|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2012 : 08:09:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Kil
On the ease of buying and owning assault style weapons, I happen to agree with Jason Alexander. Sue me.
|
Define "assault style" weapons.
I had an "assault style" 22 Long Rifle. It was deemed an assault style weapon because it had a 15 round capacity.
|
Military weapons or military style weapons designed to do maximum damage in the shortest possible time. Otherwise known as assault weapons.
And by the way. The majority of Americans Support Semi-Automatic Weapons Ban.
|
Not how Congress has defined it.
The Remington shotgun the Colorado shooter had qualifies as a military style gun then since the military uses shotguns as weapons as well.
Argumentum ad Populum. You can find where a majority of Americans distrust atheists, too. Hardly a valid argument for both.
So what we are saying is that we must, because the majority of Americans either dislike or do not understand what a semi-automatic weapon is, go back to bolt action rifles and single action revolvers.
Also, no shotguns that aren't over and under or double barreled.
I do not see this as a compelling argument.
As for stronger measures, one of the ones suggested is for microstamping. This technology has been proven to be completely unreliable in over 50% of the cases. The technology cannot accurately identify the weapon the bullet came from. Registration is not a cure all. Or even a decent measure. I believe you are laboring under the misunderstanding that gun laws do anything other than take guns away from non-criminal citizens and citizens can not be trusted with guns. 80 million Americans are legal gun owners out of 311 million citizens.
As for guns of the type not doing much good, it allows for the people to have a better tool and fewer causalties than not being so armed. Again, I do not see this as a compelling argument.
Massively lower rates of gun violence, but the individual body counts for armed thugs is higher. Norway is a prime example of that. But it was their choice to do that. You have a lot of gun owners who would object here. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2012 : 08:24:43 [Permalink]
|
| Give me a compelling reason why assault weapons should be legal. And please don't make it a slippery slope argument, like the NRA makes. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2012 : 08:50:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Give me a compelling reason why assault weapons should be legal. And please don't make it a slippery slope argument, like the NRA makes.
|
To save yourself from other people with assault weapons, duh! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2012 : 09:47:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Give me a compelling reason why assault weapons should be legal. And please don't make it a slippery slope argument, like the NRA makes.
|
Because the definition of assault weapons used by gun control advocates and legislators are capricious and overbroad.
This has been to limit the access to weapons of all types with magazines of over 10 bullets. Rifles are declared assault weapons because of magazine size but not caliber. Other rifles have been labled assault weapons because similar looking weapons are used by the military but the advocates do not understand how many weapons this impacts.
There is little use outside gun collecting (and licenses exist for that) for fully automatic weapons. It is why there are seperate classes of FOID card to limit what weapons can be bought by an individual. These "assault weapons" that are banned because they look like military versions (without the capabilities) or have larger capacity magazines (set at a capricious value of 10) are useful for hunting large and small game. Yet, because of their look, they are banned. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2012 : 18:51:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
As I have seen a notice that 95% of gun violence is done with illegally procured firearms, licensing would be useless. I'll find that source and post it here. Again, criminals who shoot others don't get the guns legally and they are unregistered. |
Right, we need stronger measures with which to track weapons. The NRA's opinion seems to be that because the measures we have in place don't work 100% of the time, we may as well do nothing at all. |
Don't understand how Val can say it would be useless. We might argue over how useful it is, but merely making firearms easier to track and adding pressure on legal owners not to pass firearms on without re-registering them to new owners would have to have some useful effect.
It's just adds friction for the flow from legal to illegal owners ("illegal owner" being newly defined as owner without registration). There would certainly have to be a procedure for original owners to report lost or stolen firearms, and these are situations where they may fall into illegal hands (and this would be used as an excuse for under-the-table firearm sales surely), but still there become additional hoops to jump through and additional risk for legal owners pushing the firearms to illegal owners. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2012 : 19:05:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Kil
Give me a compelling reason why assault weapons should be legal. And please don't make it a slippery slope argument, like the NRA makes.
|
Because the definition of assault weapons used by gun control advocates and legislators are capricious and overbroad.
This has been to limit the access to weapons of all types with magazines of over 10 bullets. Rifles are declared assault weapons because of magazine size but not caliber. Other rifles have been labled assault weapons because similar looking weapons are used by the military but the advocates do not understand how many weapons this impacts. |
Well, that's an argument that the definition is wrong (and I agree), but what if they defined it more appropriately? Suppose the proposal was to criminalize drum magazines for any caliber and semi-automatic rifles with > x capacity magazines with >= y caliber rounds (say x = 20, y = 7.62 NATO rounds, or what have you). Would you still oppose that? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 05:35:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
As I have seen a notice that 95% of gun violence is done with illegally procured firearms, licensing would be useless. I'll find that source and post it here. Again, criminals who shoot others don't get the guns legally and they are unregistered. |
Right, we need stronger measures with which to track weapons. The NRA's opinion seems to be that because the measures we have in place don't work 100% of the time, we may as well do nothing at all. |
Don't understand how Val can say it would be useless. We might argue over how useful it is, but merely making firearms easier to track and adding pressure on legal owners not to pass firearms on without re-registering them to new owners would have to have some useful effect.
It's just adds friction for the flow from legal to illegal owners ("illegal owner" being newly defined as owner without registration). There would certainly have to be a procedure for original owners to report lost or stolen firearms, and these are situations where they may fall into illegal hands (and this would be used as an excuse for under-the-table firearm sales surely), but still there become additional hoops to jump through and additional risk for legal owners pushing the firearms to illegal owners.
|
Because registration would not cover the vast majority of guns. In addition, these registration lists are rarely used to investigate crimes and instead are used in gun confiscation when a particular firearm is deemed "bad" or "assault". |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 05:47:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Kil
Give me a compelling reason why assault weapons should be legal. And please don't make it a slippery slope argument, like the NRA makes.
|
Because the definition of assault weapons used by gun control advocates and legislators are capricious and overbroad.
