-->
@Pinkfreud08
+1
California Assault Weapons Ban
Posts
Total:
97
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Laws don't equal harm reduction, you do understand that right?there are over 22000 gun laws, an ar ban etc etc but a few more laws will fix the problem?
There is always the data on the law which provides that conclusion but maybe that went right over your head.
criminals do harm, I'm in favor of reducing criminals, thus reducing harm
Okay so you don't actually care about reducing harm. You just going to ping this on a group like a populist does. Instead of actually realizing criminals were once "law abiding-citizens" so we should seek to find out what changed them but to you don't not even care about that well I guess you don't want to reduce harm.
an accurate question would be are you in favor or reducing harm or just gun harm?
An accurate question would be do you actually know what you are talking about or is the same pirate who echoes talking points without knowing what he says?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yes. According to the CDC, there are 500,000-3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year.(The link leads to the relevant chapter of the study)
So how about the data on the offensive gun uses per year so that we can compare the two?
Does the same link have that data if not don't you think it is problem that you brought up a link that doesn't even compare the two instead only talks about defensive gun uses per year?
I could be more pedantic but I'll stick to this.
Yes. Here is a source describing how homicide rates went up in the UK after their 1997 gun ban until they began increasing the number of police officers.
Please read this:
"162,000 pistols and 700 tons of ammunition and related equipment were handed in by an estimated 57,000 people – 0.1% of the population, or one in every 960 persons.[79] At the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that it would take six years for the full reduction of valid certificates for both large-calibre and .22 handguns bans (because certificates remained valid even if the holder had disposed of all their firearms). On 31 December 1996, prior to the large-calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year.[40] This represents a net drop of 24,200 certificates. Comparable figures for Scotland show a net drop of 5,841 from 32,053 to 26,212 certificates,[80] making a GB total net drop of 30,041. However, while the number of certificates in England and Wales rose each year after 2002 to stand at 126,400 at 31 March 2005 (due to a change in reporting period), those in Scotland remained relatively static, standing at 26,538 at 31 December 2005."
Basically these laws take time to implement. 2005 was when this wiki stops talking about this would likely be the end of the firearms act of 1997. If we look at the graph you gave it was on the decrease after the law. We can see this by simply adding a dot to 2005 and ending it where your graph ends. If we use a ruler to draw a line in between the dots we see a negative trend. This can be caused by external factors that weren't the firearms act which your site claims here "The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004.". Meaning your own source can't be used for evidence given they missed out this important data and instead gave data that would suit their narrative. If it wasn't clear this site is heavily biased, it is literally marketing pro-gun books on the site. This is not an independent site more so fueled by an audience of pro-gun advocates. Both of these easily point to this site can't be trusted for giving reliable data given they are profiting on pro-gun advertising and missing really key data. If this was an objective source it would've shown the information about how long the firearms acts occurred. Even though they missed out information the graph stills goes into the favor of the opposite which shows a decrease in homicide or firearm homicide rate.
Here is another source that found that a gun control policy failed to reduce homicide rates. It isn't very useful because it only discusses one policy, but I find it funny that HuffPo would even publish this.
I don't really know what this is referring to so I'll ignore it. If you really want me to argue against it I will.
That's why I provided the source comparing pre-ban UK to post-ban UK. It's more useful to compare countries to themselves because it eliminates all the previously mentioned variables.
Don't you understand the laws have changes and people have changed during that time in the UK as well? Meaning your claim that we can't compare America to the UK is not really good because the UK has radically changed as well?
Isn't the idea of comparisons to compare similar things? American gun deaths vs UK gun deaths. The two things don't have to be the same in order to have a comparison. You can still compare without something being exactly the same.
-->
@SirAnonymous
I asked for a definition and example of a civilian gun designed to kill people so far.....crickets.
-->
@dustryder
I have yet to hear anyone articulate why such a right is reasonable and should be preserved.
irrelevant, it has existed for hundreds of years, you chose to ignore the reasons given on the news, articles and threads, you opinion as to what is reasonable should not negate my inalienable right.
1. The perpetrators of mass shootings typically use more than one firearm. Spacing out gun purchases is likely to reduce casualties if not spacing out purchases, or give more time for reflection if they are
hypotheticals are wonderful aren't they
mass shootings mostly involve one gun I believe, the Tech shooter had 2 hand guns.
reflection? seriously? how many have made legal purchases then immediately committed a mass murder? none?
2. Less circulation of guns. Less guns less crime is the gist of it
how many decades would that take to see any impact at all?
