Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 39. (Read 36627 times)

Japan doesn't "lack" guns nor "gun deaths"/crime at all, despite what that bloody sociopath would have gun control victims believe about his criminals' utopia.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/the-great-japanese-gang-wars.html

As I said, we don't really know. Is their crime rate low due to lack of guns, or due to their culture? Aren't there some places where guns are completely banned, where crime rates are really high? (like Washington DC)

Although I don't agree with FirstAscent, and may rib him a little bit, there is no cause for ad hominem attacks.  He may have some life experiences which have shaped his attitudes to their current state. 

Certainly his attitude roughly parallels that of many people in positions of power, who think they can make decisions for large disparate groups eg "one size fits all" thinking.  Yeah, it's unsettling to see this attitude so blatantly displayed.  But it's not uncommon...

Ban evil? Gun control advocates (100% of criminals, 100% enabled by gun control/0% diminished by it) would all have to kill themselves then. Sadly, they don't.

Statistics show that when ice cream sales increase, more cars get stolen.  That's bad, we should ban ice cream.

Reality check: people buy ice cream when it gets warm, and because it's warm they tend to leave their car windows opened more.  Wait, ban heat!  That'll solve it!

Statistics also show that the more cars there are, the more fatal car accidents there are.  And sometimes, they aren't accidental!  Uh oh, ban cars!!

Reality check: cars are useful, and serve a purpose other than fatal car accidents purposeful or not.  Wait, ban people!  That'll solve it!

Statistics also show the more guns there are, the more shootings there are!  Whoa, ban guns!!

Reality check: guns serve a purpose, it's called self defense.  Wait, ban evil!!  That'll solve it!

M

Don't be LOGICAL.  Hold hands in a circle and sing "Give Peas a Chance!"

Well, your misunderstanding arises from in part, not comprehending that I fully comprehend that many laws are "Ineffective or Inconsistent". 

What is baffling/ridiculous/absurd is that you think that some law that you or other current generation progressives dream up would be "better".  I suggest rather that you look at "Ineffective" and understand it as a failure of centralized control concepts, then go spend your time at something more useful productive and profitable than opining ineffectively and inconsistently on internet forums.

Wait a second.  If you are ineffectively and inconsistently opining about ineffective and inconsistent rules and laws...Clearly you can solve the world's problems and are smarter and wiser than all those who came before and who implemented existing law.

That is such utter nonsense. 

Really? How is that working out for Japan?

Sounds like the only solution is to ban all guns in all cities, then when people bring them from nearby, ban them in states, then when they bring them from neighboring states, ban them in the whole country, then when they bring them from neighboring countries, ban them in all countries. Unless the country you are trying to ban them in doesn't like you, and realizes that they have all the guns, and you don't Hell, even if you ban all the guns in the entire world, there's still the asshole effect, which is that it only takes one asshole (or one asshole country) to ruin it for everyone. Plus, again, with 3D printed guns, the issue becomes more complicated.


What laws would you create against 3D printing guns, and how would you enforce them?

Your misunderstanding arises from the fact that you don't get the following:

- More guns translates to more gun deaths.
- Gun advocates are the ones responsible for allowing the free flow of guns into criminals' hands.
- Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively put guns in criminals hands.
- Ineffective laws enforced effectively put guns in criminals hands.
- Effective laws enforced ineffectively put guns in criminals hands.
- Inconsistent and competing laws allow criminals to get guns.

So let me understand this.

A.  Progressive Authoritarian Controllers cause Chicago to create gun control law and takes all the guns from the good guys, leaving the bad guys with all the guns.
B.  Doesn't work.  Things get worse.  WAY  WORSE.
C.  Progressive authoritarian Controller calls for nation wide, uniform federal law taking guns away from the good guys to 'fix the problem'.
D.  So a big problem created by the Prog trying to fix a little problem now has to be solved by a bigger fix, with yet more risk and inconvenience and loss of property by the good guys.

Basically your ideas are to screw with the rights of the good guys.

Gosh...I wonder how that will work down in South Texas where Eric Holder has been arming all the Mexican gangs with AR15/AK47/AK74?    

I'm going to exit this thread for a short while to replace the heating element on my 3d printer.  And then I'm going to print a gun.  Give me a couple of days, and I'll return and with a bit of luck put up some photos. 

