|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 06 2013 05:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:34 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:21 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:02 red_b wrote:
isn't than an m1 carbine?
well honestly both are pretty effective if you want to kill a lot of people.
the difference between handguns and rifles is penetration though. not that many handgun rounds, especially jacketed rounds, can go through a police vest whereas rifle bullets not only can go through vests but also walls, vehicle doors, etc. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-feloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killedOf the 63 police officers killed in the US with firearms, 50 were killed with handguns. 46 of the officers were wearing body armor. Clearly, armor can't even handle handguns. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gunAR15 is the most common rifle in the US, yet only 3% of crimes are committed with rifles at all, with "Assault Weapons" being an even smaller percentage of those. On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:
[quote]
Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL.
What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings?
By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different?
There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. NY just banned any magazine over 7 rounds. NY just redefined the term assault weapon to include a single prohibited feature instead of the previous two. The banned feature list is ridiculous too, like folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips. There are millions of people in NY who own these things. There is also no grandfathering, so you've got until the law comes into effect to get rid of your stuff, or you're a felon. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg0gYBJJhkLBtiTPMfJI'm fine with background checks, but the other two ARE stupid. http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/01152013-outline-of-nys-groundbreaking-gun-legislation"Assault weapons possessed before the effective date must be registered within a year and recertified every five years. Owners of grandfathered assault weapons may only sell out of state or through an in state federal firearms licensee" Guns can be grandfathered. Magazines can't. Most people who own those guns also have magazines for them. Ergo millions of people are STILL on the shitlist.
Its true. They have 1 year to sell them, otherwise they get fined. That isn't as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
|
The NY ban lets weapons get grandfathered in, but once you die, since you cant transfer, the state comes in and takes it.
|
On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement.
But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth.
I don't think you realize how stupid the law is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin–Nagant
This bolt-action rifle from 1891 is now an "assault weapon". It has a bayonet lug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_1903
Bolt-action from 1903. "Assault Weapon". Bayonet lug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossberg_500
Pump-action shotgun. "Assault Weapon". Bayonet lug and 8 round magazine.
|
On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement.
Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone.
Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems.
|
On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:
[quote]
Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL.
What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings?
By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different?
There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth.
I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful.
I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective.
|
On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:
[quote]
Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL.
What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings?
By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different?
There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems.
You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer.
Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact.
|
On February 06 2013 04:19 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 04:06 LOveRH wrote:
I believe people should be allowed to own a hand gun only but not able to carry it around in public areas. I think that a family has a right to protect their house with a gun on their property but walking around with guns everywhere is another thing altogether. On an another note, I don't think that normal people should have the right to own assault rifles. Assault rifles should ONLY be available to the military and the police. I I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater.
This discussion reminded me of something I saw on the news of how this random dude wanted to protest his right to own and carry around a gun. He showed up in a mall with a assault rifle slug around his shoulder. I don't know about you but that is really fucking scary. This was right after the shooting that the elementary school (i think the guy doing it around this time was little insulting but that's just me). If i saw something like that i would gtfo of that mall in a flash. I'm not trusting anyone that walks around with an assault rifle even if they are the nicest person in the world. There is just no need for it in the first place.
Hand guns at in your house should be fine. If you want to take the risk of your kid or family member getting hurt by one that's on you, on your property. I just don't want to see people walking around the streets all carrying an object with one simple action could blow someones head off. I feel like weapons like that should be in military/police hands who are trained and doing a service. So you think people should only be allowed to own the type of guns that are used in 95%+ of crimes? Not to mention handguns are typically larger caliber than rifles by far. So that rules out your reasoning of " I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater." I know it's just terminology that you're using wrong but it just shows how uninformed you are on a subject you have such a strong opinion on. What exactly do you plan to accomplish by only banning the weapons used in less than 5% of crimes? Simply illogical. Handguns are usually more deadly due to their small size and damage capability. And that's exactly why they are used in most crimes.
