Could we please stop with all the reductio ad absurdum? The simple, unassailable fact is that firearms ownership in the USA is directly correlated with a reduction in crime. The genie is out of the bottle, so the best defense is for everyone to have their own genie.
Argue the semantics, emotions, and logical loopholes you want, but the numbers don’t lie. I vote we should table all discussion of this for five years, and then however Washington, D.C. turns out will determine the winner.
H.
p.s. For those who don’t know: D.C. had a near total ban on legal firearm ownership, and was also the murder capital of the USA for 14 years. They’ve just passed legislation to lift the bans, let’s see what happens to crime.
That’s cause good guns are easily available. If that changed, a blackmarket gunsmith might be able to do real well for herself.[/quote]
So you’re saying that any weapon should be legal if it could realistically be homemade?[/quote]
Well, outlawing it would be ineffective if it was easily homemade. People who wanted one would get one regardless of the law.[/quote]
that reminds me of abortion. Imagine you’re a conservative arguing for gun ownership. “Sure guns kill people, but even having one was outlawed, people who wanted to get a gun could get one anyway, so let’s just keep it legal.” Now imagine that I change the word gun to abortion. Interesting, huh?
Not a bad analogy, although that opens the way to more of a reflection on the lack of consistency on both ends of the American political spectrum rather than making much clearer in this debate. Which is, of course, pretty open and shut apart from people that really enjoy wallowing in logical fallacies.
o rly[/quote]
Yes. Really. When restricting a liberty of the people, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that such a restriction has a benefit that is materially worthwhile. No such proof has ever been provided in the case of assault weapons hysteria, which ultimately comes down to scare tactics based around cosmetics.
In the absence of such evidence, and given the stated agendas of the majority those who promote assault weapons bans, it is reasonable to infer that they simply seek to legitimize the piecemeal banning of civilian ownership of guns overall, one spooky bangstick after another. Which, of course, makes it difficult to take most of what they say in any other spirit.
o rly[/quote]
Yes. Really. When restricting a liberty of the people, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that such a restriction has a benefit that is materially worthwhile. No such proof has ever been provided in the case of assault weapons hysteria, which ultimately comes down to scare tactics based around cosmetics.
In the absence of such evidence, and given the stated agendas of the majority those who promote assault weapons bans, it is reasonable to infer that they simply seek to legitimize the piecemeal banning of civilian ownership of guns overall, one spooky bangstick after another. Which, of course, makes it difficult to take most of what they say in any other spirit.[/quote]
You’re contesting that making assault rifles illegal has benefits?
But of course, that’s not the argument, is it? No one ever said guns were safe in (just) anyone’s hands. Only you said that, so you could seem like you’re making an argument when you’re not. I haven’t heard any conservatives, for instance, calling for the restoration of gun ownership rights to convicted felons. If anyone is for that, in fact, it’s the not-particularly-clever-themselves liars on the other side.
What conservatives argue is that the universal option to own guns is safer for the people than the prohibition against owning them. The reason is that, a) if the federal government can’t be trusted with citizen ownership of guns, it certainly can’t be trusted without it, and b) when guns are illegal, law abiding citizens are left defenseless against criminals who, by definition, have no qualms about possessing them. I’m sure you know this, but I have to repeat it yet again since you have lied about it yet again.[/quote]
I lied? Again? I said that “guns were safe in (just) anyone’s hands”? Where?
My point was that the argument that “guns don’t kill people - people kill people” can equally be applied to nuclear weapons. It’s good for illustrating how preposterous that argument is. Guns aren’t as dangerous as nuclear weapons, but they aren’t safe either. Guns are more dangerous than cars, and should therefore require stricter licensing and registration than cars, but less than a tank or a bazooka. Any other system is illogical.
I said nothing else, so please don’t lie about what I said in order to fuel your ranting.
Because the assault weapons distinction is purely a cosmetic one. The legal definition of an assault weapon is a “military style” rifle with an detachable magazine of some sort. They also include two or more of the following traits: telescoping or folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, and/or grenade launcher (btw, already restricted heavily in other laws). They are, in fact, generally less lethal than your average hunting rifle.
The real, textbook (ie, not in any US law, actual or proposed) definition of an assault weapon is a rifle capable of selective fire, a choice between semiautomatic (one trigger pull, one shot) and automatic or burst. Those are already heavily regulated as automatic weapons, and thus external to the pro ban argument for assault weapons.
What practical reasons are there for this arbitrary law?
There is no data to back a need for a ban. Assault weapons are used in fewer than one percent of violent crimes, and about one percent of all gun crimes. There are an estimated 4 million assault weapons in the US, which is less than 2% of the estimated gun stock of the US. So, wherein lies the clear and evident problem that the ban is allegedly designed to combat?
What amuses me is that many of the same people who say “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” (i.e., that deterrence won’t work) simultaneously believe that the death penalty is effective because it deters murder.
