What's new
By:

Gun Control

One Brow said:
From what's been in this thread so far, the AWB restriction was inappropriate because there's no good definition of an AWB (and the last ban had some illogical and ill-considered restrictions), and I never did get a good reason why limiting magazine sizes was some huge inconvenience, since the main argument against such limits seems to be that magazines can be seapped out quickly. I agree badly defined legislation is not worth having, but that doesn't make a ban itself an overreach (for example, I believe fully automatic weapons are banned), the overreach will be based on the definition provided for an AWB in this bill.

So, why do you consider these overboard regulations? Can you contrast them with regulations you do not consider an overboard, to help illustrate the difference?
Click to expand...

Because they are cosmetic features. It is not like they turn the weapon into a fully automatic weapon or anything. They are simply cosmetic features that allow you to tailor your gun to your tastes.

But damnit ban them all!
 
Bronco70 said:
One Brow,

I am done discussing this with you. I am tired of your wild goose chases and straw men, and your unwillingness to recognize hyperbole or interpret simple analogies. I'm weary of quibbling over semantics. I will end by acknowledging your superior intellect, and I commend your mental stamina to continually pursue a fruitless argument. I am not going to change your mind, and you certainly aren't going to change mine. Thanks for your time.

Bronco
Click to expand...

I thhink it is safe to say that the posters in here, and I'd venture to say most Americans, are already firm in their opinions/positions on this matter.
 
Stoked said:
I thhink it is safe to say that the posters in here, and I'd venture to say most Americans, are already firm in their opinions/positions on this matter.
Click to expand...

one of the most interesting feature of humans is that, the more you argue with someone, the more that person becomes convinced they are correct.
 
One Brow said:
one of the most interesting feature of humans is that, the more you argue with someone, the more that person becomes convinced they are correct.
Click to expand...

Nothing like seeing the stupidity of others to convince yourself you are right.

Not a shot at you One Brow.
 
Stoked said:
It is the first link that came up of many. Go google it and choose your source.
Click to expand...

Google what? That when you make gun laws more lax, and have gun ownership declared an individual right, than gun prosecutions will decrease? Again, how could they do otherwise? My issue with the editorial was not this obvious relationship, but that they declined to state this obvious relationship and insert the smokescreen of "enforcing the laws better", which is classic denialism (weaken the laws, then say the fewer prosecutions are due to prosecutors unwillingness to enforce).
 
One Brow said:
Google what? That when you make gun laws more lax, and have gun ownership declared an individual right, than gun prosecutions will decrease? Again, how could they do otherwise? My issue with the editorial was not this obvious relationship, but that they declined to state this obvious relationship and insert the smokescreen of "enforcing the laws better", which is classic denialism (weaken the laws, then say the fewer prosecutions are due to prosecutors unwillingness to enforce).
Click to expand...

Many of the laws are still in effect and have not been weakened. The government simply cannot prosecute those who are practicing a consitutional right anymore.

I did "Obama gun crime prosecution" or something like that.
 
Every time I see PW post I cringe at the damage he is doing. I am sure some of you more liberal people feel the same when you see a Thriller post.
 
One Brow said:
New study that carrying a gun means you are more likely to be shot during a crime:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
Click to expand...

Crtl + f = gang. 1 result: 31. "Wolfgang M. A tribute to a view I have opposed. J Crim Law Criminol 1995;86(1):188–192."
Crtl + f = gang related. O results.


Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Strike through red, replace with "criminals should reconsider their daily activities".
 
franklin said:
Crtl + f = gang. 1 result: 31. "Wolfgang M. A tribute to a view I have opposed. J Crim Law Criminol 1995;86(1):188–192."
Crtl + f = gang related. O results.


Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Strike through red, replace with "criminals should reconsider their daily activities".
Click to expand...

So, every civilian carrying a in an urban area is a criminal?

Also, why is footnote 31 particularly relevant? It's primary use in the study seems to come as source for a variable to be considered:

Case participants with at least some chance to resist were in contrast to those that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between victim and shooter (e.g., an otherwise uninvolved victim shot in his living room from a gun fired during a fight down the street).30–33
Click to expand...
 
My favorite part of the "study" is where it says that everyone in Philly has an equal chance at being shot at any given time or location, because guns are mobile and bullets go through stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top