Thanks Jim. If you ever get the great Midwest (Iowa) of the USA, I’ll take you shooting. You’ll see how much fun it is.
My pleasure. I’m not a gun owner, but I do enjoy shooting (and did enjoy the chance to get my dad a target shooting pistol that he’s wanted since he was a kid). I also take fighting ignorance somewhat seriously, and I’m glad that I could help present some facts you found useful.
Kudos to you, by the way, for being willing to revise your opinions with new data.
Yeah IIRC, as long as they’re allowed by your state, the paperwork etc. is the same as buying a machinegun or any other NFA device. And there are companies that make and sell new ones, so you don’t have to look around to find a used one you want.
Because “little” different does not mean “no” difference. I’ve only said that about a million times. Besides, I see the weapons as totally pointless for regular civilian use, as the research has mentioned (page 13+, in case you decide to ask me for a cite again)
The differences are that guns with the features are generally criminal or military in usage, as the researcher says (page 13+ again). There, I’ve just admitted it. Not like I was hiding anything, you just didn’t ask me
It is both. If you reread what you quoted, I said that there are little differences, then go on, in my previous posts, to say that 1) little does not mean none, 2) since the guns can be substituted, it is a matter of gun owners trading a little function, mostly criminal and military, for safety in up to 26% of gun crimes, and 3) AWs can be banned and people will lose nothing in self-defense
You want to split up my arguments and make it seem like its contradictory, but had you included my explanations, you wouldn’t have created that impression.
Ooopsie, my mistake then! You’re right that it wouldn’t affect my opinion, but wrong as to the reason. Fact is, you’ve been ignoring data from the DoJ report that doesn’t fit your point of view without explanation, yet you want to come in here and cite yet another report and claim victory? Obviously, being objective isnt your intent. The NiJ report says that a renewal would produce small at best. Again, like I’ve said before, small is better than none. And seriously, taking pot shots at my research and opinions? The one’s I’ve read came from YOU, who told me in no uncertain terms that the DoJ report would positively crush any doubt as to the AWB’s uselessness, yet it didnt! Dont let your ego blind you to mistakes, or apologize for them
Pity and laziness prevents me from listing every instance where you mentioned or referenced the supposed indisputable DoJ report without giving a quote or a page number. At least I had the audacity to give you actual line by line citations, accompanied by page numbers, for the times when it was required.
Remarkable, I see you’ve finally told us the real reason why you’re against the AWB. Precedent. I take that to imply that for a anti-gun control person like yourself, you’d probably be against any measure that limited your ability to possess, regardless of its effectiveness. You’ve admitted as much just now.
And they are hardly all cosmetic features, though I would probably not include the bayonet thing in a future AWB. The ability to suppress flashes at night, spray firing from the hip, or a magazine with 10+ rounds is overkill for self-defense, and should be banned. You’re afraid of precedent, yet consistently avoid my question why you’re not also angrily pushing for bazooka rights and bomb rights.
The features you deem as doing “nothing” are the exact opposite. Again, refer to page 13+ of your own report. Just because you find it harder to spray fire from the hip does not mean the intended use is also useless for someone else. In fact, while you’re on the subject, why not do what I did and go over each feature? Defend why barrel shrouds are simply “cosmetic” when one of your own fellow gun supporters said it would help him shoot more and often. Tell me why you need flash suppressors for night shooting, or 10+ rounds for defense, or a folding stock if all you’re doing is shooting at burglars or muggers. While I’m sure that you’ll somehow come up with wild anecdotes for one instance of such use, I’d like to see how far you’d have to stretch credulousness in order to convince people those are likely scenarios, ones that couldn’t be done by substituting it for a different gun without those features. And when you’re done, I’m sure I’ll be here to remind you, like I reminded that other poster, that the AWB bans guns with at least TWO of those features, so even your wild scenarios of self-defense is not affected.
I’ve read your report and you continue on with your deceptive charges of ignorance? Thats sad, clearly not what I expected from someone in GD. Your self-congratulatory remarks of correctness comes uncited and unproven. Your accusations of me having no factual support was debunked by your own report. Your claims of fact are distortions of something that anyone who read the DoJ could have spotted from a mile away
And your tendencies of omitting arguments and points that refute your laughable assertions are transparent. Lets not forget this little gem from my post:
Todderbob: “(referring to the AWB)But not lower crime rates”
Me: "You just said 'From '94 to ‘95 there was a drop in crime’!
Which I’m sure will be followed up with:
Todderbob: “…but crime was already dropping from the previous decade”
Me: From the report, crime “…declined after 1994, independently of trends in gun crime”
Me again: From another part of the report "“Following the implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.”
I understand that people are resourceful and have found loopholes. Honest question: Do you think that every law with a loophole should be completely repealed? I mean, you’re essentially saying that since slavery didn’t rid the country of segregation, inequality, and racism, then it was pointless. I’ve said over and over again, and here again I will say it, that such loopholes like the TEC-9 one you’re referring to should be plugged. The law should be fixed so that these things happen less. A loophole isn’t an argument to get rid of a law completely, but an argument to fix what is broken. If you have a problem simply with the fact that the law targets something you dont want it to target, then just say so and admit that a loophole doesn’t make the law untenable
Which is why there shouldn’t be any loopholes or grandfathered exemptions in the next version of the AWB
If the illegal guns were on the street, they would have been taken off had the authorities got wind of it. And curtailing future manufactured weapons off the streets count just like an anti-murder law is supposed to be a deterrence. Thus, its apples and apples. You are simply confusing deterrence with confiscation.
