"Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:06 am

Lucky wrote:
Cocytus wrote: We haven't had a good political thread in a while, so here:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... enate-bill

I'm breathing a sigh of relief. Maybe now the absurdly exorbitant prices will begin to normalize.
How does one define assault weapon? Cosmetic features do not seem to be a good way to define a class of weapons, and yet I see gun control laws that seem to do just that. Aren't shotguns the best gun you can get for taking out soft targets like unarmored humans?

How does one define High Capacity Magazine?

Why does magazine size matter? I would think that weight to capacity would matter more then capacity. Weight is what matters when it comes to how much ammunition a human can carry.
Image




Of course, more seriously, the problem is about the magnitude of firepower that ends into the hands of one person.
It still takes more power to stop someone from killing with an assault rifle than with a knife.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:19 am

mojo wrote:i am of two minds regarding armed guards in schools. i think arming teachers, which was actually seriously discussed here following the last school shooting, is borderline retarded. the amount of training it would take to make that worthwhile is so large that it would almost make more sense to take cops and teach them to TEACH, rather than take teachers and teach them to SHOOT. it doesn't help that most of the teachers i had back in high school would be certain to do more damage than good. i seriously believe that, if teachers were armed, the next school shooting would have at least twice as many deaths, although it would probably look hilarious to see 70 year old blue-hairs spraying the room with hot lead.
security guards, even those with gun certification, should not be carrying in schools. i have done the security guard thing many, many times and i know the people who would be walking around our school hallways with guns. YOU DON'T WANT THAT. the vast majority of security guards are not people like me, who simply wanted to have a job which allows you to sit and read on the clock. they're FAILED POLICE OFFICERS. they're a bunch of dicks who LIVE for the sad little bit of authority they receive as a guard, and they lord it over truck drivers and janitors because they can. imagine these jackasses dealing with teenagers (who i understand may have some difficulty dealing with INTELLIGENT people in positions of authority) and doing it with FUCKING GUNS. this is madness.
the only way this works, imo, is with actual police officers. even then, there are going to be problems between officers and teenagers. this way, though, the kids probably get to keep living.

as unpopular an opinion as it is, i actually would be for a total ban on firearms in the usa.
Very good point.
It would be faster to put all teenagers in boot camps, where guards could yell and tout their guns all day long.
Or Battle Royale. You reduce population problem and only keep the most astute teens.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:52 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Image
I would love to see someone actually build and fire that.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Of course, more seriously, the problem is about the magnitude of firepower that ends into the hands of one person.
It still takes more power to stop someone from killing with an assault rifle than with a knife.
Police in the USA have to worry about their pistols being too powerful when used on the average person do to over penetration. That is just your common 9mm and .45 pistol rounds.

The police only need something bigger if they are facing the rare guy in body armor, or a large animal. To this end every police car I know of have shotguns and or assault rifles in them.

You're falling into the old bigger is better trap, and full automatic is a waste on ammo.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:43 pm

