🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[MaceB]

Lets not do that. Let's reinstate the Assault Rifles Ban. It did do jack ****. Gun deaths went up 300% after we took it away. Just because handguns kill people... that has nothing to do with the value of having an AR-15 as a civilian. Like... because there are a lot of hand gun deaths, we shouldn't worry about Assault Rifle deaths? No.

Like I said earlier, you're engaging in "what-about-ism". The lethality or value of hand guns does not and should not stop us from considering the lethality of AR-15s. You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[Aximili86]

Read the NYT article. It flat-out says the ban's been quoted by officials as not being worth re-instating given the results they got from it at the time.

Also, gun crime is down from the 90s.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/is-violence-in-america-going-up-or-down/491384/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...res-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a605585e022f



As for your "the lethality of AR-15"s being the issue point - again, they're a tiny fraction of gun crime. Tiny. And mass shootings happen with or without them. We've gotta single out the problem people and pre-empt them, given they're such a horribly dangerous minority. These people were on the lists they were reasonably justified to be on? They never would have been able to buy the guns. The laws already cover it.

 

[chaseter]

FBI raids Trump’s lawyer over payment to a porn star but they didn’t raid the Parkland shooter’s house...Way to go FBI.

 

[Sithborg]

I'm sure explaining the differences in the situations would just be wasted.

 

[MaceB]

FBI raids Trump’s lawyer over payment to a porn star but they didn’t raid the Parkland shooter’s house...Way to go FBI.

There's no getting around probable cause. We are ruled by laws, as it should be.

 

[MaceB]

Read the NYT article. It flat-out says the ban's been quoted by officials as not being worth re-instating given the results they got from it at the time.

It's a controversial field, but I guarantee you that I can provide 3 articles that say it worked for every 1 that you present.
https://psmag.com/news/assault-weapons-ban-decreases-school-shooting-deaths
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.daa882b2e8c1

Also, we have lots of empirical evidence in this country as well as others that an Assault Weapons Ban does curb gun violence.

Also, gun crime is down from the 90s.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/is-violence-in-america-going-up-or-down/491384/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...res-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a605585e022f

That's true. Once again though, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. So since, we have less gun deaths now than 10 years ago, we should ignore all the gun deaths as irrelevant or not worthy of being corrected? Obviously not. The threat of devastation by Semi Automatic Weapons is too great, and they aren't protected by the constitution according to several judges.

As for your "the lethality of AR-15"s being the issue point - again, they're a tiny fraction of gun crime. Tiny. And mass shootings happen with or without them. We've gotta single out the problem people and pre-empt them, given they're such a horribly dangerous minority. These people were on the lists they were reasonably justified to be on? They never would have been able to buy the guns. The laws already cover it.

Once again, you're practicing "What-about-ism". The fact that there is more handgun violence does not suggest that we shouldn't do anything about mass gun violence by Semi Autos. Understand? If I were to tell you that there is no point in doing WallStreet reform, because small banks still could commit a lot of fraud.. that wouldn't make much sense would it? Certainly we can take a positive step in the right direction, even though we can't solve the problem entirely.
Again, no one NEEDS an AR-15. Not for defense. Not for hunting. They literally serve no utility except inflicting mass devastation. Regardless of hand gun violence, the Assault Weapons Ban helped curb gun deaths before, it can do it again.

 

[Marvolo]

Lets not do that. Let's reinstate the Assault Rifles Ban. It did do jack ****. Gun deaths went up 300% after we took it away. Just because handguns kill people... that has nothing to do with the value of having an AR-15 as a civilian. Like... because there are a lot of hand gun deaths, we shouldn't worry about Assault Rifle deaths? No.

Like I said earlier, you're engaging in "what-about-ism". The lethality or value of hand guns does not and should not stop us from considering the lethality of AR-15s. You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Have you ever actually read about the Assault Weapons Ban? It only banned weapons made after the ban, and it had a grandfather clause so anyone that already owned those weapons could legally keep them. It exempted hundreds of guns because they were used in sports and hunting and recreational shooting. It also didn't ban all forms of the AR-15. Less than 20 firearm models were completely banned. It was riddled with loopholes. And there is no good proof that it accomplished anything or that it had any meaningful impact on gun violence. Also lest we forget, Columbine happened during the Assault Weapons Ban.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.fa0b8728ee92

That ban was about as effective as a condom made out of tissue paper.

 

[MaceB]

And there is no good proof that it accomplished anything or that it had any meaningful impact on gun violence. Also last we forget, Columbine happened during the Assault Weapons Ban.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.fa0b8728ee92

That ban was about as effective as a condom made out of tissue paper.

