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.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

I 100% support the ban on any more crybaby gun threads for the rest of eternity.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by frazod

Perhaps you should get an assault rifle and then go shoot the priest that ****ed you up the ass all those years ago. Perhaps then you could come to grips with all your issues at once and not be such an annoying douche all the time.

damn man thats almost a new worthy signature.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by frazod

Perhaps you should get an assault rifle and then go shoot the priest that ****ed you up the ass all those years ago. Perhaps then you could come to grips with all your issues at once and not be such an annoying douche all the time.

The one constant with you is that if someone doesn't agree with you then they are a douche.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

The one constant with you is that if someone doesn't agree with you then they are a douche.

I know a few people on this board that do not belong to a church or believe in god .That would agree with that post. Stargazer Dave Lane can be a big disrespectful douche when it come to religion. Hes knows it & enjoys that roll.
I'm with frazod. Their is more to Stargazers disgust & hate for religion,than just science.
Was it the big bang?











OR WAS IT THE BIG BANG?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

I know a few people on this board that do not belong to a church or believe in god .That would agree with that post. Stargazer Dave Lane can be a big disrespectful douche when it come to religion. Hes knows it & enjoys that roll.
I'm with frazod. Their is more to Stargazers disgust & hate for religion,than just science.
Was it the big bang?










OR WAS IT THE BIG BANG?

Ask Sheldon.

Don't get me wrong, I like Frazod. Everything's all fanatical now and I'm not down with if you're not with me, you're against me. There's a gray area. Unfortunately instead of looking for answers there, it's the porta-pody.

[LiveSteam]

Unless you are bat shit crazy/Their is no grey area on this issue.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

No, I need it for when that commie scum Obama and his army of O-bots come for my other guns.

And, you know, plinkin'

[frazod]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

The one constant with you is that if someone doesn't agree with you then they are a douche.

We disagree often. I don't remember calling you a douche.

Would you feel better if I did?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

You cannot and will not accomplish that goal by banning the weapon least used in killings. Focusing on mass shootings when they only make up around 1% of all murders in the US is ridiculous.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ommon/1778303/

You are essentially saying that it is ok to limit and regulate all law abiding citizens numbering in the millions if not 10's of millions because of how 1% of all murdered people die.

I cannot agree with that. Yes, we can take a very monkish view of life where every single life spared, regardless how small or at what cost, is worth it. I would rather deal in reality where I am more likely to die in an auto accident than I will in a mass shooting. The same reality where I am more likely to be mugged or have my home broken into than I am at being within 100 miles of an active mass shooting.

That's a fair point. The deadliest shootings tend to be ones with assault weapons, however.

Weighing that against the fact that they have no practical usage, and I have trouble justifying their usage in the hands of civilians.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

I guess I don't understand why banning "assault" rifles is something you would support at all when it the previous ban did nothing to curb violence.

The previous ban was weak sauce. It had 600 exceptions, and did nothing to address the assault weapons already in circulation.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The previous ban was weak sauce. It had 600 exceptions, and did nothing to address the assault weapons already in circulation.

So now you're advocating taking firearms from law abiding citizens?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by petegz28

So now you're advocating taking firearms from law abiding citizens?

Of course he is~

[rockymtnchief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's a fair point. The deadliest shootings tend to be ones with assault weapons, however.

Weighing that against the fact that they have no practical usage, and I have trouble justifying their usage in the hands of civilians.

I bet your vehicle goes over 75 mph. Theres no practical usage in it, unless you're a race car driver. They kill more than guns. I want your rights infringed on. Please give it to the government asap.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

To be honest, it's a lot of research papers and a lot of broken links.

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Problem here is with every study, they've got another study that refutes it or shows insignificant data. It's a matter of who you believe.

Academic studies come with their weaknesses and their strengths.

But you can either claim the entire field is inherently inadequate and therefore should be ignored, or you can admit to a growing bevy of research that supports the idea that a gun culture brings with it more gun violence.

I do love the confirmation bias I run across religiously on CP: a dozen studies pointing towards a conclusion can be dismissed as inconclusive -- but if we can post one anecdote where a gun owner defended himself from harm, well then that's the story that should guide future policy.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Things like combining homicides with suicides into a "gun death" statistic that has nothing to do with current proposed legislation

I don't care about proposed legislation. I care about what could be smart policy.

Originally Posted by listopencil

or artificially combining two stats (guns used in self defense by women versus guns used to kill women) that don't correlate to imply a nonexistent causation

It implies a correlation.

Originally Posted by listopencil

using stats for all firearms to justify banning a specific subset of one type of firearm

Swing and a miss.