Lucky wrote:Thank you for showing you lack of understanding of the problem. I've seen far too many moronic gun control laws that care more what the gun looks like then what it can do be passed.
Thank you for comparing apples and oranges... :)
My stance is that guns should be better regulated, and that most (as in, the majority of) countries with more stringent regulations seem to have lower violent crimes than those without...
You speak of bad laws...
Bad laws are bad, but they are still better than no laws...
Cocytus wrote:Yes, because as people like Nidal Malik Hasan and Christopher Dorner prove, you can ALWAYS trust the police and the army, right?
Exceptions do not make the rules, my friend... :)
And yes, I trust Police officers a lot more than Mr. Joe Shmoe when it comes to gun responsibility...
And how are you defining firepower? Muzzle velocity? Caliber? Rate of fire? What impact do any of the arbitrary "military style" features that make a gun an "assault weapon" have on those? A forward pistol grip does not affect the caliber or rate of fire of the weapon. Neither does a barrel shroud, or a flash suppressor, or a muzzle brake, or a bayonet lug, or a collapsible stock, or a threaded barrel. A high-capacity magazine does affect how much lead the weapon has available, so I'm not averse to regulating that.
I would say muzzle velocity, caliber AND rate of fire...
The paperwork, not to mention the cost (if you've ever seen the Class III table at a gun show) make it not worth my time.
While it IS worth the time for others, and I'm not too sure I want the guy who REALLY, REALLY wants his legal assault rifle to get it...
And while I agree these weapons would still be available on the black market, frankly the amount of "normal" citizens who would know where to get them is staggeringly low...
You yourself articulated it. New laws won't stop every massacre, so employing dedicated security personnel means we accept that reality. Hell, Biden himself admitted there would probably be no impact on crime in general or the possibility of mass shootings in particular.
Ok, so having an armed security guard at the door will not impact (i.e., will not lower) the general crime or possibility of mass shootings...
Then why the hell should we put them there?
If their efficiency is in effect 0% in reducing mass shootings, then why the hell put money on armed guards who may stress the hell out of many students, instead of putting that money on batter education, more social workers in school, who can, by helping troubled students cope with their issues better, have an actual impact on these sorts of shootings?
I often hear liberals say that "even if the gun ban saves just one life, it will be worth it."

Even if armed security saves just one life, won't it be worth it?
If it was a simple case of 1 equals 1, then yeah, I'd say go with the option you like better, but it's not the truth, preventing such happenings, by offering more services to the population, by making sure the general populace is less stressed out, happier, much more balanced mentally, THAT's how you prevent mass shootings...
While we have had a couple here in Canada, they are proportionately much less in number, yet we have no armed school guards...
What we do have, though, are a shitload of social workers...
He injured 20 children with a knife. None of them died. What the gun-control crowd draws from this is that guns make it easier to kill people than knives, which is absolutely true. What the gun-rights crowd draws from this is that no law can deter crazy, which is also absolutely true.
Exactly, I much prefer 20 injuries than 20 deaths...
An frankly, the teachers were incredibly dumb, as two of them with baseball bats could have stopped this idiot real fast while the other teachers took the students to safety, while two baseball bats vs a gun...
Well, not so efficient... :)



But Cocytus and sonofccn's responses both made me think about it, and I believe I may be looking at the issue from the wrong perspective...
Countries who are by nature less violent will have more stringent gun control laws (as a majority)...
If you compare the US's penal system with Canada's, you'll notice that, while our Penal system seems much less harsh (a bit too leniant sometimes if you ask me), our recidivism rates are much lower, because we believe very strongly in social re-insertion, and give our criminals may tools to allow them to come out of prison and insert themselves in society and finally live a good life, while studies show that criminals who go to prison in the US simply come out more hardened than ever...
I guess we like to suspend a carrot at the end of a stick in front of the criminals while in prison, whereas the US prison system beats them with the stick... ;)

I see many of the responses here abound the way of "Well why disarm the innocent civilian in front of the criminal?"...
Valid question...
Let me ask you another one to my US friends:
If your crime rates were much lower, say compared to Canada's, would your guns be less important to you?

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Cocytus » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:59 pm

Praeothmin wrote:
Cocytus wrote:Yes, because as people like Nidal Malik Hasan and Christopher Dorner prove, you can ALWAYS trust the police and the army, right?
Exceptions do not make the rules, my friend... :)
And yes, I trust Police officers a lot more than Mr. Joe Shmoe when it comes to gun responsibility...
I quite agree exceptions do not make rules. And crimes committed with assault weapons are a very small percentage of overall gun crime.

