How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

I only call it "Irrelevant argument" to be civil. But it's more than that. The proper characterization would be "stupid argument". The argument that guns can't "spontaneously" kill people on their own and, therefore, we shouldn't punish guns, is the most idiotic that gun advocates ever came up with. The fact that guns make it incredibly easy to kill people is the question that is being addressed.

 

Oops! I was actually starting to take your arguments seriously. My mistake!

 

See "Irrelevant argument 5"

Civil rights?????

The 5 civil rights protected by the Constitution are speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Which one of those needs to be amended by anything I propose?

 

Golem, I generally agree with you but trying to ban guns is a non starter, it hands political capitol to the right and ensures that ZERO rational gun legislation will ever have a chance of being discussed. I actually think gun nuts love it when a school or mass shooting happens because they know they are going to make political hay off of it.

Ninety percent of American's support "Universal Background Checks", but it can't even make it to the table because the gun lobby starts the "their banning gun's" mantra.

 

Not "whatever".... You made two (at least two... that I can remember) idiotic uninformed statements. This is the moment when an adult who expects to be taken seriously in future debates in this forum retracts them. Not for some absurd teenager dismissal like "whatever..."

On the other hand, if you don't expect to be taken seriously, then we won't...

 

Says the guy that thinks most of the illegal guns in Mexico come from the US.

 

Do you want to ban butcher knives, too?

 

And the right to keep and bear arms.

 

You think banning assault weapons is a non-starter? I disagree. And the polls I have seen show that a range between 65% and 73% of Americans agree with me. Including a majority of Republicans.

I wouldn't go that far.

And that is a strawman. I started my post saying that I don't believe it's possible to ban all guns. The gun lobby will use that mantra . regardless.... But did you read what i propose? I think those are ALL things that the majority of Americans would support. But what American's would support is not the problem. Whether or not legislators are willing to do what Americans support, even if it means losing NRA money for their campaigns, is the real issue.

BTW, I always make it clear that MY personal position would be to ban all guns. The reason I do this is to avoid going down the rabbit hole that the strawman from the gun lobby you quote poses, and instead focus on the REAL measures I propose.

 

This kind of shyte needs to be banned as well.

 

Like banning drugs? How did that work out?

 

IF those polls are from CNN or most MSM your not going to convince anyone from the gun lobby.

I think you have your head in the sand, every time there is a shooting, from my perspective, the gun lobby get's stronger.

It's not a strawman, it's "knowing what can be done and what can't, and recognizing the difference. I did read your proposals and, frankly, some of them are reactionary and wouldn't stop the madness. Not all guns and gun owners are "licensed"; I don't even know what that means. I agree with other posters that banning guns in America isn't going to happen, nor should it. I've been on both sides of the fence when it comes to "assault weapons", what it comes down to is a pipe with a bullet in it is deadly and offers NO second chances.<-period How you "furnish" that pipe doesn't make it less deadly. But, on the other side, how you "furnish" a pipe can make it more dangerous.

I think we've lost our way, there are too many movies and songs that totally misrepresent what fire arms are, their purpose and how they must be respected. I'm a "boomer", my Dad and Uncles came back from War 2 with first hand knowledge of all aspects of firearms; safety, implementation, safety, deadliness, safety, handling, safety, care, safety, storage, safety ... safety ... safety ... safety. AND they passed it on to their children. We've lost that.

Without belaboring the point, I think the NRA needs to get off it's ass, stop being so ******nn political, and get back to training people how to use firearms and use them safely ... and the consequences if they don't; that "was" their original mission.

Rather than attack guns, we need to educate and care for PEOPLE. The founders put gun-right's into OUR Constitution because more than anything they feared tyranny. Banning guns is a bandaid that may cost us Government By the People. Investing in people's education, including guns is what These United States should be doing.

Passing laws that insure gun owners know how the phuk to use them, are mentally competent and responsible is not outside OUR Constitution, banning guns probably is.

Your approach is misguided and upside down.

 

Your point is well taken.

What we lack, what is the root of the problem, is that the "popular" image of guns and gun ownership is ... W R O N G!!!!

WE need to get back to responsible education for all gun owners. We've come to a point where this should be a requirement before a purchase is allowed.

 

They're from EVERYWHERE. But you keep insisting on convincing the gun lobby. There is no point in convincing the gun lobby. It's their JOB to deny facts. They are smart people and the lobbyists themselves, personally, I'm sure realize that everything they say is B.S. So why make any effort to convince them?

