|
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 05:53 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.
How is it not relevant? You want to ban weapons that fire .223 because they are supposedly more deadly. If you honestly don't think handguns are just as deadly as a .223 round you're clearly oblivious about firearms and being that's all the reason you've given us for why they should be banned I think your argument is based on ignorance.
|
On February 06 2013 07:14 AdamBanks wrote:Only to the logical and rational individuals among us.
It'd be relevant if it didn't include a ton of third world countries plagued by various wars, if it only included first world countries it'd paint a more useful picture.
|
On February 06 2013 07:37 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 07:14 AdamBanks wrote:Only to the logical and rational individuals among us. It'd be relevant if it didn't include a ton of third world countries plagued by various wars, if it only included first world countries it'd paint a more useful picture.
It is actually described in more detail in the source. From what I gather it is about average compared to European countries, closest to Eastern Europe. In fact if you ignore the murders that are a result from the drugtrade, taking place in some of the worst areas of America, which do not affect the general population, you get numbers similar to most European countries.
Relevant quote: + Show Spoiler +"Here is the list of European countries whose most recent murder rates exceeded the U.S.'s.
• Greenland (19.2)
• Russia (10.2)
• Moldova (7.5)
• Lithuania (6.6)
• Ukraine (5.2)
• Estonia (5.2)
• Belarus (4.9)
It is true that all countries in Southern and Western Europe had lower murder rates than the U.S. But it might be worthwhile to parse the U.S. number if we continue to make such comparisons.
In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.
As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."
A rate of 2.6 would put us below the Southern European countries of Albania (4.0) and Montenegro (3.5), and in the neighborhood of the Western European countries of Liechtenstein (2.8) and Luxembourg (2.5)."
As well as, + Show Spoiler + The Government Accountability Office estimated that 25,064 criminal aliens (non-U.S. citizens) were arrested for homicide in the U.S. Compare that number to the total number of homicides in the U.S. in 2011: 14,612. The criminal aliens committed their murders over a number of years, but that is still a high percentage of all murders in the U.S. that are committed by non-citizens.
|
On February 06 2013 07:37 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 07:14 AdamBanks wrote:Only to the logical and rational individuals among us. It'd be relevant if it didn't include a ton of third world countries plagued by various wars, if it only included first world countries it'd paint a more useful picture.
It's still relevant. Yeah, we have more murders than most first world countries. Mathematically speaking, somebody had to have the most. There's no getting around the fact that some country must have the most murders. You have countries A, B, and C. A and B have only two murders a year. But C has 3 a year. C does have 150% as many murders, but it still doesn't have all that many.
The people who constantly cite that we have double the murder rate of other developed nations forget (or purposely ignore) the fact that even so, its still a very low rate, and this graph shows that fact.
|
Oh yes, compared to countries like Afghanistan our murder rate is fine! Nothing at all wrong with that comparison. (Also, its closer to 4 times the rate of most developed nations.)
|
On February 06 2013 08:03 TheFrankOne wrote:
Oh yes, compared to countries like Afghanistan our murder rate is fine! Nothing at all wrong with that comparison. (Also, its closer to 4 times the rate of most developed nations.)
Again, 4 times almost none is still almost none. Especially if you aren't in Detroit, Chicago, DC, or LA.
|
You can say that murder rate is 4 times higher, it is. But its also 4 units higher. You're inflating the value to make your point. If a country has a murder rate of 1 and another has a rate of 2. Yes its double/200%. But its only 1 higher.
|
Yeah, except that difference represents about 10,000 people per year.
|
On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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?
For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts.
I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation.
I'll quote myself again...
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 06:33 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Well, yes, if we lived in a perfect world, all legislation would be good for everyone. But as Seinfeld would say, 'not bloody likely!'
|
On February 06 2013 08:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:33 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 06:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, yes, if we lived in a perfect world, all legislation would be good for everyone. But as Seinfeld would say, 'not bloody likely!'
Right, but the thing is, both sides want the same things. Both sides want people to not die, and both sides want responsible people to have guns (excluding Diane Feinstein and LaPierre). If we work on fighting the dishonesty and political bullshit instead of each other, good things can actually get done.
|
On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... 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.
The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to.
To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely.
The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes.
|
|
|
Well, we tried prohibition, didn't work out. Maybe we should give banning all guns a shot to, if it doesn't work, we can go back, like we did with the alcohol thing.
I told myself I wouldn't post in this thread though.
|
On February 06 2013 08:38 TheFrankOne wrote:
Well, we tried prohibition, didn't work out. Maybe we should give banning all guns a shot to, if it doesn't work, we can go back, like we did with the alcohol thing.
I told myself I wouldn't post in this thread though.
Right, because guns are consumables, so the rates of manufacture and sale reflect people buying new ones once or twice a week, making it easy to just re-legalize them later. Good thing they aren't several hundred to several thousand dollars and expected to last for a lifetime or two. /sarcasm
Oh wait. Maybe the infrastructure differences due to the whole apples and oranges thing makes this a horribly impractical idea? Oh, just out of curiosity, how the hell is our government going to pay for a national gun buyback? Isn't the national debt absurd enough as is? It's either that, or we keep them, unless we're planning on the whole illegal search and seizure thing, at which point, all of a sudden, that whole defend from tyranny argument starts sounding good.
|
On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... 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. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes.
I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help.
Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes.
Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation.
I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22?
Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles.
|
On February 06 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 06:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, yes, if we lived in a perfect world, all legislation would be good for everyone. But as Seinfeld would say, 'not bloody likely!' Right, but the thing is, both sides want the same things. Both sides want people to not die, and both sides want responsible people to have guns (excluding Diane Feinstein and LaPierre). If we work on fighting the dishonesty and political bullshit instead of each other, good things can actually get done.
Agreed.
|
On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... 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. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles.
Oh, so you didn't say...
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.
...while you were trying to make your point about gun owners not being willing to compromise?
At least, that's what I'm getting out of you accusing me of using an assault weapons ban (of which a mag capacity restriction is frequently part) as a scapegoat. You said it was a start, in a context that implies a good start. A step in the right direction, as it were.
I explained why that would be a terrible starting point for any gun legislation, agreed that we need universal background checks, and stated that gun owners shouldn't "compromise" by accepting legislation that is demonstrably not made in good faith.
In other words, your characterization of me is wrong to the point of flamebait, unless you have the worst memory ever. If you actually follow the quote tree backwards, my tone has gotten increasingly hostile as a direct response to you trying to force me to beat my head against a brick wall. I'll save us both some hassle by writing you off as not worth responding to.
|
On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... 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. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles.
No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation.
You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit.
I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards
edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"?
|
On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: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:
[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. 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? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... 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. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"?
Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit.
Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing.
I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road.
I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Murders%203.bmp)