And yes, I am wary of the police as a general rule. That's just me. Call it paranoia if you want.
Praeothmin wrote:
Cocytus wrote:And how are you defining firepower? Muzzle velocity? Caliber? Rate of fire? What impact do any of the arbitrary "military style" features that make a gun an "assault weapon" have on those? A forward pistol grip does not affect the caliber or rate of fire of the weapon. Neither does a barrel shroud, or a flash suppressor, or a muzzle brake, or a bayonet lug, or a collapsible stock, or a threaded barrel. A high-capacity magazine does affect how much lead the weapon has available, so I'm not averse to regulating that.
I would say muzzle velocity, caliber AND rate of fire...
And again I am forced to ask: what effect do any of the banned features have on muzzle velocity, caliber and rate of fire?
Praeothmin wrote:
Cocytus wrote: The paperwork, not to mention the cost (if you've ever seen the Class III table at a gun show) make it not worth my time.
While it IS worth the time for others, and I'm not too sure I want the guy who REALLY, REALLY wants his legal assault rifle to get it...
And while I agree these weapons would still be available on the black market, frankly the amount of "normal" citizens who would know where to get them is staggeringly low...
We're talking fully automatic weapons in this particular instance. That's what Class III means. The assault weapons the left is up in arms over are exclusively semiautomatic. See what I mean? The definition of assault weapons changes from person to person day by day. And we're supposed to build a law on that? And as far as criminals getting them, criminals don't get guns from gun shows. The 1997 National Institute of Justice report on Homicide in Eight US Cities found that around 2% of crime guns came from gun shows. And criminals certainly don't get Class III weapons from gun shows, or anywhere else legal for that matter. Most school shooters are, for whatever reason, disgruntled young males, and they certainly don't have 15,000 dollars lying around to spend acquiring a legal Class III firearm.
Praeothmin wrote:
Cocytus wrote:You yourself articulated it. New laws won't stop every massacre, so employing dedicated security personnel means we accept that reality. Hell, Biden himself admitted there would probably be no impact on crime in general or the possibility of mass shootings in particular.
Ok, so having an armed security guard at the door will not impact (i.e., will not lower) the general crime or possibility of mass shootings...
Then why the hell should we put them there?
If their efficiency is in effect 0% in reducing mass shootings, then why the hell put money on armed guards who may stress the hell out of many students, instead of putting that money on batter education, more social workers in school, who can, by helping troubled students cope with their issues better, have an actual impact on these sorts of shootings?
Biden was talking about his gun control initiative, not armed guards. I don't think armed guards has ever been a component of his initiative. Either way, the presence of armed security is a final barrier at the point of attack, the last resort if other defenses (like new regulations) fail. They are not meant to be mutually exclusive. As for stressing out students, I agree everything should be done to make their presence as minimally invasive as possible. They should be stationed in specialized offices by the entrances, something the students would only ever take, at best, passing notice of.
Praeothmin wrote:
Cocytus wrote:I often hear liberals say that "even if the gun ban saves just one life, it will be worth it."

Even if armed security saves just one life, won't it be worth it?
If it was a simple case of 1 equals 1, then yeah, I'd say go with the option you like better, but it's not the truth, preventing such happenings, by offering more services to the population, by making sure the general populace is less stressed out, happier, much more balanced mentally, THAT's how you prevent mass shootings...
While we have had a couple here in Canada, they are proportionately much less in number, yet we have no armed school guards...
What we do have, though, are a shitload of social workers...
That's great. More power to Canada. Hopefully an honest conversation about mental health can lead to similar changes here in the US. But if we get sidetracked by another pointless conversation about barrel shrouds, well, that isn't going to do anyone any good. Feinstein and her ilk have outlasted their usefulness on this issue. It isn't about protecting children for her, it's about her getting her way and getting her pet legislation passed. She's not the person who should be crafting gun control legislation.
Praeothmin wrote:
Cocytus wrote:He injured 20 children with a knife. None of them died. What the gun-control crowd draws from this is that guns make it easier to kill people than knives, which is absolutely true. What the gun-rights crowd draws from this is that no law can deter crazy, which is also absolutely true.
Exactly, I much prefer 20 injuries than 20 deaths...
An frankly, the teachers were incredibly dumb, as two of them with baseball bats could have stopped this idiot real fast while the other teachers took the students to safety, while two baseball bats vs a gun...
Well, not so efficient... :)
So you're okay with teachers bludgeoning an intruder, but not with guards shooting an intruder? The goal, of course, should be apprehension before anyone can get a shot off. Better security, both technological and in terms of personnel, is a necessity. And again, the job of the people designing it should be to minimize its appearance.

