Would an assault weapons ban make you feel safer?

[redandguilty]

But think how cheaply bazookas would become to make. So, how do you define a bazooka? For instance, does it need a specific barrel size to be considered a bazooka?

Firearm homicides would plummet, but bazooka homicides would skyrocket. Bad people will continue to do bad things. However, I would expect most domestic homicides would be mostly eliminated. Only guys like champ could get his significant other mad enough to use a bazooka on him. :hehe:

The only thing most gun laws end up doing is keeping honest people "more" honest. They certainly have their place in a civilized society, but as is usually the case, civilized society requires more intelligence and self-control than currently exists. So where does that leave us?

I don't think bazooka homicides would get anywhere near where handgun homicides are right now. The total number of homicides would decrease if people had access to bazookas instead of handguns. Domestic homicides would drop as you said, but I think other homicides would drop too. If someone wants to go shoot someone across town, they can conceal a handgun while they're walking in public or taking a bus. Bazookas don't fit in glove compartments. Those convenience issues add up. Of course, any bazooka use would be a big deal, but I still think net homicides would drop.

 

[Michchamp]

Same thing if you banned everything but bazookas. People would own bazookas.

...

did you derail the thread with a completely stupid false analogy on purpose, or were you just messing with red?

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't think bazooka homicides would get anywhere near where handgun homicides are right now. The total number of homicides would decrease if people had access to bazookas instead of handguns. Domestic homicides would drop as you said, but I think other homicides would drop too. If someone wants to go shoot someone across town, they can conceal a handgun while they're walking in public or taking a bus. Bazookas don't fit in glove compartments. Those convenience issues add up. Of course, any bazooka use would be a big deal, but I still think net homicides would drop.

I think that depends on whether you define the "bazooka" by what it is/was capable of as opposed to its size. So if someone invents a weapon that looks similar to a bazooka, has the fire power close to that of a bazooka, but has the size and loading capability of a handgun, homicides may drop until technology catches up, but over the long hall may not make as much difference as you are hoping for.

My point, which still stands, is that whatever you decide to ban, it will be gotten around by criminals in relatively short order, followed shortly thereafter by the public. I can't believe you would dispute that. The huffin' and puffin' of the ethics and politics will go on forever, but IMHO, so too will the violence.


Availablity of the better technology for assault rifles, etc, will only hinder the violence for a small while, but the psychological advantage, which may be all we get, could do some good.

 

[KAWDUP]

did you derail the thread with a completely stupid false analogy on purpose, or were you just messing with red?

Messing with Red, but I will correct my analogy to prove you wrong any time :*)

 

[Thumb]

did you derail the thread with a completely stupid false analogy on purpose, or were you just messing with red?

Give him a break, someone has to be the new smitty.

 

[Michchamp]

the argument "criminals will always get guns so these laws and restrictions are useless" is absurd on its face, as well as under any sort of factual analysis, but plays right into the hands of firearm manufacturers who don't want to see any sort of laws or restrictions start to hamper the sales windfalls and obscene profits they've been making over the last decade. way to parrot the line, KAWDUP.

 

[KAWDUP]

the argument "criminals will always get guns so these laws and restrictions are useless" is absurd on its face, as well as under any sort of factual analysis, but plays right into the hands of firearm manufacturers who don't want to see any sort of laws or restrictions start to hamper the sales windfalls and obscene profits they've been making over the last decade. way to parrot the line, KAWDUP.

That is bull crap, and not really my point. If you want to read again and refute the actual argument, maybe I'll listen, but you spouting your own party line to refute something that isn't even on my argument "table" is pointless, and typical of the champ style. But you go ahead if it makes you feel better to keep putting words in my mouth.


:bs:

 

[Thumb]

My point, which still stands, is that whatever you decide to ban, it will be gotten around by criminals in relatively short order, followed shortly thereafter by the public. I can't believe you would dispute that. The huffin' and puffin' of the ethics and politics will go on forever, but IMHO, so too will the violence.

So what's the point in having any laws at all then, because your analogy would apply to any law or regulation.

 

[Thumb]

We should eliminate the ATF and the DEA, because criminals and lowlifes will still possess illegal weapons, and tweakers and crackheads will still manufacture meth and crack.

Think of all the money we could save in the federal budget if we were not trying to enforce laws so easily circumvented.

Now where did I put Obama's phone number....

 

[KAWDUP]

So what's the point in having any laws at all then, because your analogy would apply to any law or regulation.

Like it has anything to do with how easy it is to circumvent the laws. Ease of breakage is not the issue at all. It is easy to break the law of saying "you must own a gun" - does that mean that particular law is pointless or not in your absurd analogy?

 

[KAWDUP]

We should eliminate the ATF and the DEA, because criminals and lowlifes will still possess illegal weapons, and tweakers and crackheads will still manufacture meth and crack.

Think of all the money we could save in the federal budget if we were not trying to enforce laws so easily circumvented.

Now where did I put Obama's phone number....

Further building on your absurd answer. Keep swingng, you might hit on some point that I was making. Why don't you start spewing about how I would like to have complete chaos rule the land with only idiots like you to defend the rule of law. Just being moronic, but still typical when you jump into the discussion.

 

[redandguilty]

My point, which still stands, is that whatever you decide to ban, it will be gotten around by criminals in relatively short order, followed shortly thereafter by the public. I can't believe you would dispute that. The huffin' and puffin' of the ethics and politics will go on forever, but IMHO, so too will the violence.

I don't think so. Most weapons used in homicides are either legal or only illegal because of who owns them or how they were obtained, not their mechanical capabilities.

