And don’t forget: Assault weapons bans won’t reduce crime, but will help lead to handgun bans
Don’t ever forget that they want to ban guns and most of what is deceivingly labeled as common sense is in service to that effort.
I never said there was no such thing as assault rifles. I believe I defined exactly what one is, gave numbers on how many exist and noted that no new ones have been sold to the general public since 1986. Of the 250,000 or so that are on the registry, not a one is less that 29 years old and most never see the light of day as they are literally irreplaceable.
The term “assault weapon” is a made up term meant to confuse people, like yourself, into thinking that every gunshop in the nation was selling full auto guns to the public and that the country was littered with them. It was a term created to promote confusion and they did an excellent job. I gave you pictures of perfect examples of how an “assault weapon” is only a cosmetic definition, and I continued to show that ALL homicides caused by rifles, not just “assault weapons” number in the few hundreds every year.
As already stated, things like auto accidents, obesity and smoking kill many times more people in the US every year than guns. And they’re not simply self harm, especially second hand smoke and auto accidents. You can’t expect anybody to take your claims about wanting to save lives seriously if you will ignore far more serious problems. Your motivations are suspect.
You’re list will do nothing to reduce gun deaths, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Nothing common sense about that.
[Quote=China Guy]
If you consider everything a slippery slope, that there are no substantive changes that you would consider, and that world peace needs to be solved before tackling the firearm issue in the US, then there isn’t a lot to debate now is there? To repeat ad nausem, I am not trying to prevent the legal ownership of firearms nor am I mandating how to secure said firearm(s), but IMHO even legal owners don’t carry their share of responsibility and that should be changed.
[/QUOTE]
Your HO wrong.
Whatever dude. Your motivations are suspect because you want the freedom of owning firearms but not take any personal responsibility that can be verified. And if want world peace before embarking on fixing the firearm issue, then that doesn’t leave room for a discussion.
This slippery slope is such a one trick pony and IMHO crack smoking hyperbole. Most folks want limitations on buying and selling guns that are far more effective than the BS in place now. There are some extremists, like with anything, that want to severely curtail private ownership of firearms. There are probably a handful that want a 100% ban on firearms (but I haven’t personally met one of these).
So, can’t even consider any kind of “common sense” limitation on any kind of firearm because, ya know, a month later all firearms will be confiscated, and a month after that China and Russia will divide the US in half and we’ll all be slaves.
I’m well aware, and increasingly the public is as well. San Bernardino did much to expose the lie of “reasonable gun control.”
California already has an “assault weapons” ban, a universal background check, a magazine capacity limit, no shall-issue concealed carry, “gun-free” zones all over the place, and the Brady Center’s highest rating. And still they call for more.
Huh…so, you didn’t say:
Hint: it’s not a slippery slope fallacy, if you are actually saying you have no intention of stopping asking for more.
He actually said no such thing, but thanks for playing.
BS.
An outcry for additional gun controls arose, as usual, after the San Bernardino massacre. This time, though, the public was smart enough to realize the crime was committed in California, by Californians, with guns legally purchased in California, and that California already has every single law in place that they have been told was “reasonable” and “common sense.”
If it’s not a slippery slope, what can you possible imagine the gun-controllers’ outcry was about? You think they want LESS gun control than California already has?
So I misquoted him?
Or, you’re just choosing to interpret his statement so that his “starting point” was also his end goal?
There were still op-ed pieces demanding more gun control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0
Of course there were. That’s my point. How can any rational person deny that the slippery slope of gun control exists, when California already gave them what they wanted, and after that failed, they immediately ask for more?
I’d like to find a gun controller, any gun controller, elected or otherwise, that will swear “pass this or these laws, and I swear, I’ll never ask for more”.
Gradualism. That’s the path.
It won’t be a month, but it will be a persistent effort. Do you deny that’s what we’ve seen?
And how do you differentiate the extremists as you call them? Because the extremists are leading the effort. Did you read the linked article? There is a great discussion on slippery slope arguments and the logical result. It may be a one trick pony but if that one trick is accurate there is no need for novelty in response to one trick efforts to ban.
