Assault weapon bans

[Spendulus]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?

Me who wants a gun?  I've got numerous guns, so it's a non issue to me.  So I'm not projecting my own wants.  Why don't you answer the question?


Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

[FirstAscent]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?

Me who wants a gun?  I've got numerous guns, so it's a non issue to me.  So I'm not projecting my own wants.  Why don't you answer the question?

Because you just contradicted yourself. You have numerous guns. Thus, you're a guy who wants guns. If you had no guns tomorrow, you'd obviously want a gun really bad.

[mdude77]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?

Me who wants a gun?  I've got numerous guns, so it's a non issue to me.  So I'm not projecting my own wants.  Why don't you answer the question?

Because you just contradicted yourself. You have numerous guns. Thus, you're a guy who wants guns. If you had no guns tomorrow, you'd obviously want a gun really bad.

Why do you continue to focus on guns?  Why does it matter if he wants one or owns one?

Maybe you're a troll IRL?

M

[FirstAscent]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?

Me who wants a gun?  I've got numerous guns, so it's a non issue to me.  So I'm not projecting my own wants.  Why don't you answer the question?

Because you just contradicted yourself. You have numerous guns. Thus, you're a guy who wants guns. If you had no guns tomorrow, you'd obviously want a gun really bad.

Why do you continue to focus on guns?  Why does it matter if he wants one or owns one?

Why does it matter? Because that's where his motives are. He pretends to speak for the poor, but the simple truth of the matter is, he just wants to have guns.

[mdude77]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?

Me who wants a gun?  I've got numerous guns, so it's a non issue to me.  So I'm not projecting my own wants.  Why don't you answer the question?

Because you just contradicted yourself. You have numerous guns. Thus, you're a guy who wants guns. If you had no guns tomorrow, you'd obviously want a gun really bad.

Why do you continue to focus on guns?  Why does it matter if he wants one or owns one?

Why does it matter? Because that's where his motives are. He pretends to speak for the poor, but the simple truth of the matter is, he just wants to have guns.

And you're a mind reader?

I somehow doubt your claim.

M

[FirstAscent]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?

Me who wants a gun?  I've got numerous guns, so it's a non issue to me.  So I'm not projecting my own wants.  Why don't you answer the question?

Because you just contradicted yourself. You have numerous guns. Thus, you're a guy who wants guns. If you had no guns tomorrow, you'd obviously want a gun really bad.

Why do you continue to focus on guns?  Why does it matter if he wants one or owns one?

Why does it matter? Because that's where his motives are. He pretends to speak for the poor, but the simple truth of the matter is, he just wants to have guns.

And you're a mind reader?

I somehow doubt your claim.

No need to speculate. He says he wants guns. And he says what the poor want.

[NewLiberty]

If you would like to offer more clarity, I'm all ears.

Simply put, talking about banning guns, increases gun sales.
You are talking about assault weapon bans.
Therefore you are contributing to increased gun sales by this activity,
and so this is contrary to your stated goal of reducing guns in your population.

...

Consider instead, advocating something that might reduce the desire for gun ownership, you mentioned the poverty issue, might that be an example?  I work with a number of charities (none of whom advocate guns and all which seek non-violent resolutions and health and well being).

More fundamentally, the use of THE LAW against others ought not be the first place one goes to resolve an issue.  Think of THE LAW as a gun, that is what backs it.  When you propose these laws, these bans, you are proposing using guns against your fellow country people in the mistaken belief that the end will justify the means, but the result is that you are going further from your own desired end.  The effort is ill-conceived, and it not only results in a worse circumstance, it does exactly what you are hoping to avoid, the use of guns to accomplish something.

Instead seek to obsolete the need for weapons, it is not only time better spent for you, the incremental steps are each rewarding such as helping the homeless and unfortunate, abused women or other charitable work.

[FirstAscent]

If you would like to offer more clarity, I'm all ears.