The problem is you have no problem with it. How many times must I say: Ineffective laws (or even effective laws) ineffectively enforced put guns in criminals' hands? I specifically called for gun permits enforced at the federal level only precisely because Chicago residents can simply go elsewhere to get guns.

Or maybe it wasn't Spendulus.

And maybe you don't know the facts enough.  For example, in Texas many convicted felons who have been clean for five years can buy guns.  But they cannot pass the federal background check.  Thus they are legal under state law, but not federal.  Similar in numerous other states.

I have no problem with that.   

Each state has differing problems.  They are in a sense experimental societies.  And we know how successful (NOT) Illinois, New York and Washington DC have been with their very restrictive gun laws.

LOL....

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

If you have a problem with my opinion, you will probably have to live with that.  I used to think like you, I came to my senses.
I've seen the results of defenseless women, when it mattered.  I will have to live with that.

I looked up "free" and "law" in the dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
Wow, seems I am right and you are wrong, huh.  Big surprise.

What specifically are you hoping to accomplish after you have disarmed the relatively innocent?

Does this also apply to the tens of thousands of people being shot by police and the military? Why do you presume that most of those that got shot didn't actually deserve it?



Tell that to colonial Americans fighting Britain, or the Lybian rebels who recently deposed Qaddafi.

That's the problem.


Who says I'm afraid? Can you point to any post I made indicating I'm afraid. Indeed, if I was afraid, wouldn't I want a gun? What I am is disgusted by people getting shot.


See above post to clarify the rebuttal of the premise of your conclusion.


Same here. So why did you bring it up?


How did you arrive at such an erroneous conclusion given the statistics?


You mean ineffective laws ineffectively enforced?


Much much less, since there is a linear relationship in the number of guns per capita vs. gun deaths. Pretty simple, isn't it?


You want less guns in the hands of the police? Then start advocating less guns per capita.


Guns don't lead to prosperity.

I meant, "If millions of dollars have to be stolen from people, and used for SOMETHING, I'd personally rather see it go to something productive instead of wasteful." I in no way meant that I want to see millions of dollars applied towards the underlying problem of crime, I specifically meant that I want to see millions of dollars STOP being used on things like gun control, and, if must be, used for something productive instead. Ideally, of course, I'd rather not have any money taken by nannies to take care of us, and such education come from the communities themselves, instead of the state.
TL;DR: I am willing to recognize the reality we are forced to live under, and am capable of proposing solutions without the need to tear down the entire system as a whole, regardless of how much better I believe things would be otherwise. If you were thinking that you caught me with a "gotcha," I am sorry to disappoint you.


That's what we have been asking you about: what is the degree that we must go to? Should we ban some guns? All guns? All guns and some knives and bows? All guns, knives, bows, baseball bats, spears, and vehicles over 500lb? And how do we decide? You propose that it's a matter of degree. I propose you're not focusing on the right thing to begin with.


Actually, it has about equal parts "don't need one" , "too lazy to go through all the hoops to get one" , and "don't want to spend so much to buy one."
Regardless, what's your point? Just because I happen to not need a gun, must we force everyone else to not have one, too, even if they do need one?

Sure, and I am fine with that.  I am sorry you are so afraid.  You should probably look for a good therapist.
For what it is worth, I am also not interested in government mandating that folks be covered in bubblewrap, even if it saves lives.

The supply is not "free flowing".  There are a great amount of laws governing how, where, who can sell to whom, and more laws most every year.
If 300 million guns is the wrong number for you...
What is the right number for you?
What percentage of those guns should be held by your governments?

I am not an advocate of guns, also not an NRA member, am not political at all really though I do appreciate their work.
I also appreciate what freedoms remain, on a wide variety of other issues.
Freedoms tend to lead to prosperity, this one included.  
It seems a bizarre thing to get worked up over.  Assault weapons?  Really?  The sky is just not falling in this neck of the woods, and certainly not a problem worthy of further extracting taxes of my fellows in order to hire a bunch of government gunslingers to run around trying to disarm citizens.

Yeah, there are people that dumb in this thread. Scroll back and find the post, or take my word for it. I believe it was Spendulus.


Is it because the actual ban will be ineffective at stopping criminals from buying them from other gun owners, on the street, or over the internet, and because it will do absolutely nothing but distract us from the underlying issue of crime itself? I mean, to paraphrase, guns don't cause crimes, people cause crimes. Personally, I'd rather see the millions of tax dollars going to stop the underlying problem of crime, than ineffectually attempting to patch one of many of its enablers.