And...
Praeothmin wrote:batter education (sic)
Praeothmin wrote:two of them with baseball bats
Sorry, I'm not trying to taking a cheap shot here, it's just funny.
Praeothmin wrote:But Cocytus and sonofccn's responses both made me think about it, and I believe I may be looking at the issue from the wrong perspective...
Countries who are by nature less violent will have more stringent gun control laws (as a majority)...
If you compare the US's penal system with Canada's, you'll notice that, while our Penal system seems much less harsh (a bit too leniant sometimes if you ask me), our recidivism rates are much lower, because we believe very strongly in social re-insertion, and give our criminals may tools to allow them to come out of prison and insert themselves in society and finally live a good life, while studies show that criminals who go to prison in the US simply come out more hardened than ever...
I guess we like to suspend a carrot at the end of a stick in front of the criminals while in prison, whereas the US prison system beats them with the stick... ;)
I'm not going to contest that our penal system is a laughable farce much of the time. We incarcerate more of our population than any other nation. It's important to note that that wasn't always true. The War on Drugs has driven a huge surge in both the number and length of sentences meted out, and publicly elected judges (which I am adamantly opposed to) are eager to cater to a public hungry for this harsher justice. Now, the US violent crime rate is falling, and Canada does have higher rates of property crime, but the correlation between our expanded incarceration and the reduction in violent crime is shaky at best. Expanded incarceration began in the 1970s, while the crime rate decline has been ongoing only since the 1990s. I've seen numerous studies purporting to explain the drop, everything from access to abortion to the elimination of lead paint. The good news is the rate is going down. The bad news is no-one's really sure why, which makes crafting policy difficult.
Praeothmin wrote:I see many of the responses here abound the way of "Well why disarm the innocent civilian in front of the criminal?"...
Valid question...
Let me ask you another one to my US friends:
If your crime rates were much lower, say compared to Canada's, would your guns be less important to you?
Would they be less important? I'm not sure. For better of worse (I tend to believe better overall, but take your pick) the US has a strong tradition of firearms ownership. People who are enthusiasts and collectors would continue to be. Perhaps fewer people would own them for self-defense if the crime rate were lower. Of course, fewer law abiding citizens owning guns wouldn't have any effect on the crime rate one way or another.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:31 pm

Cocytus wrote:And again I am forced to ask: what effect do any of the banned features have on muzzle velocity, caliber and rate of fire?
None, and I agree this should be changed in the law...

And you know what, we've been exchanging about Assault Rifles, but IMO any automatic or semi-automatic weapons should be heavily regulated as well...
You are correct when you say that most mass shootings have been made by people who legally owned, or had access to legally owned guns...
And what I believe is that these mass shootings would have been less horrible is the killers only had access to Revolvers, for example...
Much lower rate of fire and slower reloading rates mean more chances of people escaping the killer(s)...
Biden was talking about his gun control initiative, not armed guards. I don't think armed guards has ever been a component of his initiative. Either way, the presence of armed security is a final barrier at the point of attack, the last resort if other defenses (like new regulations) fail. They are not meant to be mutually exclusive. As for stressing out students, I agree everything should be done to make their presence as minimally invasive as possible. They should be stationed in specialized offices by the entrances, something the students would only ever take, at best, passing notice of.
Understood...
I thought Biden meant armed guards...
Still, I prefer our solution... ;)
That's great. More power to Canada. Hopefully an honest conversation about mental health can lead to similar changes here in the US. But if we get sidetracked by another pointless conversation about barrel shrouds, well, that isn't going to do anyone any good. Feinstein and her ilk have outlasted their usefulness on this issue. It isn't about protecting children for her, it's about her getting her way and getting her pet legislation passed. She's not the person who should be crafting gun control legislation.
You know what?
After thinking about it, I agree that in the US schools should have armed guards while waiting for the mentality to change...
Then, the Us Government should stop warring everyone and take these funds to hire social workers in all the schools across the country... ;)
So you're okay with teachers bludgeoning an intruder, but not with guards shooting an intruder?
No, I'm ok with the guards shooting an armed intruder if there are no other choices...
I much prefer the case where teachers are able to know an intruder to the ground because the intruder is armed only with a knife and not a gun...
And...

