California Assault Weapons Ban

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 82

Here's an interesting (but obviously biased) video displaying just how useless the Assault Weapons Ban in California is. The guy in the video has two almost identical rifles. They have different grips, buttstocks, and means of attaching the magazine. One is illegal (to buy, anyway. Since this guy bought it before a certain date, it's legal for him to own). One isn't. Ironically, the legal rifle is easier to use and would be slightly more dangerous than the illegal rifle. 
--> @SirAnonymous
You're right. clearly that ban doesn't go anywhere near far enough. 

--> @HistoryBuff
You're right. clearly that ban doesn't go anywhere near far enough. 
That is one of the biggest reasons pro-gun people oppose gun control.
--> @SirAnonymous
That is one of the biggest reasons pro-gun people oppose gun control.
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale? That's an odd reason to oppose gun control. 
--> @HistoryBuff
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings. Secondly, handguns are responsible for about 20 or 25 times as many deaths as all rifles put together. Thirdly, the reason I was referring to is that many pro-gun people believe that the end goal of gun control advocacy is a ban on all guns.
--> @SirAnonymous
Are you against handgun bans and why?



--> @TheRealNihilist
Yes, and it's because I think that the evidence shows that guns save more lives than they kill due to their widespread use in self-defense. Also, the evidence suggests that gun control and gun bans don't save lives. Instead, they just lead to a decrease in gun deaths accompanied by an increase in deaths from other weapons such as knives. This is why London, after banning guns failed to reduce crime, started instituting knife control.
--> @SirAnonymous
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings.
No hunter has ever needed 30 round mags in a semi-auto for hunting. If you need that much firepower then you are out to kill humans. 

Secondly, handguns are responsible for about 20 or 25 times as many deaths as all rifles put together.
I would be very much in favor of gun control on handguns too. 

Thirdly, the reason I was referring to is that many pro-gun people believe that the end goal of gun control advocacy is a ban on all guns.
The point isn't to ban guns. The point, from my point of view anyway, is to ban, or heavily restrict, guns that are designed to kill humans. A handgun for example has no use other than killing people. Very few people need to own that. 

Any weapon that is capable of unloading 30 rounds in rapid succession is designed to kill humans. No one needs to own those. 
--> @HistoryBuff
I'll get back to you tonight when I'm at a computer.
--> @SirAnonymous
the evidence shows that guns save more lives than they kill due to their widespread use in self-defense.
Do you have a source?
the evidence suggests that gun control and gun bans don't save lives.
Do you have a source?
Instead, they just lead to a decrease in gun deaths accompanied by an increase in deaths from other weapons such as knives. This is why London, after banning guns failed to reduce crime, started instituting knife control.
Do you have a source that compares the UK and US? 
--> @HistoryBuff
AR15s provide protection against the biggest mass shooter in history; a tyrannical government.

--> @HistoryBuff
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale?
which is defined how?


--> @Alec
AR15s provide protection against the biggest mass shooter in history; a tyrannical government.
I find this argument hilarious. An AR15 will not stop a drone from bombing you. It want stop an abrams tank, or fighter jet. If the US government became tyrannical, either the military backs the government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world won't save you, or they don't back the tyrannical government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world are completely irrelevant. 

Your guns are meaningless in terms of fighting the government. However, if you hold onto that right to have all those guns countless people will die. Is that pipe dream of fighting off the US military really worth the lives of 10's, or even hundreds of thousands of people? 
--> @TheRealNihilist
Are you against handgun bans and why?

that would be the abolishment of the 2a

an accurate question would be are you in favor of abolishing the 2a

--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale?
which is defined how?
In my opinion, any weapon that is designed to kill people should be heavily restricted if not banned. A hunting rifle is fine. But no one needs a magazine of more than 5 or 10 rounds to go hunting. No one needs to own a hand gun. 
--> @HistoryBuff
 find this argument hilarious. 
HistoryBuff are you familiar with the civil war per chance?  it is said that brother fought brother, neighbor fought neighbor.  If you believe the government has such tight control over the military that they would do those things you should be terrified.  If you believe no group in the military would rise up against bombing their fellow citizens then you should be terrified.
But this is the same government you'd give more power to.
--> @HistoryBuff
A tyrant government isn't going to bomb you.  They are more likely to use slave labor.  Nazi Germany had bombs and could have easily bombed Jewish houses and massacred all Jews they found, but they enslaved them instead.  The Jews could protect themselves with AR 15s if they had them.  Instead, Nazi Germany made sure that the Jews disarmed themselves first.  As Hitler said, "to conquer a country, first disarm it's citizens".

Is that pipe dream of fighting off the US military really worth the lives of 10's, or even hundreds of thousands of people? 
Given that the US military would do much more damage then some crazy school shooter, I'd say being pro gun is pro life in the sense that is saves more lives.

