No, no YMMV. If you support a ban on assault weapons, you are objectively wrong. You do not know or care what an assault weapon actually is - it’s a scary-sounding name for a gun not meaningfully different than any other, and that’s enough for you to support a ban.
Grumman, I don’t think you and I have ever interacted before. But allow me to say this, quoting Rob Wilco: “oh Bucky, you’re so tiny, yet you’re such a massive nutjob.”
You do not know or care what goes on in my head; you don’t know what I know about guns or don’t know. You see someone who disagrees with you, and you think “commie! He wants ta take mah guns!”
Suck a bag of dicks.
There’s no reason why you need an AR-15 for home defense. You’ll never justify it to me. If you need that many goddamn bullets to shoot an intruder, then you should haul your fat ass to the gun range, and actually TRY to hit the target once in a while, you gravy-sweating cousin-fucker.
Thanks for the clarification.
So you don’t support a total gun ban, but you do support a ban on…the ones that you don’t think other people need. Is that about right?
That sounds elitist, when it’s worded that way, Bone. I certainly didn’t think of myself that way. But point taken.
We have limits on the 2nd Amendment, anyway. You can’t drive a tank on city streets. You can’t own missiles. I don’t recall being able to buy flamethrowers in a standard gun shop. Granted, it’s been a few years since I’ve been in one, so that has maybe changed.
I realize I may not have properly answered your question. I’m not ducking the issue (at least, I don’t think I am). I know my objections; I just don’t know how to articulate them. So I want to consider what you’ve said, and how to phrase my response (this is why I don’t post much in GD. I sometimes have trouble articulating adequately).
Fair enough?
Sure thing.
I generally think of how people feel about an AWB as a litmus test for those that are knowledgeable about 2nd amendment issues. There are of course many other major and minor issues, but an AWB is talked about enough that folks who have given thought to the issue should know their position.
There are several people on this board that support expansive restrictions on gun rights, but simultaneously do not support an AWB. The reason is because the AWB is largely superficial and relies on banning purely cosmetic or aesthetic items. Add that to the fact that a vanishingly small amount of crimes are committed with ‘assault weapons’ and it’s clear that any type of AWB would be for show only.
Whenever any type of new law is discussed, it’s important to keep in mind what the goal of the law actually is. If the results are not consistent with the goal, then the law should be reconsidered as it would be ineffective.
In addition to that, I think it’s important to re-evaluate your position when it is based on determining what other people need. It’s a pretty terrible way to craft laws.
We have limits, yes. Some of those are being fleshed out and litigated. Tanks are not subject to the 2nd amendment. And btw, you can drive a tank on city streets. Missiles are not covered by the 2nd amendment. I’m not sure about flamethrowers, but you can have them apparently (cracked cite :))
There are no federal restrictions on owning flamethrowers. Maybe some states have some, I don’t know.
As much as I hate to agree with Terr, facts should trump emotions. I realize that the child’s parents are distraught. But the fact is that gun violence is way, way down.
Really? Way, *way *down? What numbers are you looking at?
US: Non-fatal firearm victims
2011: 53,197
2010: 47,172
2009: 48,765
2008: 45,794
2007: 55,886
2006: 61,310
2005: 55,594
2004: 47,513
2003: 47,783
2002: 50,299
2001: 53,309
2000: 55,220
1999: 54,713
**US: Total firearm deaths **
2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
US: Total firearm homicides
2011: 11,101
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
Data from CDC, Bureau of Justice Statistics etc.
Don’t know about you, but I don’t see how anyone would describe those numbers as being ‘way, *way *down’. Compared to when? The crack-fueled crime-infested 70s and 80s? Is -that- how low we’re willing to set the standard for measuring ‘progress’? ‘Only hundreds of thousands’ of gunshot victims?
…Huh. Time to check my sources better. Ignorance fought!
(This is what I get for agreeing with Terr. -.- )
While we’re at it, one more:
US: Total firearm suicides
2011: 19,766
2010: 19,392
2009: 18,735
2008: 18,223
2007: 17,352
2006: 16,883
2005: 17,002
2004: 16,750
2003: 16,907
2002: 17,108
2001: 16,869
2000: 16,586
1999: 16,599
DragonAsh, just to be clear, those are violence related non-fatal firearm injuries, right? Because the US total non-fatal firearm injury numbers from all intents run about 30k higher than those.
The rates are down. He’s just giving you total numbers.
Way down from 70s, 80s and 90s. Just like I said. Funny why you didn’t cite the numbers from then?
I’m OK with a vision check eery 5 or 10 years. Are you suggesting that we have the state inspect our guns every year to make sure theya re operating properly?
Yes that’s exactly what I am suggesting you fucking retard. The US Department of Justice collects data on these cases and they come up with 100,000 cases where guns are uaed defensively. And I think even THAT number is very consrvative in measuring instances where guns are used defensively. Of course the gun might not have been the crucial factor in deterring crime (mere confrontation of the criminal might have been enough but I would rather confront a criminal with a gun than with harsh words).