There is a lot of factors that make hand guns top weapon in crimes but i don't think that's relevant in my argument. Honestly, if you want to argue that then... bad guys will always have the guns. No matter what you do, they will always have them.
You know what the doctors said when asked after the shooting the elementary school shooting about how they would react to guns after this shooting? They said, problem isn't the guns themselves it is the bullets. The bullets in rifles rip apart a body while being shot with a hand gun the they (the doctors) would at least be able to try to save a life. Rifles will always be a lot more dangerous and be able to do a lot more damage. I'm not arguing that if they are on the top of the food chain or not i'm arguing that there is no reason that ANYONE should be walking around with one on the street. There is no reason that should be necessary in this day and age. While protecting your family at home should be the only reason you have or own a gun and you don't need a rifle to do that, unless your dealing with zombies.
|
On February 06 2013 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth. I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful. I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective.
Nope. I'm totally fine with universal background checks. I'm totally fine with stricter punishments for straw purchasing (maybe allow plea deals with criminals who rat out their seller?).
I disagree that banning assault weapons or large magazines asks very little, considering that, like I said, the AR15 is the most common rifle in the US. Many other "Assault Weapons" aren't far behind either.
On February 06 2013 05:53 LOveRH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 04:19 heliusx wrote:On February 06 2013 04:06 LOveRH wrote:
I believe people should be allowed to own a hand gun only but not able to carry it around in public areas. I think that a family has a right to protect their house with a gun on their property but walking around with guns everywhere is another thing altogether. On an another note, I don't think that normal people should have the right to own assault rifles. Assault rifles should ONLY be available to the military and the police. I I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater.
This discussion reminded me of something I saw on the news of how this random dude wanted to protest his right to own and carry around a gun. He showed up in a mall with a assault rifle slug around his shoulder. I don't know about you but that is really fucking scary. This was right after the shooting that the elementary school (i think the guy doing it around this time was little insulting but that's just me). If i saw something like that i would gtfo of that mall in a flash. I'm not trusting anyone that walks around with an assault rifle even if they are the nicest person in the world. There is just no need for it in the first place.
Hand guns at in your house should be fine. If you want to take the risk of your kid or family member getting hurt by one that's on you, on your property. I just don't want to see people walking around the streets all carrying an object with one simple action could blow someones head off. I feel like weapons like that should be in military/police hands who are trained and doing a service. So you think people should only be allowed to own the type of guns that are used in 95%+ of crimes? Not to mention handguns are typically larger caliber than rifles by far. So that rules out your reasoning of " I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater." I know it's just terminology that you're using wrong but it just shows how uninformed you are on a subject you have such a strong opinion on. What exactly do you plan to accomplish by only banning the weapons used in less than 5% of crimes? Simply illogical. Handguns are usually more deadly due to their small size and damage capability. And that's exactly why they are used in most crimes. There is a lot of factors that make hand guns top weapon in crimes but i don't think that's relevant in my argument. Honestly, if you want to argue that then... bad guys will always have the guns. No matter what you do, they will always have them. You know what the doctors said when asked after the shooting the elementary school shooting about how they would react to guns after this shooting? They said, problem isn't the guns themselves it is the bullets. The bullets in rifles rip apart a body while being shot with a hand gun the they (the doctors) would at least be able to try to save a life. Rifles will always be a lot more dangerous and be able to do a lot more damage. I'm not arguing that if they are on the top of the food chain or not i'm arguing that there is no reason that ANYONE should be walking around with one on the street. There is no reason that should be necessary in this day and age. While protecting your family at home should be the only reason you have or own a gun and you don't need a rifle to do that, unless your dealing with zombies.
Plenty of handguns fire the exact same rounds as rifles.
|
On February 06 2013 05:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns?
The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth. I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful. I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. Nope. I'm totally fine with universal background checks. I'm totally fine with stricter punishments for straw purchasing (maybe allow plea deals with criminals who rat out their seller?). I disagree that banning assault weapons or large magazines asks very little, considering that, like I said, the AR15 is the most common rifle in the US. Many other "Assault Weapons" aren't far behind either.
