countless videos prove that is not correct, they are targeted because the look scary, when present with a mini 14, most people say those are ok and yet they are the same except for the cosmetics.here watch this and you'll get a better idea of where I'm coming from and why https://youtu.be/L5CxUZp5VZAshould this be banned? if so why? ok fine I won't do the gotcha thing again, it's a pellet gun, not even a fire arm, but sure does look scary am I right?
look up a bullet comparison chart, an AR-15 is a .223 and an Ak-47 is 7.62x39 popular hunting rounds are a .308, 30-30 and 30-06, also check out a 12 gauge shot gun slug and 00 buck shot.ALL semi autos work the same way, pistols, rifles, shotguns it doesn't matter the mechanics are the same.
the study you present specifically talks about fatalities, with more trauma centers, better technology in medicine etc the chances of survival is much higher in the time period of the ban vs the time prior to it.
Regardless if it had any effect during that time period, the time frame of a 7 year stretch were the rate was lower than the lowest year of the ban proves it isn't need any longer, at the very least.
If you look at the time periods there's something else going on that no one wants to see otherwise after the ban expired the rate should have gone up. Years after it expired the rate was at all time lows but no one want to look at that or see why. When the rate was the lowest how come it wasn't studied to see what was working and what was going right so they could do more of that? Why not reflect back to those years to learn why the rates where so low compared to rest? Wouldn't that be far more productive than to talk of bans again? The rates speak for themselves, why ignore them?
I mean.. are you arguing that assault weapons cannot kill people at a faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons? Ultimately that's what I'm interested in and not the aesthetics.
what guns fell under the ban were no different than the ones that could still be purchased except for cosmetic features, like pistol grips, folding stocks, barrel shrouds etc The state of NY has done the same thing. As I said an ar-15 is the same as a ruger mini 14 except for cosmetics mostly, they are both semi auto, magazine fed and shoot the exact same round. I don't want to convince you so I'd rather you look this stuff up on your own and come to your own conclusion if what I say is accurate, if you don't think it is please ask and I'll try to clarify.the Ruger 10/22 is a .22 rimfire rifle, not considered 'high powered' but can still kill, look at up and all the after market stocks you can drop it into, the actual trigger, barrel etc all the same, just different cosmetics. then you'll see what i'm talking about
it was/is pointless
repealing the 2a would keep the guns out of law abiding citizen's hands
because as I have stated criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals.
Then there's the black market that will expand at a huge rate, diy guns, 3d printers.
Many drugs are illegal, yes? Does that stop people from dying from them? No.
think of something illegal where you live, now how difficult would it be for you to get if it you really wanted it?
so which one kills more people overdoses or guns? not even close is it, yet the war on drugs has been a huge failure imo. Are drugs the problem? Do they creep into people's homes and while they are sleeping get into their bodies? Or is it the people who use drugs are the problem? Same point for guns.
you didn't answer this the first time so I'll ask againwhat are the specifics of this ban you propose, how would that work?stop manufacturing or importing ak-47s and wait for those already in circulation rust or break, would take 1000 years or more.What about those already owned by people? Would you send people with guns to their homes to confiscate their ak-47s? What if they won't give them up? Would you be ok for those people with guns you've sent to use their guns? How long should people be put in prison for not surrendering their ak-47s?Trying to stop gun violence with gun violence doesn't seem logical to me.
Well I'm specifically interested in reducing the amount of mass shootings and mass shooting deaths so1. Create an exhaustive list of firearms and features deemed as assault weapons. If the Clinton list wasn't sufficient, then I'd add onto that list. I'd also close up the "cosmetic feature" loophole or whatever2. Ban the manufacture, import and public selling of firearms on the list3. Implement an amnesty period with a voluntary federal buy-back program at above market value4. Register all kept assault weapons with the appropriate authorities5. Unregistered assault weapons that are discovered after the amnesty period are immediately destroyed. Likewise for registered assault weapons that are used in a crime6. Assault weapons must be stored in a place that cannot be readily accessed by people other than the owner or who they permit. (ie a gun safe)Let me ask you in turn. You've claimed that people are the problem. What are your solutions/policies for the people?
We've already established that it wasn't pointless and had promising preliminary results. You just don't like what the preliminary results entail.
that's the problem isn't it, what's the definition of an assault weapon? It's actually a full auto machine gun which are already heavily regulated and extremely expensive. This is what happens when people use abstract words and are free and loose with definitions. What's the cosmetic feature loop hole?