At any-rate if there is any chance of such a law reducing murders, then I would say that the law is a net benefit.
so you are in favor of a curfew since that would be a better chance of reducing murders, or you are ok with murders so long as guns are restricted? Or probably the case you don't want to be under a curfew so that you wouldn't support but you are anti gun so you do support that.
A certain level of murder you'll accept so long as it's not with a gun and doesn't impact or hinder your life or enjoyment of, like a curfew, I get it, I do. You want people to give up their enjoyment and freedom but you aren't willing to do the same.
-->
@dustryder
The right to self-preservation. The cops usually get to the scene after the crime has taken place. There are other means of self defense, but I would much prefer a firearm. Criminals will illegally obtain firearms and get an advantage if citizens such as myself can not acquire them.I have yet to hear anyone articulate why such a right is reasonable and should be preserved.
-->
@bmdrocks21
they see this fantasy world where no one has a gun so you wouldn't need one to defend yourself with. But then they will have to ban knives and we've all seen how well that works. Instead of getting to the root of the actual issue, people with the will to murder, they think this is a practical and viable solution.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Would you be in favor of banning hammers/blunt objects? They kill more people than rifles
A hammer is a tool that's primary purpose is to construct things. It can also be used for violence, but that isn't what it is made to do. An AR15 or a handgun is made for the express purpose of killing humans. It has no other purpose. It is a tool of death and nothing else. To say that they are the same is incredibly disingenuous.
What about banning fists and feet? They kill above 50% more people than rifles do. Are you in favor of cutting off feet and hands to prevent those deaths?
This is a pathetic argument meant to distract from the issue. People are always going to fight. Sometimes that results in deaths. If those people fighting have a gun it results in many more deaths. If those people who killed with their fists had been holding a handgun, alot more people would be dead.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, the size of the magazine has very little to do with the type of gun. I can easily put a 30 round mag in a wooden Ruger Mini 14, which has never been classified as an assault weapon, and I can easily put a 5 round mag in an AR-15.
I never claimed that the magazine size determined the type of gun. I said it was directly related to their capacity to kill people. A 30 round mag has no purpose other than to kill people. It is completely unnecessary.
Secondly, hunting isn't the only use of a firearm. A 30 round mag can be very useful for sporting or self-defense against multiple assailants.
If you don't need a 30 round mag to shoot at anything in the real world, then why would you need one in a "sporting" environment? And even if you did, fine. A shooting range can own 30 round mags, but they can never keep them or use them outside of the range. problem solved.
as for self defense, we are right back to the primary purpose of the mag, killing people. but your point is kind of dumb. If the assailants have guns and the person engaging in self defense have guns, you get a blood bath. Everyone is much, much safer and better off guns are not part of the equation at all.
Thirdly, your subjective opinion that such guns are designed to kill humans because of the most common magazine sizes used in those guns has nothing to do with the objective fact that they are designed for civilians.
They are designed for shooting people. Whether the shooter is military or civilian is irrelevant for the people designing the gun. They just want to sell their guns.
What do you mean by "kill humans"? No, that is neither rhetorical nor a mockery. I'm dead serious. If one counts justified self-defense as "killing humans", then every gun on the face of the planet is designed for "killing humans".
Not true. A many guns are designed for hunting and that is perfectly fine. But a handgun, an AR15 etc are exclusively designed for killing people.
However, I think we can agree there is nothing wrong with self-defense.
I never said there was. People have the right to defend themselves. What there is a problem with is the millions of killing machines being sold and used in america under the guise of "self defense" when the majority of them never, ever get used for that purpose. Guns cause far more problems than they solve.
Speaking more generally, there are a lot of people who need handguns and 30 round mags. For instance, a single mother in a high-crime neighborhood - or, for that matter, anyone in a high-crime neighborhood - would find such weapons very useful.
Would she? Statistically, if she has a gun she is much more likely to be killed. She would be much better off if neither she, nor the criminals had easy access to guns.
Finally, what do you mean by rapid succession? The semiautomatic weapons that the law bans can only fire one shot per trigger pull.
Semi automatic weapons have the ability to kill a large number of people in rapid succession if they can fire 30 round mags. I mean they can fire a significant number of bullets in a matter of seconds. If they only had, for example, 5 round mags, then their ability to kill people would be drastically reduced by the added need to reload.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
irrelevant, it has existed for hundreds of years, you chose to ignore the reasons given on the news, articles and threads, you opinion as to what is reasonable should not negate my inalienable right.
Something existing for hundreds of years is not a good reason or a reason at all. What you've said could've been applied to slavery or any other dumb fuck right that people think they should've had.
