Do you support the outright ban of "assault" rifles?

[pr_capone]

Simple...

yes or no.

This thread brought to you by a comment in DC stating we would be surprised by how few people in DC would support the ban. Figured we might as well get numbers.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

This is the problem I have. Forgoing freedoms on hunches and correlations is not smart policy.

I know the goalposts will move the second I post this, but it's what police groups routinely say could have a tangible effect on what shooters are able to accomplish.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It's also what virtually everybody, including the NRA, calls them, so I'm going to just go with that and forego the Orwellian bullshit.

It is not Orwellian bull shit, it is fact. Just because the NRA has fallen into the trap of allowing the opposition to set the definition does not mean I am going to. Assault weapons are already illegal. Period.

Nonsense. We pull this off with cars easily.

Honestly, we should be able to trace every bullet fired and every gun used. That will open up all sorts of doors for law enforcement.

You cannot seriously believe it would be that easy to trace every single bullet. The logistics of trying to do so would be a bit more than you realize.

And frankly, I cannot believe anyone actually wants to be scrutinized, traced and policed to this extent. The government is not your friend, despite what the people running it have been telling you. Again, a history book would go a long way into helping you understand human nature and how all of this is a horrendous mistake.

[gonefishin53]

It's pretty scary when media and political elites insist that semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines are not a deterrent to marxist/progressive tyranny.

IMO, regulating irresponsible parenting would do more to reduce violent crime than regulating deterrents to marxist/progressive tyranny.

I'd increase parental responsibility by making parents more responsible for their children's education through voucher based education choice. I'd also limit the number of children irresponsible parents could have by mandating tubectomies and vasectomies when someone becomes the parent of a child they can't provide with food, shelter, and clothing after their second mistake.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The magazine limit is only one of a few things I'd support, which collectively could potentially lower the number of shootings we have in the long run.

"Collectively could potentially lower"

I'm still not seeing the justification.....

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Fish

"Collectively could potentially lower"

I'm still not seeing the justification.....

Well, you won't support funding of gun violence so we have to think probabilistically.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well, you won't support funding of gun violence so we have to think probabilistically.

Why do we have to think probabilistically? Defining it like that sounds like you're grasping at ever shrinking justification for something many people aren't convinced is a big enough problem to warrant federal action..

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Fish

Why do we have to think probabilistically?

Because the research on the issue is sparse and a lot of it is outdated. The NRA has choked off funding from the CDC and NIH should they ever entertain researching gun violence.

Here.

[htismaqe]

Assault rifles are already illegal.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Because the research on the issue is sparse and a lot of it is outdated. The NRA has choked off funding from the CDC and NIH should they ever entertain researching gun violence.

Here.

Why can't Citizens Against the 2nd Amendment and The Society for the Elimination of Constitutional Rights do their own research? Maybe they can convince the nation that it's important enough to put restrictions on gun ownership that an amendment is worth passing.

[listopencil]

I'm just going to drop this in here. I haven't researched it, I haven't validated it, but it looks cool and helps my side of the argument so this is definitely the place to drop it off:

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Why can't Citizens Against the 2nd Amendment and The Society for the Elimination of Constitutional Rights do their own research? Maybe they can convince the nation that it's important enough to put restrictions on gun ownership that an amendment is worth passing.

Tons of folks do research. But none of it is going to have the funding and comprehensiveness of a full scale CDC and/or NIH study.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Tons of folks do research. But none of it is going to have the funding and comprehensiveness of a full scale CDC and/or NIH study.

**** off you worthless shitbag, seriously **** off

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Tons of folks do research. But none of it is going to have the funding and comprehensiveness of a full scale CDC and/or NIH study.

Is there a law against comprehensiveness or funding levels for private research? If not, then just try harder. Quit trying to use everyone else's money to push your political agenda. This is very similar to your VAWA effort.

[rockymtnchief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Tons of folks do research. But none of it is going to have the funding and comprehensiveness of a full scale CDC and/or NIH study.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

Here's a good place to start.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well, you won't support funding of gun violence so we have to think probabilistically.

This is where your argument falls apart...

There are only about 400 deaths via rifle every year...

MAYBE 50-75 or less are from Semi-Auto rifles with a high capacity magazine....

So by going from 30 to 15 rounds in each magazine, how much do you think that will reduce those 50 deaths? 1? 2?

You are seriously talking about taking away the liberties of 300 million Americans, infringing or taking away their basic instrument (defensive semi-auto rifle) to prevent MAYBE a handful of deaths....

And the sad truth is that criminals and evil people and the insane maniacs will just find a way around these laws...

So in essence, a law like this ON PAPER maybe saves a handful of lives per year at most, and the cold reality is that it doesn't even do THAT. All it does is reduce the law abiding man's defensive weapon into a lesser piece of equipment.