Praeothmin wrote:
batter education (sic)


Praeothmin wrote:
two of them with baseball bats


Sorry, I'm not trying to taking a cheap shot here, it's just funny.
I laughed, I hadn't noticed this mistake... :)
Funny thing is, I had made it in another sentence and had corrected it...
Now, the US violent crime rate is falling, and Canada does have higher rates of property crime
I have to say I will take property crime before high violent crimes any day of the week...
In fact, talking about property crime in Canada, a socialist-Capitalist country where people like to give away their properties to the poor, is akin talking about male-rape: we're not sure we actually believe it's actually a crime... :)
Of course, fewer law abiding citizens owning guns wouldn't have any effect on the crime rate one way or another.
I agree!
A change in mentality is what is needed...

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1640
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by sonofccn » Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:07 am

Praeothmin wrote:If your crime rates were much lower, say compared to Canada's, would your guns be less important to you?
Well speaking honestly I don't think it would change my opinion, speaking for myself I've never felt "threatened", been mugged or otherwise felt the need to draw/use my weapon. Only place I've ever fired any weapon is at shooting ranges. So while I do believe a well armed society is a safe society I do think the nub of the importance goes to something much deeper. My opinion of course.
Praeothmin wrote:And what I believe is that these mass shootings would have been less horrible is the killers only had access to Revolvers, for example...
Perhaps. But a Revolver can still shoot six people and you can have more than 1 gun. Plus he could get speed loaders to cut down on reloading. Ultimatly there is no silver bullet through and I do see your point, every extra second could matter, even if can not concur with it.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:46 pm

@sonofccn: I know about speed-loaders, but it's still slower then replacing a magazine, and carries much less bullets, plus the weapon has a much slower rate of fire in most people's hands, thus less victims...

It would be a step in the right direction IMO... :)

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Cocytus » Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:24 pm

Praeothmin wrote:I have to say I will take property crime before high violent crimes any day of the week... In fact, talking about property crime in Canada, a socialist-Capitalist country where people like to give away their properties to the poor, is akin talking about male-rape: we're not sure we actually believe it's actually a crime... :)
Errm, we south of the border give to charity as well. I just don't want my property given to the poor by someone other than myself. :)

But this kind of strikes me. Is raping a man not a crime in Canada?

As far as revolvers go, you have to bear in mind there's a tradeoff. They have lower capacities, but they often chamber more powerful rounds.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:10 pm

If a man rapes a man, yes, it's a crime...
If a woman rapes a man, she has to be ugly as hell for it to be a crime, because otherwise, it's just "consensual sex"... :)

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:51 am

Praeothmin wrote: Thank you for comparing apples and oranges... :)
Thank you for again showing your lack of understanding. You're likely too high on maple syrup to understand. I realize the kind of power and resources the cartels have must be terrifying.

