“Ban” is too strong. “Regulate to minimize or eliminate harm” is much closer to my position, though that can certainly include complete bans where the cost is sufficiently high and the benefit sufficiently low.
In any event, you’re correct that I view cost-benefit analysis to be an appropriate methodology for analyzing the desirability of almost any legislation.
Well, just so we’re clear, are you weighing the costs and benefits of the item in question, or the costs and benefits of legislation regulating the item in question?
Yeah, i agree , the legislative bodies in america have better things to waste their time with than voting on a bill that did very little in the first place.
Both. You weigh the costs/risks and benefits of the item to determine whether regulation would be desirable, then look at the effects of the proposed legislation to see how it changes the equation. A good example of that was alcohol, where it turned out that the strict regulation of Prohibition solved fewer problems than anticipated and created more serious unintended consequences.
Ok, so if it were demonstrated to you that a particular piece of legislation would have no appreciable salutary effect, you would not favor the legislation in question, correct?
You got it.
Gus, since you, and I, and several others have repeatedly asked minty green for cites of some type regarding his assertations in this thread and he as continued to refuse to provide them, simply crying again and again ‘but those guns are more dangerous’, I say we just stop considering his agruments as if they have any merit.
He’s not going to put up, he’s not going to shut up, so why should we assume that his arguments are anything but baseless until he provides a base for them?
Ok, and if there was no evidence that a particular piece of legislation had any benefits, you wouldn’t object if it were repealed, right?
The version of the M-16 available to civilians is not appropriate for killing North Vietnamese soldiers, or for any other combat role for that matter. It is a semiautomatic weapon. It does not fire full-auto, nor does it fire in bursts. It is no more dangerous or lethal than any other semiautomatic rifle firing the same caliber ammunition.
Who gives a fuck what the product history of a firearm is? Lots of ordinary civilian firearms have military origins. The venerable Colt .45 started life as a military sidearm, designed for killing German and Japanese soldiers in armed combat. Should we therefore deem the Colt an assault weapon?
This has been shown? Where?
The link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics would seem to disagree. I can’t think of one other sport where the tools used in that sport account for more damage to others (people not participating in the sport) than guns do. Definitely for all guns (WAY above the other totals) and seemingly even for the assault weapon subclass. The linked stats don’t get that detailed for assault weapons but a bat is the next closest sporting item I can think of that might be used as a weapon and the blunt weapon category is well below that of ‘Other Guns’ (and bats probably don’t make up 100% of the blunt weapons category).
Again, Whack-a-Mole, were talking about assault weapons, not all guns.
Other guns are a differant trainwreck all togeather.
So, catsix, did you ever bother to read that DOJ cite I provided earlier? You know, the one that said criminals use assault weapons fairly goddamned frequently? Or does that just intrude on your gun-happy worldview and, therefore, not exist?
7% is “fairly goddamned frequently”? If anything, single-shot firearms appear to be the criminal’s weapon of choice, clocking in at 53.9%. Gee, maybe we should ban those.
(Cite for those who don’t want to go find the link on page 1)
Yes, Dewey, 6.8% and 9.3% (the actual figures) are pretty goddamned high considering the usual pro-assault weapon claim that they’re hardly ever, ever, ever used by criminals.
Actually, we can’t know if the figure is high without also knowing how many military-style firearms are in the total pool of available firearms for criminals to use. If assault weapons make up 7% of all available firearms, then you’re just seeing a normal distribution, not an actual preference.
But let’s presuppose that criminals actually do prefer these types of weapons. So what? If the weapons themselves are no more powerful than other semiautomatic weapons, who cares what the guns they use actually look like? Criminals can make aesthetic choices, too – if they think an assault weapon makes them look like a hardcore gangbanger (or whatever), they’ll choose that weapon, even though it offers nothing over other semiautomatics.
I admittedly know little about guns, but from what I’ve gathered, in some instances we should prefer that criminals carry certain banned weapons. The TAC-9 is an inaccurate piece of shit perfomance-wise, at least from what I’ve heard. A criminal would be much better off using a non-banned semiautomatic in its place. But the same morons who think who think holding a pistol sideways is a smart move like 'em. Go figure.
Minty, you’re missing the difference between assault rifles and assault ‘weapons’.
I want you to repeat after me, so I understand you have internalized this, or you are just banging on the table.
An assault rifle is a military weapon.
An assault ‘weapon’ is a semi-automatic weapon, defined by congress, as having more than one feature that essentially makes it look not unlike an assault rifle.
Assault rifles can be fully automatic, ‘machine guns’. Assault ‘weapons’ are not, as they are civilian in manufacture to start with.
Assault rifles are almost never used in a criminal act. The last recorded one is cited earlier in the thread.
Assault weapons are, but in a surprisingly low percentage, considering their popularity with the gang cultures.
Do you have a problem with any of these definitions as I have given them to you, Minty?
I admire your mind and incisive legal arguments, and would hate to see my respect for you lowered thanks to your illogical behavior in this thread.
Not so. If you look back a page or two, you’ll see where I posted links to five dictionary definitions of “assault rifle.” Four of those definitions agreed with the broad usage.
See, that’s the problem: I’m speaking English, and you’re speaking Guns and Ammo.
That, by the way, is simply not true. I linked to a few such crimes–easily found via Google search–in this thread.
No, they’re talking legal definitions. You should know that precise definitions are important. Heck, I can’t read a contract without 50 terms being defined at the start, even when the terms are being used in their everday use.
We are debating a law here. What is important is what is not the broad usage is, but what the law says the term means.
Minty, my mistake, yes, the last legally owned one was used in said crime cited in thread. The rest… well, heck, they’re illegal already, whadda gonna do, make them more illegal? Not a very high percentage, either.
So, what about the rest of my points?