Like I said before, this is a controversial topic and you'll find the evidence you want. That being said, there is A LOT of evidence that the Assault Weapons ban helped. Gun deaths shot up after it was taken away. And it's been effective in other countries. I don't understand why you think it'd convince me that we shouldn't reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban because it wasn't executed perfectly. So? That'd be a reason to properly execute it this time around, not to swear it off forever. The fact that it had a lot of loopholes only reinforces the idea that it could have worked better if only it was executed and enforced properly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.d9d21bf895c9
"Klarevas has compiled data on gun massacres involving six or more fatalities for the 50 years before 2016. His numbers show that gun massacres fell significantly during the time the assault weapons ban was in place, and skyrocketed after the ban lapsed in 2004."

 

[Marvolo]

The problem wasnt just that it wasnt executed perfectly. It was a poorly thought out ineffective ban riddled with loopholes. Why the hell should we use a ban that we know is poorly thought out and ineffective and riddled with loopholes? We'd better off having a new system from the ground up.

Also you realize that there are millions more AR-15s and AR-15 variants in civilian hands now? Every one of those will be grandfathered in and still be entirely legal if we reinstate the Assault Weapon Ban because it only bans guns made after the Ban goes into effect.

 

[MaceB]

The problem wasnt just that it wasnt executed perfectly. It was a poorly thought out ineffective ban riddled with loopholes. Why the hell should we use a ban that we know is poorly thought out and ineffective and riddled with loopholes? We'd better off having a new system from the ground up.

Also you realize that there are millions more AR-15s and AR-15 variants in civilian hands now? Every one of those will be grandfathered in and still be entirely legal if we reinstate the Assault Weapon Ban because it only bans guns made after the Ban goes into effect.

You're offering nothing but mitigating circumstances. Even if everything you're saying is correct, then at worst, it'd be an inefficient law that still helped a little. And I don't understand why we shouldn't enforce a new ban that doesn't have loopholes because the last one did. What I'm saying is that the mistakes of the last ban should not preclude us from doing another one... it should serve as a basis for an improved ban moving forward.
Sure, there are lots of guns in our country. What's your point though? That it'll be hard? I know. But it's worth it.... thousands of lives worth it.

 

[chaseter]

I'm sure explaining the differences in the situations would just be wasted.

One resulted in deaths and the other resulted in a cashiers check? Reasonable suspicion allows for questioning, which they didn’t do even though they had a tip. That coupled with all the times the local police were called to the home (18 times concerning Cruz, with some involving guns)...PLUS his gun obsessed social media accounts...you have reasonable suspicion to visit and question. Even with reasonable suspicion, they can detain if they don’t like the answers and get a search warrant.

Plus, the FBI admits they screwed up:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/22/politics/fbi-bowdich-parkland-tip/index.html

Care to elaborate on the reasons why they didn’t follow up and contradict the FBI’s own admission?

 

[Sithborg]

The pressure is really starting to mount.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/b...-bank-of-america-will-stop-lending-to-assault

 

[Aximili86]

The fact that there is more handgun violence does not suggest that we shouldn't do anything about mass gun violence by Semi Autos.

Well, sure it does. You either go after both or you go after neither. When 80% + of the people shot in the country are shot with pistols, and what was the rifle figure from the article (haven't re-clicked on it mid-post), 4% or something? Rifles in general, meaning the AR series specifically would be less than that.

Sure, if you believe ARs have gotta go, that's a prerogative. I don't necessarily have an issue with that as a stance. But you'd better ****ing be for nixing every handgun out there too, given the stats. There's a consistency factor.

 

[MaceB]

Well, sure it does. You either go after both or you go after neither. When 80% + of the people shot in the country are shot with pistols, and what was the rifle figure from the article (haven't re-clicked on it mid-post), 4% or something? Rifles in general, meaning the AR series specifically would be less than that.

Sure, if you believe ARs have gotta go, that's a prerogative. I don't necessarily have an issue with that as a stance. But you'd better ****ing be for nixing every handgun out there too, given the stats. There's a consistency factor.

They are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing inconsistent in believing that the benefits outweigh the harms with Assault Weapons. Like we've discussed, they have no utility in civilian life. I'd say that legislation should happen on handguns as well; but they are much more protected by the 2nd amendment, and at least make logical sense as a tool of self defense. We can worry about handguns at any time, as soon as we have legislation. In the mean time, we can do an Assault Weapons Ban right now. And the Assault Weapons Ban would in no way harm the prospects for future gun legislation. This kind of thinking is bizarre to me. Why exactly do we need to solve all gun violence before banning assault weapons again?

It seems like a disingenuous argument to me. If I were to say... let's cut carbon emissions by making our jets more efficient, you'd say "No, we can't do that yet, because we haven't even dealt with car efficiency enough yet! It's both or nothing!" ?? Or if I said, I want to improve the gender wage gap by starting an initiative in inner city schools, you might say, "No we can't do that yet, because the majority of the problem concerns middle aged white woman and we haven't helped them yet! It's all or nothing! ?You see how that sounds like a silly position to take? There's a unique problem with assault weapons; there is a unique way solve it; let's do it! Why? Because there's no reason to have them, but plenty of reason not to.

The data is old at this point. The Assault Weapons ban minimized gun deaths, and it shot way up after we took it away. Let's save lives now, because we can, instead of um... waiting for uh... that plan that's going to really solve this.... one day.... all or nothing...er.. ugh.

