IMHO, the number of people and guns in the USA is large enough that crime statistics should accurately reflect the increased or decreased “risks” as you define that term.
In any event, it’s worth noting that your position is now (conveniently) unfalsifiable, since you are claiming that A/W legislation has benefits that are essentially impossible to measure.
**
IMHO, you should bear the burden of proof on this point, given that (1) you are the one supporting a restriction on peoples’ freedom; and (2) the country has plenty of experience with A/W’s and A/W legislation.
But ultimately it’s a question of values. I believe that peoples’ freedom should not be restricted absent a compelling reason. You (apparently) believe in restricting peoples’ freedom unless they can demonstrate a compelling need for such freedom.
Debaser, do try to read for context. My “Annoys gun worshipers” crack was a freakin’ joke, directly responsive to lucwarm’s immediately-preceding comment that a “cost” of the assault weapon ban was that it “Annoys gun owners.” Furthermore, when lucwarm suggested that I made the comment out of “spite,” I responded that it was not so, several posts before you decided to recast “spite” as “hate.”
I will state for the record that it really can be amusing watching people rend their garments and pull their hair when someone suggests that their idols are false gods. That hardly translates into the hatred you falsely accused me of. I do not hate gun owners (self-loathing’s not really my style) and I do not hate supporters of gun rights (loathing of my good friends is also not really my style). I do, however, oppose many of your positions, and I enjoy debating the issues, as my gun-loving friends can attest. Now, is that really so difficult to understand without resorting to slander?
The point would be that you should get rid of the person who is using the tool in a dangerous manner and not the tool that is being used.
The point that has been made over and over again in this thread is that any weapon (or car) can be dangerous to the public at large if it is in the wrong hands.
You seem to be of the opinion that we should just get rid of all of the weapons or cars and that would solve the problem. It won’t. If a nutcase wants to kill someone, and she can’t find a gun, she will undoubtedly use something else to accomplish those ends. Be it a screwdriver or a pair of scissors. Would those then need to be banned?
Blue cars are to cars as assault weapons are to weapons.
SUV’s are to cars as rifles are to pistols.
Minty, I missed that you were not the first to bring up the “annoys gun owners” comment. However, I didn’t take your “More like entertainment.” comment to dispute the accusation of spite. I read it as admitting it was so.
I still maintain that after having been keeping up with this thread since the beginning, that there is only one explination that I can see to explain your postion. That you are an anti who wants any law to make guns illegal, regardless of how little sense it makes.
Your refusal to cite any figures to back up your claims that the weapons in question are more dangerous. (You request money for a study). You want them banned regardless of actual danger.
Your vague notion that the lines should be redrawn. You want more guns banned, but won’t say which ones.
Your deliberately obtuse use of a layman’s definition of the term “Assault weapons” rather than the legal one, when you obvously know better.
If there is another explinaiton for your position on this issue, I can’t see it.
That strikes me as an unduly reactive theory of harm prevention. Me, I prefer to be proactive whenever possible.
Some weapons are more dangerous than others. At a certain point, the dangerousness of a particular weapon begins to outweigh any benefits that it offers. That’s why we ban nerve gas, biological weapons, and assault weapons.
I’ll let you do your own cost-benefit analysis for scissors and screwdrivers. Suffice it to say that your suggestion here is beyond silly.
Except this law does not ban SUVs. It bans Ford Explorers, and other SUVs with any two of fog lights, brush guards, mag tires or luggage racks.
To which the average SUV buyer will simply respond by purchasing a Chevy Blazer or Jeep Grand Cherokee or Canyonero or whatever else is the equivelant of an Explorer, and will only get one of the proscribed items.
And to which the Ford Motor Company will respond by changing the Explorer body shape somewhat, move around a few components under the hood, and re-christian the SUV the Traveler.
Net effect: no reduction in traffic deaths, either in general or by SUVs in particular.
This, despite the fact that I explained quite clearly (to Gus 'n Spot) four or five pages ago what it is that I want in the way of gun control, and that it in no way resembled “any law to make guns illegal”?
I’m afraid we’re back to basic reading skills as an alternative to your unnecessary and factually incorrect assertions about what I believe.
Not so. I want assault weapon stringently regulated because of actual danger. A nutball armed with an assault weapon is, generally speaking, far more dangerous than a nutball armed with a handgun or an ordinary hunting rifle.
Sorry, my subscription to Soldier of Fortune lapsed some time ago. I’ll be sure to renew when the research grant arrives.
Do you ever get tired of making shit up about my motives? If you had bothered to ask why I have generally used “assault weapon” in this thread, the answer would be two-fold: (1) the legislation under discussion defines and regulates “assualt weapons”; (2) gun fans freak out and cause endless hijacks when someone uses the ordinary meaning of “assault rifle” instead of the Guns and Ammo definition.
Free your mind. Dewey: Remember that rersponse I asked you to file away for future reference? Please refer back to it.
Actually minty you could turn that around and say “gun fans freak out when they hear the media/anti-gun control derived meaning of assault rifle”. If you don’t read G&A, how do you know what they call 'em?
This strikes me as a bit tyranical. And pointless. Putting the problem in bubble wrap doesn’t make it go away. The guns aren’t the problem. The criminals are.:eek:
That’s the point. When you carry your theory to the end of it’s logical implications it is beyond silly.
Yes: firearms are dangerous.
Yes: Some people will use them in an illegal manner.
Does that mean that the guns are the problem? No.
The people who commit the crimes are the problem. That is the factor that needs to be removed. The message needs to be that crimes committed with firearms are not going to be tolerated.
In minty’s defense, he was countering my claims about the term “assault rifle” as distinct from “assault weapon”. I do not believe that he was referring to the Assault Weapons Ban (with its precise-but-controversial definition of “assault weapon”) when he said this.
Not me. But maybe that’s because I’ve lived in countries where guns were regulated right out of existence, but the governments were not in the slightest bit tyrranical. Such is the difference between rhetoric and reality, I suppose.
Do you get all your arguments off the backs of cars?
“Lets go have a pint and shoot at something.”
Tsk-tsk, that would be go shoot at something(s) first, then go have a pint and regale ourselves with sea stories.