Simply put, talking about banning guns, increases gun sales.
You are talking about assault weapon bans.
Therefore you are contributing to increased gun sales by this activity,
and so this is contrary to your stated goal of reducing guns in your population.

...

Consider instead, advocating something that might reduce the desire for gun ownership, you mentioned the poverty issue, might that be an example?  I work with a number of charities (none of whom advocate guns and all which seek non-violent resolutions and health and well being).

More fundamentally, the use of THE LAW against others ought not be the first place one goes to resolve an issue.  Think of THE LAW as a gun, that is what backs it.  When you propose these laws, these bans, you are proposing using guns against your fellow country people in the mistaken belief that the end will justify the means, but the result is that you are going further from your own desired end.  The effort is ill-conceived, and it not only results in a worse circumstance, it does exactly what you are hoping to avoid, the use of guns to accomplish something.

Instead seek to obsolete the need for weapons, it is not only time better spent for you, the incremental steps are each rewarding such as helping the homeless and unfortunate, abused women or other charitable work.

Do you have a gun or want a gun?

[PrintMule]

Hmm, this blowback thing reminds me of the sex issues in America. We focus the most on contraception and are trying to ban it more than European countries, where people don't care, and we have higher instances of unwanted pregnancies. We try to ban abortions way more than the European countries, and we have way more abortions. Even with alcohol, we try to restrict it as much as possible with age limits and such, compared to, say, Italy, where limits are more like guidelines, and we have way more issues with ten alcohol poisoning. Maybe the best way to reduce guns is to simply ignore them and make them an issue no one cares about.

So we should remove our focus on contraception then? Simply ignore it, yes? Higher instances of unwanted pregnancies compared to what? Exactly. If you could take an alternative universe America and compare it to that, now that would be different case.
America was the start point for sexual revolution around the world, there you have it.

Banning abortion is stupid though, it has no benefits. Population is not on the decline in America, why bother? Religion? Fuck that.

Drinking age is completely different issue. Why do you think lowering the age will lower poisoning count? Do those teens buy black market low quality stuff because they cannot buy in shops? No. They buy same stuff as you from same shops. If you open the gates, there will be same if not bigger amount of poisonings, cause restrains might keep some 2% at bay.

[Spendulus]

....
Because you just contradicted yourself. You have numerous guns. Thus, you're a guy who wants guns. If you had no guns tomorrow, you'd obviously want a gun really bad.

That would depend on a number of circumstances, largely where I was residing and the type of work I was doing.  It would be no different than asserting "if you had no chainsaw, you'd obviously want a chainsaw really bad."

Meanwhile you think you look smart by avoiding difficult questions (Hint: You don't.)

Why don't you answer the question?


Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN

[Spendulus]

If you would like to offer more clarity, I'm all ears.

Simply put, talking about banning guns, increases gun sales.
You are talking about assault weapon bans.
Therefore you are contributing to increased gun sales by this activity,
and so this is contrary to your stated goal of reducing guns in your population.

...

Consider instead, advocating something that might reduce the desire for gun ownership, you mentioned the poverty issue, might that be an example?  I work with a number of charities (none of whom advocate guns and all which seek non-violent resolutions and health and well being).

More fundamentally, the use of THE LAW against others ought not be the first place one goes to resolve an issue.  Think of THE LAW as a gun, that is what backs it.  When you propose these laws, these bans, you are proposing using guns against your fellow country people in the mistaken belief that the end will justify the means, but the result is that you are going further from your own desired end.  The effort is ill-conceived, and it not only results in a worse circumstance, it does exactly what you are hoping to avoid, the use of guns to accomplish something.

Instead seek to obsolete the need for weapons, it is not only time better spent for you, the incremental steps are each rewarding such as helping the homeless and unfortunate, abused women or other charitable work.

These are actually very astute perspectives.

Unfortunately, these perspectives are that of someone within a functioning society.  Others have other problems.  If FirstAscent had his way, there would have been no US independance from Britian.  There would have been no Alamo.  There would have been no advantage of the US early settlers against the Indians, which would have meant no western expansion, no cross continental railroad.