If this article is correct then you being a Canadian are more likely to have someone break into your home while you are there then someone in the USA.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... rol-lobby/

Rather interesting bit about Canada's gun control seeming to do little if anything to stop crime. Could it be that criminals don't care about laws?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... d-gave-up/
Praeothmin wrote: My stance is that guns should be better regulated, and that most (as in, the majority of) countries with more stringent regulations seem to have lower violent crimes than those without...
And I am talking about you not understanding that regulations that do not effect the weapons most likely to be used in crimes are unlikely to have the effect of stopping crimes. The "assault weapons ban" we are talking about was pretty much worthless. The vast majority of crimes committed with a firearm are carried out with pistols going by the data I've seen put out by the USA government. Basically, laws that target a very select group of rifles and shotguns based primarily on cosmetics are a waste. You have no idea what is being talked about. "Assault Weapon" in this case is just a bunch of buzz words. "Assault Weapons" in this context are basically tacticool "long guns".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_gun

Automatic weapons are a class unto themselves in the USA as far as i can tell.

The latest data I've been able to find is from 2011
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... lent-crime

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=947

http://www.firearmsid.com/feature%20art ... 0crime.htm

The most likely firearms to be used in crimes seem to be low quality peaces of crap or a single model of revolver who's design is as old as dirt.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 83,00.html

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm

This is nice article on how criminals get guns.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

...
...
It is my understanding that areas with the highest amounts of gun control laws in the USA have the highest level of crime, and violent crime in the USA has been steadily dropping.

It is also my understanding that if a person owns a firearm, suicide is more likely for reasons unknown, but this has little to do with crime.
...
...
I'm all for background checks, not letting the general public be able to acquire fully automatic weapons, mandatory training... but targeting tactcool rifles is completely pointless.

You are criticizing us for wanting sensible laws.
Praeothmin wrote: You speak of bad laws...
Bad laws are bad, but they are still better than no laws...
Bad laws are at best a waste of resources, and at worsted endanger those they are suppose to be helping..

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:33 pm

Lucky wrote:If this article is correct then you being a Canadian are more likely to have someone break into your home while you are there then someone in the USA.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... rol-lobby/
Funny how this article doesn't even show his sources...
You must have been too high on gunpowder to notice... :)

Rather interesting bit is that our crime rates are lower than yours...

The steady decrease in violent crimes you guys have noticed?
We have too, yet we still aren't packing heat like you guys...
Guess what?
Police presence and intervention must mean something here, too...
Lucky wrote:Long reply
I will concede I didn't know what the proposed law for banning assault weapons was basing its definition of assault weapons on...
Cocytus enlightened me...


I will continue saying that shooting sprees, like the ones you seem to get a bit of regularly, most often occur with legal, and either automatic or semi-automatic weapons...
Less of those, less loss of life in these instances...
I see very few mass shootings occur with Revolvers...
And honestly, if all you had were Revolvers to defend your home with, do you really think the criminals would go:
"Bah, we can break in and not fear anything, if the home owner here has weapons, he can only have a six-shooter. At worst he kills you and I get away, at best he wings you and we kill him"
Somehow, I very, very much doubt that...

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:36 am

Praeothmin wrote: Funny how this article doesn't even show his sources...
Forbes is a reasonably reputable magazine in the USA.

Praeothmin wrote: You must have been too high on gunpowder to notice... :)
I guess you need to watch this clip to get the joke.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-f ... -syndicate


Do you North of the border types really take maple syrup that seriously in Canada that you can't joke about it?
Praeothmin wrote: Rather interesting bit is that our crime rates are lower than yours...
Canada also has worse weather. Crime rates tend to drop in the winter do to cold and snow.

Canada seems to have a much smaller population per square mile/kilometer then its southern brother. The more people you pack together the more likely you are to have something bad happen. The more people you have as a sample the more crazies will appear.

The USA has also had a similar drop in crime from what I recall. Are you saying gun control laws in Canada helped lower crime rates in the USA?
Praeothmin wrote: I will continue saying that shooting sprees, like the ones you seem to get a bit of regularly, most often occur with legal, and either automatic or semi-automatic weapons...
Automatic weapons are unlikely to be legally obtained.