As bad as the school shootings are, they are thankfully very rare and preventable by arming consenting teachers.  If I were a teacher, any school shooter better watch out for my loaded 22 caliber pistol.  My classroom would be protected.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
HistoryBuff are you familiar with the civil war per chance?  it is said that brother fought brother, neighbor fought neighbor.  If you believe the government has such tight control over the military that they would do those things you should be terrified.  If you believe no group in the military would rise up against bombing their fellow citizens then you should be terrified.
But this is the same government you'd give more power to.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that either way, your AR-15 is useless. whether the military sides with the government or against it, your gun doesn't mean squat. 
--> @HistoryBuff
any weapon that is designed to kill people should be heavily restricted if not banned. A hunting rifle is fine. But no one needs a magazine of more than 5 or 10 rounds to go hunting. No one needs to own a hand gun. 
which guns are specifically designed "to kill people"?  how were these designs developed and studied?  
A baseball bat isn't designed to kill people, but it is used to do so.
explain the difference and give an example of design vs misuse/illegal use.

do you know much about hunting?  
Did you know states, counties etc can put limits as to how many rounds your gun can hold when you go hunting? 
Did you know in certain places you can NOT hunt with a rifle?  but instead must use a shotgun with a slug barrel?
Did you know it is illegal to hunt deer with certain calibers?


2a is not a needs test, limiting magazines is stupid at best.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that either way, your AR-15 is useless. whether the military sides with the government or against it, your gun doesn't mean squat. 
it means more than angry words and a stick.

--> @Alec
A tyrant government isn't going to bomb you.  They are more likely to use slave labor.  Nazi Germany had bombs and could have easily bombed Jewish houses and massacred all Jews they found, but they enslaved them instead. 
No, they rounded them all up and sent them to death camps. Bombs are expensive, death camps were much more effective. In this scenario the tyrant government seizes power and you delusionally think you will stop them with an AR-15. That would make you (in their eyes) traitors and rebels. If you were a threat to them then of course they would bomb you. They would do whatever they had to to nulify the threat. America has a massive arsenal it could use to "defend itself from traitors" if the military wanted to. 

As Hitler said, "to conquer a country, first disarm it's citizens".
Hitler 1st rose to power using an armed mob. So clearly this statement is bullshit. 

Given that the US military would do much more damage then some crazy school shooter, I'd say being pro gun is pro life in the sense that is saves more lives.
What?! america has more mass shootings and it has more murders than most of the developed world. In what sense do guns save more lives?

As bad as the school shootings are, they are thankfully very rare and preventable by arming consenting teachers
There were 417 mass shootings in 2019. That is more than 1 per day. There is nothing rare about that. Now many of these weren't at schools, but every single one of them is a tragedy and many could have been avoided with proper gun controls. 

If I were a teacher, any school shooter better watch out for my loaded 22 caliber pistol.  My classroom would be protected.
The far more likely outcome is that your gun, or another teacher's gun, will end up hurting an innocent person than stopping a bad one. 
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
that would be the abolishment of the 2a

an accurate question would be are you in favor of abolishing the 2a
that would be the value of gun ownership verses reduction in harm

an accurate question would be are you in favor of reducing harm


guns blazing already? Man either you are really triggered or you've become so irrational that you don't understand just how easy it is to counter what you say. 

--> @TheRealNihilist
that would be the value of gun ownership verses reduction in harm

an accurate question would be are you in favor of reducing harm
preserving the 2a and a reduction in harm are not mutually exclusive

there are over 22000 gun laws, an ar ban etc etc but a few more laws will fix the problem?

criminals do harm, I'm in favor of reducing criminals, thus reducing harm

an accurate question would be are you in favor or reducing harm or just gun harm?

please counter away LOL


--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
People in general don't advocate only for gun harm reduction. It's just so happens that gun laws appear in a cross section of forms of harm that are actionable, are irrationally being ignored and are inflicted onto others.


--> @Alec
And tyrannical governments go to school.
--> @dustryder
let's try a mandatory curfew, you can apply for a special permit if you happen to work an off shift so you can get to and from work.  That will keep people off the street, especially during the hours when probably 90% of the murders happen?  Most happen at night, far more often then between 8am-8pm

I have yet to hear anyone articulate how infringing on law abiding citizens rights has any appreciable effect on crime.

most people are, have been or could be negatively impacted by crime since most don't have armed security, walled homes etc

so regardless on which side you are on we all do not want to be negatively impacted by crime if at all possible, in that way we are one.
I'll assume you agree with this.
so what can we do, individually and collectively to protect ourselves from crime?
I'm not convinced on this trickle down scheme that is suppose to take guns out of criminal's hands.
does the "broken window" theory not work?  seems neighborhood revitalization was a thing for a short time, what happened to that?  the reality is if there was no crime no one would care what or how many guns anyone had.

people like governor blackface would make thousands of citizens criminals and not impact real criminals at all.  is that what you really want?  unless there is a military state they will just hide their guns or not comply, then what?  arrest thousands who weren't criminals and probably working citizens?  

this seems to apply
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

before governor blackface was in office there was no limit to how many purchases you could make in a month, this is true in many states as well, but now he wants to limit it to 1 per month,  Can you logically and factually tell me how this reduces murders?
what % of legal purchases are for more than one gun?  I'd be it's very low.