Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?

[Mini D]

I might as well just say this once gofaster, because you have not demonstrated anything other than obtuse behavior in this thread (as lazs pointed out... and you seemingly tried to play off as a personal attack).

The SKS is the topic of dicussion here.  The nearest I can tell it is only brought up because someone fired it at a police officer and someone thinks it looks scary.  It was not full auto.  It did not demonstrate any extraordinary capabilities.  What is there that needs to be banned about this weapon?  You've cited nothing other than potential and paranoia because you couldn't find any actual examples to support your views.

MiniD

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Mini D
I might as well just say this once gofaster, because you have not demonstrated anything other than obtuse behavior in this thread (as lazs pointed out... and you seemingly tried to play off as a personal attack).

The SKS is the topic of dicussion here.  The nearest I can tell it is only brought up because someone fired it at a police officer and someone thinks it looks scary.  It was not full auto.  It did not demonstrate any extraordinary capabilities.  What is there that needs to be banned about this weapon?  You've cited nothing other than potential and paranoia because you couldn't find any actual examples to support your views.

MiniD

Right.  The SKS is the topic of discussion here.  So should it be illegal?  I bring it up because of the recent news article about its use against a police officer.  You bring up the same point I've been asking about - does it possess extraordinary capabilities?  As you and Lazs have stated, it does not possess anything greater that isn't already available in other guns.

So, if the SKS were to be made illegal, shouldn't those other weapons be illegal as well?  As Miko2D pointed out, arbitrary laws mean tyranny.  We would have to round up all weapons as powerful as an SKS.  But then we'd disarm the citizenry.

Therefore, it should not be illegal to own an SKS assault rifle, since more powerful weapons are perfectly legal.  

And to think it took this long for me to come around.

[rabbidrabbit]

well.. I'm amazed.  After all those irrelevant links and arguements he came about and bowed to logic.

[gofaster]

So why not ban more powerful guns?

I'm still not quite sold on that one.

[rabbidrabbit]

You are looking at the issue from the wrong direction.  It's about human behavior not whatever tool that is available.

Certain people will do certain things under certain circumstances.  There are plenty out there who will kill or rob because it's in their nature to take advantage of others when they feel it's to their advantage.  Having one weapon or another has little to no influence on this action since the perp is acting because they think they have the advantage and expect to get away with what they are doing.

The primary deterent for those who think this way is the perception of risk being higher than the perception of potential gains.  If you were a house robber and one house had a alarm system and you know the owner has a gun  and the other house had neither , where would you go?

When it comes down to it.  The more lawfull gunowners there are and the more its common knowledge the less crime.  This has been shown in repeated studies and seems rather logical.


regards

[miko2d]

gofaster: So why not ban more powerful guns?
I'm still not quite sold on that one.

 If you do not believe, contrary to multiple historical examples, that a government could not at some point become a danger to it's citizens and needs to be held in check, you will probably not be sold ever.
 Ultimately it comes down to the personal values and perception, not facts. You may be ready to completely entrust your and your progeny's safety to a power-hungry scoundrels elected by the dumb mob.  Others may not.

 Just in case there is a chance, read the Founding Fathers.

 miko

[Curval]

I found it interesting that Tarmac supports the right of an American to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy himself an assault rifle.

He will be attending the police academy soon.

Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?

[Curval]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
When it comes down to it.  The more lawfull gunowners there are and the more its common knowledge the less crime.  This has been shown in repeated studies and seems rather logical.

This logic applies only in the US.

[lazs2]

now Im confused?   Are you saying that we should ban more powerful guns than the SKS or... the 7.62 by 39 round it shoots?  if so... you are asking for a ban on allmost all rifles in existence... certainly every hunting rifle in existence.

I am asking.... why ban any rifle?   why not allow more law abiding citizens easier access to say... machine guns?  

I guess I simply don't get your point or.... if I have then your point is completely bizzare and without any kind of logic.  

It apears that you know nothing at all about firearms.   Is this a fair assesment?
lazs

[lazs2]

I know a lot of cops since they use my facility.   They not only condone firearms ownership by citizens.... they suggest it.
lazs

[capt. apathy]

we've lost way more cops (in oregon anyway) in the last few years to drivers plowing into them on traffic stops.  since cars are killing more cops than guns maybe we should ban cars before guns.

the point is you aren't gonna have a safe world.  and if someone is determined to do you harm they will find a tool.  people are killed in prison every year and inmates are not allowed to own any type of firearm.

it's hard to put it any better than Archie Bunker in an old episode of 'all in the family'.  when presented with the number of people killed every year by handguns.  "would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows"

[Dune]

Originally posted by Curval
Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?

I'm a criminal prosecutor and a member of the NRA.  Does that count?

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Curval
I found it interesting that Tarmac supports the right of an American to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy himself an assault rifle.

He will be attending the police academy soon.

Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?

I don't think I'd change my mind about assault rifles Curval.  I may ask "why did *that* person have an assault rifle" if the shooter had a history of mental instability or other indicator that they would use it inappropriately.  But I can't imagine anything that would make me want to take assault rifles away from law-abiding, stable US citizens.  On the other hand, I have no problem with submitting to a background check/psych evaluation and waiting a few days to buy a weapon.

[Trell]

Originally posted by capt. apathy

it's hard to put it any better than Archie Bunker in an old episode of 'all in the family'.  when presented with the number of people killed every year by handguns.  "would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows"

Am i the only one here that used to love this show?

it is a show that speaks the truth with out the political bs
its only job was to make people laugh

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Curval
This logic applies only in the US.

Why?