Today in various places, people have serious problems.  By FirstAscent's logic, these people are "wrong" and should not fight back against the gangsters who murder their friends and rape their daughters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/in-the-hills-of-michoacan-self-defense-groups-battle-a-mexican-drug-cartel/2013/09/09/6947e47a-119f-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html

[Rassah]

So we should remove our focus on contraception then? Simply ignore it, yes?

Yes. Teach it like any other biology lesson, and treat it as a non-issue.

Higher instances of unwanted pregnancies compared to what? Exactly.

Practically every country in Europe.

America was the start point for sexual revolution around the world, there you have it.

You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.

Drinking age is completely different issue. Why do you think lowering the age will lower poisoning count? Do those teens buy black market low quality stuff because they cannot buy in shops? No. They buy same stuff as you from same shops. If you open the gates, there will be same if not bigger amount of poisonings, cause restrains might keep some 2% at bay.

If that were true, you'd think that drinking problems were higher in countries where drinking age is lower, or more like guideline than a law, but the contrary is true. Why? Same reason sex, drugs, and guns are a problem here: we try to repress them, and end up with the "forbidden fruit" problem. It's easy for kids to get alcohol in Italy, so they don't care about it, and prefer things like gelato. It's hard to get alcohol here, so kids actively seek it out, just because they can't normally get it, and it's considered cool to get what others can't.

[Mike Christ]

If that were true, you'd think that drinking problems were higher in countries where drinking age is lower, or more like guideline than a law, but the contrary is true. Why? Same reason sex, drugs, and guns are a problem here: we try to repress them, and end up with the "forbidden fruit" problem. It's easy for kids to get alcohol in Italy, so they don't care about it, and prefer things like gelato. It's hard to get alcohol here, so kids actively seek it out, just because they can't normally get it, and it's considered cool to get what others can't.

The moral of the story is: the freer the people, the better; coercion is for animals.

[Spendulus]

.
You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.........

NONSENSE...

maybe we just figured out that preachers' daughters were hot....

[RodeoX]

.
You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.........

NONSENSE...

maybe we just figured out that preachers' daughters were hot....

Derailing the thread here, but a quick observation. Isn't it perverse that every night on TV I can see a brutal murder followed by a grotesque autopsy. They might be burned to death or beheaded, etc. But, show a nipple on TV and it's pornography!!! Someone must go to jail and be punished for this. That seems very sick to me.

[Spendulus]

.
You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.........

NONSENSE...

maybe we just figured out that preachers' daughters were hot....

Derailing the thread here, but a quick observation. Isn't it perverse that every night on TV I can see a brutal murder followed by a grotesque autopsy. They might be burned to death or beheaded, etc. But, show a nipple on TV and it's pornography!!! Someone must go to jail and be punished for this. That seems very sick to me.

It would be so, except things are not as you have described.  You and I can on the cable, see movies with their versions of sexuality, or subscribe to the playboy channel etc, or hit the internet  nipples ad nauseum.

The old rules of broadcast television are just a blip while we speed down the road.

As an aside, one interesting aspect of South Africa was the radically different treatment of nudity on broadcast television.  But they got massive other kinds of problems...

[Biomech]

What exactly is the importance of an assault riflle for personal use?

The same reason the military uses.  They are effective.

M

I also actually wanted to know what the reason is you want them? Hunting/defense or something else?

I want to reiterate that ALL of the mass shootings in my lifetime have been in places where it is illegal to carry a weapon, rendering the victims defenseless. I have heard of maybe three incidents in that time where some fool tried it in an area where arms were extant, with very different results. Either the perp dead or disarmed with little or no harm inflicted on innocents.

As to why *I* want an "assault" weapon, specifically an AK variant, is because it's a damn fine rifle with better reliability than practically anything, and it's simple.

