The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban

[opebo]

Murder is caused by gun control, and is therefore uncommon in enlightened societies like Vermont.

No, it is caused primarily by poverty, and secondarily by intimacy.  If it is less common in Vermont is is due to the state's lower poverty rates.

[David S]

opebo - If you expect David S and the rest of the world to tolerate your sexual appetite, you could at least tolerate his gun ownership. What, are you suddenly that afraid of a 56-year-old self-proclaimed 'old geezer' ringing your doorbell one fine afternoon and shooting you in the head when you open your front door? Everything that you've accused people who exercise their constitutional right to bear arms of (twisted priorities, my foot) can be aimed right back at you.

I realize this, and in an ideal world would love for people to have guns if they like (though I cannot imagine why they would want them).  However my point is that guns have a huge potential to effect me, while the sexual and social freedoms I espouse have no potential for deleterious effects on anyone.

In an ideal world there would be no need for guns period, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world filled with people who would inflict harm to others for self-gain. Such people will attempt to inflict harm whether or not guns are legal, and such people will attempt to gain guns whether or not they are legal as well and will be successful. My suggestion is that you arm yourself if you are so worried about other people having guns - that way you at least have a means to fight back. If you ban guns for the law-abiding citizens only criminals will have guns, and even if they didn't the law-abiding people would still be at a disadvantage - criminals prey on those they feel are weaker than themselves, and having no guns at all leaves the weak completely vulnerable to the stronger criminals, whereas if the weak have guns the playing field is made even.

Actually crime is caused by poverty, and is therefore uncommon in enlightenened societies such as the European welfare states.  Better to vote for liberals who will redistribute than buy a popgun, if you're worried about crime.

Do you not realize that we had that type of redistribution until Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in the 90's. During that time the murder rate was at an all-time high, much higher than it is now.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

opebo - If you expect David S and the rest of the world to tolerate your sexual appetite, you could at least tolerate his gun ownership. What, are you suddenly that afraid of a 56-year-old self-proclaimed 'old geezer' ringing your doorbell one fine afternoon and shooting you in the head when you open your front door? Everything that you've accused people who exercise their constitutional right to bear arms of (twisted priorities, my foot) can be aimed right back at you.

I realize this, and in an ideal world would love for people to have guns if they like (though I cannot imagine why they would want them).  However my point is that guns have a huge potential to effect me, while the sexual and social freedoms I espouse have no potential for deleterious effects on anyone.

In an ideal world there would be no need for guns period, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world filled with people who would inflict harm to others for self-gain. Such people will attempt to inflict harm whether or not guns are legal, and such people will attempt to gain guns whether or not they are legal as well and will be successful. My suggestion is that you arm yourself if you are so worried about other people having guns - that way you at least have a means to fight back. If you ban guns for the law-abiding citizens only criminals will have guns, and even if they didn't the law-abiding people would still be at a disadvantage - criminals prey on those they feel are weaker than themselves, and having no guns at all leaves the weak completely vulnerable to the stronger criminals, whereas if the weak have guns the playing field is made even.

Actually crime is caused by poverty, and is therefore uncommon in enlightenened societies such as the European welfare states.  Better to vote for liberals who will redistribute than buy a popgun, if you're worried about crime.

Do you not realize that we had that type of redistribution until Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in the 90's. During that time the murder rate was at an all-time high, much higher than it is now.

Couldn't the subsequent decline in violent crime be explained just as much by the additional gun restrictions implemented by Clinton as by welfare reform?   You seem to be relying on these crime statistics only when they work in your favor.

[A18]

Or maybe the new right to carry laws. Bottom line, you can't isolate a single variable very easily in sociology.

But David S has proved his point, which is that more redistributionism doesn't always mean lower crime.

[opebo]

opebo - If you expect David S and the rest of the world to tolerate your sexual appetite, you could at least tolerate his gun ownership. What, are you suddenly that afraid of a 56-year-old self-proclaimed 'old geezer' ringing your doorbell one fine afternoon and shooting you in the head when you open your front door? Everything that you've accused people who exercise their constitutional right to bear arms of (twisted priorities, my foot) can be aimed right back at you.

I realize this, and in an ideal world would love for people to have guns if they like (though I cannot imagine why they would want them).  However my point is that guns have a huge potential to effect me, while the sexual and social freedoms I espouse have no potential for deleterious effects on anyone.

