OK LIb s, let's think this "assault weapons" ban through with math and logic...

Then you are not too bright for recognizing that I wasn't bringing knives into the discussion.................its called a logical experiment and Im sorry that they prove you wrong and you don't like it. LOL

I could do the same with freedom of speech. I wouldn't be bringing freedom of speech into the discussion, for I would ONLY be using the logic behind freedom of speech to show you that a limitation is not a complete removal of your rights.

Now, if you can prove me wrong, then do so. But so far, you haven't. Since you haven't proven me wrong, it is YOU who looks like the fool, since not being able to prove me wrong provides you with no reason to believe I am wrong!

But you keep trying. We enjoy watching you fail!

 

But so could a nuclear bomb, but we don't let citizens own/maintain them. This limitation didn't remove your right to bear arms...............so how is the limitation on assault rifles going to remove your right to bear arms. HINT: It doesn't!

 

Tell you what... you address the data in the OP and then maybe I'll go along with further diversions.

 

Already did. Now, if you can't address what I said, then just admit it!

 

I am asking you.

Use your brain.

Answer the question.

 

Sorry, but running away from facts isn't anything remotely close to addressing them. I have indulged your funny diversions enough. Now does banning a weapon with a 0.000001% chance of being used in a murder sound like an effective way to deal with crime?

Start there, and try to post some logic rather than shucking, jiving and diverting.

 

Ayuh,... I'm glad yer enjoyin' yer personal circle jerk, with yer circular logic....

If ya manage to get it off, 'n wish to join a discussion 'bout the topic of this thread,...
Maybe I'll engage, but probably not,...

Yer wastin' my time with yer Nonsense...

 

Okay, so then you admit that your previous statement about nobody calling for weapon bans was false?

Don't hold your breath on all semi-auto center fire firearms being banned. That's just a neo-progressive pipe dream.

???

Please quote the exact part of the definition that you linked which precludes a so-called assault weapon from being used defensively.

 

what a moronic post........it is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms...........insanity will lead you to believe yourself, at this point

 

And I already told you. My response was pertaining to this part of your OP:
That leaves us to wonder to consider why so many politicians want these weapons banned. One possibility is that they think it will prevent crime. Based on the numbers, one can see only a fool would believe that. Clearly, there must be some other reason they want to disarm citizens. Any of you liberals wanna take a shot at why?

I did not address your mathematical facts because they don't refute/address the reasons we want to ban assault weapons. My response was concerning your "disarm" comment. Limiting the types of weapons you can own is not being disarmed............you can still own other types of guns. So, we can look at this logically by asking ourselves, "If the gubmint were to ban every single gun on the planet, would we still be able to own knives or any other weapon that is not banned?" The answer is: SURE! And its quite easy to see that limiting the types of guns you can own doesn't take away your right to protect yourself; to bear arms.

But not one of you conservatives is willing to admit it. Not one of you is willing to admit that a limitation is not a complete removal of. If you did, it would expose the lie that's being fed to you.


And to answer your question, but it needs some clarification. You really need to take a more nuanced stance.
Will banning assault weapons effectively cut back on crime.............. theft by conversion with rifles? Heck no
Will banning assualt weapons effectively cut back on crime..............domestic abuse with shotguns? Heck no
Will banning assault weapons effectively cut back on crime...............armed robberies with pistols? Heck no
Will banning assault weapons effectively cut back on crime................. DUI's? Heck no
BUT will banning assault weapons effectively cut back on crime.............mass shootings with assault weapons? HELL YES!
And it will most likely effectively cut back on armed robberies with assault weapons, domestic abuse with assault weapons, theft by conversion with assault weapons, etc. etc. etc.

Will you be happy with this answer. Heck no!

 

Well you are welcome to prove that its circular logic. Whenever I showed you how it wasn't circular logic............you never refuted me.

 

Originally Posted by rexob715
Address my statements first. I have asked you a couple of times how removal of every gun on the planet is a complete removal of your right to bear arms.

Why would you do something like that??? On purpose or because you don't know any better? I clearly asked how removing GUNS was completely removing ARMS. And you claim that I asked about how removing ARMS was completely removing ARMS?? You are joking me, right??

Dont try to get away from what's in black and white. I expect that an adult would be forthcoming with an answer for their deception.

 

Originally Posted by rexob715
"And thirdly, you do realize that EVEN IF he were to ban every single gun on the whole planet, it still wouldn't remove your right to protect yourself and your possessions."

Well prove its wrong/moronic. Saying it is, doesn't make it so, nor does it provide evidence to support your claim to those that don't believe you.