Teenagers are unlikely to be able to obtain the weapons themselves, and the weapons are often stolen from their parents or otherwise obtained illegally. The guns used aren't exactly cheap by teenager standards.

Praeothmin wrote: Less of those, less loss of life in these instances...
I see very few mass shootings occur with Revolvers...
The events in question are premeditated murder, and the planning and preparation at times done over a period of years. If not guns then bombs, poison, etcetera, and in fact many of these events included bombs.

Praeothmin wrote: And honestly, if all you had were Revolvers to defend your home with, do you really think the criminals would go:
"Bah, we can break in and not fear anything, if the home owner here has weapons, he can only have a six-shooter. At worst he kills you and I get away, at best he wings you and we kill him"
Somehow, I very, very much doubt that...
I don't own any firearms, nor do I feel the need to purchase any for personal protection.

The reason for the Second Amendment to the USA Constitution was to ensure the citizens could rise up against the government should they feel the need arise. The reasoning behind this is no less valid now then when it was written.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:37 pm

Lucky wrote:Forbes is a reasonably reputable magazine in the USA.
Which still cited no sources...
Considering all the times "serious" magazines ran articles that were revealed bogus after fact (in Canada as in the US, we're all equal in bad journalism), I tend not to believe until I see a source... :)
Do you North of the border types really take maple syrup that seriously in Canada that you can't joke about it?
Actually, you can usually joke about pretty much anything with me, like the fact I'm Quebecois, thus french, like the fact Canada has the market on the letters "e" and "h", eh, but in this case I didn't know about the video (and I can't currently watch it as I am at the office)...

It's just that, you sometimes throw lines that may seem like "mild insults", and the way you responded to my posts I thought this was one, thus my "mild insult" about gunpowder (I hope the smiley clued you in to the fact it was meant as a joke?)...
Canada also has worse weather. Crime rates tend to drop in the winter do to cold and snow.
Actually, your crime rates in Minnesota are still higher than ours, yet Minnesota shares the same weather as southern Ontario/Quebec, and the lower prairie Provinces...
And our highest crime rates happen to be in the Coldest places, like the Northwest Territories and Yukon...
Canada seems to have a much smaller population per square mile/kilometer then its southern brother. The more people you pack together the more likely you are to have something bad happen. The more people you have as a sample the more crazies will appear.
Oh really?
Toronto has seen a steady decrease in crime rates in the last 10 years, yet, with 2420.22 persons per square mile, is a densely populated as many large US cities, like Phoenix (2800 per square mile) and Indianapolis (2175), but bigger than Jacksonville (1061)...
The USA has also had a similar drop in crime from what I recall. Are you saying gun control laws in Canada helped lower crime rates in the USA?
I know that, in fact I said that:
Me wrote:The steady decrease in violent crimes you guys have noticed?
We have too, yet we still aren't packing heat like you guys...
and the weapons are often stolen from their parents or otherwise obtained illegally.
And if the parents had more restricted access to guns, so would the kids...
If not guns then bombs, poison, etcetera, and in fact many of these events included bombs.
Really?
Columbine had bombs?
Minneapolis (2012) had bombs?
Binghampton (2009) had bombs?
How many of these mass killings actually used bombs?
The reason for the Second Amendment to the USA Constitution was to ensure the citizens could rise up against the government should they feel the need arise. The reasoning behind this is no less valid now then when it was written.
Well, I disagree with this point of view, but I understand yours better now...
Thanks...

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:28 pm

Praeothmin wrote:If a man rapes a man, yes, it's a crime...
If a woman rapes a man, she has to be ugly as hell for it to be a crime, because otherwise, it's just "consensual sex"... :)
I remember a story of some Russian crazy chick who forced a man to cuff himself to a heater and she kept him for a while, playing with a knife and his dick or something...

Post Reply