In an ideal world there would be no need for guns period, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world filled with people who would inflict harm to others for self-gain. Such people will attempt to inflict harm whether or not guns are legal, and such people will attempt to gain guns whether or not they are legal as well and will be successful. My suggestion is that you arm yourself if you are so worried about other people having guns - that way you at least have a means to fight back. If you ban guns for the law-abiding citizens only criminals will have guns, and even if they didn't the law-abiding people would still be at a disadvantage - criminals prey on those they feel are weaker than themselves, and having no guns at all leaves the weak completely vulnerable to the stronger criminals, whereas if the weak have guns the playing field is made even.

Actually crime is caused by poverty, and is therefore uncommon in enlightenened societies such as the European welfare states.  Better to vote for liberals who will redistribute than buy a popgun, if you're worried about crime.

Do you not realize that we had that type of redistribution until Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in the 90's. During that time the murder rate was at an all-time high, much higher than it is now.

No, Welfare in America was always a pittance.  I propose far larger benefits. 

[Bono]

Apparently you still don't understand.

Apparently you are relapsing into where 'feelings' outweight facts and logic.

No, I understand.  Again, I'm just going back to my view as to what it should be, not what it was.  However, it was a start in the right direction.  But like with any law, it can be adjusted over time.  My views is how I would have adjusted it.   

Excuse me, but I'm trying to understand you, but you seem a little vague to me, and see to keep changing your rationales.

Why was banning semi automatic firearms that had certain costmetic characteristics, "a step in the right direction"?

What is the eventual goal that tis is s "step" toward?

It's a step toward making all fully automatic and semi's which can be converted to full automatic illegal.  With that being the case, this ban would be the beginning of redefining the necessity of assault weapons in the US, limiting owners to single shot or semi's only.  As a result, the ban would have had to undergo revisions in order to get to that end, however, you cannot reach a goal if you do not take the first step.  That's about as clear as I can make it. 

First, aApparently you are totally ignorant of firearms laws.  Permits for fully automatic weapons have not been available since long before the 'ban,' and not permits are currently being issued (except for an exemption provided for Hollywood).

Secondly, if you are going to limit firearms "to single shot or semi's only," what are you going to do about: (a) revolvers, (b) bolt action repeaters, (c) pump/slide action repeaters, (d) lever action repeaters, (e) side by sides, (f) over/unders, (g) drillings, but to name a few?

Actually, with a few bureocratic hassles, you can get a license for a full auto with the NFA, but you can only buy ones registered before 1986.
Of course, there is a loophole that is if you fill as a LLC, you can get all you want.

[Bono]

opebo - If you expect David S and the rest of the world to tolerate your sexual appetite, you could at least tolerate his gun ownership. What, are you suddenly that afraid of a 56-year-old self-proclaimed 'old geezer' ringing your doorbell one fine afternoon and shooting you in the head when you open your front door? Everything that you've accused people who exercise their constitutional right to bear arms of (twisted priorities, my foot) can be aimed right back at you.

I realize this, and in an ideal world would love for people to have guns if they like (though I cannot imagine why they would want them).  However my point is that guns have a huge potential to effect me, while the sexual and social freedoms I espouse have no potential for deleterious effects on anyone.

In an ideal world there would be no need for guns period, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world filled with people who would inflict harm to others for self-gain. Such people will attempt to inflict harm whether or not guns are legal, and such people will attempt to gain guns whether or not they are legal as well and will be successful. My suggestion is that you arm yourself if you are so worried about other people having guns - that way you at least have a means to fight back. If you ban guns for the law-abiding citizens only criminals will have guns, and even if they didn't the law-abiding people would still be at a disadvantage - criminals prey on those they feel are weaker than themselves, and having no guns at all leaves the weak completely vulnerable to the stronger criminals, whereas if the weak have guns the playing field is made even.

Actually crime is caused by poverty, and is therefore uncommon in enlightenened societies such as the European welfare states.  Better to vote for liberals who will redistribute than buy a popgun, if you're worried about crime.

You live in a fantasy world.
You think crime is uncomon in europe?
get your head out of the sand.

[Wakie]

<sarcasm>Give me my flash suppressor dammit!</sarcasm>

[MODU]

First, aApparently you are totally ignorant of firearms laws.  Permits for fully automatic weapons have not been available since long before the 'ban,' and not permits are currently being issued (except for an exemption provided for Hollywood).

Now now Carl, you asked for my opinion.  Let's not stoop to questioning intelligence. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Excuse me, but you state a reason which is factually false.

