That makes about as much sense as any argument in the gun debates. 
We keep the liberal ones around. We tend to ban the conservative ones quickly.
Damn straight. I will oppose you all the way.
That’s the thing. It won’t save any lives. You want to save lives? Stop making schools and other places “gun free zones”. Allow concealed carry in more places. There are plenty of options that would save lives that the anti-gun people are opposed to.
Pretty much of an aside, but this is about as good a place to post as any. Was talking with a co-worker - an atty for a fed agency in NW IN. He’s a strong supporter of gun rights/ownership, but as liberal and judgmental as I am on most issues, I wouldn’t call him an ignorant “gun nut.”
His commented that his daughter is doing a 4H shooting exercise, and said he has unable to find ammunition in the local stores. Not having to go to differnet stores, flat out unable to find it. Not even .22s. Not something I ever conceived of. Just saying, if folk out there are buying up ammo as fast as it is made, talking about banning whatever weapons impresses me as pretty much pissing in the wind.
IMO, all of the proposed/enacted bans on various weapons are incredibly stupid and ineffectual. But they fit perfectly within the American preference for giving the appearance of doing something without really changing anything that matters. Sure, spend months/years debating whether to ban Bushmasters or 50 round clips, when I can go to the nearest gun show and buy as many pistols as I can haul away in my trunk.
A response to gun violence impresses me as the type of issue that is very resistant to rational solution, because there are VERY LARGE numbers of persons on both sides who are not interested in or capable of considering it rationally, and powerful institutions profiting from one position or the other. Add to that a great number of folk who simply don’t want to change their lives one whit - no matter how great the possible benefits to others.
So yeah, a bunch of dead kids in Ct, twice as many dead in a Colo theater… Who cares? Just keep your head down and pass the popcorn.
Of course, far more folk shoot themselves, and darkskinned folk get shot day in/out with far less media coverage. Hell, I’d wager just about any of us are far more likely to die at the hands of some idiot driving while texting, than some nut with a gun.
On days I’m feeling especially cynical, I welcome the pointless efforts our reps are spending on gun violence, as it distracts them from doing anything even more harmful! 
What’s this? A vodka going on about banning alcohol? 
All I’m suggesting is that, after a trauma like that, I’d have a hard on about banning guns myself. I have no idea and don’t care to speculate about what Feinstein’s goals are. I was addressing motivation. The question was asked, “But whhhyyyyy?”
I hate guns, but I think more laws and more banning of things won’t help much. I think we are ignoring the larger issue that goes to, again, motivation of the perps who use guns for nefarious reasons, and that is: We have a serious problem with mental health care in this country. When someone is mentally ill, or desperate, or enraged, we stigmatize people who need professional help instead of getting them help. The insurance companies and employers don’t set up plans for meaningful significant mental health care as part of the benefit plans. Eh, maybe you get 6-8 appointments a year and those are only covered 50%. Is that really helpful for some paranoid schizophrenic who is hearing voices and wants to shoot them all down? If that schizophrenic person actually has access to health care/insurance at all.
The problem is not about guns. It’s about gun nuts. IMO. YMMV
Couldn’t agree more.
I think this might be the truest and most insightful thing you’ve ever posted.
I have a question on the Assault Weapons Ban. What is the basis for objecting to this?
-
it won’t work. People already have assault weapons and they will continue to be available despite a ban, or
-
It won’t work, people who want to do mass killings will just find a way with other weapons, or
-
It is important to for citizens to be able to have assault weapons, (and constitutionally protected), or
-
although there is no need for civilian assault weapons, and perhaps a ban would have some positive effect, we can’t justify infringing on any constitutional right simply because it would do some “good.” (slippery slope, and all that jazz)
From what I’ve seen, it’s mostly 1) and 2). If so, what’s the harm in trying?
Bad legislation isn’t the answer. Assault Weapons are simply bog standard semi-automatic rifles with design alterations that are useful for the military, but do not change the basic capability of the rifle. What is helpful for a guy who has to lug it around for 12 hours a day, rain or shine, and may find himself in a split second firefight is not much of anything to a normal user, other than looking “cool”.
Contrast that with legislation that does affect the capability of the weapon, like limiting magazine capacity. A 6 shot magazine vs 30 shot magazine can change the dynamic of a mass killing where eliminating a bayonet lug will not.
Heh. I had to read the sentence several times before catching what he’d said :).
Debaser, if you think you’re an objective judge of which side is more ignorant or hysterical, you’re clinically insane.
As a math geek, I love that it simplifies to A > A. 
We tried banning booze. It didn’t work and had a lot of unintended consequences. (Like gun violence)
If we had and enforced tough laws on drunk driving, I would be all for that.
Tell me about your iiability insurance for gun owners. What if insurers decided that the rate for this was more than a gun owner could afford? What then? Would that person be allowed to own a gun? What if the insurance companies said, you have to do this and this and this (like lock up your guns in a safe), would that be OK?
It’s been done before, with zero measurable effect. None. Yet this is the cutting edge of gun-control legislation. Welcome to 1993.
Cite?
It’s been cited countless times in countless threads, but to appease you:
[
](Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia)
The law did bupkis, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that a rifle, looking exactly the same, yet shorn of bayonet lug to prevent those terrifying bayonet charges and devoid of a flash hider which doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody, was perfectly legal. Also, given that “assault weapons” were used in 2% of gun crimes, it wouldn’t have made any notable difference anyway.
Yeah, sorry, I had like 10 posts queued up and didn’t have time to sit here for a long time to post, so I’ll get around to it tonight, maybe bit by bit.
How do you get from “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness” to “the law did bupkis”?
Just in general, when you cite a source that explicitly says, “this doesn’t mean X,” I would advise not using that source as support for X.
ETA: I’ll give you points, though, for not citing John R. Lott’s work, which is referred to a couple of paragraphs below the CDC report in the Wikipedia article.
If they can’t prove that the law did anything, which was explicitly the reason for passing the law, to do something, then it didn’t do anything. Pretty simple, their caveats notwithstanding.
That’s some serious ignorance of the scientific method right there. And when you find yourself trusting the scientists in the first part of the paragraph but not the second part of the paragraph, that’s a pretty strong indicator of your own bias.
Your reasoning, for what it’s worth, is nearly identical to the creationists who say that, because scientists are unable to find fossils of particular species (so-called “missing links”), those species did not exist.
Let’s all say it together:
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.