View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
4743. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,862 60.34%
  • No

    1,881 39.66%
  1. #58401
    I am Murloc! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    5,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Assault rifle ban in US, was from 1994 to 2004...
    Homicide rates started falling before 1994 and continued after 2004...



    "Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  2. #58402
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    The first part of my response is going to upset you, read it, but please don't stop there - I do want to engage in a fact based policy debate, but I wanted to answer your emotional response with my own - not criticizing you, just wanted to be clear up front. And it's definitely an emotional issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Newsflash: Everyone is.

    And yet the oft-repeated bullshit that you and others just love to post is that anyone who disagrees with you on the subject must care only about guns and have no problem seeing kids shot.

    Which is a fucking lie, borderline libelous, and frankly just an outright pathetic and intentionally-inflammatory response. And you know it is. Which is why you say it.

    And then you wonder why people don't engage with you genuinely.

    If you want to claim the moral high ground on the issue... any issue... then actually exercise your morals, even in the face of something you tend to find distasteful, or else you're no better than the people you claim to hate.

    The whole thing is downright sickening, and sometimes I just can't be quiet on the matter.
    And the gun people side continue to say how sick they are of it, too, yet fail to realize - the simple solution to gun violence would be to eliminate the guns. Factually and objectively speaking, no guns, no gun violence. Extreme? Of course. Unrealistic? In the United States of course it is. But it doesn't make it any less true.

    I have tried to claim the moral high ground - all of us on the side this side have - and we're met with deafening silence on any realistic issues and then having the Second Amendment jammed down our throat. So you come to me claiming I'm a liar, and yet your side knows this simple truth - no guns = no gun violence.

    And every single fucking country that limits guns has enormously lower gun violence. Why is that I wonder? Hmmmmm....

    So don't come at me claiming all your bullshit above. We're tired of grade schools getting shot up. We're tired of malls becoming killing grounds. And we want it to stop. And the only thing to come from your side in the past 30 years is to LIFT the assault weapons ban.



    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    To be honest, the only reason I think I'm even saying anything right now, rather than staying silent, is because I consider you to be a reasonable person on pretty much any other subject. And it's not like it's hard to understand why people can get emotional when it comes to firearm violence. But while reason informing emotion is fine, emotion informing reason is not. And too many people succumb to the latter.
    That's why my position on this topic should surprise you. It should worry you. Because five years ago I was the reasonable person on this issue - hell, I flipped back and forth on it over and over again.

    Not any more. I don't want grade schools shot up any more. No more guns in the U.S. would immediately solve that problem. I know you're going to shrug this off - but you have to see what it's coming to. Formerly reasonable people don't give a shit about gun rights any more.



    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    The Australians even had difficulty making the Australian buyback work. And despite that, there are more firearms in circulation in Australia now than there were before the ban.

    Also, the homicide rate and firearm homicide rate in Australia was already falling even prior to the ban, just as they were in the US. In fact, the US fell more from its high in the early 90s during the same period than Australia did, despite the ban in Australia. Here's a post from 5 years ago...
    Of course they did - but it still worked. Removing some guns lowered the gun violence rate. When you take that data, certainly not absolute (I'm pointing to your arguments here, agreeing with you to a certain point), and combine it with the gun violence data from almost every other country with less guns per capita and more stringent gun regulations, you reach the same conclusion.

    Less guns equals less gun violence. Statistically and factually speaking. Over decades.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Regardless, an Australia-style buyback would be unfeasible in the US. The buyback cost Australia about $400 million for 650k firearms. Accounting for inflation from the mid-90's, that turns into about $1k per firearm. Only about 10% of firearms manufactured in the US are shotguns or revolvers. 40% are semi-automatic handguns, and another 25-35% are semi-automatic rifles. Of the 400 million firearms owned by gun owners in the US, then, probably 25-50% are semi-automatic, so you're talking $100-200 billion for a buyback of that scale. Almost certainly more, actually, as people will probably do what they do when there's a gun buyback: turn in old, broken, cheap guns for a quick payoff.

    That doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether or not people would actually follow through on what they were supposed to do. You'd see mass disobedience, a lot of "my firearms fell out of my boat into the lake, oops", which means we'd be back to relying on enforcement of the law after-the-fact, which is the situation we're already in.

    And even if that all went smoothly, there's actually no real evidence that Australia's buyback had a very significant effect. People like to claim that it did, but scientific research on the subject repeatedly fails to make that finding.

    And you'd surely face legal challenges on the Constitutionality of such a program, which would make it unlikely to succeed. The whole thing is an exercise in futility, from start to finish.
    I'm willing to do the hard things to stop the gun slaughters we see literally every day. Yeah, it would be very fucking hard - but something needs to change.