I had the single fire version in the past, and it is decent for hunting as long as you're not after bear or elk or some other ridiculously tough animal, but it's best for shooting back in a bad situation. I actually prefer pistols for myself, as my visual acuity makes gun-sights an iffy proposition due to astigmatism, but at the ranges a pistol is best for (which is not coincidentally the ranges that the maniacs go for against targets they know to be unarmed), sights are unnecessary. But in a SHTF scenario, I would want a rifle. The reliability and simplicity of the AK make it my rifle of choice.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not a particularly powerful rifle. A 30.06 is a much more dangerous gun against an armored target, and it's long range accuracy is superb. It also kicks like an angry mule, which makes it impractical for a small framed guy like me. That it's far less likely to be banned is kind of amusing, as it was originally developed as a sniper's gun back around the turn of the 20th century.

The truth regarding the banning of assault rifles is that they are kind of a connoseur's weapon, and thus an easier target for the politicians than the guns that are actually most often used in crimes. No, I don't think those should be banned either, as I believe the first requisite of liberty is general competent armament.

While taken as a whole, the US has more gun violence than all other nations that I am aware of (by population, at least), the US is NOT a homogenous culture. Those areas where armament is pretty general have low crime rates. The places that report the most gun violence also have the most restrictive laws regarding legal possession of firearms. This correlation is too specific to be a fallacy, and is one of the things the gun bannin' crowd never likes to respond to. I live in Idaho, which has the loosest gun laws in the country to my knowledge, except wrt concealed carry. Armament is common and unremarkable in this society, and we have a very low violent crime rate. Thugs like to HAVE guns, not face them.

I'm not sure if it's still true, but for a very long time the District of Columbia was the murder capital of the world (the private sort, not government wars). It was illegal to even OWN a handgun or long gun in the District, yet it had the most gun deaths. When you disarm the potential victim, that potential goes WAY up.

As to the argument that most people can't handle the responsibility, I'm divided. Given that modern society/government goes to great lengths to protect the willfully stupid, you have a valid argument, but I believe that the key there is education, not regulation. Any idiot can operate a gun, which is why I make the distinction between merely being armed and being COMPETENTLY armed. I am not going to shoot somebody by accident or in a fit of rage. I understand and respect the power of my weapons and will keep my head in a tense situation. This is not the result of temperament, but of training and education. I have handled firearms, safely, for nearly four decades. I have taught many others how to do so. I will teach my son to shoot and when NOT to shoot before much longer. He's still too young, but he already knows the first rule of gun safety.

And I think I will end off with a question of my own, for whoever wants to take a stab at it, because I find that Americans are woefully undereducated on this.

What is the first rule of gun safety?

[Biomech]

If that were true, you'd think that drinking problems were higher in countries where drinking age is lower, or more like guideline than a law, but the contrary is true. Why? Same reason sex, drugs, and guns are a problem here: we try to repress them, and end up with the "forbidden fruit" problem. It's easy for kids to get alcohol in Italy, so they don't care about it, and prefer things like gelato. It's hard to get alcohol here, so kids actively seek it out, just because they can't normally get it, and it's considered cool to get what others can't.

The moral of the story is: the freer the people, the better; coercion is for animals.

This. +1

[mdude77]

What is the first rule of gun safety?

It's likely always assume a gun is loaded.

Close to that would be don't point the gun at something you don't intend to kill.

Third would be keep your finger off the trigger unless you are about to fire.

M

[RodeoX]

It would be so, except things are not as you have described.  You and I can on the cable, see movies with their versions of sexuality, or subscribe to the playboy channel etc, or hit the internet  nipples ad nauseum.

The old rules of broadcast television are just a blip while we speed down the road.
...

True. I forget that because I do not have cable/sat. For me I see nothing worth the money on television. My point is that we seem to be fine with violence compared to sexuality. We play a pretending game that hiding genitals means protecting people from their own animal urges. Yet little attention is paid to reining in our more dangerous urge to better our position by hurting others.