Reminds me of a 2.5 hour sing-talk movie I recently endured about excessive punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. If avoiding more of those isn’t motivation for making sure the punishment fits the crime, I don’t know what is.
In another topic, I mentioned 50 years. And I think if I ever reach the point where I am unswayed by facts, I would have only grazed the point at which most pro gun people have been operating at for the last 30 years. There are people in that other topic who have basically said that it goes against their moral beliefs to be denied a gun and there’s no arguing over it. So if you think me that irrational, there are plenty of and more severe sufferers of this elsewhere. I believe in facts, but I also believe that 200 million plus guns cannot be affected significantly by a ban on one small type of weapon, which had many loopholes, and readily available substitutes. Surely you understand that just because there was a ban, doesn’t mean it would be super effective? There are other factors like length of time and alternatives to consider
Again, yes I can, because you still have legal alternatives. Why is it that you worry so much about having the exact same type of weapons as criminals? If someone bans Hondas and only criminals have Hondas, I’m not going to sit around worrying about why I can’t have a Honda (if there was a legitimate reason for banning it). I’d get a Toyota instead. Same with you. So what if all assault weapons were banned? You still have handguns and other types of guns. Let the criminals have the assault weapons, what’s it to you? Then we can more easily identify and capture criminals because there wouldn’t be the grey area of whether this was a legal or illegal assault weapon, they’d all be illegal.
Of course it is! That is one part of the equation but an important part. It shows that gun bans DO have an effect, so let’s get rid of those loopholes and ban all the guns that need to be banned and we know, as you’ve said, it was effective. Don’t blame the law if there are loopholes, blame the loopholes, and then close the loopholes
The obvious solution is to ban a larger subset
I like that ban. You and I shouldn’t be able to own such guns. Just as I’m sure there was little chance of a suitcase nuke being available to regular citizens, I’d be glad if they put a ban in place before such things are let loose. You know, when they design, for example, a car, they know what can be dangerous and what could present a danger. Even if its something that hasn’t been released to the public yet, or very limited release, they do an evaluation of it before it is mass marketed so that nothing dangerous gets into the hands of people. We KNOW that machine guns are very dangerous and could be used for mass killings. And we KNOW that you do not need one for self-defense barring the unrealistic zombie horde scenarios. I’m glad that nobody was killed by machine guns in the last 25 years and I’m glad its banned. You shouldn’t have that, neither should I. Same with assault weapons. We know what it could be used for, and unlike machine guns, we have some data of what happens when its mass marketed. So even if it hasn’t been the subject of much slaughter overall, we should still ban it completely
Simply put, I don’t trust the NRA or “independent” reviews of this sort of thing. I’m not sure which DoJ did your study that you’re referring to, but I wouldn’t trust a Republican one either. They have no credibility to me. You might as well say we must get both sides of the issue on the evolution/creationism teaching in schools. I trust Obama’s CDC to do this study and theirs is the only data I would accept. Conservatives have too long dominated this field and they are batshit insane
This was obviously meant for the Stupid Republican Thread. :smack:
I’ll repost it in the correct thread now.
"The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll focuses on some of the health policy implications of this winter’s national debate over gun violence, gun control and the adequacy of the nation’s response to the needs of those living with serious mental illness. The survey finds that one in five Americans have some connection to a victim of gun violence, a share that doubles to 42 percent among blacks. Worry about becoming a victim is even more widespread among the public (four in ten are at least somewhat worried) and again is strikingly high among members of minority groups (62 percent of blacks express concern, as do 75 percent of Hispanics). "
So, currently, 40% of the public is worried about becoming a victim of gun violence. Will more guns increase or decrease this fear?
IIRC, it is illegal for a felon to purchase (or even possess) a firearm. If we can’t chase down felons who are trying to obtain a firearm then WTF do we have the resources to do?
NONE of the rules we are trying to pass will mean anything unless we enforce them.
Is it a crime for a felon to be denied a gun purchase because of a background check?
You read it and tell me. You don’t like their research, take it up with the governmetn agency that conducted teh reseearch without any interference from the omnipotent NRA.
Neither is the CDC (it is one of its missions http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm), they have a research division as does the DoJ.
So how is that guy Hemenway at Harvard doing HIS work?
Sure, I have no beef with that. I am merely explaining that the NRA isn’t against research, they don’t object to the DOJ or the ATF doing research. They object to the CDC doing research because of the peceived bias in their previous reports.
They are not omnipotent.
How many cites do i need? And it wasn’t just some “guy” who made that analogy, it was the head of the project. I have no idea where the money got diverted but I think the total was something like $2.5 million. It was symbolic more than anything.
I’ve disagreed with more than half the board on this issue and you are the only one that seems to think that insults will help your argument.
I’m sorry that you are so butthurt, I wish you and your butt well.