    Let me ask you a serious question. Honestly, why can't we just get rid of the Second Amendment entirely? We've done so with other Amendments in the past.

  3. #58403
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I'm all for taking all the guns, and then giving back only the ones that make sense.
    I'll bet divining what "makes sense" to someone who is a total brainlet on the matter would be an unironically fun exercise.

    I'm going to guess all the silenced fully-semi-automatic Assault Rifle 47s are not on the sensible list?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    Are these resisters actually contributing to our country and paying their taxes? Or are they freeloading?

  4. #58404
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Homicide rates started falling before 1994 and continued after 2004...



    "Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.
    But you can't ignore the data. And while it was only a tiny portion, you can see that banning the guns lessened the gun violence - which is the point of this discussion, if that makes sense.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rethul Ur No View Post
    I'll bet divining what "makes sense" to someone who is a total brainlet on the matter would be an unironically fun exercise.

    I'm going to guess all the silenced fully-semi-automatic Assault Rifle 47s are not on the sensible list?
    England really has the best model. Rifles for hunting. No semi-automatic of any kind - pistol or rifle. And any remaining guns should be on a national registry.

    Unfortunately, short of full revolution, there is no way to do this. @PhaelixWW and I will go back and forth, hopefully constructively, but at the end of the day, he's right - there is no realistic way to solve the gun problem in the United States. To quote him:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Regardless, an Australia-style buyback would be unfeasible in the US. The buyback cost Australia about $400 million for 650k firearms. Accounting for inflation from the mid-90's, that turns into about $1k per firearm. Only about 10% of firearms manufactured in the US are shotguns or revolvers. 40% are semi-automatic handguns, and another 25-35% are semi-automatic rifles. Of the 400 million firearms owned by gun owners in the US, then, probably 25-50% are semi-automatic, so you're talking $100-200 billion for a buyback of that scale. Almost certainly more, actually, as people will probably do what they do when there's a gun buyback: turn in old, broken, cheap guns for a quick payoff.

    That doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether or not people would actually follow through on what they were supposed to do. You'd see mass disobedience, a lot of "my firearms fell out of my boat into the lake, oops", which means we'd be back to relying on enforcement of the law after-the-fact, which is the situation we're already in.

    And even if that all went smoothly, there's actually no real evidence that Australia's buyback had a very significant effect. People like to claim that it did, but scientific research on the subject repeatedly fails to make that finding.

    And you'd surely face legal challenges on the Constitutionality of such a program, which would make it unlikely to succeed. The whole thing is an exercise in futility, from start to finish.
    He's spot on here.

  5. #58405
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,221
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Homicide rates started falling before 1994 and continued after 2004...
    Not to the same extent... I’m more willing to accept correlation does not imply causation, than the argument that it started sooner for no reason.

    "Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.
    But, that’s what people want banned. It’s not even a mater of length, but rate of fire.

    Edit: Hand gun bans are a none starter... that’s completely unreasonable in US...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  6. #58406
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    "Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.
    They know this and this is a case of working as intended.

    It would give them a convenient excuse to say "see, we didn't go far enough!" when gun crime is not meaningfully reduced by banning long guns. The idea is to work back-to-front on this.

    That is, of course, giving them the benefit of assuming they actually want to do something about violence in POC neighborhoods rather than simply take "toys" away from conservatives.
    Last edited by Rethul Ur No; 2021-04-20 at 11:57 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    Are these resisters actually contributing to our country and paying their taxes? Or are they freeloading?

  7. #58407
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Rethul Ur No View Post
    That is, of course, giving them the benefit of assuming they actually want to do something about violence in POC neighborhoods rather than simply take "toys" away from conservatives.
    You are giving no benefit to anyone, with this assumption. I don’t even have to be overtly charitable, by saying people advocating for gun control, simply want high capacity and rate of fire weapons banned. Even the very assault rifle ban in 94, came on the heels of the Aurora shooting... which used a handgun...

    It’s like people who try to conflate mass shootings, with shit like gang shootings. People do not see hand guns as the issue, for the same reason they don’t see majority of the crime that is committed with a hand gun, as an issue. Even when a mass shooting happens with a hand gun, such as 94, people do not want that repeated with an assault rifle. It shouldn’t be difficult to understand...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  8. #58408
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    It’s like people who try to conflate mass shootings, with shit like gang shootings. People do not see hand guns as the issue, for the same reason they don’t see majority of the crime that is committed with a hand gun, as an issue. Even when a mass shooting happens with a hand gun, such as 94, people do not want that repeated with an assault rifle. It shouldn’t be difficult to understand...
    Honestly, it actually is kind of hard to follow.

