View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
4713. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,843 60.32%
  • No

    1,870 39.68%
  1. #51201
    The Lightbringer PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    3,846
    Quote Originally Posted by RaoBurning View Post
    Related and wholly appropriate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5beb9f3b47bd

    Surprise, the overwhelming number of guns used in crime in Chicago come from not Chicago. Well, maybe 60% isn't an overwhelming majority, but just imagine Chicago with 60% less gun violence and it still seems pretty nice.
    Your argument presupposes that all 60% of those firearms were illegal in Illinois. If they were not illegal in Illinois, then they could just as (if not more) easily have been purchased in Illinois before being used there in a crime.
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  2. #51202
    Quote Originally Posted by RaoBurning View Post
    Related and wholly appropriate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5beb9f3b47bd

    Surprise, the overwhelming number of guns used in crime in Chicago come from not Chicago. Well, maybe 60% isn't an overwhelming majority, but just imagine Chicago with 60% less gun violence and it still seems pretty nice.
    Some caveats to the information:
    1) Recovered guns, not guns used in crime. No gun, no trace. (You might make the argument that the seized guns are a representative sample, but we don't really know.)
    2) Guns purchased outside the city limits are generally done illegally via straw purchasing. This is easy enough to establish and prosecute, but meh, not worth ATF's time.

    The article mentions NY also, so it's interesting, really. The idea is that tougher gun laws reduce crime, but the evidence seems to be that tougher gun laws send criminals further away to get guns. "Chicago has tough guns laws, but they're useless because 60% of recovered guns aren't even from Chicago" ignores the laws that are broken, but also demonstrates that Chicago criminals will go elsewhere to procure weapons. The idea to make it tough everywhere, rather than like... go into those areas and fix them, is a pretty silly notion to some of us. Infringe on our rights so you don't need to violate the rights of the criminals murdering each other?

    What is the volume in cubic meters of the drug trade through the drug pipelines that happen to match up to these crime areas? Do you really believe firearms wouldn't flow along with them?
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  3. #51203
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by slaskel View Post
    I am not wrong. You are purposefully twisting the argumentation. Chicago having gun laws is inconsequential if Chicago is in a country that does not.

    The US has more gun violence and higher murder rates than any other western nation, and not by a small margin. By an enormous margin.
    I am purposefully correcting your statement. Did France's gun laws prevent the terrorists from shooting and killing some in Paris? If you had stated gun laws can help reduce gun killings, then I would agree.

    And of course in a country which the citizen's have a Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms for self defense, you are going to have more killings from shootings. Just like a country which allows it's citizens to drive automobiles, is going to have more death's from highway fatalities than if they did not.
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2018-08-30 at 09:14 PM.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  4. #51204
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,839
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Your argument presupposes that all 60% of those firearms were illegal in Illinois. If they were not illegal in Illinois, then they could just as (if not more) easily have been purchased in Illinois before being used there in a crime.
    And they are, since unscrupulous firearms dealers will sell to them, and their out of state counterparts, to the extent of the law, since they are governed by demand from the market. Restrict the supply, restrict the amount of buyers, causing less people to purchase firearms, which result in less firearm violence. Voila, you've curbed violence and made federal law enforcement jobs that much easier to interdict and slow the trafficking of drugs, which is the genesis of this entire tragedy in Chicago in the first place.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Some caveats to the information:
    1) Recovered guns, not guns used in crime. No gun, no trace. (You might make the argument that the seized guns are a representative sample, but we don't really know.)
    2) Guns purchased outside the city limits are generally done illegally via straw purchasing. This is easy enough to establish and prosecute, but meh, not worth ATF's time.

    The article mentions NY also, so it's interesting, really. The idea is that tougher gun laws reduce crime, but the evidence seems to be that tougher gun laws send criminals further away to get guns. "Chicago has tough guns laws, but they're useless because 60% of recovered guns aren't even from Chicago" ignores the laws that are broken, but also demonstrates that Chicago criminals will go elsewhere to procure weapons. The idea to make it tough everywhere, rather than like... go into those areas and fix them, is a pretty silly notion to some of us. Infringe on our rights so you don't need to violate the rights of the criminals murdering each other?

    What is the volume in cubic meters of the drug trade through the drug pipelines that happen to match up to these crime areas? Do you really believe firearms wouldn't flow along with them?
    Any patriotic citizen of the US would be supportive of letting the DEA, ATF, and local law enforcement use the lucrative country-wide drug and firearms trade as a means to monitor habitual straw purchasers and dealers.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  5. #51205
    Dreadlord Nigel Tufnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Here lies David St. Hubbins, and why not?
    Posts
    839
    So...

