy the assault weapons ban is gone now that someone used one to shoot those hunters in wisconsin?

i swear, people are fools.

yup...assault weapons are used for hunting alright....people!

[Walt Starr]

1. After this past election, I want several Assault Weapons

I feel the need for a personal armoury after the loss of democracy.

[Peregrine]

9. Agree 100%

We need to arm ourselves. The revolution is coming.

[UNIXcock]

22. Agree 100% as well

... last thing we need to do is piss off even more one-issue democrats into voting Satan into office by believing he won't fuck with their gun rights.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Chances are, his assault weapon was legal before.

[NervousRex]

3. Type of weapon has nothing to do with it.

This guy could have done the same damage with any high caliber hunting rifle.

[Bluzmann57]

4. Pretty good chance that those people would have been dead

assault weapon or not. They were shot at point blank range and a .22 shell will kill a person at point blank range. That being said, anyone who hunts with an assault weapon really isn't much of a hunter anyway. I have hunted and have a pretty good idea what I am talking about. There is no real reason for assault weapons.

[EstimatedProphet]

5. Depends

Define assault weapon.
That's the problem-the definition. The reason the AWB was popular with a lot of people is because the media played it as a ban on machine guns, which of course it wasn't.
I hunt (when I go) with 30 cal M1. Technically an assault weapon, but I only intend to use one shot anyway.

[jayfish]

6. He Probably Would Have Been Able To Kill...

all of them if he had been using a "real" hunting rifle.

Jay

[yellowcanine]

7. Uh - where did you see this? - claim like that needs a link. We need to

be careful about holding up "trophy" news events to support our agenda. Damages our credibility.

[DoNotRefill]

8. The rifle used was not affected by the recently expired AW ban.

it was an SKS, with an integral magazine, and no pistol grip.

You MIGHT want to check your facts.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

45. From The Age (Aussie Paper)...

"Zeigle said the suspect was "chasing after them and killing them," with a SKS 7.62 mm semiautomatic rifle - an obsolete Soviet assault rifle of which thousands were sold in the United States."



http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking-News/US-deer-hunter-kills-five-people/2004/11/23/1100972359714.html?oneclick=true

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. Assault Weapons dont exist

"Assault weapons" were defined by the AWB, the AWB no longer exists.

That crime in Wisconsin was comitted with a semi-automatic rifle, not an assault weapon.

Not that it changes anything about the crime.

[cheezus]

11. it is 1. a weapon and 2. used to assult people

that would make it an assualt weapon

[bemis12]

13. Allowing your "logic"

to reach it's natural conclusion, I assume that you'd like to just ban anything that's a "weapon" and be used for "assault".

Please make a coherent arguement. This crime had nothing to do with assualt weapons, or gun control. It was a hunting rifle that was being properly used for hunting, prior to the guy going nuts.

[sandnsea]

14. *sigh*

Maybe you could go from point a to point z of your "logical conclusion". Take us down the logical path from guns to rocks.

I don't know exactly what kind of rifle was used, so I won't comment on that.

BUT, we have long banned weapons that are notoriously used in crimes. Certain semi-autos are used in city crimes more often and were, therefore, labeled assault rifles. The fact that a legal rifle under AWB may have been used proves the point I've been trying to make for years, nobody's right to bear arms was violated because there were plenty of similar options available. Nobody ever said the AWB was going to stop all murders. It had a specific target, gang crime really. Innocent kids being killed in drive-bys. Couldn't give up 19 guns to try to curb that, oh hell no.

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. Whats the your point?

You said that those weapons were banned, and should still be banned because they were used in crimes?

What point does that serve?

Most obviously criminals dont care about bans.

Next did the AWB even try to address the reason those weapons were popular among criminals? I'm guessing the reason was because they were also popular among the population at large.

There was also the economic reaons, soviet bloc guns are just cheaper both legally and illegally.

Okay so AKs were banned, lets pretend it somehow had an effect on gangbangers, well like you said there were plenty of similar options, they just moved on and used SKSes instead.

The AWB was completely worthless.

[sandnsea]

18. It's really sad

Because the murder rate proves you wrong. But you're so dead set on your NRA talking points that it could be posted in front of your face 100 times and you'd still ignore it. I know because I've done it with people and they just pop back up the next day with their same lies. I don't get it. You've got 600 guns to choose from, why deny that there are certain guns that have always been attractive to criminals and we've always outlawed them. If it's not the right list or a complete list, make your own and help save lives. I am so sick of people who just accept this culture of violence and death in this country. It's also been proven that most people who own guns don't even live in violent areas and that most people support gun regulation.

[DoNotRefill]

19. Just out of curiosity, what guns have been outlawed?

Machineguns? Legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Supressors? The same.

I can't think of an actual gun that is completely illegal under Federal law. There's a law on the books that says guns must have a certain amount of metal in them, but there's never been a production model that was under the legal limit and was therefore banned.

So what guns have actually been banned?