    Not to enter into some weird bizarro world where I'm asking you to defend gun violence, but what makes a death by handgun any different than a death by rifle? This isn't really doing much to dispel the notion that inner city violence is not an actual concern for liberals, with the real goal being just to irk conservatives (because Corn Pop ain't regulating some busters with an AR-15, but Cletus has a collection of them). If we're trying to go about this in good faith it'd make sense to me to target what is the actual source of the vast, vast majority of deaths. Are we legislating by feels rather than statistics?

    If you're trying to pull a 5D Reverse UNO Trap Card then I'll give you a polite clap for the effort, but I think it's clear at this point that neither gang violence nor spree shootings are going to change the stance of those who are pro 2A.

    And as much as people on your side tend to hate being corrected, we're not talking about Assault Rifles. Terminology matters because legislation relies on that terminology.
    Last edited by Rethul Ur No; 2021-04-21 at 01:38 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    Are these resisters actually contributing to our country and paying their taxes? Or are they freeloading?

  9. #58409
    Quote Originally Posted by Rethul Ur No View Post
    Not to enter into some weird bizarro world where I'm asking you to defend gun violence, but what makes a death by handgun any different than a death by rifle?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

    The Las Vegas massacre was a pretty good example, I think.

  10. #58410
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

    The Las Vegas massacre was a pretty good example, I think.
    Yet that still accounts for a minuscule portion of all gun deaths. Do they matter more because it was a Country Music Fest and not Hip Hop?

    Shame that Trump would've banned bump stocks were it not for those meddling courts (bump-fired, hi-cap pistols are not unheard of...though bump stocking remains irrelevant to 99% of shooting scenarios because of the inaccuracy and waste of ammunition).
    Last edited by Rethul Ur No; 2021-04-21 at 02:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    Are these resisters actually contributing to our country and paying their taxes? Or are they freeloading?

  11. #58411
    Quote Originally Posted by Rethul Ur No View Post
    Yet that still accounts for a minuscule portion of all gun deaths. Do they matter more because it was a Country Music Fest and not Hip Hop?
    You asked about a difference, I provided an example of the difference between a handgun an a rifle.

  12. #58412
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    You asked about a difference, I provided an example of the difference between a handgun an a rifle.
    Here is another difference the worst school shooting to date in America was done by a Glock 19 and a Walter P22. Neither of which are rifles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

  13. #58413
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    Here is another difference the worst school shooting to date in America was done by a Glock 19 and a Walter P22. Neither of which are rifles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
    So what you're saying is we need to pass a handgun ban?

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  14. #58414
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Rethul Ur No View Post
    Honestly, it actually is kind of hard to follow.
    You can do it, if you try... I believe in you...

    Not to enter into some weird bizarro world where I'm asking you to defend gun violence, but what makes a death by handgun any different than a death by rifle?
    I already said potential. People do not want to see crimes already happening with hand guns, be performed with weapons that have higher capacity and rate of fire.

    This isn't really doing much to dispel the notion that inner city violence is not an actual concern for liberals, with the real goal being just to irk conservatives (because Corn Pop ain't regulating some busters with an AR-15, but Cletus has a collection of them). If we're trying to go about this in good faith it'd make sense to me to target what is the actual source of the vast, vast majority of deaths. Are we legislating by feels rather than statistics?
    No, hand gun violence, that is between criminals or the result of a confrontation with criminals, are simply accepted. Shit happens... you might get struck by lightning... you might choke on a candy... It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about the risk of lightning or chocking hazards. Banning candy and walking in lightning storms, is taking it too far... making it unreasonable... but, warning labels and surge protectors are a reasonable compromise.

    If you want to advocate for banning hand guns, go for it... but, as I pointed out already... Aurora shooting resulted in assault rifle ban, not a handgun ban...

    If you're trying to pull a 5D Reverse UNO Trap Card then I'll give you a polite clap for the effort, but I think it's clear at this point that neither gang violence nor spree shootings are going to change the stance of those who are pro 2A.
    Yes, because despite the rhetoric... banning hand guns is on the far fringe... pretending that it’s just because inner city violence doesn’t matter, is not only ignoring that those are not exclusive to inner cities... but, hurts the NRA advocates, because they have to reconcile those wanting gun control, supporting the second amendment with respect to hand guns. Without the fear mongering of all guns being taken...

    And as much as people on your side tend to hate being corrected, we're not talking about Assault Rifles. Terminology matters because legislation relies on that terminology.
    My side? I don’t have a side... I know that it’s hard to communicate, without a caricature... but, I have no sides...

