Originally Posted by Aries Walker
Now, feel free to pick my softie sheeple libtard ass apart, if you like.
1. Of course a ban on assault weapons won't bring all gun-related violence to a screeching halt. Death-by-rifle makes up a pretty tiny part of the whole death-by-firearm spectrum, so it wouldn't prevent all of the killings - but it will prevent some, and everything starts with a 'some'.
some, hmm as in "some" men are created with inalienable rights, or maybe only "some" people should be allowed to assemble. You see this starts a slippery slope, I know that banning men from being gay won't prevent all child molestations, but if it stops "some" then maybe it's a good start. After all, everything starts with a "some"
2. Because it might pass. A proposal to ban handguns - far and away the death-dealingest kind of firearm - would never even get through committee. This, might. That's politics.
So we should create nonsensical legislation because it might pass. Knowing full well that it will not accomplish anything and instead will restrict the freedoms of millions of law-abiding citizens? Hmmm, now maybe we could end gang violence if we could just "ban" poor black youths, however that will never even get through committee. So instead let's ban poor blacks from playing basketball.
3. Because you don't need 'em. They're not needed to hunt or to target shoot - people hear have been very happy to demonstrate versions of the exact same rifles which would be 100% totally OK for use on the range or in the hunting grounds. They're not needed for home defense; shotguns and handguns are better for that.
One could argue that an assault weapon is needed to resist a potentially tyrannical government. However, a fully automatic M-60 or a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile would do the same, and yet those are very regulated. There has to be a line somewhere, and when weapons become more pervasive and more deadly, there has to be a time when we decide as a country that they shouldn't be widely dispersed. There is precedent for this, namely when fully automatic weapons became available; at some point, the government decided to restrict them. Same thing.
I should point out one more thing: collectors. Collectors don't need
their weapons, they want
them. Besides the fact that they could still get a Class III License and have them just fine, a want also has to take a back seat to a societal need.
You don't need religion either, so that's gone. You don't need a vehicle, so that's gone. You don't need a tv, so that's gone. You don't need a house, so that's gone. You don't need to fly in a plane, so that's gone. You don't need a newspaper, so that's gone. You don't need internet, so that's gone. You don't need to eat in a restaurant, so that's gone. You don't need to have abortions, so that's gone.
I won't even begin to explain the advantages that an semi-auto rifle can offer for self-defense or hunting purposes, they are well documented and you wouldn't care anyways.
I won't even address the societal need clause of your argument, that is the most retarded shit I've ever heard. You want to save the world from itself go plant a tree, or join the peace corps or some other feel good humanitary bullshit. How well did gun control work out for the jewish "societal needs" in Germany, how about the millions of others that have been killed by their governments.
4. Assault rifles are able to accept much larger magazines than pistols, meaning that spree shooters can fire continuously for a longer time without reloading. James Holmes had a 100-round drum (which fortunately jammed) attached to his AR-15. This gets in to the whole "magazine size" debate, which I think is for a different thread.
the average magazine for a semi-automatic rifle is either 20-30 rounds, yes there are some that hold more. Any 9mm Glock is capable of using a 33 round magazine, more rounds can be held by using various grip extensions. A FN 5.7 handgun holds 20 rounds of 5.7mm ammunition, an extremely effective pistol round. It takes an experienced shooter less than a second to exchange mags, a novice shooter can do it in about 2 seconds, someone that has no experience can do it in less than 5 seconds. The size of a magazine has absolutely no effect on crimes.
We should be thankful the theater shooter had a knock-off beta mag, a real magazine won't jam.
5. Okay, yeah, I'll say it: they're scary. As in yes, they scare people, and violent shooters know it. There aren't many other reasons that, say, Adam Lanza would have used the AR-15 as his primary weapon over the two handguns he had on him. If he were strictly number crunching, he probably would have gone with the handguns, as the rifle's increased range and muzzle velocity aren't needed in an elementary school. He didn't because he wasn't thinking, and in the midst of his mental crisis (which most spree shooters have), he went with the scary one.
Yeah, sure, maybe if his idiot mother didn't have the AR-15, he would have just used the shotgun, but maybe he wouldn't have. We obviously have no way of knowing. We do, however, have to do something - along with drastically increasing our national outlook on mental health, and maybe have our berserk media give it a f***ing rest for a generation or two - and the cases and statistics I've read, along with my conscience and common sense, tell me that the assault weapons ban is one of the sensible gun control choices we can make these days.
If by sensible and common sense, you mean absolutely ineffective, meaningless, and completely illogical then sure, we can "ban" semi-automatic rifles so that you feel better. I feel that one problem in this country is poor people, now I understand we can't just execute poor people, however I think it's common sense and sensible to restrict the ability of poor people to have a job, therefore ensuring that the available jobs are there for non-poor people. So therefore we should pass legislation that "bans" poor people from being employed. I also feel that if we "ban" poor people from having housing that will allow there to be more housing available for non-poor people. These make about as much sense as your "sensible" legislation ideas.
Posted via Mobile Device