And what do you think the proposed AWB did?
Are you under the impression that the new AWB confiscated all outstanding assault weapons?
The proposed AWB would have been just as ineffective as the last one.
Do some fucking research you lazy peice of shit. All rifles combined account for a remarkably small percentage of gunmurders (~3%). Assault weapons account for a small percentage of all rifles. How much effect could a ban on the sale of new assault weapons have pssibly had?
WTF are you talking about you half a retard (the worse half)? I am saying that when you waste all your resources on something as stupid and retarded as an AWB, you end up with nothing, you certainly don’t get any meaningful regulatioin that could actually make a difference. Idiots like youa re the gun cotnrol lobby’s worst enemy.
Cite? I think you are hearing voices in your head.
WTF are you talking about? The background checks at gun shows was going to have no effect on gun violence. the only reason youa re so butthurt about its failure is because it rubbed your nose in how completetly you had squandered the political capital your side of the argument had gained from Newtown. Good job, you just out-stupidded the NRA.
:rolleyes:
I am usally especially opposed to things that are meaningless and I wasn’t opposed to the Manchin-Toomey bill at the time there is a difference between not caring that the bill died and being gleeful that it died. I think youa re hearing voices in your head.
What basic safety purpose is being served by inspecting all our guns every year? Or is it your opinion that making gun ownership more burdensome is in itself a basic safety measure?
I think a periodic vision exam is reasonable. I think that the licensing system would keep track of whether or not someone is legally permitted to possess a firearm o your license would be revoked if you committed a felony or beat your wife. I don’t know what you mean by firearm competency exam? What do you have in mind?
I was talking about competency exams. What do you envision these competency exams would look like? If its just a matter of getting on the internet and re-registering yourself, I would ask, whats the point.
An assault weapon is not defined by how many rounds it holds. The old AWB defined an assault weapon as a weapon that had any two of a long list of a features. So a gun with a bayonet lug and an adjustable stock was an assault weapon.
The proposed AWB would have banned weapons that had any ONE of those features.
What you are talking about sounds more like a cap on magazine capacity. The typical AR-15 has a magazine that holds 30 rounds. Popular handguns hold anywhere from 7 to 17 rounds. The high capacity magazine is defined as any detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The most popular pistol in the country holds 15 rounds.
Personally, I don’t give a shit about capacity. I can change a magazine in about 2 seconds. It would be irritating but if you could show me some significant benefits to limiting magazine capacity, I can live with a little iritation (although 10 seems sort of low).
It seems to me that you don’t have a problem with the cosmetic bullshit that makes an assault weapon an assault weapon. You are more concerned about the capacity of the gun because you have heard stories about how we stopped trampage shooters while they were changing magazines (see Gabbie Giffords shooting). If you could show me that this was not an isolated incident and that magazine size has a measurable impact on gun violence I could see your point, otherwise you might be supporting gun control that does nothing to reduce gun violence.
He is probably talking about today’s numbers compared to the numbers in the early 1990s Gun violence dropped dramatically through the 1990s and then plateaued in the late 1990s. Since then gun violence RATE has been relatively level over time (maybe dropping a little bit).
The peak was 1993 IIRC. Some people think vilence is more closely linked to lead in our gasoline than crack.
I don’t know that the CDC numbers go back that far.
Perhaps you are in the 56% camp? Using raw figures without adjusting for population gives you uninformative results.
Overall crime rates are down, so yes, I’d expect a corresponding decline in firearm violence - as quoted above, ‘non-fatal crime victimization with or without a firearm’ declined 72%…yet firearm homicides were only down 49%.
I know why the gun lickers want to stick to making every comparison to the peak bad years - every comparision looks great! ’ See, gun violence is down! There’s no need to do anything’ appears to be a favorite stance among the gun lickers.The more relevant question is to ask why the rate declined (was it merely due to a decline in overall crime? Is the decline in fatalities due mostly to better emergency response & medical treatment?), and why has the rate of decline slowed or actually reversed in recent years?
I don’t think we should be doing cartwheels in the streets about ‘only 30,000 gunshot deaths despite a growing population! America’s #1!’.
How about a vision check and a mental health check every 5 years?
But dragonash, see, you haven’t even attempted to answer those questions. Your take seems to be “WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!” without actually looking at any root causes. Come up with a real plan and we’ll discuss it. People like you are the reason we have a ban on “assault weapons” that can’t even define an “assault weapon”. It’s a stupid law that doesn’t actually do anything, but it got support because wanted to do something. They didn’t know what they wanted to do, but damnit, they were going to do it anyway, by God.
It’s because we are tired of the retarded measures that are taken: disarm law-abiding citizens and leave the criminals free to act unhindered. The solution is exactly the opposite.