Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Chernobl]

Are you pro welfare?

Depends on how you define welfare.

Are you familiar with the term "Welfare Queen"?

[Frisivisia]

Depends on how you define welfare.

Are you familiar with the term "Welfare Queen"?

I am familiar with term non sequiter.

[Chernobl]

Are you familiar with the term "Welfare Queen"?

I am familiar with term non sequiter.

Excellent answer to my question. Regardless, that's off topic. Back to so called "Assault Weapons." Yeah, keep your gubment' hands off em'!

[Nua Corda]

"But everyone was doing it!"

You are just awful at actually refuting points aren't you?

Actually, that is an excellent refutation.

Keeping human beings as property is pretty fucking evil.

By modern standards, sure, but pretty much every human society to date has done it. We are the exception and I feel it would be wrong of us to label everyone from the past as "evil" just because they don't live according to modern societal norms. At most you can say they were deeply misguided, but "evil"? Not so much.

It doesn't matter what the perception was at the time. As much as I hate to invoke Godwin's law, the fact that Nazi Germany considered the crimes Hitler committed acceptable does not excuse the actions of Hitler, or anyone else involved in the holocaust.

Keeping human beings as property is pretty fucking evil.

Standard practice for the entire history of humanity up until the mid 1800's. Get over yourself.

And that means jack shit. It's still evil.

[Frisivisia]

I am familiar with term non sequiter.

Excellent answer to my question. Regardless, that's off topic. Back to so called "Assault Weapons." Yeah, keep your gubment' hands off em'!

I'll be happy to. I think that all guns should be better regulated.

[Kaylea]

rapists are more deserving, obv, but if personal safety is a serious everyday consideration and the risk to other people is small then i could see a rationale for some people owning guns.

i don't think normal people in cities are in that grave a danger, not enough to warrant giving them a weapon that could itself be used to harm others. or enough to escalate the severity of existing violence

Guess what is A) More often used to that extent B) Not covered by the AWB, C) Used to commit more crimes that 'Assault Weapons'?
Baseball bats.

reducing the amount of tools that are made solely for killing is better than doing nothing. or worse, claiming that everyone should own a gun in order to be safe.

people should be moving towards no longer needing weapons, not needing them 24/7.

[Nua Corda]

So, you advocate doing something that produces no good whatsoever, and ruins a lot of people's fun, just because you want to do something, with no actual care for how effective it is? That's quite possibly the worst reason for doing something I've ever heard.

[Chernobl]

So... do you anti gun guys live in la la land or what? There will never be world peace. Ever. There will always be criminals. Always. there will always be a need for weapons, no matter what and every human has a right to own one.

[Frisivisia]

So... do you anti gun guys live in la la land or what? There will never be world peace. Ever. There will always be criminals. Always. there will always be a need for weapons, no matter what and every human has a right to own one.

I never said I was anti-gun. I never advocated for a gun ban.

You did, however, deliver a thrashing to that straw man you set up for yourself. Maybe we should arm the straw men.

[Kaylea]

So, you advocate doing something that produces no good whatsoever, and ruins a lot of people's fun, just because you want to do something, with no actual care for how effective it is? That's quite possibly the worst reason for doing something I've ever heard.

making killing more difficult by reducing the amount of guns, is better than deterring people by making killing easier for everyone.

it's not about taking away people's fun. maybe you could own guns if you kept them locked up at a shooting range or something.

[Nua Corda]

So, you advocate doing something that produces no good whatsoever, and ruins a lot of people's fun, just because you want to do something, with no actual care for how effective it is? That's quite possibly the worst reason for doing something I've ever heard.

making killing more difficult by reducing the amount of guns, is better than deterring people by making killing easier for everyone.

it's not about taking away people's fun. maybe you could own guns if you kept them locked up at a shooting range or something.

Except we've proven time and time again that these laws do nothing to stop gun violence.

What if I live in the country? What if I can't afford the ridiculous storage fees?

[Big Jim P]

The fact that the left wish to ban assault rifles rather than pistols is quite telling as to their actual knowledge where firearms are concerned.

I would suggest that they go look up actual gun crime statistics rather than riding the sensationalist wave brought on by the media coverage of recent tragedies.

Hell, no one has to look up gun stats. I have posted them repeatedly on this and other threads. The stats get ignored or my source is questioned (fbi.gov for hell sake, by people who will cheerfully use the Brady campaign website as a source and claim it is unbiased. ). Why? the numbers do not support the gun control position.

[Big Jim P]

Guess what is A) More often used to that extent B) Not covered by the AWB, C) Used to commit more crimes that 'Assault Weapons'?
Baseball bats.

reducing the amount of tools that are made solely for killing is better than doing nothing. or worse, claiming that everyone should own a gun in order to be safe.

people should be moving towards no longer needing weapons, not needing them 24/7.

Guns are not made solely for killing.

[Big Jim P]

So, you advocate doing something that produces no good whatsoever, and ruins a lot of people's fun, just because you want to do something, with no actual care for how effective it is? That's quite possibly the worst reason for doing something I've ever heard.

making killing more difficult by reducing the amount of guns, is better than deterring people by making killing easier for everyone.

it's not about taking away people's fun. maybe you could own guns if you kept them locked up at a shooting range or something.

