Assault weapon bans

[Rampion]

  

Woah! What's up with Russia? Don't they have pretty strict gun control policies, with restrictions and licenses and all that?

Plus, I really think we should change the slogan to, "If you make owning guns criminal, only people with 3D printers will own guns" 

Depends on how you see it - Russia has one of the loosest gun policies in Europe. Russian citizens might buy firearms for self defense, but its true the use of long-barreled weapons for purposes of self-defense is prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, and guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited. People who acquire firearms for the first time are required to attend six and a half hours of classes on handling guns safely and must pass federal tests on safety rules, and their background is checked. Anyhow, Russia is a very corrupt society, so you can get the legal gun license just paying for it if you have enough money. Its not cheap though, so you really need a lot of cash. Not a problem for oil tycoons and kingpins.

[TheButterZone]

  

Woah! What's up with Russia? Don't they have pretty strict gun control policies, with restrictions and licenses and all that?

Plus, I really think we should change the slogan to, "If you make owning guns criminal, only people with 3D printers will own guns"  

They cost-prohibit the right to self-defense into a privilege only for the rich just like too many criminal "gun control" utopias in the U.S. And so innocents cannot legally afford to defend themselves, and are forced to die at a rate in excess of the U.S. "Gun control" works exactly as intended, again.

[Biomech]

Only difference you could possibly make would be to shoot some army guy in a bullet-proof vest, before they take you down using superior firepower.

You forget, that guy in a bullet-proof vest who has superior firepower? His salary is paid by the guy shooting him in the vesthead.

FTFY

[RodeoX]

.....
EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist .

This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions.

I don't read your statements as being in line with any of the several state statutes which I am familiar with.

First, you assert "we can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die.  No exceptions."

But that's not the way the law is worded because it does not create actionable guidance.

Rephrase it as "threat of serious bodily injury" and maybe add "imminent" and yo have more realistic wording.  But then your prior assertion is falsified.

Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone.

And this statement is simply false.  But if you are referring to killing someone after the act is completed, then yeah, that shouldn't be done and would be murder.

Your right about my word choice, it does not say that "someone has to die" lol.
But it is illegal to un-holster where I live. The only exception is when defending yourself and since you can only defend your life with proportional force, it is an effective rule of thumb. Here the "threat of bodily injury" is not a high enough benchmark unless it is reasonable to believe that the injuries could result in death. So if someone punches you in the face you can't just shoot them in the face as a response.
The rape example was drilled into our heads in class. Rape and murder laws are state laws and vary in definition. In some places it may be legal to stop a rapist with a bullet. I was taught that in Wisconsin you will go to jail for such an action. Rape is bad, it can cause physical trauma and will likely cause emotional trauma that will last for years. But you can't kill someone legally for making you feel bad. You can however fight back, and if the fight escalates into a life threatening fight, then you can use deadly force.  

[Biomech]

.....
EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist .

This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions.

I don't read your statements as being in line with any of the several state statutes which I am familiar with.

First, you assert "we can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die.  No exceptions."

But that's not the way the law is worded because it does not create actionable guidance.

Rephrase it as "threat of serious bodily injury" and maybe add "imminent" and yo have more realistic wording.  But then your prior assertion is falsified.

Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone.

And this statement is simply false.  But if you are referring to killing someone after the act is completed, then yeah, that shouldn't be done and would be murder.

Your right about my word choice, it does not say that "someone has to die" lol.
But it is illegal to un-holster where I live. The only exception is when defending yourself and since you can only defend your life with proportional force, it is an effective rule of thumb. Here the "threat of bodily injury" is not a high enough benchmark unless it is reasonable to believe that the injuries could result in death. So if someone punches you in the face you can't just shoot them in the face as a response.
The rape example was drilled into our heads in class. Rape and murder laws are state laws and vary in definition. In some places it may be legal to stop a rapist with a bullet. I was taught that in Wisconsin you will go to jail for such an action. Rape is bad, it can cause physical trauma and will likely cause emotional trauma that will last for years. But you can't kill someone legally for making you feel bad. You can however fight back, and if the fight escalates into a life threatening fight, then you can use deadly force.  

I would take the jail time to bust a cap in a rapist. Worth the trade. I go to jail, he goes to hell.

[UMP-45]

What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?

No.

[Spendulus]

.....
EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist .

This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions.

I don't read your statements as being in line with any of the several state statutes which I am familiar with.