    Also, to be clear... you are saying semantics mater, not terminology... last time I checked, no one needs a biology class to be against stem cell research. Semantics is a dog shit argument, that doesn’t work in any other regard. How many courses have you finished to support or be against renewable energy? Abortion? Walls? Any other argument or policy? No... this is bullshit semantics... it’s the Chewbacca defense...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  15. #58415
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    You can do it, if you try... I believe in you...

    I already said potential. People do not want to see crimes already happening with hand guns, be performed with weapons that have higher capacity and rate of fire.

    No, hand gun violence, that is between criminals or the result of a confrontation with criminals, are simply accepted. Shit happens... you might get struck by lightning... you might choke on a candy... It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about the risk of lightning or chocking hazards. Banning candy and walking in lightning storms, is taking it too far... making it unreasonable... but, warning labels and surge protectors are a reasonable compromise.

    If you want to advocate for banning hand guns, go for it... but, as I pointed out already... Aurora shooting resulted in assault rifle ban, not a handgun ban...

    Yes, because despite the rhetoric... banning hand guns is on the far fringe... pretending that it’s just because inner city violence doesn’t matter, is not only ignoring that those are not exclusive to inner cities... but, hurts the NRA advocates, because they have to reconcile those wanting gun control, supporting the second amendment with respect to hand guns. Without the fear mongering of all guns being taken...

    My side? I don’t have a side... I know that it’s hard to communicate, without a caricature... but, I have no sides...

    Also, to be clear... you are saying semantics mater, not terminology... last time I checked, no one needs a biology class to be against stem cell research. Semantics is a dog shit argument, that doesn’t work in any other regard. How many courses have you finished to support or be against renewable energy? Abortion? Walls? Any other argument or policy? No... this is bullshit semantics... it’s the Chewbacca defense...
    I'm actually with you Felya, I don't really give a shit about inner city violence either. Glad we've reached an accord.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    Are these resisters actually contributing to our country and paying their taxes? Or are they freeloading?

  16. #58416
    So what you're saying is we need to pass a handgun ban?
    I think it's pretty necessary, for most of USA regions.

  17. #58417
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Rethul Ur No View Post
    I'm actually with you Felya, I don't really give a shit about inner city violence either. Glad we've reached an accord.
    That’s the thing I was trying to explain earlier, although it might have been a different thread.

    Why would you, as a law abiding citizen, ever be shot by a criminal?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by gordon15wp View Post
    I think it's pretty necessary, for most of USA regions.
    It isn’t... well, you have to weight the need versus the actions necessary for the desired outcome. It’s an unreasonable demand. I’m not applying morality... logistics...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  18. #58418
    It's on now.

    Supreme Court grants certiorari on challenge to NY carry permit structure, taking up 2nd Amendment question of the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.

    I'd go ahead an prepare for "may issue" to be obliterated as the constitutional fiction it is. The Court will uphold the state's discretion to require a permit but, IMO, strike down the state's discretion to refuse it on the basis of a state determination of whether or not you the citizen "needs" to carry.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme...se-11619445425

  19. #58419
    Herald of the Titans bladeXcrasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,818
    Looks like Chicago is tired of Indiana's inaction on part of a store linked to an alarmingly large portion of illegal guns the found. Twice ATF inspectors recommended the store have it's license revoked.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/4854619001/

  20. #58420
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    And the gun people side continue to say how sick they are of it, too, yet fail to realize - the simple solution to gun violence would be to eliminate the guns. Factually and objectively speaking, no guns, no gun violence. Extreme? Of course. Unrealistic? In the United States of course it is. But it doesn't make it any less true.
    That's a pipe dream.

    What is going to happen is 3d printed guns will soon become a thing and widespread. Nations that currently ban guns are going to be drowning in guns in 10 years. And there is nothing you can do. And these 3d printed guns will not have a serial number and no way to trace the owner. You actually want to allow people to buy guns and force them to register them so you can track the damn things.

    Your solution, banning guns, actually will turn things into the wild west where noone knows where the guns came from.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I want the ruins of K'aresh for 9.0 as I envision it as Netherstorm on steroids. A broken, shattered world. Eco-domes are stuck on various chunks to protect flora & fauna. I imagine a K'aresh ocean & maybe some islands contained in an eco dome or a snow-capped peak with some jungle valleys in another. Flesh version of Ethereals that never got altered. Space platforms as in Starcraft. Just a totally fantastic tileset & theme that I'd be very keen to explore. They could do some wild things.

Posting Permissions

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