2,4 makes the 2a null and void
so you'd send people with guns to take by force including at gun point, lethal force to take these registered guns or ones not turned in but discovered some how and then put those people in jail for whatever time period. Having an illegal gun is a felony and probably a 10 sentence. Starting to sound like nazi Germany.
all firearms are sold with trigger locks fyi
You don't think people are the problem? Do you think a normal average people are murderers or mass murderers? What kind of mental state do you think it takes to be a murderer, normal? abnormal/disturbed? Do you think anyone in their sane mind would murder another generally speaking? Of the mass murderers how many would you consider sane and normal? I'm not talking about insanity defense which is something different.What % of mass murders are planned out rather than heat of the moment actions? I'd say about 100%. Do normal sane people plan out mass murders? I don't think so, but if you do please explain.
They both are the problem. However from my perspective, it's easier to put guns out of the reach of the mentally deranged than to prevent the mentally deranged from committing a crime in the first place. Just because, while it's easy to arrest someone who has already committed a crime,I don't believe you can actually arrest someone who hasn't and you just think will. Are you supposed to detain every weird person with benign intentions? Finally, at a fundamental level, the victims of drugs and guns are different. Ultimately, no one is forcing you to put illicit substances in your body, and regardless there are many help programs for those who do. However victims of gun crime have no choice in the matter.
there's a lot more things as well but it's very difficult to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them if we don't enforce laws, that's one of the first steps as evidenced by the felons failing the background check and a never prosecuted for it.
I presented the stats to you using your links, they speak for themselves you choose not to listen.
With regards to the ban Correlation does not imply causation it's logical fallacy.
It's not really a problem. The wikipedia definition of assault weapons seems reasonable. Extend this definition to include other firearms not commonly described as assault weapons, but have multiple features in common with assault weapons. Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable. Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun.
And even if we were to dismiss this as a case of correlation does not imply causation. it doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
yep wiki "The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions" solid definition to be sure lol
I've asked you the same questions many times that you ignorewhat difference does a pistol grip on a rifle make? you think this is science some how so what's the science say about pistol grips and other cosmetics?
you are actually talking about a gun ban, basically doing away with the 2a again from the wiki " the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features."
show me how the scientist have proven how many mass shootings the ban stopped.then show me how mass shootings happened because there was no ban.
then I want to know how someone with a registered gun is prevented from committing a mass shooting.
perhaps, but we shouldn't act on it as if it is fact either which is the point to this "theory" it has not been proven thus our disagreement. Laws shouldn't be made on no evidence theories. I get you don't understand the freedoms the U.S. has and with that comes some negatives just like everything in life. In theory hateful speech is harmful (whatever that means) but censoring speech, compelled speech isn't constitutional but something you have to accept in a free society. Often those in a gilded cage don't realize they are still in a cage, think about that for a moment, that's the problem when people who don't understand and appreciate the concept of freedom with regards to living in and being a citizen of the U.S.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you so dishonestly take a quote out of context?
I've asked you the same questions many times that you ignore
what difference does a pistol grip on a rifle make? you think this is science some how so what's the science say about pistol grips and other cosmetics?I have no idea. Why is this relevant?
I've asked you many times for specifics, you said the wiki, it's hard to take you seriously when you are so vague and evasive. The wiki IS the context you referenced and I quoted, nothing dishonest about it. That was the answer I got when I asked you what an assault weapon was.
keep being evasive, if you can't keep up with what you say that's your short coming.you want to ban weapons with pistol grips etc but can't give any logical reason why other than it makes a gun look scary, your emotions control your judgement and that's why you fail on logic and constantly ignore my logic tests to you.
I mean.. are you arguing that assault weapons cannot kill people at a faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons? Ultimately that's what I'm interested in and not the aesthetics.
LOL you are such a hypocrite. I've stated multiple times I care about all murders, you are selectively outraged about mass shootings, talk about dishonest, either you care about people being murder or your don't. You clearly don't but only as much as it supports your desire for gun bans, otherwise those single and non gun murders are irrelevant to you.
anyway this is pointless due to you now answering simple questions, trying to evade and unable to make any logic reasoning for the things I ask, your only evidence is the ban and talk about mass murders though the over all number of murders is so much higher than mass murders, it's pretty sick selective outrage when you only want to address the rare mass murders instead of all murders.
Again, elaborate. My policies allow for ownership of assault weapons.
It doesn't. On the other-hand, I never said it did. That said, do you understand why it was included in my exemplar policies?