[sandnsea]

21. Yes, there are

We have consistently passed laws to control the sale of guns, transport of guns, registration of guns, and who can buy guns. The sale of new machine guns were outlawed in 1986. Sawing off shotguns is illegal and you can only buy legal ones through special dealers. Highly controlled. Lots and lots of laws to control guns popular to criminals. Until the NRA became the lobbying arm of the gun industry; people had enough common sense to realize nobody needed machine guns, sawed off shot guns, Saturday Night Specials, silencers, etc. unless they were going to commit a crime. That kind of common sense flew out the window a long time ago.

http://www.csgv.org/research/laws/index.cfm

[DoNotRefill]

23. Wrong. Point by point:

"The sale of new machine guns were outlawed in 1986."

Wrong. Anybody can still get new machineguns, they just have to get a special FFL (a type 02/07 SOT). If you have no criminal record and have the cash, it's easy to do. Cost is under a thousand dollars a year for the permits. And in case you missed it, in U.S. v. Stewart, §922(o) was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Interstate Commerce Clause grounds. It's still winding through the courts, and BEST case scenario for the anti-gun people is a massive circuit split. BATFE is currently shitting kittens. :)

"Sawing off shotguns is illegal and you can only buy legal ones through special dealers."

Again, wrong. In order to legally "saw off" a shotgun, you need to file an ATF Form 5320.1 (AKA the "Form 1"), and pay a tax. You can do it at home with a hacksaw and be in compliance with the law, provided you have the approved Form 1 in hand. Same thing for building a silencer.

I've got a bunch of machineguns and a few "cans" in my safe. And I've never used one to commit a crime.

You can buy landmines, grenades, tanks, even armed fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships, all 100% legally. All it takes is money and a willingness to tweak the system.

[sandnsea]

26. Highly controlled

Which is what I said, outlawed and only available through highly regulated means. You "tweak the system", which people with common sense never felt the need to do 30 years ago. Milita types are crazy and I'll never change my opinion on that. You've been sold an insane bill of gun goods that does nothing but help put tons of money into corporate gun manufacturers. And contribute to a culture of violence and death. Just sick in the fucking head.

[DoNotRefill]

27. I suggest you read U.S. v. Stewart.

and after 2000 and 2004 if you haven't yet seen the value of the Second Amendment as the absolute last-ditch defense against tyranny, then I can't help you.

[sandnsea]

30. Yeah right

People are up in arms and hauling the little dictator out as we speak, aren't they? The 2nd Amendment will never save this country, has never done anything for this country. The First Amendement, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that's the one that has saved our asses for 200 years. And that's the one we're fixing to give away through "tort reform". It's much too late for guns to do any good in preserving our freedoms, much much too late. Just another bullshit red herring to keep you supporting Republicans and putting money into the corporate machine. The corporate machine that wants to have all of our government "privatized", wants to remove all right to redress through meaningful civil liabilities, so we're left completely defenseless.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Look who is predominantly armed.

It's the red staters.

And the First Amendment has already been castrated. See "First Amendment zones".

BTW, in case you missed it, REPUBLICANS have actually passed or signed the MAJORITY of gun control laws in the US. The 1986 "machinegun ban" that you referred to? Who was President in '86, and who signed that law into effect? Who was President in 1989, when the importation of certain weapons was banned by executive order? Remember McCain pushing to "close the gunshow loophole"? How about Warner (R) pushing the AW ban?

And the "corporate machine" does indeed want us left defenseless. How defenseless are we if we're armed and know how to use guns? The Second Amendment is supposed to be the absolute last ditch line of defense. We're getting close to where it may be needed, and you want to strip us of that right. Why doesn't that make sense to me?

[sandnsea]

37. They're counting on that

They're counting on the illusion of gun ownership that will lull you into passivity. Yes passivity. Problem with "if it gets that bad" mentality is that by the time it gets that bad, it's too late.

It's not too late to stop the corporate machine, not too late at all. But because all the gun nuts are convinced they have a stop gap measure, they're doing nothing. And because they think it's Republicans who are with them, they don't listen to anybody on the left who is firing the real warning shots. Privatization and tort reform.

Guns are emotional band-aids and nothing more. They aren't solving one single problem in this country, not one.

[DoNotRefill]

38. I don't think guns are emotional band-aids.

Of course, I'd most likely be dead if I didn't carry a gun, which I've had to use defensively in the past (licensed, of course).

So for my wife and child, guns did indeed solve a problem, by keeping me from dying. Personally, I think that's "one single problem" solved...YMMV.

[sandnsea]

41. sure sure sure

If every person who ever told me that were telling the truth, there'd be nobody left. Always the last line in one of these debates, always.

[DoNotRefill]

43. huh?

most DGUs don't result in a shot fired, much less somebody killed.

[UNIXcock]

39. They're solving a problem for some ...

... by getting more people to vote REPUBLICAN because we refuse to drop gun-control as an issue on our platform - Dumb!

[Jack_DeLeon]

29. corporate gun manufacturers...

when people talk about corporations owning us, I hardly think of the gun lobby.

If anything I fear more from the entertainment industry.

The entertainment industry lobbies for more and more controls over the internet and technology in general just to protect its precious copyrights.

If they are successful they will probably take away more of our rights to privacy and whatnot. I've never heard of the gun lobby doing such things.