I think that the plan is to allow assault weapons purchased prior to any ban would be allowed to stay.
http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assault-weapons-ban-no-gun-seizure/22871
"Like the previous assault weapons ban passed in 1994, Feinstein’s bill will contain a grandfather clause. Gun owners who are in legal possession of a weapon when the new law comes into effect will be allowed to continue to own and use that firearm despite the fact the legislation will make that weapon illegal to buy or possess. And it is the firearm that is grandfathered, not the owner’s right to have an assault weapon. Owners will be free to transfer their grandfathered guns to someone else."
To be fair, we'll have to wait to see what the actual legislation says. I certainly wouldn't support anything that is asking for gun owners to give up their current guns. That would mean I'd have to give up mine :D
|
On February 06 2013 06:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:55 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban.
I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth. I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful. I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. Nope. I'm totally fine with universal background checks. I'm totally fine with stricter punishments for straw purchasing (maybe allow plea deals with criminals who rat out their seller?). I disagree that banning assault weapons or large magazines asks very little, considering that, like I said, the AR15 is the most common rifle in the US. Many other "Assault Weapons" aren't far behind either. I think that the plan is to allow assault weapons purchased prior to any ban would be allowed to stay. http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assault-weapons-ban-no-gun-seizure/22871"Like the previous assault weapons ban passed in 1994, Feinstein’s bill will contain a grandfather clause. Gun owners who are in legal possession of a weapon when the new law comes into effect will be allowed to continue to own and use that firearm despite the fact the legislation will make that weapon illegal to buy or possess. And it is the firearm that is grandfathered, not the owner’s right to have an assault weapon. Owners will be free to transfer their grandfathered guns to someone else." To be fair, we'll have to wait to see what the actual legislation says. I certainly wouldn't support anything that is asking for gun owners to give up their current guns. That would mean I'd have to give up mine :D
But why should we limit legal owners at all? Say the new AWB goes into effect tomorrow. I can legally buy an AR15 today, no criminal record, no mental issues, and I'm 21. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy one on Thursday?
|
Isn't it about banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense?" Assault weapons are probably one of them, many think, so that's what's on the table.
On the other hand, "whichever guns that often get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense" is not included to the bill because enough peole think that benefit of those guns outweighs the social cost. Often times, "handgun" is the term used to replace this long name.
5% of crimes (or presumably, more than 5% of deaths/injuries due to higher(?) casualties per incident for easier(?) mass shooting) it may be, but if those guns don't add much to your self-defense, why not ban them?
|
On February 06 2013 06:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:55 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change.
And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous.
Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth. I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful. I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. Nope. I'm totally fine with universal background checks. I'm totally fine with stricter punishments for straw purchasing (maybe allow plea deals with criminals who rat out their seller?). I disagree that banning assault weapons or large magazines asks very little, considering that, like I said, the AR15 is the most common rifle in the US. Many other "Assault Weapons" aren't far behind either. I think that the plan is to allow assault weapons purchased prior to any ban would be allowed to stay. http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assault-weapons-ban-no-gun-seizure/22871"Like the previous assault weapons ban passed in 1994, Feinstein’s bill will contain a grandfather clause. Gun owners who are in legal possession of a weapon when the new law comes into effect will be allowed to continue to own and use that firearm despite the fact the legislation will make that weapon illegal to buy or possess. And it is the firearm that is grandfathered, not the owner’s right to have an assault weapon. Owners will be free to transfer their grandfathered guns to someone else." To be fair, we'll have to wait to see what the actual legislation says. I certainly wouldn't support anything that is asking for gun owners to give up their current guns. That would mean I'd have to give up mine :D But why should we limit legal owners at all? Say the new AWB goes into effect tomorrow. I can legally buy an AR15 today, no criminal record, no mental issues, and I'm 21. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy one on Thursday?
Why can you legally drink on your 21'st birthday, but not the day before?