I find it hard to imagine how letting people possess assault weapons will be good for society.
That entire line of reasoning only stands if you accept as gospel the government’s given right to regulate even in the absence of utilitarian, moral, or practical grounds. Also, your “more dangerous” litmus test is so open to abuse as to be pretty worthless by itself, as you use it…there will always be a deadlier driver or shooter to back an argument either way.
The bill of rights, and American law in general, are not intended to be in restriction of the people by default, but rather of the government by default. It must make a case for expansion of its powers, rather than the people having to make a case to maintain their rights.
Such incongruities, while amusing, are not an argument.
I find it hard to imagine how letting people possess assault weapons will be good for society.
I find it hard to understand how you see that as the issue. The point is that the government must reasonably establish how “assault” weapons as defined by the law(s) are bad for society. Is that really so foreign a concept?
There is no data to back a need for a ban. Assault weapons are used in fewer than one percent of violent crimes, and about one percent of all gun crimes.
Not that I care either way, but you can pretty easily construct an argument around " when assault rifles are used in gun crime, it tends to result in indiscriminate killing of total innocents, which is much worse than discriminate killing of the mostly innocent."
Because the assault weapons distinction is purely a cosmetic one. The legal definition of an assault weapon is a “military style” rifle with an detachable magazine of some sort. They also include two or more of the following traits: telescoping or folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, and/or grenade launcher (btw, already restricted heavily in other laws). They are, in fact, generally less lethal than your average hunting rifle.
The real, textbook (ie, not in any US law, actual or proposed) definition of an assault weapon is a rifle capable of selective fire, a choice between semiautomatic (one trigger pull, one shot) and automatic or burst. Those are already heavily regulated as automatic weapons, and thus external to the pro ban argument for assault weapons.
What practical reasons are there for this arbitrary law?
[/quote]
It always cracks me up that when anyone says that assault weapons should be illegal, the pro-gun guy never fails to bring up the assault weapons ban and how flawed it is. Hey, did I say that assault weapons should be illegal, or did I say that things that make guns look more badass should be illegal?
Jason- Do you have any evidence that’s true, and if true, can you make an argument for the causation arrow going from “Availability of assault rifles” into “Mass murder” instead of mass murderers being more inclined to select assault rifles?
To Qenan this situation a bit further, remember the little bit about how cars kill so many more people than terrorism we shouldn’t devote so much time and money to stopping terrorism? Are assault rifle shooting sprees a big problem anywhere? The media loves 'em to death, gun control advocates harp on them endlessly, but they are pretty goddamn rare.
Qenan- How about the government seizes all of your property, auctions it off, and donates the proceeds to charity? I find it hard to see how letting you possess all those delicious goods is good for society.
Also, bonus points for blatantly restating Casper’s argument, but sillier. Either way, “There are hypothetical people who are contradicting themselves” is a really bad argument technique.
The generally accepted convention regarding arguments advocating for a change in the status quo is that the Affirmative (the side advocating for the change) carries the burden of proof.
Therefore, in the case of the topic at hand, the panty-waist liberals must provide reasoning and evidence to support the change in the status quo: banning assault weapons. The NASCAR watching conservatives are under no obligation to provide arguments in favor of the status quo but must rather counter the contentions of the pro-ban folks.
By the way, I may be mistaken but I’m pretty sure cars kill more people each year than guns do… at least in America.
That’s cause good guns are easily available. If that changed, a blackmarket gunsmith might be able to do real well for herself.[/quote]
So you’re saying that any weapon should be legal if it could realistically be homemade?[/quote]
Well, outlawing it would be ineffective if it was easily homemade. People who wanted one would get one regardless of the law.[/quote]
that reminds me of abortion. Imagine you’re a conservative arguing for gun ownership. “Sure guns kill people, but even having one was outlawed, people who wanted to get a gun could get one anyway, so let’s just keep it legal.” Now imagine that I change the word gun to abortion. Interesting, huh?
brian[/quote]
That sums up nicely why I am pro-gun and pro-choice.
Because the assault weapons distinction is purely a cosmetic one. The legal definition of an assault weapon is a “military style” rifle with an detachable magazine of some sort. They also include two or more of the following traits: telescoping or folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, and/or grenade launcher (btw, already restricted heavily in other laws). They are, in fact, generally less lethal than your average hunting rifle.
The real, textbook (ie, not in any US law, actual or proposed) definition of an assault weapon is a rifle capable of selective fire, a choice between semiautomatic (one trigger pull, one shot) and automatic or burst. Those are already heavily regulated as automatic weapons, and thus external to the pro ban argument for assault weapons.
What practical reasons are there for this arbitrary law?
[/quote]
It always cracks me up that when anyone says that assault weapons should be illegal, the pro-gun guy never fails to bring up the assault weapons ban and how flawed it is. Hey, did I say that assault weapons should be illegal, or did I say that things that make guns look more badass should be illegal?[/quote]
