Isn’t there a heirarchy of how destructive different weapons are? (You guys who love “heirarchy” ought to be up on it.)
Yes of course there is. Some guns are more destructive than others. Some are illegal by this reasoning. There is no slippery slope coming, it’s here now.
The knife argument: Wow. Wow. We really need another amendment in case they come for our screwdrivers, I’m telling you.
The control of firearms is based first on lethality. So gun arguers should introduce this thing called “proportionality” into their arguments, or at the very least admit that it exists, for fucks sake, or they will lose the arguments they have with others.
You’re right. Nothing can be done. We should do nothing. Last thing we want is for disturbed individuals to come into a school with a screw driver or have one throw sharp rocks at a concert crowd from his hotel window.
-OR-
Prohibit “assault style” weapons. Prohibit large capacity magazines. Prohibit OC/CC, with very strictly defined exceptions. Set limit on type and max number of weapons for household. Prohibit people from taking weapons designated for home defense from being removed from home. Strict laws about transporting weapons (triger locks and disarmed). Comprehensive background checks and red flag laws (nationally).
Can we try that for a while? Like for a generation or two. See what happens.
They have banned “zombie knives” in the UK. So the slope* is* slippery.
Not really, it’s based on them looking scary and being used in mass shootings, but mass shooting are a tiny % of murders in the USA. There are about 17,000 murders in the USA, 11000 with guns, 1600 with knives, etc. Of those 7000 are with handguns, and rifles (which include the AR15) account for a mere 400. Thus knives are four times more deadly than rifles, in terms of murders.
Or- simply prohibit/ask the broadcast media from using the names of mass killers.
CA has banned assault weapons since 1989 has no OC and almost no CCW, background checks for all gun sales. So there, it has been tried for a generation or two- and it made not a dent in the murder rate. CA is still where it was- right in the middle of all states.
Oh and " Prohibit people from taking weapons designated for home defense from being removed from home. " they cant go to the range and practice? :rolleyes:
I didn’t know the Ruger mini .30 had a model with a folding stock.
Back to “easily moved in the car.” Several hunters loading into a car trying to not point a rifle at someone, and hoping no one was stupid enough to take a loaded rifle into a car.
O’Rourke has an impressive -5,142 downvotes on Reddit right now from his response to the question “How will you confiscate the millions of AR 15s?” His answer:
And Reddit definitely leans more liberal than conservative.
Imagine. The market is saturated, so they’re just going to stop selling them. Huh. But only to the consumer market. Double-huh.
GM: “Yeah, there’s a lot of cars on the road and traffic was a pain. So we’re going to stop selling cars to consumers. The market is obviously saturated.”
Microsoft: “Yeah, man, we’ve sold millions of pieces of software. There’s plenty on the market, so we’re not selling software anymore. At least not to consumers.”
McDonalds: “Fuck this shit. 100 billion served? Just to consumers? Market saturation! Let’s close down the consumer division, only sell to businesses and governments!”
Nike: “Shoes don’t wear down. They don’t fall apart. Not for consumers, they don’t. Therefore, the market is saturated and we’re only selling our shoes in bulk.”
Walgreens: “Remember all that oxycotin we sold? Well, we’ve sold enough. Product withdrawn.”
If you actually understood the gun market, you’d know that the patents on the AR-15 expired long ago, and there are as many as 500 manufacturers making ARs and parts now. Colt was only one of them. That’s what they mean by the market being saturated. Also, since the patents expired many people buy AR parts piecemeal and build their own.
If you want an analogy to medicine, it would be more like a manufacturer of a patented drug getting out of the market after their patent expires and all the generics come in and saturate it at lower prices.
A big manufacturer like Colt probably doesn’t think there’s a big enough market for the Colt version of an AR-15, when dozens of other, smaller manufacturers are offering variants on the same thing. Especially when it comes with potential PR and future legal problems. It does NOT mean that people won’t be able to buy a new AR-15.
Oh thank God! For a minute, I thought for a minute that enough people weren’t dying in California in order to bolster your argument to fetishize guns! Whew! Dodged a bullet there, didn’t we?
LOL, that’s so wrong, Sam. Their argument tries to have it both ways: “We’re no longer making them because they don’t sell, but holy shit, look at the numbers we’re moving on the government and large-order market!”
That’s not the actions of a manufacturer who truly believes the market is “oversaturated”, because Colt itself admits it isn’t. That’s the actions of a marketer who is getting out of a segment of the market for other reasons. The statement would have been more honest had it said what you said: “The legal and financial exposure to manufacturing these things has exceeded our profit and revenue expectations to a point where it’s better to withdraw from this market.”
And guys, the fuckin’ patent expired in 1977, so please, stop that defense. It makes zero sense in their <checks calendar> September, 2019 decision.
Colt still holds the trademark on “AR-15”, so I guess they got that going for them.
Your objections seemed to be based on your need for protection against home intruders. I have no problem with your having a gun that can fire a few shots quickly against the bogeyman coming up the stairs or down the hall towards your bedroom.
If you have less legitimate needs for owning firearms (including whatever emotional attachments you may have to high-powered artillery), I cannot support those. I regard the lives of my fellow citizens as being more important than whatever those needs might be.
One thing about handguns is that bullets fired from one just don’t have the velocity of bullets fired from a high-powered semi-auto rifle. And when someone is injured rather than killed by such a bullet, that makes a huge difference in their ability to recover. An AR-15 bullet passing through you will take big chunks out of your innards, while your body is able to close in around the slower handgun bullet; your internal wound won’t be much bigger than the track of the bullet itself. People injured by an AR-15 are likely crippled for life.
Nah, we hate people getting slaughtered on a regular basis. We hate our kids having “active shooter” drills in school. We want to be as safe from guns as people in all the other developed nations are. We don’t think people should be able to walk the streets with the capacity to slaughter dozens of people anytime the idea gets into their heads.
That shouldn’t be incredibly difficult to understand.
