Assault weapons ban

[The Rabbi]

All the time. I'm a hunter and virtually all my friends hunt. I own 8 guns myself.

And as I did answer, the clips are not illegal, so there is no reason anyone would have hid them.

Of course I realize anyone could get clips and bring them here. What has that got to do with the discussion? People do not need 30 round clips so most people just don't care.

The reduction from 10 to 7 is just silly though. What is the point there?

What does it have to do with the discussion? Everything. Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted. So the ban is useless.
P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.

What a load of shit. Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.

Well, dense anyway.
Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology

 

[Snookie]

Again, the ban is pointless- prove it's not a pre-ban clip.

The laws than ban magazines put the burden on the state, to prove that it was manufactured after the ban was enacted.
Good luck with that.

All this time I thought conservatives believed in the rule of law.

 

[Snookie]

What does it have to do with the discussion? Everything. Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted. So the ban is useless.
P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.

What a load of shit. Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.

Well, dense anyway.
Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology

Gun bunny gibberish! LOL.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.

Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?

 

[Snookie]

Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.

Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.

Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

Those who have committed violent gun crimes, murdered or attempted to murder don't routinely get out of jail and recommit violent crimes ?

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, the ban is pointless- prove it's not a pre-ban clip.

The laws than ban magazines put the burden on the state, to prove that it was manufactured after the ban was enacted.
Good luck with that.

All this time I thought conservatives believed in the rule of law.

How does that demonstrate otherwise?

 

[The Rabbi]

What a load of shit. Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.

Well, dense anyway.
Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology

Gun bunny gibberish! LOL.

The firearms business is old and technical in nature. Anything old and technical develops a vocabulary that is not meaningful to the uninformed outsider.

 

[Underhill]

What does it have to do with the discussion? Everything. Anyone could go and get "clips" of any capacity anytime he wanted. So the ban is useless.
P.S. you aren't really a gun owner if you use a term like "clip" unless you're referring to an M1 Garand.

What a load of shit. Everyone I know uses the term clip and I live in one of the most gun dense parts of the country.

Well, dense anyway.
Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology

I don't claim to be a weapons expert. The difference is academic and has no bearing on the conversation.

 

[Underhill]

Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

Those who have committed violent gun crimes, murdered or attempted to murder don't routinely get out of jail and recommit violent crimes ?

It all depends on when and where it was committed. But most states have much harsher mandatories than in the past. The same is true at the federal level.

There are exceptions.

And it's a tough call when you consider the actual numbers. Most murderers never do so again (most are crimes of passion never to be committed again). The same cannot be said of rapist and thieves or especially child molesters.

Here is one example among many...

Low Recidivism Rate Reported For Paroled NY Murderers

 

[Snookie]

The laws than ban magazines put the burden on the state, to prove that it was manufactured after the ban was enacted.
Good luck with that.

All this time I thought conservatives believed in the rule of law.

How does that demonstrate otherwise?

LOL. Surely, you are joking?

 

[Spoonman]

Seriously? Almost every law on the books has mandatory sentences far harsher than at anytime in US history.

Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

 

[Snookie]

Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

I understand, you're omniscient.

 

[Underhill]

Is that why convicted murder William Spangler was out and free to ambush and shoot 4 firefighters, killing two of them last month ?

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

Here is a bit of simple math for you. In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen. Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year. That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half. Now there are only half as many guns to steal. Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

Here is a bit of simple math for you. In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen. Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year. That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half. Now there are only half as many guns to steal. Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.

Your conclusion supposes many things that cannot be supposed.
The most obvious:
-If the banned guns are not part of the 300k stolen guns, the 300k number does not change
-If the banned gun are part of the 300k stolen, it assumes that other kinds of guns will not be stolen instead.

 

[Spoonman]

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

I understand, you're omniscient.

omnipotent as well

 

[Underhill]

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

Here is a bit of simple math for you. In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen. Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year. That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half. Now there are only half as many guns to steal. Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.

Your conclusion supposes many things that cannot be supposed.
The most obvious:
-If the banned guns are not part of the 300k stolen guns, the 300k number does not change
-If the banned gun are part of the 300k stolen, it assumes that other kinds of guns will not be stolen instead.

It wasn't perfect. But my point is valid. Gun laws can affect criminals.

Taking your points, I would say that yes, other guns might be stolen. But since the point of gun laws (such as the assault weapon ban) is to keep those guns out of the hands of criminals, I would say the laws were affective.

I have problems with gun bans for other reasons. Logical reasons. But this nonsense about criminals not following gun laws needs to stop. It simply makes gun owners look dense.

 

[Spoonman]

There are always exceptions to the rules. Nothing is absolute.

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

Here is a bit of simple math for you. In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen. Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year. That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half. Now there are only half as many guns to steal. Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.

here's another fact for you. in 1970 under the controlled substances act marijuana became a class 1 drug and had increased penalties for its possesion. did that reduce its availability by half? do we have less avaialble today? the minute you take legal guns out of the picture, the black market grows. now you have no gun control. you have turned a legal, constitutional right into another drug war. gangs will love you for it. and not one gun will be registered. you do nothing but open up a gold mine for illegal activity.

 

[Underhill]

one thing that is absolute is that criminals or anyone intent on utilizing a gun for violent purposes will pay absolutely no attention to any law, ban, limitation put on guns. laws already exist that they ignore. passing more laws, making laws stricter impacts no one but law abiding citizens. and all it does is inconvenience them.

Here is a bit of simple math for you. In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen. Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year. That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half. Now there are only half as many guns to steal. Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.

here's another fact for you. in 1970 under the controlled substances act marijuana became a class 1 drug and had increased penalties for its possesion. did that reduce its availability by half? do we have less avaialble today? the minute you take legal guns out of the picture, the black market grows. now you have no gun control. you have turned a legal, constitutional right into another drug war. gangs will love you for it. and not one gun will be registered. you do nothing but open up a gold mine for illegal activity.

This would be on my list of reasons why I'm against bans.

But nobody, including liberals of the darkest shade, believes that criminals will follow gun laws. It's a nonsensical argument.

I think pot should be legal too. But that is a separate thread...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here is a bit of simple math for you. In 2010, 300,000 guns were reported stolen. Probably more went unreported but we'll use those numbers.

That is 300k guns in the hands of criminals in one year. That means, at that rate, there would be 3 million guns in the hands of criminals in 10 years.

Now magically through some weapons ban, reduce the number of legal guns by half. Now there are only half as many guns to steal. Reducing gun theft, if not proportionally, dramatically.

So criminals do not have to obey gun laws for them to affect them.

Your conclusion supposes many things that cannot be supposed.
The most obvious:
-If the banned guns are not part of the 300k stolen guns, the 300k number does not change
-If the banned gun are part of the 300k stolen, it assumes that other kinds of guns will not be stolen instead.

It wasn't perfect. But my point is valid. Gun laws can affect criminals.

CAN effect, sure -- if they do what you think they will do.

Thing is, as their desire and motivation to get a firearm is not limited by any particular loyalty the rule of law or moral code, they usually will not. There are no 'assault weapons'? I'll steal a shotgun.

That criminals do not follow the law is a valid counterpoint to any law that only affects those that obey the law.