    At what point do you think some shouldn't have the right to possess a gun.

    Is there a minimum age? A minimum IQ?

    Clearly, toddlers shouldn't have the right to bear arms. So - where's the cut-off age for you? 9 or so?

  6. #51206
    Ever see a 9yr old try to buy a gun?

  7. #51207
    Dreadlord Nigel Tufnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Here lies David St. Hubbins, and why not?
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Ever see a 9yr old try to buy a gun?
    No, but clearly a lot of Americans with the mental age of a 9yr old are allowed to buy them.

    So.

    Minimum IQ then?

  8. #51208
    Quote Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel View Post
    No, but clearly a lot of Americans with the mental age of a 9yr old are allowed to buy them. So. Minimum IQ then?
    Clearly you've little idea of what goes on here beyond what the media sold you.
    Try fact-checking what you're told.

  9. #51209
    Quote Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel View Post
    So...

    At what point do you think some shouldn't have the right to possess a gun.

    Is there a minimum age? A minimum IQ?

    Clearly, toddlers shouldn't have the right to bear arms. So - where's the cut-off age for you? 9 or so?
    Seems obvious that like any civil right it fully vests at the age of majority, and is still subject to a good deal of deference before that (i.e. I think it would violate the 2nd Amendment to ban minors from shooting at a range accompanied by an adult).

  10. #51210
    Dreadlord Nigel Tufnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Here lies David St. Hubbins, and why not?
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Clearly you've little idea of what goes on here beyond what the media sold you.
    Try fact-checking what you're told.
    Here's what the media have told me today:



    I laughed.

    A lot.
    Last edited by Thwart; 2018-08-31 at 01:41 AM. Reason: Infracted for spam

  11. #51211
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I am purposefully correcting your statement. Did France's gun laws prevent the terrorists from shooting and killing some in Paris? If you had stated gun laws can help reduce gun killings, then I would agree.

    And of course in a country which the citizen's have a Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms for self defense, you are going to have more killings from shootings. Just like a country which allows it's citizens to drive automobiles, is going to have more death's from highway fatalities than if they did not.
    Why is that even a question? Of course France's gun laws didn't prevent terrorists? But it prevents other crimes from happening, for instance it explains why the US has had more mass shootings in the last 10 years than all other western countries combined through the history of time. If France didn't have gun laws, we'd have seen both the terrorist attacks AND other homicides, the two are not mutually exclusive.

    Exactly, if you allow your citizens to have guns, more people will die. If you prevent your citizens from having guns, less people will die.

    At the end of the day of course the question is "Do the positives outweigh the negatives" When it comes to automobiles.. The positives do outweigh the negatives, a modern society can not function with automobiles, so we have to accept the fatalities related to this. We can and should do everything in our power to make sure the number is as low as possible though.

    When it comes to guns, they serve absolutely no purpose in a modern society. The positives are not even close to outweighing the negatives. So they have no place in a civilized society. For the record, I believe alcohol has no purpose either. It causes enormous amounts of tragedies on so many levels and just like guns, the only "positive" is selfish enjoyment.

  12. #51212
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by slaskel View Post
    Why is that even a question? Of course France's gun laws didn't prevent terrorists? But it prevents other crimes from happening, for instance it explains why the US has had more mass shootings in the last 10 years than all other western countries combined through the history of time. If France didn't have gun laws, we'd have seen both the terrorist attacks AND other homicides, the two are not mutually exclusive.

    Exactly, if you allow your citizens to have guns, more people will die. If you prevent your citizens from having guns, less people will die.

    At the end of the day of course the question is "Do the positives outweigh the negatives" When it comes to automobiles.. The positives do outweigh the negatives, a modern society can not function with automobiles, so we have to accept the fatalities related to this. We can and should do everything in our power to make sure the number is as low as possible though.

    When it comes to guns, they serve absolutely no purpose in a modern society. The positives are not even close to outweighing the negatives. So they have no place in a civilized society. For the record, I believe alcohol has no purpose either. It causes enormous amounts of tragedies on so many levels and just like guns, the only "positive" is selfish enjoyment.
    It does not prevent mass shootings ether. How many dead before it counts as a mass shooting? And the largest number of killed in a mass shooting ( outside of a war zone ), did not happen in the US. Want to guess which country it happened in? But look, I am not against reasonable gun laws and granted, they are necessary and can help reduce crimes committed using them. And more can be done to help keep firearms out of the hands of those dangerous to citizens here.