You’re not losing, you’ve lost. You could have had universal licensing and registration in January if your side hadn’t been run by idiots who spent all the political capital on a retarded AWB. Now it looks like we are going to get little more than background checks at gun shows.
I support national licensing and a national registry but now those things are out of reach. The tragedy at Sandy hook could have been the catalyst for real and meaningful gun regulation but instead your side decided to spend their limited political capital on somthing as utterly retarded as an AWB.
The NRA is hardly omnipotent. Their leadership might be a bunch of gun nuts but that is the nature of issue advocacy groups (I bet the leadership of the sierra club is a bunch a tree huggers). But what you are doing is trying to fight stupid with more stupid.
The NRA donated about $1.5 million to political campaigns in the 2012 cycle, they spent about $3 million in lobbying in 2012, They spent about $25 million in outside spending in the 2012 election cycle. There are at least half a dozen INDIVIDUALS who spent more than that. The reason your side keeps losing to the NRa is because you think your enemy is the NRA is because you are on the wrong side of the argument.
partisan liberals only SEEM to have more respect for facts than conservatives because the facts tend to line up on their side of the argument. It is clear that in cases like this (where the facst line up on the other side of the argument) that partisan liberals care as much about facts as partisan conservatives.
You do realize it is almost impossible for a civilian to legally possess a firearm in Chicago right? Almost all privately owned guns in Chicago are owned by gangsters and criminals.
That is not an “assault weapon” versus handgun issue. That is a rifle versus handgun issue.
Rifles just have a lot more destructive power than most handguns.
The AR-15 uses the 5.56 round. It is one of the weaker rifle rounds. The 7.6239 is the AK-47 round. The 7.6251 is the M-14 round (what the military used before teh M-16) and is also the round used by NATO. The hunting rounds vary but anythign that can reliably take down a deer is likely to have more power than an AR-15.
Here is a pretty good video on the effects of various rounds.
A doctor addresses a bunch of (I think) paramedics on firearm injuries. WARNING: Graphic, VERY graphic at times.
You shouldn’t fight irrational with more irrational, thats how holy wars are started. :eek:
I believe that there is no ban that doesn’t affact an unconstitutionally broad category of weapons that will make any measurable difference in gun violence.
The only way your approach works is if we ban and confiscate all guns. If that is the ultimate goal then you should really be working on repealing the second amendment.
My approach works without taking away a single gun from any law abiding citizen and without denying them their choice of firearms. Licensing and registration will choke criminal access to firearms and the number of guns in criminals hands will settlle at a much lower level than it is right now.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that the reason these bans are ineffective is because even if you had the magical power to totally eradicate these assault weapons from the face of the earth, the criminals would have the same alternatives I do. They would be able to continue to commit crimes these alternatives so nothing short of a near total ban on guns would have any effect.
If someone bans Hondas because criminals use Hondas then criminals would just start using Toyotas to commit crimes, you have achieved nothing other than infringing on the second amendment.
As for “whats it to me” given the lack of an AWB to amke any difference, you are incringing on the second amendment without any valid reason. The second amendment is not absolute but you still need a good reason to infringe on it just like I need a good reason to restrict free speech.
I’m saying that your focus is wrong. You shouldn’t be trying to get rid of guns, considering the source of the overwhelming majority of gun homocides, you should be trying to restrict a criminal (or domestic abuser’s) ability to obtain a firearm. Will this prevent some madman from killing innocent people from time to time, no, but nothing short of total confiscation will achieve that goal and you can’t do that without repealing teh second amendment.
It has no effect on gun violence. It merely makes criminals buy guns from private sellers or jsut use a diffferent gun. And the AWB didn’t have “loopholes” that you could fix unless you banned all semi-automatic rifles. The new proposed AWB doesn’t ban a Remington 750 ,a more powerful semi-automatic rifle than the AR-15, that just doesn’t look as scary. An AWB has no discernible effect on gun violence not because there were loopholes but because its retarded.
What subset would you ban?
First of all, don’t go full auto against zombies. hitting them anywhere other than the brain case is almsot entirely ineffective. Shot placement is the msot important thing when killing zombies.
Second, my point is that the reduction in machine gun violence was achieved through a national registry. When we were able to keep track of all the machine guns, noone sold their machine guns to criminals. similarly, when we keep track of all the firearms, noone will sell their guns to criminals.
Wait?!?! What? Now who is being paranoid? The DOJ criticized their own study because they didn’t like the results. If you think it takes a partisan study to support your case then you have already given up trying to win on the facts.
What about Hemenway at harvard? Is he tainted too? You are basically forum shopping your studies. You are basically saying that you will only accept a study that your opponents consider biased.
Don’t try to fight stupid with more stupid, they are going to beat you with numbers and experience.
Depends on who has the guns.