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't think so. Most weapons used in homicides are either legal or only illegal because of who owns them or how they were obtained, not their mechanical capabilities.

Ok - now I think you aren't seeing my point any more. Take for instance, just the semantics of banning say "assault weapons". Even go further and mention in your new law which models of "assault weapons" you are banning. Any definition you pick will just set the new standard for what must be changed to continue to produce a weapon with the same firepower and loading capability.

Background checks are a great thing, and can be used very effectively. Better education, stiffer sentences, and a number of other measures can be taken and will help curb the violence, but banning something that is arguably protected in the Constitution, no matter how egregious you feel the implementation is, won't really make much progress.

Do you get it now? I get the feeling with champ and thumb it is still an uphill battle. They just don't get it. I am on the human side in this argument. I always am. I very much want those victims to have closure, and if banning something will help them achieve it, who am I to stand in the way. But don't for a minute believe that because, I logically don't think banning "assault weapons" will curb the violence (at least not for very long), that I somehow don't want to curb the violence.

Any suggestion to the contrary is moronic and baseless. Give that up, because I am not buying it, or dignifying it with a response to refute the stupidity.

 

[redandguilty]

Ok - now I think you aren't seeing my point any more. Take for instance, just the semantics of banning say "assault weapons". Even go further and mention in your new law which models of "assault weapons" you are banning. Any definition you pick will just set the new standard for what must be changed to continue to produce a weapon with the same firepower and loading capability.

Background checks are a great thing, and can be used very effectively. Better education, stiffer sentences, and a number of other measures can be taken and will help curb the violence, but banning something that is arguably protected in the Constitution, no matter how egregious you feel the implementation is, won't really make much progress.

Do you get it now? I get the feeling with champ and thumb it is still an uphill battle. They just don't get it. I am on the human side in this argument. I always am. I very much want those victims to have closure, and if banning something will help them achieve it, who am I to stand in the way. But don't for a minute believe that because, I logically don't think banning "assault weapons" will curb the violence (at least not for very long), that I somehow don't want to curb the violence.

Any suggestion to the contrary is moronic and baseless. Give that up, because I am not buying it, or dignifying it with a response to refute the stupidity.

OK, then, what if there was a ban on firearms under... say 20" in length?

 

[KAWDUP]

OK, then, what if there was a ban on firearms under... say 20" in length?

If we are totally in fantasyland, sure that measure would certainly make it harder to get firearms for a longer period of time, and again would temporarily curb the violence, but are you still trying to make a case that you could word any law that would stop enough gun violence that would make suicide massacre's a thing of the past?

 

[redandguilty]

If we are totally in fantasyland, sure that measure would certainly make it harder to get firearms for a longer period of time, and again would temporarily curb the violence, but are you still trying to make a case that you could word any law that would stop enough gun violence that would make suicide massacre's a thing of the past?

Of course not. I never tried to make that case. But suicide massacres are a small fraction of gun violence. The big fantasy (I think) is the idea that you could make a significant impact on the number of guns already out there. But if you could ban and actually remove all the easily concealable weapons, I think that would have a dramatic impact on gun homicides. It would be far more effective than an assault weapons ban. For some reason we focus on assault weapons and ignore handguns, but if you wanted to make a practical difference, you should do the opposite. Ban handguns and allow assault weapon.

Plus, if the argument has something to do with being armed to influence the degree to which our government (or these days, our corporations) can oppress us, then again, allow assault weapons.

 

[TheVictors]

The fact that there is a distinction being made between "gun owners" and "responsible gun owners" says it all. Even the lexicon of the discussion admits that guns are a problem for those "irresponsible" with them. And then makes all these Facebook allegories about "cars killing people, ban cars" or "guy in China stabs with knife, so see!" and "rocks can be weopans too" disingenuous.

Fact is, we have a national problem that does not exist in other, like nations. The obsession with guns and alarmist rhetoric about the Constitution and Tyrannical government is absurd.

Times like these make me embarrassed to be American. We're a fat, lazy, undereducated nation of self-entitled assholes.

 

[Thumb]

Further building on your absurd answer. Keep swingng, you might hit on some point that I was making. Why don't you start spewing about how I would like to have complete chaos rule the land with only idiots like you to defend the rule of law. Just being moronic, but still typical when you jump into the discussion.

I don't think even you know what point you were trying to make.

Which is also quite typical of when you jump into a discussion.

The idea that it's pointless to make a law or restrictions because a criminal will just circumvent it is moronic.

 

[Thumb]

Of course not. I never tried to make that case. But suicide massacres are a small fraction of gun violence. The big fantasy (I think) is the idea that you could make a significant impact on the number of guns already out there. But if you could ban and actually remove all the easily concealable weapons, I think that would have a dramatic impact on gun homicides. It would be far more effective than an assault weapons ban. For some reason we focus on assault weapons and ignore handguns, but if you wanted to make a practical difference, you should do the opposite. Ban handguns and allow assault weapon.

Plus, if the argument has something to do with being armed to influence the degree to which our government (or these days, our corporations) can oppress us, then again, allow assault weapons.

Theoretically this is correct. When one person or two is murdered with a handgun it's plain vanilla news to almost everyone except the involved parties, you could have 1000 gun related homicides in a year and it will never get the press as a mass shooting of 15 people, even though the totals are far less.

It's the leaky faucet concept, as long as it's a steady, but slow drip...you tend to ignore it. But if it drips out a gallon or two all at once, you will want to fix it asap.

 

[lostleader]

I would feel safer if Obama had all the guns and everyone else had none.

Yup turn them all in, us lesser citizens can have bb guns and muskets.