[sandnsea]

33. They've got 1/3 of America duped

At least. Duped into voting Republican. They're the ones who want to privatize the nation and leave you with no redress to hold them accountable. While you're busy living in denial about the right to bear arms keeping you free, they're in full gear to fuck you over every which way from Sunday. Corporate power is corporate power, get a clue.

[DoNotRefill]

31. BTW, those laws you're talking about? The NFA 1934?

That's the LAST federal Jim Crow law still on the books. Can you think of another Federal law that requires somebody wishing to exercise their constitutional rights to go to their local CLEO and get his or her PERMISSION to exercise a right? If it applied to voting, you'd be highly pissed, and rightfully so. But because it applies to the Second Amendment, it's apparently OK with you.

[Jack_DeLeon]

25. what you say?

Because the murder rate proves you wrong.

The murder rate proves what wrong?

The AWB did not reduce murder, there is no logical reason it could. Even you said said there are still plenty of other weapons to choose from. So even if we could argue that all criminals did abide by the AWB there are still plenty of weapons out there to commit murder with.

You've got 600 guns to choose from, why deny that there are certain guns that have always been attractive to criminals and we've always outlawed them.

I wont deny that there will aways be something that is attractive to someone or group of people.

But what does that have to do with anything?

Why should something be outlawed just because some criminals like them?

Shit Bonny and Clyde loved Ford cars, does that mean that Fords should have been outlawed? :eyes:

[sandnsea]

28. Diphenhydramine

Sought by meth dealers to make meth. Stuck behind the pharmacists counter. YES, we control access to stuff sought out by criminals.

And like I said, I could post the reduction of murder rates and the correlation to gun laws 100 times and you gun nuts would deny it so I stopped fighting that one a long time ago.

[DoNotRefill]

32. Heh...

like when they banned handguns in DC in the 1970's, and the crime rate throughout the 1980's and 90's plummeted???

Correlation isn't causation.

[sandnsea]

34. he he

There's more than one city to look at. And Virginia gun laws just might be a clue.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Ah, yes.

Easy availability of guns in Virginia (with a murder rate of what, something shy of 7 per 100K, where guns are easy to get) result in the high homicide rate in DC of over 40 per 100K, where guns are hard to get. Yup, that makes sense.

If it's all Virginia's fault, then why isn't Virginia's homicide rate as high as DC's?

[sandnsea]

40. Richmond VA

2nd highest murder rate in the country in 1994.

"Richmond's police were praised from all points on the political spectrum--from the Clinton administration to the NRA--for halving the city's murder rate in the 1990s. One hundred and sixty people were killed in Richmond in 1994, and 70 in 2001. Richmond's method was simple: a concentrated program of aggressive beat policing and strict enforcement of gun laws.

But now, Wallis and many of his colleagues report, they simply can't mount such focused campaigns. Richmond is in the throes of a manpower shortage that has stripped cops off street beats and forced the city to change its neighborhood policing strategies. "All we're able to do right now is respond to calls which come in," the department's chief, Andre Parker, told me. "We don't have enough men to do any proactive policing. It's very worrying."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_9_35/ai_108314375

[DoNotRefill]

42. And Councilman Chuck had nothing to do with the homicide rate?

having a HEROIN DEALER on City Council didn't have anything to do with it, did it?

I Found Councilman Chuck's response interesting. This was before he was convicted for trafficking in Heroin, mind you. He was asked if drugs played a part in Richmond's homicide rate. His response was "no, it's the guns that are the problem".

Want to know why the homicide rate in Richmond dropped? It's because Councilman Chuck went to Petersburg. Not the City, the Correctional facility.

[DoNotRefill]

44. BTW....Do you remember "Spelling with Chuck"?

I think XL-102 had it on. "Now let's use it in a sentence!"

[DoNotRefill]

47. BTW, in the correlation department....

Would you care to guess when Virginia went to a "shall issue" CCW permit scheme?

[cheezus]

15. that's a bad assumption

I never said I wanted to ban any weapons. I just wanted to participate in the stupid sematanic argument

[ArkDem]

16. So your fist could be an assault weapon?

[DoNotRefill]

20. By this definition....

heavy glass beer mugs are "assault weapons" if they're used in a barfight.

Seems kind of silly, doesn't it?

[Padraig18]

12. ANY weapon is an 'assault weapon', when you kill people with it!

His weapon was a semi-atomatic rifle that was legal even BEFORE the AWB expired.

:eyes:

[Nicky Scarfo]

24. This is a dupe. It's already in the Gun Control/Rights forum, and

as far as I'm concerned is should stay there. Especially as this post is ridiculous. Would it have made any difference if the hunter had shot the other in the dispute over the deer stand with a Remington 7mm semi-suto rifle (not covered under the ban), as opposed to an SKS?

Let's just ban all guns while we're at it, and all hunting, and deer stands, and deer. Let's ban anything that could possibly be misused or lead to someone's death. Aw, fuck it, let's just nuke the planet and be done with it.

[thebutterman]

46. dude you need to relax

[against all enemies]

48. This was a legal hunting rifle. It was never on the assualt weapons ban

The guy was fucking nuts. That was the problem. Do you want to ban all firearms? If so Ok.