why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

Ummmm, shall I confuse the issue with facts? Numbers based on "a lot of civilised countries" (aka Europe)...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...en-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."
In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting a study that directly compares Russia and Norway looking exclusively at gun control laws - and completely ignores the living conditions represents facts about what happens when you take guns away?

No law is worth much if the law is ignored.

I'm talking about taking guns AWAY from people. If America was like Norway, we wouldn't need to do that. Well, it would still result in fewer deaths - but on a much smaller scale.

I'm also not suggesting that rampant crime and ignoring the law is a good thing to support while we do something about guns.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/6...g-about-gun-control-and-universal-health-care

There's something I pulled out of my ass, just like you.

I wonder if you think a debate is about posting link after link, instead of actually making an argument?

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/gun...e_and_other_studies_that_confirm_the_obvious/

Here's another one.

Oh, so many "facts".

I love this kind of debate. Really makes me feel smart.

Well, it's been fun - but I'm afraid my interest in this kind of debate is zero.

Have fun all!

DArtagnan said:

If you think you get to decide what would happen without guns, then you're right - we have no framework.

I can only carry a reasonable debate with reasonable people.

That said, I'm not talking about specific cases pulled out of a hat - but about the excessively simple logic that without guns - fewer people would be killed, because guns are so easy to kill with.

If you really think that everyone in the world who has ever shot someone would kill even without a gun - then you're…. not realistic.

To use your "impressive" approach, why don't you describe what you think would have happened during the Breivik incident without guns? Maybe the Sandy Hook incident?

Explain how so many people would have been killed without access to guns.

Click to expand...

People have incredible creativity when it comes to violence, you know. You want numbers? I can happily oblige with a variety of locations, intents, situations, what have you.

9-11. 3000+ dead. Not a gun to be found.

Tokyo subway. 13 dead, 50+ severely injured, literally thousands with temporary problems. Not a gun to be found.

Ted Bundy. 30 estimated victims. Never used a gun for any of them.

Timothy McVeigh. 168 dead. Never drew the handgun he had thru the entire chain of events.

Your own example, Breivik. 9 dead before he ever left Oslo, not a single bullet fired at that point.

Perhaps we should roll back to before gunpowder was weaponized? A simpler time, indeed, when your dream of no "simple killing" was in full effect:
The Crusades. estimated dead, 1-5million. Ain't be no guns.

edit- and since you mentioned Sandy Hook, I should probably offer up Nanping- 8 children dead by knife. China has a draconic gun control policy in place.

DArtagnan said:

No law is worth much if the law is ignored.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!! You are 110% correct. It is already a crime to use a gun for violence except in self-defense. Thus, all those people you're looking to save are ignoring the law. Your solution? Pass a law.

You've got to be kidding me. Not that complex, indeed.

dteowner said:

So then, you favor regulations to protect people from themselves. Where does that stop? When does personal responsibility come into play? For now, it appears that a significant portion of society (and the vast majority of snarky Euros) has decided that the line belongs just below guns. Why? Cuz they know best. Logic for it? Don't need no stinkin logic. When do we get far enough down the Pareto of Death (trademark pending) that we're satisfied?

Click to expand...

Um, no - and you just continue to play games. I knew you would - I was asking for honesty and wasn't getting it, and knew you would only use it as a stepping stone to more 'talking points'. Oh well, pretty typical - no interest in honest debate, just scoring points.

And there is a difference between PERSONAL responsibility and the responsibility to safeguard others in your care. That would be accountability.

As a nation we have decided that we have the right and responsibility to safeguard those unable to safeguard themselves, namely children. Guess who dies most from poisonings and ingesting toxic chemicals? Children ... and in fact in 2008 it exceeded the number of deaths from motor vehicles!

So ... I think it is not unreasonable to say that parents are not doing the best job safeguarding kids from poisoning themselves.

Also, there are numerous things we do to try to maintain safety and prevent death in the general population - drunk driving, texting while driving, traffic rules, and so on. Those all restrict personal action for what is seen as the greater societal good.

Logic games can be fun. This one, however, has been played to death in a thousand arenas besides this one. Don't get me wrong, the mental exercise you guys are getting is good (and that may indeed be the point), but does anyone expect to actually change someone else's mind in this debate?

In the USA here is actually the situation: Gun rights is a major touchstone in the ongoing debate between two miserably entrenched groups of thought. Neither is willing to compromise, either because the available compromise isn't enough, or because agreeing to a reasonable compromise now will lead to an unreasonable compromise down the road. Neither of those two sentiments is unreasonable from either point of view.

Don't get me wrong, as I do value the input from both the pro and anti sides. (Anyone who can't stomach a strong argument from the opposition probably has serious issues) But at the end of the day are we any closer to "solving" this issue? And if we aren't, what are we willing to do to change that?

Pretty tough to work on a problem when one side freely and openly admits they're being dishonest in their negotiations. So what do we do to change the status quo, which suits nobody? I would think negotiating in good faith might be a nice place to start.

dteowner said:

Pretty tough to work on a problem when one side freely and openly admits they're being dishonest in their negotiations. So what do we do to change the status quo, which suits nobody? I would think negotiating in good faith might be a nice place to start.