<br>hypotheticals are wonderful aren't theymass shootings mostly involve one gun I believe, the Tech shooter had 2 hand guns.reflection? seriously? how many have made legal purchases then immediately committed a mass murder? none?
Just going off the wikipedia page for the most deadliest mass shooting events, most mass shooting events involved multiple guns.
The reflection hypothesis is based off of the fact that suicides generally decrease when you've had time to think about the action.
how many decades would that take to see any impact at all?
A great many I would imagine. But change takes time and there needs to be a starting point for change to happen.
so you are in favor of a curfew since that would be a better chance of reducing murders, or you are ok with murders so long as guns are restricted? Or probably the case you don't want to be under a curfew so that you wouldn't support but you are anti gun so you do support that.A certain level of murder you'll accept so long as it's not with a gun and doesn't impact or hinder your life or enjoyment of, like a curfew, I get it, I do. You want people to give up their enjoyment and freedom but you aren't willing to do the same.
In society, the general rule is that you are allowed to be stupid if it doesn't involve harming innocents. Going out in night would be one of those instances. Getting shot by others is not.
Gunsmiths 3D-Print High Capacity Ammo Clips To Thwart Proposed Gun Laws
bbbuuubbbuubbubut there's a law wa-wa
what is to prevent another Oklahoma city? Boston Marathon? Centennial park? nothing I can think of, other than no one has wanted to yet.
why and why don't people commit suicide generally? they either see lives has having no value or it has value. same could be said about most murderers.
does the absence or presence of guns change that? I doubt it.
Would Las Vegas not happened without guns? It could have happened like Oklahoma city or Boston and probably ended up worse than it was.
We are talking about people's mentalities we can't understand. Where there is a will there's a way. To think you can control that is just not a real expectation.
I would say the U.S. society has less objection of killing each other than many other countries. I'll have to look at the stats but it wouldn't surprise me if the non gun murder rates were also higher than most other countries. I'm sure they would be if not already, if guns magically disappeared. Because there is a will to murder in the U.S. more than other countries.
-->
@bmdrocks21
In light of the widespread loss of life caused by guns, why is you preferring guns over other defensive tools reasonable?The right to self-preservation. The cops usually get to the scene after the crime has taken place. There are other means of self defense, but I would much prefer a firearm. Criminals will illegally obtain firearms and get an advantage if citizens such as myself can not acquire them.
-->
@dustryder
slavery is not a right
you have no good reason to infringe on my right to use whatever means I deem necessary to protect myself and family, especially reasons based on assumptions and theories which has just as many counters to.
-->
@HistoryBuff
This is a pathetic argument meant to distract from the issue. People are always going to fight. Sometimes that results in deaths. If those people fighting have a gun it results in many more deaths. If those people who killed with their fists had been holding a handgun, alot more people would be dead.
But if we cut off their hands, they can't hold guns. Problem solved, yes?
A hammer is a tool that's primary purpose is to construct things. It can also be used for violence, but that isn't what it is made to do. An AR15 or a handgun is made for the express purpose of killing humans. It has no other purpose. It is a tool of death and nothing else. To say that they are the same is incredibly disingenuous.
Guns are created for hunting, self-defense, and sport. Any tool can be misused. That doesn't mean you should ban it, especially when the bad guys can get guns. Shotguns are used for hunting, but it was misused for a church shooting not too long ago. A man with a handgun took him out swiftly. Women are smaller than men and cannot defend themselves as well. They should have a weapon to even the odds.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The point is that it *was* a right, and your argument could've also defended that right or any other antiquated rightslavery is not a right
you have no good reason to infringe on my right to use whatever means I deem necessary to protect myself and family, especially reasons based on assumptions and theories which has just as many counters to.
I mean I don't. But a government has the responsibility to keep the public safe.
Frankly your selfish objections matter very little in the light of that.
-->
@dustryder
you have a right to own property, slaves were considered property, you don't have a right to own slaves, it's not in the constitution and I have never seen anywhere stated or articulated that owning a slave is an inalienable right.
But a government has the responsibility to keep the public safe.
LOL yeah when seconds count the police are minutes away
what do you think now?
-->
@dustryder
Well, people are certainly killed by guns, but guns also help deter crimes and defend oneself.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you have a right to own property, slaves were considered property, you don't have a right to own slaves, it's not in the constitution and I have never seen anywhere stated or articulated that owning a slave is an inalienable right.
Oh, in that case we can just go back to fundamentals. You asserting that a right is inalienable is not a justification for the right. Nor is saying that it's "existed for hundreds of years".
LOL yeah when seconds count the police are minutes awayPOLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU, FEDERAL COURT AFFIRMS YET AGAINwhat do you think now?
