Assault weapon bans

[TheButterZone]

If handguns were designed to kill, then that's an epic fail, because 80% of handgun wounds aren't fatal. Also, people have been shot dozens of times at once and 1) kept functioning for enough time to kill others with non-guns 2) survived with medical treatment to die a natural death. But despite the low probability of criminals getting killed by their victims, the victims' mere possession of the handgun (even if just openly carried in a holster) is enough to stop most criminals.

In sane criminals (most of them), the self-preservation instinct applies even if there's a 20% chance of death. That means they're not so much threatened by death, they're mostly threatened by pain, and imprisonment after they are rendered unable to escape. Self-preservation does not just apply to preserving one's life, it is also one's way of life - pain-free and free to commit crime with impunity.

On the other hand, if you get properly stabbed or artery slashed with a knife, the wound channel is massive by comparison, and you are far more likely to bleed out, etc. before medical treatment can save you.

If "gun control" advocates truly gave a fuck about only saving innocent lives and not categorically enabling crime, they wouldn't be gun control advocates.

[Spendulus]

I found the arguments here from Kleck to be rational and well levied, for what it's worth.  This work would be something that lends itself to reasonable discussion.  I also do not believe that defensive carry of firearms, or further legal or training requirements for public carry are anywhere close to the best approaches to reducing crime or violent crime; addressing the economic and cultural factors involved are far more important for an overall approach to crime reduction - this view is why I take the stance that referencing firearms in the context of crime is over-hyped and over-represented in most debate.

The part in bold is the point I try to make when I say the cause and core of the issue is immorality which stemless from Godlessness.  I am not preaching one faith, doctrine, or organized religion over another, I am simply stating Godliness.  God is good, regardless of the name you refer to him by.  If he is not good, you have a false god.

M

This is all good, but you might want to reconsider something you posted earlier, along the lines of a "Godly government", if I recall correctly.  These attributes you mention cannot exist in a collective, but only in the individual.  The collective tends toward it's own motives and goes, regresses to the mean.  And certainly it cannot have attributes which exist only within the human spirit, which is and always will be within the individual.

[Rassah]

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.


Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.

[FirstAscent]

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.


Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.

Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.

Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.

[mdude77]

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.


Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.

Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.

Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.

Here come the insults!!!  Getting desperate?

You don't seem to accept that the gun is so integral to people's everyday lives as well?  Guns are useful.  Get over it.

M

[mdude77]

I found the arguments here from Kleck to be rational and well levied, for what it's worth.  This work would be something that lends itself to reasonable discussion.  I also do not believe that defensive carry of firearms, or further legal or training requirements for public carry are anywhere close to the best approaches to reducing crime or violent crime; addressing the economic and cultural factors involved are far more important for an overall approach to crime reduction - this view is why I take the stance that referencing firearms in the context of crime is over-hyped and over-represented in most debate.

The part in bold is the point I try to make when I say the cause and core of the issue is immorality which stemless from Godlessness.  I am not preaching one faith, doctrine, or organized religion over another, I am simply stating Godliness.  God is good, regardless of the name you refer to him by.  If he is not good, you have a false god.

M

This is all good, but you might want to reconsider something you posted earlier, along the lines of a "Godly government", if I recall correctly.  These attributes you mention cannot exist in a collective, but only in the individual.  The collective tends toward it's own motives and goes, regresses to the mean.  And certainly it cannot have attributes which exist only within the human spirit, which is and always will be within the individual.

You are correct.  Governments are not single entities.  They are composed of a mass of individuals.  Once Godliness becomes pervasive, governments and corporations will start behaving much differently than they do today.

M

[Spendulus]

.....
Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.

Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.

I agree with your concept of banning guns.  For you.  I don't want you to have guns.

It's perfectly fine for me to have them.

[Shaltuum]

Who arms criminals with guns? Why, gun owners and gun sellers, of course. Nobody else.

Thieves arm criminals of course.

Assisted by gun owners. Definitely not assisted by those who don't own guns.

The Newtown shooter was armed by his mother. The Aurora shooter was armed by gun sellers. The Columbine shooters were armed by gun owners. All criminals who have guns get their guns through a path which originates from gun sellers or gun sellers to gun owners.

What's worse, virtually every one of those gun owners who gave up their guns to criminals go out buy more guns. Thus the escalation of guns to 300 million guns in this country, which is the problem.

Irresponsibility of gun owners and gun sellers are the reason for the arming of criminals.

Criminals are armed in Russia almost as equally well, even though Russia has very strict gun control laws.

That would likely be case #1, 2 or 3.

1. Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
2. Ineffective laws enforced effectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
3. Effective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
4. Effective laws enforced effectively keep guns out of criminals' hands.

This is an old tired, argument. "It's not the system that is wrong, its just how it's applied". The system is as good as the results it produces in practice. And so far, from what I've seen, gun control doesn't prevent criminals from arming themselves, regardless of how good in theory it's supposed to work.

[Shaltuum]

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.


Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.

Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.

Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.

I would argue that the right to defend yourself is just as, or at least nearly as, important as transportation.
And using your logic, wouldn't banning all cars above 50 BHP make sense, as well? You don't need a car that can do 0-120 MPH in under 10 seconds when the maximum speed limit in highways is somewhat 80 MPH.

[FirstAscent]

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.


Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.

Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.

Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.

Here come the insults!!!  Getting desperate?

You don't seem to accept that the gun is so integral to people's everyday lives as well?  Guns are useful.  Get over it.