Look at page 11 of the report, it answers your question in an easy-to-read table format
How did you simplify your objection to stupifying proportions? Because that’s all that was done.
The bayonet lug is one item that was affected by the items banned by the AWB. Had a weapon been outfitted with several military-style features, not only would the bayonet have to have been removed, but some flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, LCMs, barrel mounts, folding stocks, or pistol grips. Sure, why not make it seem silly by ONLY referencing the bayonets. Lets ignore the spray fire capability or the LCMs or night sniping. I’m surprised you didn’t claim the AWB affected orphans and old people
Crap, as you define it, seems to mean “If the law doesn’t work exactly as we want with 100% effectiveness, it should be repealed”.
Like I’ve said before, if there were loopholes around the law, the make the law tougher to plug up those loopholes. Do your pencils have erasers on them or are you chiseling everything in concrete?
Maybe you should skim less, and read more? The wall of text was in response to a 100+ page DoJ report that I was told I should read otherwise forever wallow in ignorance. I find it funny and ironic that once I started using that same report against them, the gun advocates could not be bothered to read the entirety of the report and reply to it
If that is your conclusion, then you’d really do well to read the post. Like Todderbob once said to me, paraphrasing, if you won’t relieve your ignorance by reading the material, then you have no business in this argument
I’m sure that this will surprise you, but repeating a fiction over and over does not make it less fictional. Yes, even if it had pretty pictures to accompany it. Your source is a liar for claiming things like flash suppressors allow “concealment”. You’re, yet again, arguing from a position of deliberate ignorance. First you refused to learn about the guns or about the legislation. Now you’ve decided to commit (again and again) the fallacy of appeal to authority, and you still refuse to learn jack about the subject.
Yet again, while you may have s very vivid imagination, your flights of fantasy aren’t going to become truth any time soon. Comfortable grips, the ability to fire in low light and retain vision, the ability to have as many rounds as you might need for self defense, the ability to comfortably hold a gun without burning yourself, etc, etc, etc… all of these you simply pretend aren’t useful for self defense.
Why is it, do you think, that your argument can only be supported if you make stuff up?
Anybody, at all, can read the thread in order to see that Todderbob is right, you are wrong, and that you have deliberately distorted everything you could get your hands on, up to the point of rationalizing cherrypicked data to support your pre-judged conclusion.
Yet again, who do you think you’re fooling? We can all read where the report said that the effects were statistically negliable and that should it be renewed we could expect more of the same. You can cherrypick as much as you want.
We can still read.
Well sheeeeit. If you want to not burn the flesh of your hands and you also want to be able to shoot at night without blinding yourself, you’re shit out of luck. It’s one or the other, Yog hath spoken. And Yog will, asap, be getting off the internet as the internet is used to convey child porn, and he’s nothing if not intellectually honest, so he’ll gladly be the first to give up his freedoms if it means a minute benefit for other people.
Of course.
He probably should have written “wilfully, militantly, relentlessly, proudly, deliberately ignorant.” I’m sure you can forgive him though.
No, in GD we expect people to chose an obnoxiously ignorant viewpoint, defend it for days while proudly stating that they refuse to educate themselves about the facts or the legislation, and then do their best to deliberately distort and fabricate as they go along.
Yah, that’s the ticket…
Serious question. Obviously massive theft on this scale doesn’t bother you, or forcing tax payers to reimburse legal purchasers of 100% legal property that you want to confiscate because of deliberate ignorance and a vague connection to “crime” (and I’ll believe your argument isn’t a craptacular rationalization as soon as you volunteer to give up your internet since it’s used for kiddie porn and your car since criminals are well known for using getaway vehicles. Not to mention your clothes for burlap and your food for gruel. )…
But are you also ignorant of the process whereby Amendments can be repealed? You want to ban guns for the more transparently nonsensical of reasons, then fine. What’s wrong with doing it honestly and trying to get an Amendment passed? Or is it that you know it would never work, so instead you would just like to violate the US Constitution in drips and drabs?
And remind us here, was it weeks or only days after you received that imperative that your proudly and wilfully proclaimed that naw, you weren’t going to learn what you were talking about?
My, but your standards seem tailor made for rationalizing whatever absurdity you’re presenting at the time in an annoying manner. I wonder if that’s significant.
All I could do is slap my name on Finn’s post and claim it as my own.
And say thanks, for saving me the time.
The ignorance around here is palpable.
I am going to ask the powers that be that this thread be closed as the O man himself answered the question in my OP today while in Mexico:
Obama will not seek a new AW ban
Instead, he is going to work on enforcing the laws already in place. Keep that up Mr President and perhaps I might even vote for you in 2008.
Yog, if you want to continue to prove your ignorance, do it in your own thread.
I’m not generally in favor of shutting down threads unless they are trainwrecks, however, I don’t see much point in letting everyone hurl more insults until I have to start handing out warnings when the last several pages have amounted to little more than “is too/is not” couched in inflamatory rhetoric.
I think it might be better if I did shut this one down.
Closed.
[ /Moderating ]