The most important purpose of firearm ownership is self-defense. Keeping them at the range eliminates this use.

[Kaylea]

making killing more difficult by reducing the amount of guns, is better than deterring people by making killing easier for everyone.

it's not about taking away people's fun. maybe you could own guns if you kept them locked up at a shooting range or something.

Except we've proven time and time again that these laws do nothing to stop gun violence.

What if I live in the country? What if I can't afford the ridiculous storage fees?

it's not the same thing to compare gun control on a state level to an entire country. it's possible to reduce gun crime in countries where there's lot of guns. gun homicides and suicides have fallen in Australia since their gun control act in 1996.

i'm talking mainly about urban areas.

[Nua Corda]

making killing more difficult by reducing the amount of guns, is better than deterring people by making killing easier for everyone.

it's not about taking away people's fun. maybe you could own guns if you kept them locked up at a shooting range or something.

The most important purpose of firearm ownership is self-defense. Keeping them at the range eliminates this use.

Eh, that's debatable. I'd say the main purpose is fun, but self-defense is certainly a legitimate reason. I don't own or carry for SD personally, my solution to crime is just not living where the criminals do, and not showing off anything that they would want.

[Nua Corda]

Except we've proven time and time again that these laws do nothing to stop gun violence.

What if I live in the country? What if I can't afford the ridiculous storage fees?

it's not the same thing to compare gun control on a state level to an entire country. it's possible to reduce gun crime in countries where there's lot of guns. gun homicides and suicides have fallen in Australia since their gun control act in 1996.

i'm talking mainly about urban areas.

Overall violence and violent deaths in Australia have increased since the gun ban.

That doesn't disqualify anything I said.

[Big Jim P]

The most important purpose of firearm ownership is self-defense. Keeping them at the range eliminates this use.

Eh, that's debatable. I'd say the main purpose is fun, but self-defense is certainly a legitimate reason. I don't own or carry for SD personally, my solution to crime is just not living where the criminals do, and not showing off anything that they would want.

You have a point, but not everyone has the option of living in a low crime area.

[Big Jim P]

it's not the same thing to compare gun control on a state level to an entire country. it's possible to reduce gun crime in countries where there's lot of guns. gun homicides and suicides have fallen in Australia since their gun control act in 1996.

i'm talking mainly about urban areas.

Overall violence and violent deaths in Australia have increased since the gun ban.

That doesn't disqualify anything I said.

People forget that there are many other ways to commit violence and murder, and that as long as these ways exist (and the predatory nature that drives some people to commit these acts), guns will be needed or self defense.

That along with the repeated ignoring of the fact that "assault weapons" are the least likely weapon to be used in crime, and the constant demonization of gun-owners, makes it impossible to hold any respect for the gun-control lobby.

[Kaylea]

it's not the same thing to compare gun control on a state level to an entire country. it's possible to reduce gun crime in countries where there's lot of guns. gun homicides and suicides have fallen in Australia since their gun control act in 1996.

i'm talking mainly about urban areas.

Overall violence and violent deaths in Australia have increased since the gun ban.

That doesn't disqualify anything I said.

other violent crimes have different trends, but the trend for all homicides and suicides have gone down.

you can attribute unrelated causes for reported rises in other violent crimes, they're not necessarily linked with guns.

[Chernobl]

So... do you anti gun guys live in la la land or what? There will never be world peace. Ever. There will always be criminals. Always. there will always be a need for weapons, no matter what and every human has a right to own one.

I never said I was anti-gun. I never advocated for a gun ban.

You did, however, deliver a thrashing to that straw man you set up for yourself. Maybe we should arm the straw men.

I wan't directly speaking to you good sir. I'm not sure what sort of straw man you are referring to.

[Republica Newland]

Hooray for still debating a made up class of firearms.

You go,America!

[Republica Newland]

Overall violence and violent deaths in Australia have increased since the gun ban.

That doesn't disqualify anything I said.

People forget that there are many other ways to commit violence and murder, and that as long as these ways exist (and the predatory nature that drives some people to commit these acts), guns will be needed or self defense.

That along with the repeated ignoring of the fact that "assault weapons" are the least likely weapon to be used in crime, and the constant demonization of gun-owners, makes it impossible to hold any respect for the gun-control lobby.

The gun control club fails at logic,"OMG WE HAVE SKY HIGH GUN-RELATED MURDER RATES!!!!1111 WHAT DO WE DO?? BAN A "CLASS" OF FIREARMS USED IN LIKE 1% OF GUN CRIME AND 0.2% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME ALTOGETHER,OBVIOUSLY! "

[Grave_n_idle]

Overall violence and violent deaths in Australia have increased since the gun ban.

That doesn't disqualify anything I said.

People forget that there are many other ways to commit violence and murder, and that as long as these ways exist (and the predatory nature that drives some people to commit these acts), guns will be needed or self defense.

An argument for behaviour-inhibition chips.

*nods*

[Immoren]

People forget that there are many other ways to commit violence and murder, and that as long as these ways exist (and the predatory nature that drives some people to commit these acts), guns will be needed or self defense.

An argument for behaviour-inhibition chips.

*nods*

WE ARE THE CYBERMEN!