I'm not going to argue the AWB on its own merits. I don't agree with it either (well...my feelings are complicated, but I'll just say that). I think I already summed up my thoughts about it in my last few posts.
|
On February 06 2013 06:08 Orek wrote:
Isn't it about banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense?" Assault weapons are probably one of them, many think, so that's what's on the table.
On the other hand, "whichever guns that often get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense" is not included to the bill because enough peole think that benefit of those guns outweighs the social cost. Often times, "handgun" is the term used to replace this long name.
5% of crimes (or presumably, more than 5% of deaths/injuries due to higher(?) casualties per incident for easier(?) mass shooting) it may be, but if those guns don't add much to your self-defense, why not ban them?
Why can't they be used for self defense? Its not like they're any harder to wield than any other long-gun. In fact, since they are made mostly of plastic, they're often lighter and easier to wield, meaning they're better for self-defense. If anything, handguns are less effective, because they're significantly harder to aim, and aren't as intimidating.
On February 06 2013 06:13 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:05 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 06:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:55 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights.
Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property.
Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away.
The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise.
If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth. I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful. I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. Nope. I'm totally fine with universal background checks. I'm totally fine with stricter punishments for straw purchasing (maybe allow plea deals with criminals who rat out their seller?). I disagree that banning assault weapons or large magazines asks very little, considering that, like I said, the AR15 is the most common rifle in the US. Many other "Assault Weapons" aren't far behind either. I think that the plan is to allow assault weapons purchased prior to any ban would be allowed to stay. http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assault-weapons-ban-no-gun-seizure/22871"Like the previous assault weapons ban passed in 1994, Feinstein’s bill will contain a grandfather clause. Gun owners who are in legal possession of a weapon when the new law comes into effect will be allowed to continue to own and use that firearm despite the fact the legislation will make that weapon illegal to buy or possess. And it is the firearm that is grandfathered, not the owner’s right to have an assault weapon. Owners will be free to transfer their grandfathered guns to someone else." To be fair, we'll have to wait to see what the actual legislation says. I certainly wouldn't support anything that is asking for gun owners to give up their current guns. That would mean I'd have to give up mine :D But why should we limit legal owners at all? Say the new AWB goes into effect tomorrow. I can legally buy an AR15 today, no criminal record, no mental issues, and I'm 21. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy one on Thursday? Why can you legally drink on your 21'st birthday, but not the day before? I'm not going to argue the AWB on its own merits. I don't agree with it either (well...my feelings are complicated, but I'll just say that). I think I already summed up my thoughts about it in my last few posts.
Beats me, but I don't think they have a good reason, considering I can die in a war at 16. Hell, I can vote at 18. I have the fate of the country in my hands for 3 whole years before I'm allowed a single beer.
Would you agree that laws should live and die by their own rational merits, not emotion after a tragedy, or by riding another bill?
|
On February 06 2013 06:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:08 Orek wrote:
Isn't it about banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense?" Assault weapons are probably one of them, many think, so that's what's on the table.
On the other hand, "whichever guns that often get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense" is not included to the bill because enough peole think that benefit of those guns outweighs the social cost. Often times, "handgun" is the term used to replace this long name.
5% of crimes (or presumably, more than 5% of deaths/injuries due to higher(?) casualties per incident for easier(?) mass shooting) it may be, but if those guns don't add much to your self-defense, why not ban them? Why can't they be used for self defense? Its not like they're any harder to wield than any other long-gun. In fact, since they are made mostly of plastic, they're often lighter and easier to wield, meaning they're better for self-defense. If anything, handguns are less effective, because they're significantly harder to aim, and aren't as intimidating.
Hmm. Then, actually "handguns" are "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense" and "assault weapons are "whichever guns that get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense." Then, why not we leave assault weapons and ban handguns? Why can't we focus on banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense" and discuss which type is categorized as such? I couldn't care less which ones are more evil-looking etc.
|
On February 06 2013 06:20 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:14 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 06:08 Orek wrote:
Isn't it about banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense?" Assault weapons are probably one of them, many think, so that's what's on the table.