And the right to keep and bear arms is..................wait for it, wait for it..................your right to defend yourself and your property against tyranny. A little more nuanced than the bold above, but this was the substance of my comment.

Im still waiting for someone to tell me how a limitation on the types of guns you can own is actually a complete removal of your right to bear arms???
How are you going to tell me they are the same, when its clear that the limitation placed on your freedom of speech(by not being able to yell fire in a crowded building) is not a complete removal of your freedom of speech.

 

False comparison. It isn't illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is illegal to try to cause a riot or stampede...much like it is illegal to murder someone with a gun. If the mere act of yelling fire in a crowded theater were completely verboten then it would, in fact, be an infringement of free speech.

Also, you're mischaracterizing the issue. Nobody can take away someone's right to free speech or to arms. They can infringe on those rights but people still have the right even if they aren't able to exercise it.

 

The shotgun wasn't connected with the shooter. The AR-15 was found in the shooters car. There were 4 handguns found inside the building according to the news. Funny how things change when one party wants to make a point isn't it.

 

My point was that you are not allowed to do such things which will cause a riot or stampede. Yelling fire in a crowded building when you know there is not one can cause a riot. Now, you couldn't call that limitation an infringement on your rights.......as if it completely removes them. You didn't have the right to cause a riot in the first place. So, it can't be an infringement on your rights.

I never claimed that someone can take away someone else's right to free speech or to arms..................so Im not quite sure how I mischaracterized something that I agree with?

 

Right, but you're trying to compare that to restricting firearms. A proper analogy would be to compare causing a riot by yelling fire (which is a crime) to committing a crime with a firearm not merely possessing one. Like I said, to ban the act of yelling fire in a theater in and of itself would in fact be an infringement on the right to free speech.

Then what was the point of your question?

 

where does the Citizen draw the line against government intrusion. bub, it's common sense that keeps me from screaming "fire" in a theater, not the law.........that's responsible practice of Rights. Guns? I'm responsible with my Rights. I don't go around brandishing a firearm anywhere I go. I don't let others handle my firearms without express consent (adults only) What I don't have by my bedside is locked away. there are no children here. I will use it as a last resort for self-defense for my wife and myself. She is also trained. As a matter of fact we took the training together.
What I own doesn't matter in the big picture, just as long as I'm safe and the people around me are safe as well.
What's the issue, lil feller ..you fraidy things go bang bang?

 

First of all this just shows how short sighted and ignorant Pro gun people really are, because your math is based on a big fat absence of information relevent to the subject. Like how many of those 196 million guns are actually in the hands of private citizens, or sitting on a shelf in a store, or in stock in a warehouse? Then there is the lack of information on how many of these guns see any actual use, how many have actually been fired & used in any kind of an event, much less a murder.

According to recent statistics, given that all gun types are included, there are 89.9 guns for every 100 people in the US, and yet less than 20% of the population actually own a gun, so you can easily conclude that majority of gun owners own a heck of a lot more than just 1 gun. If a gun owner uses a gun, it will be at the most 2 at a time, given he ambidexterious and a total kook, so it easy to conclude that most of his/her guns are NOT being used most of the time at all.

My point is your argument is like trying to include parked cars in a driving statistic, there may be 2 and 1/2 cars for every man, woman, and child in this country, but not all of them are in use or on the road, so they would only serve as a water down tactic if you wanted to show how few car accedents there really are in this country. The stradegy is shallow and laughable.

If you want to make an argument that hand guns kill more people than Military rifles, I would completely agree with that, but I would still want Bushmaster, AR-15 mass production ended and taken off the streets, because 16 Arora CO. + 26 New Town = 42 dead people from just 2 incedents involving those kind of weapons. That's not counting all the other rifle only deaths, so it clear it needs to be stopped, and if you pro-gun people can't do anything to stop it other than excuse and justify it in some morbid way, you are not showing you have the responsable mind set needed to keep those devices safe, and you don't desrver to keep them at all.

 

Last time I looked there were 10,000 people murdered in this country by hand guns, About twice that number committed suicide. There are more than 1million instances of armed defense in this country every year. So at a minimum for every person murdered by a gun, there are at least 100 people alive because they had in their possession a gun of some sort.

Rexob the question asked is stupid as the founders clearly intended that the wepaon of choice for the members of the militia be a gun of some sort. Interesting that they had the foresight not to limit the guns people were expected to defend themselves and there country with to one specific type or model, indicatingthat they understood that over time weapons would get better and more effective.