    But for many here in the US, ( which has over 17 million conceal carry licenses holders and many more who carry and do not need a license ) it is just as important function for having that right to defend ourselves with firearms, as you may consider having the right to drive a automobile. That is not going to change here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but we are going to disagree on several points when it comes to firearms. I am just glad I live in a country which grants it's citizens certain Constitutional rights.

    Firearms in the right lawful hands, can be a great equalizer for the weaker against the stronger attacker for self defense. Pepper spray, while better than nothing, is not always effective as revealed several times in the hands of police officers. And with over 300 million firearms in circulation here, to use a old phrase, the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago. Not going to be able to make that many firearms disappear by just having a law against them, like you can in some countries. We have a process to amend our Constitution and it is not based on popular opinion for a good reason.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  13. #51213
    Quote Originally Posted by slaskel View Post
    Oh so there are walls and guards around US that prevent people with guns from entering the country from Mexico?
    Hey look, I just took your argument and made it to show why gun laws in the US will never work.

  14. #51214
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    Hey look, I just took your argument and made it to show why gun laws in the US will never work.
    So by that logic, should cocaine be legalized as well? I mean if you can't stop it why bother at all right?

  15. #51215
    Quote Originally Posted by slaskel View Post
    So by that logic, should cocaine be legalized as well? I mean if you can't stop it why bother at all right?
    Well since my logic was "this is why gun laws won't work"
    I will say yes, my logic why drug laws don't work is just the same. People seem to get cocaine rather easily and most liberals here would argue it should be legal that we shouldn't put people in jail over it.

  16. #51216
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    But for many here in the US, ( which has over 17 million conceal carry licenses holders and many more who carry and do not need a license ) it is just as important function for having that right to defend ourselves with firearms, as you may consider having the right to drive a automobile. That is not going to change here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but we are going to disagree on several points when it comes to firearms. I am just glad I live in a country which grants it's citizens certain Constitutional rights.

    Firearms in the right lawful hands, can be a great equalizer for the weaker against the stronger attacker for self defense. Pepper spray, while better than nothing, is not always effective as revealed several times in the hands of police officers. And with over 300 million firearms in circulation here, to use a old phrase, the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago. Not going to be able to make that many firearms disappear by just having a law against them, like you can in some countries. We have a process to amend our Constitution and it is not based on popular opinion for a good reason.
    1. Well no, it's not going to change. If it didn't change after Sandy Hook or other events I guess not. This is all about opinion of course, to be it is utterly indefensible and unimaginable how a nation can decide that all these needless deaths are worth the personal enjoyment of having a gun. But obviously you do, so what can I say.

    2. What I can say about this is that no other western nation has its innocent citizens preyed upon by criminals just because they can't "defend" themselves. My country has issues with gang violence in our major cities where shootings happen every month or so, but so far not a single innocent has been shot. Only criminals shooting other criminals. The only attack on a school we've had ever the maniac had to use a sword cause he couldn't find a gun. He was unable to kill more than 2 people, all experts agree if he had had a gun, the death toll would have been several times higher. Thank god he had no easy access to guns.

    3. Well Australia successfully managed to round up their guns and destroy them, the debate in Australia before the gun ban was almost identical to the one in the US, but they decided to act. Now granted I understand that it's easier to smuggle guns from Mexico into the US after a ban than it is to get them to Australia. But it's not a reason not to try save thousands upon thousands of lives in my opinion.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    Well since my logic was "this is why gun laws won't work"
    I will say yes, my logic why drug laws don't work is just the same. People seem to get cocaine rather easily and most liberals here would argue it should be legal that we shouldn't put people in jail over it.
    Kudos to you for being intellectually consistent. I believe guns and cocaine are basically the same thing, serves no purpose in society other than selfish enjoyment and causes extreme amounts of damage - So they should both be illegal and battled with every means possible, regardless of if it seems like an impossible task.

  17. #51217
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I am purposefully correcting your statement. Did France's gun laws prevent the terrorists from shooting and killing some in Paris? If you had stated gun laws can help reduce gun killings, then I would agree.

    And of course in a country which the citizen's have a Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms for self defense, you are going to have more killings from shootings. Just like a country which allows it's citizens to drive automobiles, is going to have more death's from highway fatalities than if they did not.
    If you think for a minute you will realize that if we had readily available guns and assault weapons in France the situation would have been dramatic. Every single knife terrorist attack which failed or killed one person would have made headlines and ended in a bloodbath.