On the other hand, "whichever guns that often get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense" is not included to the bill because enough peole think that benefit of those guns outweighs the social cost. Often times, "handgun" is the term used to replace this long name.
5% of crimes (or presumably, more than 5% of deaths/injuries due to higher(?) casualties per incident for easier(?) mass shooting) it may be, but if those guns don't add much to your self-defense, why not ban them? Why can't they be used for self defense? Its not like they're any harder to wield than any other long-gun. In fact, since they are made mostly of plastic, they're often lighter and easier to wield, meaning they're better for self-defense. If anything, handguns are less effective, because they're significantly harder to aim, and aren't as intimidating. Hmm. Then, actually "handguns" are "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense" and "assault weapons are "whichever guns that get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense." Then, why not we leave assault weapons and ban handguns? Why can't we focus on banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense" and discuss which type is categorized as such? I couldn't care less which ones are more evil-looking etc.
I wouldn't take it as far as an outright ban, because that decreases society's emphasis on personal responsibility. I think it's important that we do not blame guns, but instead we blame criminals. You can't hold inanimate objects accountable, or there is no real emphasis that it was the person's fault.
In any case, I'd be cool with stricter background checks on handguns than on rifles, but most places already have that. Most crimes aren't committed with legally owned weapons. I certainly don't think its as simple as "Ban this kind of gun, everyone wins."
|
On February 06 2013 06:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:08 Orek wrote:
Isn't it about banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense?" Assault weapons are probably one of them, many think, so that's what's on the table.
On the other hand, "whichever guns that often get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense" is not included to the bill because enough peole think that benefit of those guns outweighs the social cost. Often times, "handgun" is the term used to replace this long name.
5% of crimes (or presumably, more than 5% of deaths/injuries due to higher(?) casualties per incident for easier(?) mass shooting) it may be, but if those guns don't add much to your self-defense, why not ban them? Why can't they be used for self defense? Its not like they're any harder to wield than any other long-gun. In fact, since they are made mostly of plastic, they're often lighter and easier to wield, meaning they're better for self-defense. If anything, handguns are less effective, because they're significantly harder to aim, and aren't as intimidating. Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:13 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:05 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 06:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:55 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential.
Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try.
Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument.
There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes.
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth. I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful. I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. Nope. I'm totally fine with universal background checks. I'm totally fine with stricter punishments for straw purchasing (maybe allow plea deals with criminals who rat out their seller?). I disagree that banning assault weapons or large magazines asks very little, considering that, like I said, the AR15 is the most common rifle in the US. Many other "Assault Weapons" aren't far behind either. I think that the plan is to allow assault weapons purchased prior to any ban would be allowed to stay. http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assault-weapons-ban-no-gun-seizure/22871"Like the previous assault weapons ban passed in 1994, Feinstein’s bill will contain a grandfather clause. Gun owners who are in legal possession of a weapon when the new law comes into effect will be allowed to continue to own and use that firearm despite the fact the legislation will make that weapon illegal to buy or possess. And it is the firearm that is grandfathered, not the owner’s right to have an assault weapon. Owners will be free to transfer their grandfathered guns to someone else." To be fair, we'll have to wait to see what the actual legislation says. I certainly wouldn't support anything that is asking for gun owners to give up their current guns. That would mean I'd have to give up mine :D But why should we limit legal owners at all? Say the new AWB goes into effect tomorrow. I can legally buy an AR15 today, no criminal record, no mental issues, and I'm 21. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy one on Thursday? Why can you legally drink on your 21'st birthday, but not the day before? I'm not going to argue the AWB on its own merits. I don't agree with it either (well...my feelings are complicated, but I'll just say that). I think I already summed up my thoughts about it in my last few posts. Beats me, but I don't think they have a good reason, considering I can die in a war at 16. Hell, I can vote at 18. I have the fate of the country in my hands for 3 whole years before I'm allowed a single beer. Would you agree that laws should live and die by their own rational merits, not emotion after a tragedy, or by riding another bill?