So, are you saying in effect, 'damn the facts, I want to prevent other people from having firearms I don't want them to have because of their appearance'?

I have been quite specific, and have not called you names.

However, I have asked for factual reasons, and I keep getting rather vague and disjointed replies.

I think my questions were rather clear.

Please reread them, and answer them.

[opebo]

opebo - If you expect David S and the rest of the world to tolerate your sexual appetite, you could at least tolerate his gun ownership. What, are you suddenly that afraid of a 56-year-old self-proclaimed 'old geezer' ringing your doorbell one fine afternoon and shooting you in the head when you open your front door? Everything that you've accused people who exercise their constitutional right to bear arms of (twisted priorities, my foot) can be aimed right back at you.

I realize this, and in an ideal world would love for people to have guns if they like (though I cannot imagine why they would want them).  However my point is that guns have a huge potential to effect me, while the sexual and social freedoms I espouse have no potential for deleterious effects on anyone.

In an ideal world there would be no need for guns period, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world filled with people who would inflict harm to others for self-gain. Such people will attempt to inflict harm whether or not guns are legal, and such people will attempt to gain guns whether or not they are legal as well and will be successful. My suggestion is that you arm yourself if you are so worried about other people having guns - that way you at least have a means to fight back. If you ban guns for the law-abiding citizens only criminals will have guns, and even if they didn't the law-abiding people would still be at a disadvantage - criminals prey on those they feel are weaker than themselves, and having no guns at all leaves the weak completely vulnerable to the stronger criminals, whereas if the weak have guns the playing field is made even.

Actually crime is caused by poverty, and is therefore uncommon in enlightenened societies such as the European welfare states.  Better to vote for liberals who will redistribute than buy a popgun, if you're worried about crime.

You live in a fantasy world.
You think crime is uncomon in europe?
get your head out of the sand.

Radically less common than in the US, particularly violent crime, and most particularly crime using guns!

[David S]

opebo - If you expect David S and the rest of the world to tolerate your sexual appetite, you could at least tolerate his gun ownership. What, are you suddenly that afraid of a 56-year-old self-proclaimed 'old geezer' ringing your doorbell one fine afternoon and shooting you in the head when you open your front door? Everything that you've accused people who exercise their constitutional right to bear arms of (twisted priorities, my foot) can be aimed right back at you.

I realize this, and in an ideal world would love for people to have guns if they like (though I cannot imagine why they would want them).  However my point is that guns have a huge potential to effect me, while the sexual and social freedoms I espouse have no potential for deleterious effects on anyone.

In an ideal world there would be no need for guns period, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world filled with people who would inflict harm to others for self-gain. Such people will attempt to inflict harm whether or not guns are legal, and such people will attempt to gain guns whether or not they are legal as well and will be successful. My suggestion is that you arm yourself if you are so worried about other people having guns - that way you at least have a means to fight back. If you ban guns for the law-abiding citizens only criminals will have guns, and even if they didn't the law-abiding people would still be at a disadvantage - criminals prey on those they feel are weaker than themselves, and having no guns at all leaves the weak completely vulnerable to the stronger criminals, whereas if the weak have guns the playing field is made even.

Actually crime is caused by poverty, and is therefore uncommon in enlightenened societies such as the European welfare states.  Better to vote for liberals who will redistribute than buy a popgun, if you're worried about crime.

Do you not realize that we had that type of redistribution until Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in the 90's. During that time the murder rate was at an all-time high, much higher than it is now.

Couldn't the subsequent decline in violent crime be explained just as much by the additional gun restrictions implemented by Clinton as by welfare reform?   You seem to be relying on these crime statistics only when they work in your favor.

The Brady law was the other big gun control passed during the Clinton era. There was a study which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical association (not a pro-gun organization). It looked at homicide and suicide rates in the 50 states before and after the Brady Law. Prior to Brady some states had waiting periods and/or background checks similar to Brady and some did not. The study's hypothesis was that the states which had no waiting period or background check would see a bigger improvement in homicide rates and suicide rates than the states which already had such laws in effect. But their conclusion was that there was no significant difference with regard to homicide rates. They did find a greater reduction in firearm suicide rates for men 55 and older in the states which previously had no waiting period or background check, however the overall suicide rate was no different.

In other words the only effect of the Brady law they could demonstrate was that men aged 55 and older were more likely to use a different means of committing suicide instead of a gun.