    There are very organized terrorists who will get weapons and bombs no matter what, and even for those having tough gun laws is a huge hindrance because we have on multiple occasions arrested would be terrorists because they were in the possession of weapons, which is a big thing in the EU.

    Those are a tiny fractions of the would be terrorsists.

    Then you have the masses who think about doing a terrorist attack but are not bright enough to get a weapons, or just snap and attack with what they have : those guys have been attacking with knives or pathetic artisanal bombs. In the US each single one of these idiots would have been a deadly threat.

    Using the Paris attacks as an exemple is disingenuous at best.

  18. #51218
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by slaskel View Post
    1. Well no, it's not going to change. If it didn't change after Sandy Hook or other events I guess not. This is all about opinion of course, to be it is utterly indefensible and unimaginable how a nation can decide that all these needless deaths are worth the personal enjoyment of having a gun. But obviously you do, so what can I say.

    2. What I can say about this is that no other western nation has its innocent citizens preyed upon by criminals just because they can't "defend" themselves. My country has issues with gang violence in our major cities where shootings happen every month or so, but so far not a single innocent has been shot. Only criminals shooting other criminals. The only attack on a school we've had ever the maniac had to use a sword cause he couldn't find a gun. He was unable to kill more than 2 people, all experts agree if he had had a gun, the death toll would have been several times higher. Thank god he had no easy access to guns.

    3. Well Australia successfully managed to round up their guns and destroy them, the debate in Australia before the gun ban was almost identical to the one in the US, but they decided to act. Now granted I understand that it's easier to smuggle guns from Mexico into the US after a ban than it is to get them to Australia. But it's not a reason not to try save thousands upon thousands of lives in my opinion.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Kudos to you for being intellectually consistent. I believe guns and cocaine are basically the same thing, serves no purpose in society other than selfish enjoyment and causes extreme amounts of damage - So they should both be illegal and battled with every means possible, regardless of if it seems like an impossible task.
    When it comes to being able to defend myself with a means which is very effective and basically removes the physically stronger factor out of the equation, I really do not care what others in countries outside of the US feel. And yes, firearms are the best weapon to use for self defense if you want to stop the threat. The Founding Fathers of the US understood this principle and it is why we have the second amendment.

    You can not compare Australia to the US. They have a much smaller population and more importantly, did not have a Constitution which guarantees the citizen's right to keep and carry firearms. And Mexico has very strict gun control laws. But piss poor enforcement.

    Guns and cocaine are not the same thing at all. Firearms can be effective and useful for self defense. What does cocaine do for a person other than cause to destroy far more lives each year in the US than guns do?
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  19. #51219
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    Hey look, I just took your argument and made it to show why gun laws in the US will never work.
    Why is the U.S. this magical bizzario country that breaks all the rules of logic and reality in the small minds of people like yourself?

    You seem to mistake people like yourself refusing/choosing not to make changes that would work or not having the will to do so because you're so afraid someone's going to jump you around every corner with it never ever being able to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Guns and cocaine are not the same thing at all. Firearms can be effective and useful for self defense. What does cocaine do for a person other than cause to destroy far more lives each year in the US than guns do?
    And cocaine is really useful for altering your mood in a pleasant way, at least temporarily. So what? They both have huge negatives like the fact that cocaine is massively addictive and bad for your health and firearms are far more dangerous to your personal safety/health then they ever are with regards to self defense. Again you are vastly more likely to use your firearm on yourself or have it used on you, usually by someone you love/know, then ever use it to stop that big meany on the streat corner or baddie who doesn't want to rape you like your paranoid possibly coccaine addled mind thinks and just wants to take your T.V. and leave.
    Last edited by shimerra; 2018-08-31 at 05:59 PM.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  20. #51220
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    [...]
    but the evidence seems to be that tougher gun laws send criminals further away to get guns.
    Yeah, that's fine. If the laws were more strict coast to coast then their options would be Canada, or Mexico. Which leads to:

    What is the volume in cubic meters of the drug trade through the drug pipelines that happen to match up to these crime areas? Do you really believe firearms wouldn't flow along with them?
    Considering a huge chunk of Mexico's guns come from the US, I'm not really that worried, no. There really isn't a reference frame in North America where the US's obsession with guns isn't the problem when it comes to gun violence.

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=103224899
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...302-story.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •