Assault weapon bans

[FirstAscent]

And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates?

The same way all people who shouldn't have guns get their hands on guns. The huge demand for guns in the U.S. by gun lovers has made sure there's lots of guns to go around.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this?  Cars are stolen regularly and used for crime.  Should we ban cars too?

Your solution is to punish the innocent for the crimes and carelessness of others.

I suggest you refrain from replying to my statements until you have read all of my posts, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind without understanding my position.

I suggest you stop spewing garbage.  I've read all your posts.

M

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

Largely incorrect and woefully incomplete.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

[Nigeria Prince]

Assault weapons should not be banned.

Here in Nigeria, you can buy all weapons.

Just make sure you don't buy American semi auto assault weapons but full auto assault weapons.

[mdude77]

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

Largely incorrect and woefully incomplete.

Please correct me then.  That's what I've derived so far from your posts.

M

[NewLiberty]

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

They are spelled differently and have occupants with different last names, but how about offering some distinctions that make a difference, please? Or say why your distinction matters?  Both governmental entities are capable of enforcing their laws, yes?

[FirstAscent]

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

Largely incorrect and woefully incomplete.

Please correct me then.  That's what I've derived so far from your posts.

I forgive you. The thread is long. You can go back and read all the posts again, or simply stop making assumptions about what I've said.

[mdude77]

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

Largely incorrect and woefully incomplete.

Please correct me then.  That's what I've derived so far from your posts.

I forgive you. The thread is long. You can go back and read all the posts again, or simply stop making assumptions about what I've said.

I'm not assuming anything, nor am I rereading what you wrote.  Sorry.  I'm on the freedom side of the fence, you're on the "trust government to take care of you and thugs not to hurt you" fence.

M

[TheButterZone]

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

Largely incorrect and woefully incomplete.

Please correct me then.  That's what I've derived so far from your posts.

I forgive you. The thread is long. You can go back and read all the posts again, or simply stop making assumptions about what I've said.

I'm not assuming anything, nor am I rereading what you wrote.  Sorry.  I'm on the freedom side of the fence, you're on the "trust government to take care of you and thugs not to hurt you" fence.

M

Fighting equivocating sociopaths like him is like wrestling pigs in shit. The shit stinks and the pigs like it.

[FirstAscent]

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

Largely incorrect and woefully incomplete.

Please correct me then.  That's what I've derived so far from your posts.

I forgive you. The thread is long. You can go back and read all the posts again, or simply stop making assumptions about what I've said.

I'm not assuming anything, nor am I rereading what you wrote.  Sorry.  I'm on the freedom side of the fence, you're on the "trust government to take care of you and thugs not to hurt you" fence.

Of course you're not assuming anything, except at the very least what you've said here (quoted above).

[mdude77]

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

Largely incorrect and woefully incomplete.

Please correct me then.  That's what I've derived so far from your posts.

I forgive you. The thread is long. You can go back and read all the posts again, or simply stop making assumptions about what I've said.

I'm not assuming anything, nor am I rereading what you wrote.  Sorry.  I'm on the freedom side of the fence, you're on the "trust government to take care of you and thugs not to hurt you" fence.

Of course you're not assuming anything, except at the very least what you've said here (quoted above).

That's not an assumption.  It's a conclusion based on my interpretation of your posts. 

M

[Spendulus]

There was a case some years ago, Cory Maye, where he shot through a door at what he presumed was an armed intruder.  It turned out to be a police officer that was doing a SWAT team style raid on the wrong house - a "no knock raid".  He was convicted of capital murder, spent ten years or so in the state pen and was released on appeal to the state supreme court.

Moral of that story:  DO NOT EVER THINK about shooting at something behind a door

His might actually have been a prudent decision. For shooting through the door, he got ten years in prison. What do you think he would have gotten had he waited for the SWAT team to break down his door and see him with a gun pointed at them?

That is one hell of a point of view to even have to contemplate.

Rules of engagement for police units typically do involve shooting immediately when something that looks like a gun is pointed at them.

The implications of this are obvious when a Swat team no knock raid is involved.  Toy guns, dogs, sticks, anything that looks like a pointy thingy, all get met with the bang bang bang.

That's one side of bad.

The other side is when the SWAT team hits the wrong house, which they do pretty commonly, playing their little game of Johnny Soldier Wanna-be.  Then they encounter Mr. Average and whatever arsenal he's got.

All of this would be solved with a polite knock on the door of course.  But it seems that would give the 'bad guy in the house' (or the 'good guy in the wrong house') time to hide his drugs and more importantly his cash.

GOTTA GET THAT CASH, MAN!!!

[PrintMule]

Assault weapons should not be banned.

Here in Nigeria, you can buy all weapons.

Just make sure you don't buy American semi auto assault weapons but full auto assault weapons.

That works for you nicely, doesn't it?

[Rassah]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.

[Spendulus]

My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.

If he resists your polemic regarding fixing the world's problems through increasing the amount of jack booted thugs taking things away from people and ordering them around, he ain't no idiot.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

If he's resisting your approach to creating a better world through jack booted thuggery he ain't no idiot.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.

Thank you for quoting me. It accentuates the point.

[Rassah]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.

Yes, we have, and you made just as much sense before. Learn to logic.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.

Yes, we have, and you made just as much sense before. Learn to logic.

Don't be so obtuse, if it's within your capability to not be. Round and round is your mode of argumentation, ignoring all prior points, either due to trollish behavior, or just plain stupidity.

[Rassah]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.

Yes, we have, and you made just as much sense before. Learn to logic.

Don't be so obtuse, if it's within your capability to not be. Round and round is your mode of argumentation, ignoring all prior points, either due to trollish behavior, or just plain stupidity.

I am absolutely sure it's because you make a completely incoherent or illogical point, pat yourself on the back about it, thinking you're awesome, and convince yourself that you have made a perfect, indefensible argument, while the rest of us are either trying to figure out what the heel your talking about, or are frantically trying to point out your logic errors, which you refuse to recognize. I mean, you absolutely *insist* that correlation = causation, that law breakers follow laws, etc.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Japan is consistent.

So is Maryland.

So? How is that the same?

It is the same. Both places are consistent in their bans. How it is different?

Japan is a nation. Maryland is a state within a nation. Duh.

Gun legislation is on a state level, not on countrywide level. So it might as well be a country from gun control standpoint. Only difference is it's easier to get into MD from the border areas than into the island of Japan. I guess we should set up border fence everywhere and rifle through everyone's cars and baggage every time anyone crosses state lines. That should fix any problems.

My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.

Yes, we have, and you made just as much sense before. Learn to logic.

Don't be so obtuse, if it's within your capability to not be. Round and round is your mode of argumentation, ignoring all prior points, either due to trollish behavior, or just plain stupidity.

I am absolutely sure it's because you make a completely incoherent or illogical point, pat yourself on the back about it, thinking you're awesome, and convince yourself that you have made a perfect, indefensible argument, while the rest of us are either trying to figure out what the heel your talking about, or are frantically trying to point out your logic errors, which you refuse to recognize. I mean, you absolutely *insist* that correlation = causation, that law breakers follow laws, etc.

Do you understand the term "uniform" within the context of this discussion?

Do you understand why more guns lead to more gun injuries and deaths?

I think it's possible that you do not.