Like I've said a few times now, I think the assault weapons ban is silly, but harmless. Your question does not take into account political reality, which is that truly effective gun legislation has zero chance of passing. Silly, harmless, and largely ineffectual legislation like the AWB is a necessary prerequisite for effective gun legislation.
|
On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact.
Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on?
You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second.
Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles.
So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe.
That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work?
|
On February 06 2013 06:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:14 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 06:08 Orek wrote:
Isn't it about banning "whichever guns that can be used for crimes but serve little purpose for self-defense?" Assault weapons are probably one of them, many think, so that's what's on the table.
On the other hand, "whichever guns that often get used for crimes but also seem to be effective/essential for self-defense" is not included to the bill because enough peole think that benefit of those guns outweighs the social cost. Often times, "handgun" is the term used to replace this long name.
5% of crimes (or presumably, more than 5% of deaths/injuries due to higher(?) casualties per incident for easier(?) mass shooting) it may be, but if those guns don't add much to your self-defense, why not ban them? Why can't they be used for self defense? Its not like they're any harder to wield than any other long-gun. In fact, since they are made mostly of plastic, they're often lighter and easier to wield, meaning they're better for self-defense. If anything, handguns are less effective, because they're significantly harder to aim, and aren't as intimidating. On February 06 2013 06:13 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:05 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 06:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:55 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:42 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. But supporting the flawed legislation because it gets lumped in with the good legislation is just promoting a political culture of dishonesty. Laws should have to stand on their own, no riders and no amendments. Because otherwise, bullshit can sneak in with good laws. The moment you stop fighting all this dishonesty is the moment it takes you for all your worth. I feel like even though the assault weapons ban and clip limiting won't significantly impact crime, it also is asking very little in return. I think an assault weapons ban is stupid; I don't think its harmful. I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. Nope. I'm totally fine with universal background checks. I'm totally fine with stricter punishments for straw purchasing (maybe allow plea deals with criminals who rat out their seller?). I disagree that banning assault weapons or large magazines asks very little, considering that, like I said, the AR15 is the most common rifle in the US. Many other "Assault Weapons" aren't far behind either. I think that the plan is to allow assault weapons purchased prior to any ban would be allowed to stay. http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assault-weapons-ban-no-gun-seizure/22871"Like the previous assault weapons ban passed in 1994, Feinstein’s bill will contain a grandfather clause. Gun owners who are in legal possession of a weapon when the new law comes into effect will be allowed to continue to own and use that firearm despite the fact the legislation will make that weapon illegal to buy or possess. And it is the firearm that is grandfathered, not the owner’s right to have an assault weapon. Owners will be free to transfer their grandfathered guns to someone else." To be fair, we'll have to wait to see what the actual legislation says. I certainly wouldn't support anything that is asking for gun owners to give up their current guns. That would mean I'd have to give up mine :D But why should we limit legal owners at all? Say the new AWB goes into effect tomorrow. I can legally buy an AR15 today, no criminal record, no mental issues, and I'm 21. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy one on Thursday? Why can you legally drink on your 21'st birthday, but not the day before? I'm not going to argue the AWB on its own merits. I don't agree with it either (well...my feelings are complicated, but I'll just say that). I think I already summed up my thoughts about it in my last few posts. Beats me, but I don't think they have a good reason, considering I can die in a war at 16. Hell, I can vote at 18. I have the fate of the country in my hands for 3 whole years before I'm allowed a single beer. Would you agree that laws should live and die by their own rational merits, not emotion after a tragedy, or by riding another bill? Like I've said a few times now, I think the assault weapons ban is silly, but harmless. Your question does not take into account political reality, which is that truly effective gun legislation has zero chance of passing. Silly, harmless, and largely ineffectual legislation like the AWB is a necessary prerequisite for effective gun legislation.
So why not try to change the political climate instead? Don't treat the symptom, treat the disease. Gun Rights aren't the only issue the political climate is ruining. If we work on that instead, we can get the good legislation, with none of the bad, with regards to every issue.
|
|
|
Only to the logical and rational individuals among us.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Murders%203.bmp)
