Please vote above. You may vote for one or two options.

No one has to "claim" their vote ~ your choice ~ but I'm the first vote and I voted for banning assault weapons and big clips ~

Sooz

I voted for banning all guns.

I voted for banning all guns, but I want to qualify that by saying that I vote to ban all guns except those carried by gun professionals only while on the job.

I know that that is probably impossible given the place of guns in the American psyche--but yes, in an ideal world, I would like to see all firearm use by civilians be against the law. (and sales to civilians.)

I am in favor of better background checks and checks for ALL sales of firearms.


I would support a ban on certain types of guns, but not an overall category of semi-automatic, etc. I am on the fence about extended clips, but mainly because I don't know how that would affect me financially (selfish, I know). In the end, I would say to ban them for the good of all. So, I only voted for extended clips because I think the categories listed regarding guns is too broad.

To clarify why I am not for an "assault weapon" ban.

This link addresses many reasons why. Assault weapon is a made up term, like partial birth abortion, to elicit an emotional response. If you want to educate yourself and try to overlook any political undertones, this link explains it wonderfully.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

The "assault" is the last 300 meters of the battle. Most battles these days are fought at that range, even ones to protect ones self. before WW2, most rifles were battle rifles and the weapons were only good to 300 yards. WW2 changed things, the Germans engineered rifles that were better for close battle and the Russians perfected them. The US traded the M14 for the M16. At the real definition of assault, handguns are also assault weapons, but only good for the last 50 meters. Assault is a military term applied to civilian weapons and not really conducive to the conversation.

Methinks that once the public has access to such weaponry the term "assault" becomes far more than a strict military definition.

They aren't the same, they just look the same to boost sales. The biggest difference is the 3 round burst.

Easily modified from what I've read.

Not that easily and very expensive (we are talking thousands). It is also HIGHLY illegal. You should look up the punishment for a person possessing a modified one (or even a gun and the parts not installed). It is mainly effective in suppression because it is highly inaccurate due to recoil. If a person used 3 round burst on a killing spree it would make him less deadly most likely.

I didn't vote for any of them. What I would vote for is letting people buy all the weapons they want but, once that weapon leaves the manufacturer, the buyer and each subsequent owner becomes responsible for what that weapon is used for regardless of weather it is sold, stolen, gifted, lost or whatever. In other words, if a gun dealer buys a weapon from a manufacturer and sells it to some gun nut who then sells it to someone else, who gets it stolen by a guy who uses it to rob a gas station. What I could see as fair is the guy who robs the gas station getting charged with armed robbery and all the previous owners charged with being accomplices. That would truly make gun owners - "responsible gun owners".

As it is, gun owners can cart guns around wherever they want, leave them laying around the house or sell or give them to whoever they want. They take no responsibility for their actions or role in the crimes they help commit through their carelessness.

Great idea, jim.

I like it!

I voted against any and all gun control. Not that I feel that way, I believe there needs to be some control but wasn't given that option so I chose what I felt was the next best.

Jim, I like your idea kinda. If you have your weapons locked up but your house is broken into and somehow they are able to get into your safe, then you should not be held accountable for what happens with it after that. Same with sold, if sold to someone that legally can have such weapons. Same thing with gifted. But I think it's a start.

Green Apple Tree wrote:

Yes, I agree with that. Obviously law enforcement, the military, and other such personnel need to carry guns.

mpicky wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "made-up term"? The word "gun" is a made-up term. All words are "made-up" terms. Regardless, a rose by any other name. I don't care if they are called "assault weasons" or "semi-automatics", the public at large should not own one.

For the purposes of an "assault weapon ban," I would define "assault weapon" as any gun that can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.

I'm for banning all assault type guns and multiple magazines.

mpicky wrote:

To clarify why I am not for an "assault weapon" ban.

This link addresses many reasons why. Assault weapon is a made up term, like partial birth abortion, to elicit an emotional response. If you want to educate yourself and try to overlook any political undertones, this link explains it wonderfully.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

The "assault" is the last 300 meters of the battle. Most battles these days are fought at that range, even ones to protect ones self. before WW2, most rifles were battle rifles and the weapons were only good to 300 yards. WW2 changed things, the Germans engineered rifles that were better for close battle and the Russians perfected them. The US traded the M14 for the M16. At the real definition of assault, handguns are also assault weapons, but only good for the last 50 meters. Assault is a military term applied to civilian weapons and not really conducive to the conversation.

So, how did the Clinton era ban on assault weapons work? Seems to me the authors of the article you posted are relying on American's internationally renowned inability to remember anything older than yesterday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban

Here's an interesting perspective on the "right" to bear arms:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

not improbable. there are a lot of other reasons tho- most of them have nothing to do with what gun advocates say.

It worked the same way. Stocks and grips are cosmetic. Handguns kill far more people than an "assault weapon".