Which points did you make against my stats that I wasn't able to counter? I believe we ended things with you arguing that reduced fatality numbers could be explained by better medical technologies/more trauma centers and me asking for evidence of this which you did not provide.I believe you also said something about a period of lowered mass shootings after the banning period? Of course you didn't provide evidence for this either. But how does this relate to the efficacy of the ban itself anyway?
Dismissing something because you claim it's a fallacy is a fallacy. Perhaps you can explain to me how banning guns commonly used in mass shootings to inflict a greater number of casualties is not a causative link for a decreased number of deaths per shooting?
Do elaborate. I wish to hear how registering a gun with the authorities prevents you from maintaining a well regulated militia.
No you're right. There isn't a lot of data. However the best way to move forwards is to take these preliminary results and apply them to further laws and see what pops up and then study those results further. What the incorrect thing to do is dismiss these results and sit on your hands.
But do all semi-automatic weapons have the same clip size, reloading speed and shooting speed? I'm sure there are a number of other factors I'm not aware of.
Which trauma centers? Which technologies? How has the treatment of physical trauma wounds changed over those periods of time? By this logic, even if there are more mass shootings in the years after the ban, shouldn't there be on average less fatalities per mass shooting event?
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. Are people still getting shot by assault weapons in mass shootings? If the answer is yes, then the ban is obviously still warranted. Because there are still mass shootings in which people are getting shot by assault weapons. That the overall rate decreased is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant thing is to examine why the overall rate decreased and to see how a ban might interact with those other factors to further bring those rates lower.
I personally don't know what period you are talking about. But obviously, if there was such a period I would certainly be interested. That said, one good reason if it exists but isn't talked about might be because that there are so many myriad factors that can effect something. Determining a single factor is a herculean task. However bans are a relatively easy and direct implementation. And more importantly, preliminary results suggested that the ban was working.
Neither diy guns or 3d printed guns will come close to matching the quality, reliability or production output of industrially produced guns. The use of such guns to replace industrially produced guns in mass shootings would also result in reduced deaths. It's a cute thought, but really just speculation at this point. We don't need a solution for speculative problems.
We've been over this. Many laws are designed to reduce a problem. Completely eliminating a problem is a goal, but unrealistic. Take seltbelts as example with readily available data. It's illegal to not wear a seltbelt while driving. Does that stop people dying with or without them? No. But they tangibly reduce the amount of deaths that occur.
They both are the problem. However from my perspective, it's easier to put guns out of the reach of the mentally deranged than to prevent the mentally deranged from committing a crime in the first place. Just because, while it's easy to arrest someone who has already committed a crime,I don't believe you can actually arrest someone who hasn't and you just think will. Are you supposed to detain every weird person with benign intentions? Finally, at a fundamental level, the victims of drugs and guns are different. Ultimately, no one is forcing you to put illicit substances in your body, and regardless there are many help programs for those who do. However victims of gun crime have no choice in the matter.
I wouldn't have the first clue where to find what you're describing. That's the point of laws. They make it difficult to acquire banned objects. Taking AR-15s for example. If they were sold in a gun shop, if I were an ordinary citizen I could just into the gun shop and buy one. If they were banned and therefore not sold at a gun shop, I wouldn't know where to get a black market AR-15. Multiply this for every other ordinary citizen who wants an AR-15. Some might eventually acquire one, but the majority wouldn't.
I don't care about weapons with pistol grips. Consequently, I've never said I wished to ban weapons with pistol grips and I have no idea why you've chosen this topic to be stupid about. The grip of a gun is ultimately immaterial to the functionality of a gun I assume. And we've been over this before:
but your speech shows that you simply don't care enough when it comes to actions needed.
But do all semi-automatic weapons have the same clip size, reloading speed and shooting speed?
The 26-year-old passed required background checks because the Air Force never informed the FBI about his criminal conductand you want people to believe a ban would work?
Don't forget the Boston marathon bombers.
What is your point with a bunch of quotes. Your going to like what I'm going to say next.If we banned guns and tasers instead were advertised and encouraged as a means of self defense, then both sides win. The left gets to decrease the homicide rate. The right gets undisputed protection that no one wants to take away. The NRA benefits because a taser costs more the a gun, so they would make more money. Automatic tasers can protect against multiple people.
Do you have any ideas on how to prevent sickos from committing homicide?
How effective are tasers at deterring Military coups?
Do you think if Venezuelans simply had tasers that they would have food and power right now?