This has been to limit the access to weapons of all types with magazines of over 10 bullets. Rifles are declared assault weapons because of magazine size but not caliber. Other rifles have been labled assault weapons because similar looking weapons are used by the military but the advocates do not understand how many weapons this impacts. |
Well, that's an argument that the definition is wrong (and I agree), but what if they defined it more appropriately? Suppose the proposal was to criminalize drum magazines for any caliber and semi-automatic rifles with > x capacity magazines with >= y caliber rounds (say x = 20, y = 7.62 NATO rounds, or what have you). Would you still oppose that?
|
I don't see how capacity really makes any difference in labeling something an "assault" anything. While drum magazines are impractical and not likely to be purchased for sporting, they could be purchased in the future for antique gun collections. There are some legitimate uses for high capacity magazines in training/practice situations.
Handguns have fewer of these issues (except for the smaller caliber 9mm or 22 caliber pistols which by nature of the size of the round fit more to a magazine).
High capacity magazines are more prone to jamming. The Colorado shooter's AR-15 jammed because of a misfeed from the high capacity magazine.
I have not seen gun control contain itself to a reasonable for hunting (need more for dove hunting because they don't fly fair) or practice. It usually starts off semi-reasonably and moves directly into gun confiscations of "scary" guns and "assault" guns. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 08:39:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because registration would not cover the vast majority of guns. In addition, these registration lists are rarely used to investigate crimes... |
Still better than zero.
Why not mandate that registration cover all guns, anyway? Mandate that sellers inform the state when they sell guns, and that buyers inform the state when they buy guns, and that owners inform the state when a gun is lost or stolen. Doesn't interfere with anyone's right to own, and the weapons can be tracked back to at least their last legal owner that way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 09:09:44 [Permalink]
|
Val:
There are some legitimate uses for high capacity magazines in training/practice situations. |
You mean like for a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..?"
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 11:33:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because registration would not cover the vast majority of guns. In addition, these registration lists are rarely used to investigate crimes... |
Still better than zero.
Why not mandate that registration cover all guns, anyway? Mandate that sellers inform the state when they sell guns, and that buyers inform the state when they buy guns, and that owners inform the state when a gun is lost or stolen. Doesn't interfere with anyone's right to own, and the weapons can be tracked back to at least their last legal owner that way.
|
Because it isn't primarily used that way. It is used in gun confiscation programs. The government has shown on multiple occasions where lists of registered guns have primarily been used to confiscate those guns. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 12:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because registration would not cover the vast majority of guns. In addition, these registration lists are rarely used to investigate crimes... |
Still better than zero.
Why not mandate that registration cover all guns, anyway? Mandate that sellers inform the state when they sell guns, and that buyers inform the state when they buy guns, and that owners inform the state when a gun is lost or stolen. Doesn't interfere with anyone's right to own, and the weapons can be tracked back to at least their last legal owner that way.
|
Because it isn't primarily used that way. It is used in gun confiscation programs. The government has shown on multiple occasions where lists of registered guns have primarily been used to confiscate those guns.
|
Ahhh... So you are against any gun registration. Even the NRA has supported some gun registration. That puts you to the right of the NRA.
Now please provide some source that demonstrates that confiscating legally purchased guns is how registration is primarily used. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 12:10:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because it isn't primarily used that way. It is used in gun confiscation programs. The government has shown on multiple occasions where lists of registered guns have primarily been used to confiscate those guns. |
...when a particular firearm is deemed "bad" or "assault", right? You don't think we can pass laws to fix that situation? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 13:17:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because registration would not cover the vast majority of guns. In addition, these registration lists are rarely used to investigate crimes... |
Still better than zero.
Why not mandate that registration cover all guns, anyway? Mandate that sellers inform the state when they sell guns, and that buyers inform the state when they buy guns, and that owners inform the state when a gun is lost or stolen. Doesn't interfere with anyone's right to own, and the weapons can be tracked back to at least their last legal owner that way.
|
Because it isn't primarily used that way. It is used in gun confiscation programs. The government has shown on multiple occasions where lists of registered guns have primarily been used to confiscate those guns.
|
Ahhh... So you are against any gun registration. Even the NRA has supported some gun registration. That puts you to the right of the NRA.
Now please provide some source that demonstrates that confiscating legally purchased guns is how registration is primarily used.
|
Ney York City used a gun registry enacted in 1967 to ban "assault weapons" which were defined as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in 1993. They then used this registry to sieze these weapons.
The siezure was done in spite of the Police Commissioner Lee Brown testifying that no assault weapon had been used in a violent crime for the city.
California required the registration for the SKS rifle. The law was bobbled and an grace period was allowed for the registry of these weapons. Recently, California has reneged on the grace period and demanded the seizure of all registered SKS's.
Chicago also banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in the 1990's after requiring a registry. The city began seizing those weapons.
These seizures affects thousands of weapons.
The NRA is for a national registry which has limited access to it by state and local governments only when they have a valid and active law enforcement concern and not a seizure for a gun ban reason. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 13:18:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because it isn't primarily used that way. It is used in gun confiscation programs. The government has shown on multiple occasions where lists of registered guns have primarily been used to confiscate those guns. |
...when a particular firearm is deemed "bad" or "assault", right? You don't think we can pass laws to fix that situation?
|
History tends to indicate that we cannot. The latest insanity was only relieved when the ban was allowed to expire. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
Predictably, the gun control debate heats up