 

[MaceB]

In regards to hand guns, I definitely support palm print smart guns. That seems like a great idea that could save lives very easily.

 

[Texas Zombie]

You’re wrong that they don’t have any use in civilian life.

Sometimes people don’t hunt for food or sport, they hunt to exterminate a species from their land. I’m talking about people who have farms and ranches. Then, yes a semi automatic firearm would come into use.

Wolves, coyotes, hogs, there is a civilian application.

 

[MaceB]

You’re wrong that they don’t have any use in civilian life.

Sometimes people don’t hunt for food or sport, they hunt to exterminate a species from their land. I’m talking about people who have farms and ranches. Then, yes a semi automatic firearm would come into use.

Wolves, coyotes, hogs, there is a civilian application.

So we should keep these mass devastating weapons because it's too much to ask farmers to shoot predators 1 by 1 instead of mass spraying their horizon? Not very compelling. You're grasping at straws to find a value...
Hypothetical scenarios where farmers either have to take out a gang of thugs or a whole lot of animals super fast (for some unknown reason) won't cut it. Semi Automatic weapons are designed for warfare, and that is their primary and only function.

 

[Texas Zombie]

I’m sorry, but semi automatic rifles actually serve a purpose.
I’m not saying AR format semi automatics or AK’s really need to be around.
But there is absolutely a place for semi automatic firearms in society.

Semi automatic rifles are great for hunting pack animals, semi automatic shotguns are the best home defense weapon you can purchase, and semi automatic pistols are the best option for concealed carry/personal protection.

I’m also pretty sure that semi automatic firearms were designed for civilians and law enforcement before they were even used in warfare.

 

[chaseter]

Lol why would you need a semi auto to exterminate coyotes or hogs? Are they all lined up in a row or are you randomly firing into a crowd hoping to hit? The former is implausible and the latter is reckless and dangerous.

They sell hog traps that are way more effective. Once you fire one shot...they scatter. Not to mention how horrible and inhumane it is to indiscriminately fire without intent to quickly kill. No creature deserves to hobble off and die from blood loss due to a gun shot wound and no one can shoot off 20+ kill shots.

No one needs a semi auto, auto, or high capacity gun. Period.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Bro you’re completely misguided on firearms.

There are literally semi automatic firearms without clips where every bullet has to be loaded. If you’re going to kill three hogs you need a semi automatic or even two coyotes.

You do know that there are semi automatic firearms that don’t even have clips, guns that have 7-8 round capacity.

 

[MaceB]

If you’re going to kill three hogs you need a semi automatic or even two coyotes.

That is so wildly and obviously untrue...

You may want a Semi automatic, but you don't need it.

 

[Texas Zombie]

That is so wildly and obviously untrue...

You may want a Semi automatic, but you don't need it.

You better be an amazingly good shot.

 

[MaceB]

You better be an amazingly good shot.

... to kill 3 hogs? I think most people can manage.

 

[chaseter]

Bro you’re completely misguided on firearms.

There are literally semi automatic firearms without clips where every bullet has to be loaded. If you’re going to kill three hogs you need a semi automatic or even two coyotes.

You do know that there are semi automatic firearms that don’t even have clips, guns that have 7-8 round capacity.

I’m from Texas. I grew up hunting dove, quail, coyote, and hog. I had a 30 30 rifle that held 6 bullets and a double barrel shotgun that held...two shells. That’s all anyone needs to hunt. No one needs a semi rifle with a magazine. If you need 15 shots to kill a deer...you suck. If you need an AR-15 to kill a deer...you suck.

I know what a semi auto is. I have a semi auto handgun in my nightstand. All handguns are pretty much semi auto. Staggered clips and extended clips should be illegal. You don’t need all of those bullets in a handgun. A shotgun is a better home protector anyways...which is in my closet. Not a fan of handguns but it was a gift. I don’t hunt anymore because I think it’s sick and sadistic so the rifle is retired.

 

[Donner]

I’m from Texas. I grew up hunting dove, quail, coyote, and hog. I had a 30 30 rifle that held 6 bullets and a double barrel shotgun that held...two shells. That’s all anyone needs to hunt. No one needs a semi rifle with a magazine. If you need 15 shots to kill a deer...you suck. If you need an AR-15 to kill a deer...you suck.

I know what a semi auto is. I have a semi auto handgun in my nightstand. All handguns are pretty much semi auto. Staggered clips and extended clips should be illegal. You don’t need all of those bullets in a handgun. A shotgun is a better home protector anyways...which is in my closet. Not a fan of handguns but it was a gift. I don’t hunt anymore because I think it’s sick and sadistic so the rifle is retired.

"You suck." . 15 shots to kill a deer is sadly overkill and says a lot more about the "hunter." I grew up in Alberta where hunting is very much a part of life. Not a single one of my friends' have ever used an AR15 to take down a deer or participate in the annual coyote cull.