I think it is a crime for them to merely try to purchase one. If you possess the firearm at any point during the pruchase process (e.g. you hold the gun to test the grip), you can be convicted of possession instead of merely attempted purchase of a firearm.
"WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - The Maryland Senate approved a comprehensive gun control bill on Thursday that includes a ban on assault weapons and fingerprinting for prospective handgun buyers.
The Democratic-controlled Senate passed the bill 28-19 and sent it on to the House of Delegates, according to the chamber’s website.
Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley proposed the measure in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school massacre in December in which 20 children and six adults died. The rampage reignited a national debate on gun control.
The bill has a licensing requirement for handgun buyers to submit fingerprints to state police. Gun buyers also have to complete an eight-hour safety training course and undergo a more rigorous background check before purchasing a weapon. "
Meanwhile, in Idaho, a Rebublican politician has introduced a constitutional amendment to require all citizens to join a militia.
You do realize that Chicagoans, by and large, want it that way? Why do you think they vote Democrat? Why did they vote in legislators who passed strict gun laws? Because they’re ignorant? Or because they’re the ones who have to deal with daily shootings?
Arizona already did away with permitting and training requirements. Go get yourself an Uzi off the internet, stick it under your coat and you too can run through Walmart parking lots shooting at cars because nobody told you you couldn’t.
Being denied isn’t a crime. Lying on the little government form that asks, “are you a convicted felon?” is a crime. If you were denied and didn’t get the gun, no biggie. Remember the NRA made sure the ATF was understaffed and underfunded.
The NRA makes sure we don’t have the resources to enforce the law so they can turn around and say things like, “if we can’t enforce the laws, we shouldn’t have laws!”
See how that works?
So you have what you want. You have a near total gun ban, the place should be a fucking paradise of peace and non-violence. Let me know how its going. :rolleyes:
First of all, I don’t want a gun bun. I’ve said as much in this thread. It’s gotta be hard to keep track of all of us, but up there on your pedestal I’d have thought your view would be better.
Secondly, I’ll readily admit that micro-level gun bans are a silly idea; gun buns would seem to work better over a larger geographical area, preferably one that entirely encompasses an island. Like Australia, Japan, England…
Third, try answer the questions I asked. Or you can just assume that anyone who votes against guns is just ignorant and has never seen one in real life. :rolleyes:
Never much liked handguns before one was pointed at me. Never had a deer rifle pointed at me, but that may be due to the lack of antlers. Not that it always works.
Whose resources is the NRA diminishing? Because I think federal laws are enforcable by the ATF, the FBI, the DEA or any other federal law enforcement agency. Is the NRA fucking with all their budgets?
Also, many states have laws against felons possessing or attempting to purchase a firearm, these laws are enforced by state and local officers. Is the NRA fucking with their budgets as well?
I don’t follow the philosophy that we don’t need more regulations until we enforce the ones we’ve got but we still ought to enforce the ones we’ve got.
Your previous post:
Sorry if I mistook your post as an endorsement of gun bans. Your post sounds like you think that the violence is the result of the absence of a gun ban. I thought perhaps you didn’t realize that all those deaths were likely at the hands of people who weren’t supposed to have guns.
My view is not better from up here, you all just look smaller, like ants.
Gun bans will work in any area without porous borders if you also confiscate the guns and you are willing to live through years of armed criminals without any armed civilians. If you don’t confiscate the existing weapons, its a pretty pointless exercise unless you keep a national gun registry and if you’re going to keep a gun registry then you don’t need the gun ban.
I realize that large urban areas tend to vote Democrat. I think they tend to vote Democrat for all sorts of reasons. I don’t think gun control is a very big reason for people voting Democrat. It might be this year but it probably wasn’t in any of the years that elected the folks who created the gun laws. I don’t see how having more guns would make for fewer deaths in this (or most other) cases but I do see how having national gun licensing and registration would.
My proposal is aimed directly at these sort of gun deaths. It would do little to nothing for rampages by madmen but when you require gun licensing and registration, guns just don’t flow into unauthorized hands at nearly the rate they do now. A large majority of gun deaths are the deaths described in that article, they are largely kids killing kids, or young people killing young people.
The second amendment prevents us from banning the handguns that are frequently used in these shootouts but we can prevent these guns from being transferred to these kids as easily as they are. National gun licensure and a national gun registry would go a loong way to realizing the goal of reducing gun violence. Much further than any of the other ideas on the table.
And that changed your mind?
I get the feeling you meant to respond to another thread.
Well now, you can’t fault a Republican too much when he’s taking progressive strides to decrease the gender gap. Currently only men are required by federal law to be part of the militia.