 

ahhhhhhh a black powder freak......."You can only own muskets and cap and ball pistols because that was what they used in 1776"
The BoR is intended to be protected, not dimantled because of some weepy eyed liitle girl crying "There might be a wolf inside" ...how droll........and I've stated it before, I don't scream fire in a theater because common sense tells me not to, not because of some explaination from the Courts......
You do realize that some of us have more sense than that.
It is often said that we compare others to our own personal measure. Since you demonstrate a distrust for smart people, it could be said that you don't trust youself, so you don't trust others.....Pro-gunners trust themselves first, and unarmed civilians last. Just because you are afraid of guns, terrified to the point of paralysis, then everyone else should be?
And are you senseless, are you one of those that would scream fire in a theater and only stopped because the SCOTUS told you not to??

 

Spot on. In another thread, a kook liberal said when he thinks of assault weapons, the first thing he thinks of is a little girl shot from one. Huh? The people you mentioned, along with freakazoids like the one I mentioned, are far too mentally unstable or irrational to take place in any reasoned debate on the 2nd amendment.

 

Hilarious stuff. Just to be generous to you, let's spot you a one hundredfold increase in likelihood an assault weapon will be used to murder someone. So now there's a 0.023071428% chance an assault weapon will be used to murder someone.

Wow, what a game changer.

Now let's get a good laugh at your "equation", as it's pretty entertaining.

You've left a few things out. Most notably, the actions of fringoid kooks. You've also still avoided the probability factor, 0.023071428%. You've also failed to show how an sort of ban would have prevented these crimes.

You also made a rant about me not including all the other rifle deaths. Umm... NO. I used the FBI's number on the total number of murders committed with rifles, you you screwed up on that one too.

Finally, about this nonsense about me not deserving to have whatever sort of guns you are babbling about. I have several weapons. None has ever been used in any sort of crime, nor harmed a human being in any way. So tell me about your logic in deciding what I do or do not "deserve". Along with that, tell me who you are to make determinations about "deserve" when you are so clearly ignorant about guns.

 

Wikipedia actually does a very good job of defining an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" which are not the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Basically we can say that the definition of an "assault weapon" is established by law but the firearms addressed are not assault rifles as they don't have a fully automatic function selector. Additionally, while a military assault rifle always uses an intermediate size cartridge (i.e. between a pistol and a regular rifle round size) under the law this criteria doesn't seem to be a limiting factor.

Under the law we basically end up with a definition of an assault weapon that has nothing to do with an assault rifle except basically appearance. "It looks scary so we should ban it" seems to be what the gun control advocates propose while completely ignoring functionality.

From my own perspective it's stupid to restrict firearm ownership based upon appearance. It doesn't reduce lethality based upon function (e.g. a .223 hunting carbine that wouldn't be identified as an "assault weapon" is just as deadly as a .223 Bushmaster) nor would it have any impact on reducing criminal acts in the United States. There was no correlation to reduced murder rates in the United States when the Brady Bill was in effect for example.

At the sametime I find that "assault weapons" that are defined as semi-automatic carbines are not the best firearms related to self-defense.

For home protection a pistol or pistol grip shotgun with a folding stock (which could be called an assault weapon under the law) are far better than a Bushmaster for example. Bringing a "long-arm" (rifle, carbine or regular shotgun) to bear on a target in the closed environment of a home is problematic and as these weapons are designed for much longer ranges. A person needs something short and easy to handle in a limited space while rifles and carbines are really designed for targets 50-200 yards away,

If we address having a firearm in public, which would require a CCW, we're basically addressing pistons.

Even for the extremists that worry about "threats both foreign and domestic" then a far better firearm would be something like a 30-06 bolt action rifle with a scope and a silencer as we would anticipate guerilla warfare as oppose to open combat. A sniper rifle is the most effective firearm in such cases and the actions of a sniper would allow the acquistion of fully automatic firearm. This is, of course, based upon my opinion as veteran if the US Army. As a soldier I would fear someone with a 30-06 with a scope and silencer far more than I would someone with a Bushmaster even if it had a scope and silencer (BTW a silencer on a semi-automatic isn't nearly as effective as one on a bolt action rifle and the Bushmaster doesn't have the range of a 30-06)

So the arguments both for and agianst "assault weapons" bans are really based upon "appearance" and not functionality IMHO. There are those that like firearms like the Bushmaster because it's scary looking and there that oppose ownership of firearms like the Bushmaster because it's scary looking. It's all about scary looking from both sides of the debate.

 

Good points!! Thank you!!