First, you assert "we can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die.  No exceptions."

But that's not the way the law is worded because it does not create actionable guidance.

Rephrase it as "threat of serious bodily injury" and maybe add "imminent" and yo have more realistic wording.  But then your prior assertion is falsified.

Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone.

And this statement is simply false.  But if you are referring to killing someone after the act is completed, then yeah, that shouldn't be done and would be murder.

Your right about my word choice, it does not say that "someone has to die" lol.
But it is illegal to un-holster where I live. The only exception is when defending yourself and since you can only defend your life with proportional force, it is an effective rule of thumb. Here the "threat of bodily injury" is not a high enough benchmark unless it is reasonable to believe that the injuries could result in death. So if someone punches you in the face you can't just shoot them in the face as a response.
The rape example was drilled into our heads in class. Rape and murder laws are state laws and vary in definition. In some places it may be legal to stop a rapist with a bullet. I was taught that in Wisconsin you will go to jail for such an action. Rape is bad, it can cause physical trauma and will likely cause emotional trauma that will last for years. But you can't kill someone legally for making you feel bad. You can however fight back, and if the fight escalates into a life threatening fight, then you can use deadly force.  

Yeah, the example one of my instructors used was 'you come across a couple struggling, obviously the girl's being raped, and you shoot.  Turns out they just liked to play rough..."

If the instructor is good, and if he uses a variety of situations and scenarios, he can get across something about proper usage given a particular state's law.

The 'proportional response' thing is just common sense.  But again, your examples seem to presume knowledge of the result when all that exists is evidence of assault.  The girl doesn't know if it's going to be rape followed by murder, and it could be.  So the gun can be pulled when the assault is evident and threat of bodily harm imminent.

Clearly in some cases, you might get punched and be reasonably sure or even certain that it wasn't part of a serious physical assault that would result in severe injury or death.  But in other cases that might not be certain at all.  Thing is, you never know for sure.

Four punks track you at night and close in for some action.  Those punks, maybe toss them the money out of your wallet, they go away.  Particularly if one hand's inside the jacket, and if they see a hint of something there looks like it might be very bad news.

Most criminals don't want trouble.  They really don't want gunfights. 

[Spendulus]

What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?

No.

Probably you should get a  tripod mount, then, so the assault weapon supports itself.

I agree completely, the darn things are too heavy to tote around.  They don't seem to come in useful too often either.  I mean, think about  it.  Which would you rather carry?  A 10 pound AK47 or ten 16 ounce cans of beer?

[NewLiberty]

How many pages will go by without anything relating to bitcoin before this thread is nuked?

[Spendulus]

How many pages will go by without anything relating to bitcoin before this thread is nuked?

Look, bitcoins are much, much safer that government issued coins.  Pennies are particularly potentially deadly.  They  could be put into shotgun shells and used in assaults with assault weapons.

Bitcoins don't fit in shotgun shells.

The precautionary principle clearly indicates which way we should go.

[TheButterZone]

How many pages will go by without anything relating to bitcoin before this thread is nuked?

This is in Politics & Society, not Bitcoin Discussion.

[Rassah]

BREAKING NEWS:

Browser use has just been directly linked to murder rates!

[zwanzig20]

BREAKING NEWS:

Browser use has just been directly linked to murder rates!

I do recall having a lot of pent up anger back when IE was the only browser I used.

Or slow windows 98

[TheButterZone]

Or any Microsoft operating system since DOS.

[PrintMule]

Or any Microsoft operating system since DOS.

xp was ok

7 was very nice

8 is extremely nice, so i call bollocks on your statement

[superresistant]

BREAKING NEWS:

Browser use has just been directly linked to murder rates!

What are you saying INTERNET EXPLORER IS A RIGHT !
Are you living in dreamland ? Everyone carry it around so do I.

The day people stop using internet explorer I would stop, until then Internet Explorer is my freedom.

[zwanzig20]

This is becoming a microsoft bashing thread . Anyway assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

[Spendulus]

This is becoming a microsoft bashing thread . Anyway assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

At least you've more or less got the definition of assault weapon right.  Here in the US a few months ago, the Obama politicos tried to 'ban assault weapons'.

By the time they were done, they had contrived a new category:  Assault pistol, consisting of any pistol with more than seven rounds.

[TheButterZone]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

[mdude77]

This is becoming a microsoft bashing thread . Anyway assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Speak for yourself.

M