Do you support the outright ban of "assault" rifles?

[pr_capone]

Simple...

yes or no.

This thread brought to you by a comment in DC stating we would be surprised by how few people in DC would support the ban. Figured we might as well get numbers.

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The goal of an assault weapons ban is simple: make shooting sprees less deadly.

You cannot and will not accomplish that goal by banning the weapon least used in killings. Focusing on mass shootings when they only make up around 1% of all murders in the US is ridiculous.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ommon/1778303/

You are essentially saying that it is ok to limit and regulate all law abiding citizens numbering in the millions if not 10's of millions because of how 1% of all murdered people die.

I cannot agree with that. Yes, we can take a very monkish view of life where every single life spared, regardless how small or at what cost, is worth it. I would rather deal in reality where I am more likely to die in an auto accident than I will in a mass shooting. The same reality where I am more likely to be mugged or have my home broken into than I am at being within 100 miles of an active mass shooting.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

You cannot and will not accomplish that goal by banning the weapon least used in killings. Focusing on mass shootings when they only make up around 1% of all murders in the US is ridiculous.

That's fair, but I'm not focusing exclusively on assault weapons. It's just one measure of many I support.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's fair, but I'm not focusing exclusively on assault weapons. It's just one measure of many I support.

There isn't a gun control measure you don't support.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's fair, but I'm not focusing exclusively on assault weapons. It's just one measure of many I support.

We get it, little Hitler....government guns good, civilian guns bad

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

There isn't a gun control measure you don't support.

There isn't a gun control measure you do support.

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's fair, but I'm not focusing exclusively on assault weapons. It's just one measure of many I support.

I guess I don't understand why banning "assault" rifles is something you would support at all when it the previous ban did nothing to curb violence. There has to come a point where the negative impact on millions upon millions of people outweigh any fractional gains in the fight against murder and violence.

As Spock said:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one"

need being defined by each individual... not just you or the government in all their wisdom.

[Aries Walker]

I'm wondering if anyone is going to respond to Direckshun's post number 36. I would be most interested to see any reasonable refutation of that avalanche of actual statistics and data in this forum which is otherwise largely ruled by rhetoric and bluster.

Anyone?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

I'm wondering if anyone is going to respond to Direckshun's post number 36. I would be most interested to see any reasonable refutation of that avalanche of actual statistics and data in this forum which is otherwise largely ruled by rhetoric and bluster.

Anyone?

To be honest, it's a lot of research papers and a lot of broken links. The one consistent thing I found is a lot of the research includes reference or bits of data from this study and is used to support the model that guns have an affect.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/fi...tt_.final_.pdf

A refutation by this guy when more states were added and 5 more years of data:
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books...ggunpolicy.pdf

And an admission that although some crime had went up with that model's extension, it showed a decrease of 3% in rapes and 8% in murders.



Problem here is with every study, they've got another study that refutes it or shows insignificant data. It's a matter of who you believe.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

I'm wondering if anyone is going to respond to Direckshun's post number 36. I would be most interested to see any reasonable refutation of that avalanche of actual statistics and data in this forum which is otherwise largely ruled by rhetoric and bluster.

Anyone?

Probably no one because it's either been refuted before or doesn't apply. Things like combining homicides with suicides into a "gun death" statistic that has nothing to do with current proposed legislation, or artificially combining two stats (guns used in self defense by women versus guns used to kill women) that don't correlate to imply a nonexistent causation, using stats for all firearms to justify banning a specific subset of one type of firearm that has been shown not to be widely used or including batshit crazy ideas from "the right" as if any sane person takes them seriously.

[pr_capone]

Tell me some more about how gun control fixes everything...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...nal-gun-debate

Since Jan. 1, Chicago police have recorded 2,364 shooting incidents and 487 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. Shootings have increased 12 percent this year and homicides are up 19 percent.

Young people are often targets. In the school year that ended in June, 319 Chicago public school students were shot, 24 of them fatally. The total does not include school-age children who had dropped out or were enrolled elsewhere.

So the city with the strictest gun control is headed to its 500th homicide and the heavy bulk of them are from guns. Is there any surprise that people who can't fight back are the usual targets?

One puzzle is that gun violence has remained high in Chicago while the incidence of other crimes has fallen.

“Our struggle is with violence and particularly gang violence and more specifically gun violence,” Chicago Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy told WBEZ radio this week. He cited free-flowing weaponry on Chicago’s streets as a major challenge for the 12,500 members of the city’s police force. Seizing guns, he said, offers limited benefit, with Chicago already claiming guns at a rate three times greater than Los Angeles and nine times higher than New York.

“We’re in a position where we’re drinking from a fire hose,” said McCarthy, who also served in Newark and New York City. “Guns are bought legally and transferred illegally, and those are the guns that are ending up killing people here.”

So not gun show loop holes but straw purchases, which BTW are already illegal, are the guns that end up killing people. Oh, and seizing guns offered what?

Tio Hardiman, director of CeaseFire Illinois, says gun violence should be seen not just as a crime but as a public health scourge. In addition to doing “a lot more to stop the flow of illegal guns coming into the city,” he said, authorities should pay more attention to mental health and help the most vulnerable young people.

“You have to address the thinking,” Hardiman said.

“At this point, it’s about reaching the kids that can be reached. Trying to help them achieve something,” Smith said, adding that Obama and the federal government could help in a time of debilitating city and state budget deficits. “If they had more programs for the youth, more things for them to get involved in, they wouldn’t be out here on the streets doing what they’re doing.”

Paying attention to mental health and reach youths while they are still impressionable. Turn them away from crime and work to give them a future that will allow them to get themselves and their family out of the shit hole.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I know states with more guns tend to have more female deaths. I know 83 women are killed for every woman who uses a gun in self defense. I know guns generally make domestic violence worse because batterers who own guns are likely to use them.

I know that the rate of gun ownership correlates positively with incidence of homicide. When guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides. I know that having a gun in the home increases the odds of a violent death.

I know that states with more gun control have less gun deaths when you include suicides, and states with weaker gun control laws have more gun violence. I know there's some evidence that guns are used far more frequently to threaten than protect.

And I know that mass shootings with assault weapons tend to be deadlier. And "Right To Carry" laws increase aggravated assault.

I also know that gun rights advocates are terrified of researching gun violence, and that most of them think they're less dangerous than video games. But yeah, I'm the person who's just believing what I'm told.

Fancy cut-n-paste, I’m sure the girls at HuffPo are giving you a round of high-fives as I type this response. But, um, if you’re looking to prove you know something about guns, how they function and what makes one different from another, and that you aren’t just repeating rhetoric from anti-gun partisans posting links to their sites is doing the exact opposite.
It is funny though that you spent all that time digging up those links yet still refuse to answer one very simple question that you’ve been dodging since the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Name for me exactly what functional difference there is between an assault rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber that makes them "so much more dangerous".

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1003

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just to be clear: I'm perfectly fine with arguing the point. So don't feel like you have to lie in order to get me to express my opinion. Just keep that piece of advice for future reference.

The goal of an assault weapons ban is simple: make shooting sprees less deadly.

Just to be clear I have a life, I see no need to argue on a bulletin board with someone who has no clue, or argues for the sake of arguing.

[RyFo18]

Only the fully semi-automatic rifles.

[petegz28]

Amazing that 4 of you do not want to ban the guns that are used in the majority of gun crimes.......

[frazod]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Amazing that 4 of you do not want to ban the guns that are used in the majority of gun crimes.......

I'm mainly surprised there are four people this ****ing stupid on here and Wickedson's not one of them.