I think that there are multiple ways that the government protects us from harm that you have apparently missed. For example, building codes, licenses and regulations. Personally I didn't even think of the police but even if they can't respond to immediate threats and they don't have an obligation to protect you, it's clear that do keep the public safe in some form.
-->
@bmdrocks21
But there are other methods of deterring crimes and defending yourself. Why then guns as a fundamental right?Well, people are certainly killed by guns, but guns also help deter crimes and defend oneself.
-->
@dustryder
Well, I think the main reason for the specific right to guns was for the citizens to defend against both foreign powers and from a domestic tyrannical government. Obviously, pepper spray or batons wouldn't stop a foreign military or dictator.
Hunting is important, but not enough so for an amendment.
Again, I would personally prefer a gun to other forms of defense, anyway. Pepper spray, depending on the wind, can miss or hit you. Tasers, if you miss once, you are screwed. Stun guns, have to get very close and they may get back up. Guns are much more frightening and effective.
There are many reasons we should be able to have guns.
-->
@dustryder
You asserting that a right is inalienable is not a justification for the right. Nor is saying that it's "existed for hundreds of years".
every creature that I can think of will protect its own life, regardless if it's a recognized right or not, that right has always existed, the constitution recognizes that it has always existed, I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before, the constitution does not give rights, it's a formal recognition of them.
I think that there are multiple ways that the government protects us from harm that you have apparently missed. For example, building codes, licenses and regulations. Personally I didn't even think of the police but even if they can't respond to immediate threats and they don't have an obligation to protect you, it's clear that do keep the public safe in some form.
the deflection is duly noted.
we are talking about personal/individual which has nothing to do with building codes etc, again a formally recognized inalienable right to life.
sure the police keep the public safe from speeders, jay walkers and of course the ever dangerous kids with lemonade stands, frightening.
But a government has the responsibility to keep the public safe.
perhaps the public but not necessarily the individual, you are responsible for your own safety.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings.
Most people on this site already know that I am pro-gun, I mention that I am now because idk whether you are aware of this or not.
However I would still like to ask a question in regards to your above quote. Why do you think it is at all relevant what a weapon is designed for? Don't you think that what a weapon is capable of should be more relevant? That is what you seem to imply in the OP but the quote above appears to contradict this.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Don't you think that what a weapon is capable of should be more relevant?
I think this is a very good point. Like I said in a previous post, hammers/blunt objects kill more people than rifles. So, the purpose, despite being to hit nails, is irrelevant when they are hammering in (human) heads.
However, I think it can be a bit counterproductive and borderline-fear mongering to focus mostly on capabilities. For instance, would you say that it would be better if we never discovered nuclear power because it can be used to make weapons that can kill a lot of people? Should hammers not be made because they are capable of killing people? In the same way, it isn't fair to take guns away for being able to be used for a homicide. Tools generally aren't the issue.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm still waiting to see those civilian guns designed to kill people.
I believe a gun is designed to send a projectile in a straight line, that is what it's designed to do. Only a person can give it intent.
if you shoot at targets, it's a target gun
if you hunt with it, it's a hunting gun
if you murder with it, it's a murder weapon (as are all objects used to murder)
most people just aren't informed adequately about them imo and they would rather fight about it than to come together and deal with the criminals.
Classic liberal NY, no more life sentences or bail/bond but tyrannical when it comes to guns, what could go wrong?
Instead of banning assault weapons why not just ban people from committing crimes with assault weapons?
-->
@Christen
Instead of banning assault weapons why not just ban people from committing crimes with assault weapons?
It is impossible to know who will commit a crime with an assault weapon. If no one has any assault weapons, then it is extremely easy to know. No one will.
-->
@SirAnonymous
The type of gun used to kill the most people is exactly the one that is least targetted for bans by the left.
There is no mystery why this is the case.
In fact, the one ban in all of American history that was the most effective on that type (stop and frisk) was destroyed not by the NRA, but the incompetent, panderizing left.
-->
@Greyparrot
In fact, the one ban in all of American history that was the most effective on that type (stop and frisk) was destroyed not by the NRA, but the incompetent, panderizing left.
Wait, so you think the government should be small and not have much power, but they should be able to stop you for no reason and search you? That is some Nazi level invasion of privacy.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Stop and frisk has confiscated more guns than any other legislation in the history of the USA, and the NRA wasn't even the ones to remove that ban.
Obviously, if the NRA wants to order the left to stop banning assault rifles, all they have to do is simply substitute handguns for assault rifles in Urban ghettoes. Worked to eliminate stop and frisk.