End state is a “reasonable” level of crimes and deaths from firearms. No one can tell you now if plan A will work and that’s all that is required. Plan A gets implemented and maybe that leads to the need for Plan B. That ain’t a slippery slope, that’s common sense. IMHO it’s asinine to demand one tiny incremental solution that will fix the firearms issue once and for all, and if you can’t guarantee that will happen then it isn’t worth even attempting to try.
Sure, there is a tiny percentage of folks that want zero private firearm ownership. I’m not one of them. Just like there is a tiny percentage of folks that think having completely unrestricted private gun ownership without limitation is the right way to go. The vast majority of the middle ground are not going after zero private firearm ownership or anything close to it.
Methinks it’s raging firearm fetish paranoia that believes any firearm control is a gun grabber play for zero firearm ownership. Just 'cause there are extremists that are really vocal about it and want zero firearm ownership doesn’t mean that is what the majority or even a credible minority of Americans want. Correlation does not prove causation. Again, IMHO its raging paranoia.
It ain’t no different from “need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun” and arm school teachers and make everywhere in the US of A a free fire zone gun nuts. Extremists on both sides are, well, extremists by definition. So howsabout we don’t trot out that meme? Of I can just exit stage left if there is nothing to debate since everything is a slippery slope.
And I look at the pushback in this thread on anything that might make guns owners accountable. What would you propose to make responsible gun owners actually accountable beyond good intentions?
How about incarcerating (or executing) people who harm others?
“Make guns owners accountable.” That’s what’s ridiculously infuriating about your side’s manner of thinking. Accountable for what? Crimes they haven’t committed? I own guns, and have for over 30 years. What is it that you think I should be personally accountable for? The actions of others?
My side? That’s paranoia talking and it’s infuriating. I’m not on a “side”, I just happen to think that the current situation is fucked up, want to work on unfucking it, and run into
I grew up with “you are responsible for securing your piece.” You disagree and think that your best effort is good enough and you don’t have responsibility if your best effort isn’t good enough. That’s accountability. Let me give a simple example. Dick Cheney nailed some guy with shotgun pellets, but that was okay for whatever reason instead of castigating Dick for not knowing what he was shooting at.
So I’m personally responsible for Cheney shooting Whittington? Hell, I wasn’t even there.
For what it’s worth, when I gave my pre-hunting safety speech, for years I would include a part about “we don’t want to Cheney anyone.”
Side note: Apparently, there are actual people outside of the movies who refer to a gun as a “piece”.
(You’ll never get my piece, ya rat bastard.)
Except we will probably never reach an end state of a “reasonable” level of crimes and deaths from firearms. Sure maybe the majority today don’t want a 100% ban on guns; but every time the current level of restrictiveness failed to prevent another massacre, there would be calls to push it back even further. And in the process of trying, gun ownership would be successively pushed back and back and back. If not to zero guns, then some regimen so limited it would be a mockery of any “right” to own weapons for self-defense. Say, no semi-automatics at all; no revolvers larger than 6-shot .38 Specials, and those are strictly May Issue that maybe one person in 10,000 can get a permit for; for hunting, breach-loading shotguns and single-shot rifles that to own you have to be fingerprinted, bonded, and you have to turn them into the local police for storage when you’re not using them. Strict limits on how much ammunition you can buy per year; etc. etc. And the end result would probably look more like Mexico than Britain: a disarmed public while criminals could get all the firepower they need. It would probably be as futile and as socially destructive as the War On Drugs.
As for “need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun” and arm school teachers and make everywhere in the US of A a free fire zone gun", I personally would love to see that given a try, at least in some local or regional venue. I strongly suspect it would be astonishingly successful.
bite me ya sissy 
Whatever, We have to agree to disagree on the slippery slope. IMHO opinion you’re a loon, and IYHO you’re a freedom loving patriot. Not much to debate is there?