There really were no insults there that weren't warranted. Just an analytical description of some arguments. And if guns were so useful, I'd have one, or at least know more than a tiny fraction of people that do. Funny how everyone I know has a car though.

[FirstAscent]

Who arms criminals with guns? Why, gun owners and gun sellers, of course. Nobody else.

Thieves arm criminals of course.

Assisted by gun owners. Definitely not assisted by those who don't own guns.

The Newtown shooter was armed by his mother. The Aurora shooter was armed by gun sellers. The Columbine shooters were armed by gun owners. All criminals who have guns get their guns through a path which originates from gun sellers or gun sellers to gun owners.

What's worse, virtually every one of those gun owners who gave up their guns to criminals go out buy more guns. Thus the escalation of guns to 300 million guns in this country, which is the problem.

Irresponsibility of gun owners and gun sellers are the reason for the arming of criminals.

Criminals are armed in Russia almost as equally well, even though Russia has very strict gun control laws.

That would likely be case #1, 2 or 3.

1. Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
2. Ineffective laws enforced effectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
3. Effective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
4. Effective laws enforced effectively keep guns out of criminals' hands.

This is an old tired, argument. "It's not the system that is wrong, its just how it's applied". The system is as good as the results it produces in practice. And so far, from what I've seen, gun control doesn't prevent criminals from arming themselves, regardless of how good in theory it's supposed to work.

The system is awful. Hardly an old tired argument.

[FirstAscent]

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime.

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

This wasn't a grammatical error. It was just worded ambiguously in a way that could have been interpreted in more than one way. I just wanted a clarification.


Regarding guns, though. If you can agree that guns have at least two purposes: one is to kill, and the other is to deter crime (by being pointed at a would be criminal and making them retreat without needing to fire a single shot), then doesn't your "have a purpose" argument fall apart, since guns end up having as much of a purpose as a police officer? And hey, both have been known to accidentally kill people.

Not really. Anything which can kill could in theory be labeled as something which can deter by threatening to kill. In which case, items whose primary purpose is not to kill, but can kill, have three possible uses, which is one more than guns. Those three functions being their primary purpose, killing and threatening. I really don't think guns have a primary function which is not one of the two: killing, and threatening.

Clearly the car analogy is an absolute failure, and only makes gun advocates look like stupid individuals who have no better argument up their sleeve. Furthermore, it makes them look like they can't think, as it's just a repeated mantra. It is a sad reflection upon themselves. And specifically, the car is so integral to people's everyday lives, commerce and the economy, that it just compounds the apparent stupidity of gun advocates. Best thing they could ever do to try and win some points with gun control advocates would be to drop that meme like it never existed. But go ahead and keep using it, and trying to make it seem relevant, if you wish to maintain such appearances.

I would argue that the right to defend yourself is just as, or at least nearly as, important as transportation.
And using your logic, wouldn't banning all cars above 50 BHP make sense, as well? You don't need a car that can do 0-120 MPH in under 10 seconds when the maximum speed limit in highways is somewhat 80 MPH.

See my above quoted text for your answer.

And I do have a right to defend myself.

[Spendulus]

you don't need to practice what you preach?

Cuz you be preaching a lot, dude.

[mdude77]

There really were no insults there that weren't warranted. Just an analytical description of some arguments. And if guns were so useful, I'd have one, or at least know more than a tiny fraction of people that do. Funny how everyone I know has a car though.

Clever!  Now you claim your insults were warranted.  Sorry, I won't bite.

Just because guns are useful doesn't mean you have to have one.  That doesn't help your argument at all.  I happen to know a lot of people who don't have cars.  So what?

It's your right to have one or not have one.  It's also your right to have an opinion, right or wrong, factual or not.  It's not your right to control others, and it's my right to resist your desire to have others control the general population by stripping them of their right to defend themselves.  

I'm striving to do just that by exposing your "for your own protection you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun" fallacy for what it is.

M

[FirstAscent]

The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.

Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.

[NewLiberty]

The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.

Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.

If only your solution was not worse than the problem, more people would agree.

The ideal world, where the police inside all our heads prevents harm to others may be preferable.  The solution with the competent authority that can adequately respond to any threat has police on every corner.  The internal police state costs a lot less to society than the external police state.  mdude77 may be alluding to this state of grace, but uses "Godly" (which can be very confusing).  

It may be prudent to spend your efforts on the cure for the need to protect ourselves rather than the symptom of protecting yourself.  The way to "gun reduction" does not live in the law, but in creating a better world.  Forced disarmament is unkind.

The same process works all the way up to nuclear disarmament.  You don't get from here to there with demands, laws, and threats.  You get there from agreement and "yes, you are right, we don't need any more of these than we already have even though some are getting rusty."

[mdude77]

The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.

Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.

I've read them.  To summarize:

- bad buys get guns from good guys
- statistics show increased gun ownership means increased gun mortality
- the all mighty all knowing ever merciful and thinking of your welfare forever Federal government should dictate who is allowed to have guns and who isn't

The flaws in your arguments:

- Statistics can be made to prove any point.
- Bad guys ignore laws.  That's what makes them bad guys.
- The federal government is not your friend.

M

[Spendulus]

The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.

Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.

I've read and fully understood your statist, totalitarian rants.

[TheButterZone]

"I'm not a sociopath, I merely reject reality and substitute my own!"

[FirstAscent]

Are there any gun rights advocates here who haven't bought into the whole libertarian government hating, conspiracy believing, complete ant-tax, AnCap movement? It would lend more credibility to their stance.