Yeah but we’re on a message board. This isn’t Ender’s Game, nothing we say will sway anybody, anywhere
I guess we’ll just always have that between us, like siamese twins sharing the same butt
No need to go that far. We can simply do what I have suggested and try that out for a few decades
I find that logic to be odd, to say the least. Weren’t you just talking about how if we ban some types of guns, only criminals will have them? Now you’re saying if we license and register guns, then it won’t affect just the law-abiding, but even criminals (by drying up the access). I think you’re trying too hard to bend facts to your beliefs and it shows.
If, using your plan, we license and register guns AND you believe it will choke criminal access, that shows that you believe gun regulations do work. There is nothing in that quoted paragraph above to suggest that banning some types of weapons such as assault weapons won’t work. So if I’m reading you right, you do think banning assault weapons can choke criminal access to them, even if we only ban a few types, its just that you don’t think that the law-abiding is disproportionately affected by it, even though you admit that eventually criminals will be affected too
That is only a valid reason not to have the AWB if we assume all crimes are the same.
Don’t you think that banning certain types of weapons, ones that are arguably more dangerous due to things like capacity and rapidity of fire would mitigate the severity of gun crimes? I’m not trying to turn the world into a perfect utopia, its too hard and I would miss the violent action movies. BUT! And this is a big but, if I can reduce the instances of a Sandy Hook, or reduce each Sandy Hook’s severity, then I think that’s a good thing EVEN THOUGH criminals can still commit crimes. As long as we reduce even more the rare instances of mass slaughter by restricting certain types of guns typically used in those slaughters, or the guns that can more easily produce those slaughters, then I think we have an obligation to do so.
The AWB, however flawed, isn’t designed to eliminate all gun violence. If it were, then I would agree with you in that it does nothing and is totally pointless since criminals have alternatives. But if we assume that an AWB without loopholes would ban one or more types of weapon used at Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech, then I’m all for it. That’s why I like the AWB. I don’t think it’ll prevent all gun violence, just some types, and reduce the severity of others.
People cannot own bombs or tanks right? Do you think, just because we cannot go on the type of rampage with legal bombs and tanks, and people can make or steal alternatives, that our rights are being hampered because we can’t go on ebay and buy bomb?
If there is some way Hondas contribute to crimes, then even if Toyotas are an alternative, I would still ban Hondas. The less type of weapons available to criminals, the better.
I think that trying to get rid of some types of guns does contribute to the restrictions a criminal has to obtain one, that’s why I support it. Its not my main focus, but almost everybody believes in the alternatives so there’s nothing to debate and is boring to talk about
Same argument for drugs. Doesn’t matter to me, if it should be banned because its bad, then it should be banned. We can plug up the alternatives with other regulations.
Its funny, with most bans, people aren’t all gung-ho about violating the law. We banned drugs but most reasonable people don’t say that’s bad because there are drug dealers out there willing to break the law, but talk about guns then ever Ma and Pa Kettle says they’ll just sell it illegally. Here’s what I believe: if we banned assault weapons then most people will eventually fall in line and not sell these types to people. Why sell illegal merchandise when you can be throw in jail too? Your scenario speaks to an anti-government anarchist’s dream, but it is not realistic. I think most dealers, if we close the loopholes, would be perfectly willing to sell only legal guns. As for the drug dealers/illegal gun sellers, there will always be some, but their existence doesn’t mean that the banned object should be legal, it just means we should throw these people in jail
I believe I’ve already mentioned it many times. My main point of contention is magazine sizes and rapidity of fire. All guns that cross a certain line of those two
metrics should be banned.
Most of us don’t live in a TV show or movie where we can put perfect headshots on moving targets. In real life, I think most people will need a bunch of shots to hit the brain
We could do the same with assault weapons, but you said people will actively go against the law on that. I believe they won’t.
Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve seen you in the political debates, you KNOW that conservatives and Republicans are fucking crazy, especially now. No one should trust what they say for a long time. Now I don’t know which DoJ report you’re referring to, if its Obama’s or not, so why don’t you give me a link and we’ll see whether or not it comes from a reliable source.
Obama is not partisan, or rather, he is the least partisan, high-profile politician of this very partisan time. Do you really think the GOP or conservatives have ANY credibility at all about anything? We just passed the Sequester deadline, something they supported, now they are calling it Obama’s Sequester. Their partisanship reduced the financial rating of our country, they pretended we didn’t fight two wars on a credit card, these guys are CRAZY. Don’t talk to me about partisanship if you’re going to give them any credibility at all, we might as well end this conversation. Obama and his DoJ is who I trust, I’m not going to read a Fox News story and think they are on the same level. Until Obama’s CDC comes out with a report on gun violence, there is just noise
I don’t know Hemenway, I’ll have to look him up.
My opponents like the NRA and the GOP are shitheaded and insane. I don’t give a damn what they think is biased, I KNOW they are biased, so their opinion means nothing.
Cracked.com has a relevant article today: 3 Reasons It’s Time to Stop Taking the NRA Seriously