Don't know if anyone on here is from Chicago, or around the city, but I guess Mayor Daley is at it again pushing anti-gun legislation. This time, it's trying to limit the number of handguns a person can buy to 1 per month. Of course, most people don't even buy that many a month, but when will this idiot (and, consequently, all the other anti-gun nut idiots) understand that it doesn't matter how many, or what type, of guns a person owns, if they are going to do something illegal with guns, they are going to do it. It has nothing to do with the particulars of their ownership. This crap just burns me up. :icon_rage
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
[Gun-sort of] Chicago Mayor Daley
- Thread starter metro
- Start date
When are people going to figure out that gun laws don't apply to the criminals commiting gun related crimes? Why is that so difficult to comprehend? These idiots are all about making it as difficult as possible for law abiding folks to get guns, but as soon as you start talking about tougher sentencing requirements for actual criminals who get caught, they whine about that? WTF?
Brett
Brett
I think that it is ironic that NFA firearms, or weapons that are included in the national firearms act (full autos, SBR's, AOW's), have never once been documented in the use of a crime. These are the weapons that liberal's fear the most, they thought that when the assault weapons ban died there would be, "rampant murders with ak-47's." There are somewhere over 200,000 registered legal full-autos out there, and yet one has NEVER been used in a crime. How many people have been killed with a $40 single shot shotgun? The thing is the type of guns people own or the number of guns people own has nothing to do with crime.
xmid said:
Not entirely true. There has been at least one case of a registered NFA firearm being used in a murder. A police officer used a NFA firearm to murder someone. Go figure, right? I think he was deemed mentally unstable as well (beyond the normal unstableness required to murder someone).
While I don't doubt the case which you are mentioning, if it was the officers issued weapon it does not fall under NFA. Most police weapons are class 3 dealer samples for law enforcement only. Police are allowed to buy brand new class III's, while the buying public is forced to buy guns that where registered before 1983 
. Some departments still have registered firearms in their inventory, but most have sold them to dealers in exchange for brand new firearms. I have a friend that is a class III dealer and he offers PD's 2 brand new HK mp-5s or M-4's for every registered firearm they have, plus a gear voucher. Both the dealer and the departments make out. The PD gets 2 brand new guns that may suit their purposes better, and the dealer gets a $12-14k m-16. I could be wrong and this was a legitimate registered class III shooting, I just don't know of the case. The media would probably like you to believe it was a "machine gun" that he bought at a gun show or something...
. Some departments still have registered firearms in their inventory, but most have sold them to dealers in exchange for brand new firearms. I have a friend that is a class III dealer and he offers PD's 2 brand new HK mp-5s or M-4's for every registered firearm they have, plus a gear voucher. Both the dealer and the departments make out. The PD gets 2 brand new guns that may suit their purposes better, and the dealer gets a $12-14k m-16. I could be wrong and this was a legitimate registered class III shooting, I just don't know of the case. The media would probably like you to believe it was a "machine gun" that he bought at a gun show or something...
I think the point that needs to be made is that people that intend to do harm to other people will find a way to do it. If there were no guns in the world they would just use something else. I don't think many people considered a 767 a possible cruise missle until that infamous day in 2001.
xmid said:
Those that are anti-gun refuse to accept that it is a person doing the action. The gun is a mere tool. Most gun laws aren't enforced, shit, most prison terms for any crime are barely enforced. Criminals in England are a protected species. It seems liek we're going that way here sometimes.
I'm always reminded of the classic All In The Family/Archie Bunker sentiment:
Archie's daughter: "Did you know that XXXX number of people were killed by guns last year??"
Archie: "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?"
Agree with Fly on the fact that the gun is just a tool, the same way a hammer or a nailgun, or whatever else you can think of is a tool. If a person kills someone with a hammer, he's just as guilty of murder as he is if he kills them with a 9mm. He's probably just closer.
Archie's daughter: "Did you know that XXXX number of people were killed by guns last year??"
Archie: "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?"
Agree with Fly on the fact that the gun is just a tool, the same way a hammer or a nailgun, or whatever else you can think of is a tool. If a person kills someone with a hammer, he's just as guilty of murder as he is if he kills them with a 9mm. He's probably just closer.