Let's convince the people. And polls show that they ARE convinced. What we actually need to convince the people of is that it matters enough to sway their vote. Because it IS that important.

It means that gun owners must pass proficiency and psychological tests, as well as background checks before they are allowed to purchase a gun. Gun advocates who CAN pass those tests have no problem with that.

Then you shouldn't worry about that.

That would be ideal. To solve this we need to work with sensible people who CARE about solving the problem. The current NRA only cares about catering to gun manufacturers and sellers. So the first step might be to just make it costly for manufacturers and sellers to act irresponsibly.

No. They didn't. See "Irrelevant argument 5". I'm still not convinced that you read the OP in its entirety. But one thing we DO need to do is remove that false MYTH from people's minds. So let's see what we can do about compromising with gun advocates. But let's do it based on facts, and not on old wives' tales.

 

self-defense is a very different situation

 

Sorry, but there are real constitutional problems with quite a bit of this.

 

Well said. Reminds me of personal anecdote. As a substitute high school teacher i used to explain to the kids that while the rules say no corporal ;punishment they don't say anything about capital punishment.

 

Your ground rules say most cogent and rational arguments against your proposal aren't allowed. In keeping with that I will respond with just one that seems allowable. You probably put quotes around assault weapons wittingly or unwittingly for a reason. That is probably because there is no rational of effective way to define assault so a ban on assault weapons would be a law of man, not of law. My knife is an assault weapon. A shovel is an assault weapon. A bird shot, 22, or even paint ball rifle is an assault weapon. So how would you have it defined? The old fashioned way -- any weapon that Sen. Feinstein doesn't like the looks of?

 

Don't apologize. Just see Irrelevant question 5

 

Hmmm. I am not so sure that it is harder to drive a car through a parade route or a playground vs shooting people with a gun. Nor am I sure that the body count would be less. It seems to me that the body count could likely be higher with the car, particularly if they choose their target wisely. The one in Paris killed 80 or so. With a typical school rampage killing 8 or 10, it is not hard to envision killing at least that number with a car. It doesn't even take much in the way of imagination, and hell, they may even escape to kill again.
A Short History of Vehicles Being Used as Deadly Weapons (nbcnews.com)

Just because you call this argument irrelevant, does not in fact make it so. A person hell bent on creating carnage has a wide range of options at their disposal, and a vehicle is a particularly easy and widely available option.

 

So that means all you could come up with was one of those irrelevant arguments?

You are correct. "Assault weapons" doesn't mean weapons that can be used in an assault. It's shorthand for a complete set of weapons. And this is why it's in quotes. We don't need them "defined", in the dictionary sense of "definition". We just need to make a list of them. And we can probably list some of them by type or characteristics, but a list will do just fine too. Any weapon that is designed or can be modified to kill many people in a short amount of time should be included. How many people in how much time will be up to experts to determine. Any weapon that you use just to scare off a robber, needs not be included. What in between those should or should not be included will also be determined by experts. And if, upon making that list, we err, let's err on the side of saving lives.

 

I am always amazed how the liberal body employees these idiotic metal attitude ideas towards children then are amazed when these same children have no idea how to live in the real world.

 

I could take the time to refute every point, and I kind of want to, but knowing your ultimate goal is to repeal the 2A and ban all civilian ownership of guns, I'm not going to bother, except to make two points.

One:


One of these is categorized as an "assault gun". The other is not. However, because assault rifles are only defined by their looks, in reality, these two rifles are functionally identical. But one looks black and scary, and the other does not.

OK, so I guess I don't know how to post pictures. This forum is absolutely an antique, as I should just be able to drag and drop, but notwithstanding that, what you would have seen in the pic is an AR-15 "type" weapon, and on the bottom is a run of the mill rifle with a wooden stock that many think of when hearing the word "rifle".

But once you take their clothes off (technically called "furniture"), it's the exact same gun. So even if you get AR-15s banned, AR-15 functional equivalents still won't be.

Second- You have a SERIOUS obsession with wanting to get rid of assault weapons. They make up, grand total, less than 3% of the total homicides in our country. Even if you succeed at getting them banned, the homicide rate will be largely unchanged when you factor in the margin of error and the variability. In other words, it won't accomplish a thing.

 

I too had a difficult struggle trying to post pictures. IIRC it turned out a copy and a CTRL-V paste in the forum post works.

 

It's harder to kill more people with a car. You can send quite a few of them to the hospital. But most of them will get out of the way.

In any case, this guy didn't use a car. He used a gun.