Click to expand...

The laughable lie of total bans as a desired negotiation outcome is a right-wing talking point espoused by loudmouth liars like Rush Limbaugh who believe that talking loud and fast is more important than the truth. If you want to play that game, than you need to accept that 'your' side fundamentally is dishonest - they claim mental health is the issue, yet refuse to allow anything that would actually let that happen. They claim they want enforcement of laws, yet work to allow illegal purchases on a regular basis. Ultimately, the same people who think it is patriotic to give up our fundamental freedoms in order to protect from terrorists would rather that we continue to have rooms full of dead children than someone not be able to walk out of a gun show with a small arsenal paid for in cash with no ID.

I don't believe EITHER of those, but the reality is that there are a few extremists on either side who believe BOTH. So if you want to keep putting forward the total ban thing, you need to accept that 'the right' is negotiating from a point where gun ownership trumps right to life.

I think that the spurious total ban argument is the only weapon dte has left because it's he only one he has been using for a while now.

txa1265 said:

I am not sure if you don't speak English or are not in possession of the intellect required to engage in a discussion related to 'facts' or if your statements are made ironically … but it is clear that you are so wrapped up in your (obviously right wing) politics that you are trying to obfuscate basic physical principles in order to confuse the discussion … not sure it is worth trying.

So instead, a basic challenge. Please describe to me the fundamental design purpose of a gun.

Click to expand...

"Gun kills", That's pigeonholing the issue, typical half-brainer viewpoint. let me answer you question. A gun is compact tool capable of delivering tremendous force at a distance. Yes, it is powerful tool, capable of injuring and killing. But it is just a tool, neutral, neither good nor evil on the moral plane because it is not capable of harming anyone by itself. The central issue is the beholder of this tool, or any tool. If one has the intent to kill, anything could turn into a weapon. Which is the first cause? Killers kill or Guns kill, which makes more sense?

Now tell me the fundamental design purpose of 2nd Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

and don't get on the high horse about your "English" or "intellect" while using brain dead hypothetical example such as this, "Two people who are starving come across a meal on a table. One is closer and gets to it first, the second one still wants it and tries to take it away (setting an attack/defend context). They both have 9mm pistols, and simultaneously shoot each other dead." See the image you conjured up about gun owners through these words, having guns and ammo yet starving? Where could this have happened? All gun owners are just trigger happy, right? Never heard of an armed society is a polite society? The irony! Only idiot would wave a gun. Now, if indeed what you described happens, I would be joyful that the world just lose two idiots.

"American by choice"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

I'm all for a total ban - if we're talking about people not in authority.

COMPLETE and total ban, yes please.

Yesterday i read a story that made me sad…

A 14 year old kid, straight A student at school, thought it was a good idea to buy a gun online. It was only an alarmgun that doesn't shoot bullets. He wanted to try if the gun would be able to shoot real bullets. It turned out the gun could.

His mother found him, but he was already dead.

I will never, ever, own a gun.

Just me 2 cents

Yeah, I make this shit up. Video proof, champs:
http://www.infowars.com/video-democrat-admits-obama-agenda-is-total-gun-ban/

From the same article, which conveniently grabs a few of the more notable examples:

Back in 1995, current Attorney General Eric Holder called for authorities to “brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

In the same year, current California Senator and gun control pioneer Dianne Feinstein told 60 Minutes, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Click to expand...

Yeah, I make this shit up.

How about some quotes from leading leftie mouthpieces?

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).

Click to expand...

Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.

Click to expand...

[Peter] Jennings: And the effect of the assault rifle ban in Stockton? The price went up, gun stores sold out and police say that fewer than 20 were turned in. Still, some people in Stockton argue you cannot measure the effect that way. They believe there's value in making a statement that the implements of violence are unacceptable in our culture.

[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" — quote — to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Click to expand...

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999, at C3 (quoting Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)).

Click to expand...

Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran is proposing a wide-ranging package of laws that would make the state's gun control regulations among the strictest in the nation and says his ultimate goal is a ban on handguns.

Click to expand...

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).

Click to expand...

Yeah, I make this shit up.

How about Thrasher's favorite propaganda site?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process#

We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.

I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I'm sure you don't either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I make this shit up.

Wow, you really are desperate and pathetic. Same old crap again and again. Don't you think that I could come up with an equal number of GOP quotes from those who (a) threatened violence against the president based on gun control and/or (b) say that tragic deaths are actually part of the 'leftie conspiracy to take away guns'?

Though unlike your constant reliance on the same tired marginal cases and GOP talking points sites, I have no interest in that.

Because as I said - the main important thing is that these cases are on the fringe.

But since you are engaging solely in playing political trap games again and again it really seems evident you have no interest in a discussion ... which is sad.

That's not an outright ban. I see the right wing paranoid propagandists have brainwashed you again…

On a related note, corporate mind control has taken over Los Angeles talk radio. It's all now conservative despite listeners not wanting it. KTLK, the only progressive talk radio show, has now changed to rightwing liars Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, because its conservative owners are trying to brainwash the public. The law to require equal airtime needs to be brought back.