The slippery slope argument

[rightwinger]

 

[Seawytch]

Polygamy, I might add, is counterintuitive to the purpose of civil marriage which is designed for partners to have legal authority to make decisions about each other. Who makes the medical decision in a polygamous marriage? Civil marriage is designed to simplify, not complicate and polygamy would create a civil legal nightmare.

Although...if corporations are people, don't we already have legal polygamy in theory?

 

[eflatminor]

Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism.

Keep limiting those freedoms and eventually, you wake up one day and realize you were wrong.

Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence.

Which is why tyranny never took hold in the past...

Ignorance to history is no excuse.

Take limiting magazines on guns for instance.

So in the mean time we should allow you to pass a law that not only has ZERO effect on criminal use of firearms but in fact puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules?

Pass.

That's not limiting certain small freedoms, it's fucking insane. And to do so would only lead to further restrictions, all of which are unconstitutional to begin with.

There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen!

Tell that to Comrade Fienstien.

You assurances mean nothing.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

He does have an point in the OP about the NRA.

 

[eflatminor]

He does have an point in the OP about the NRA.

A point which neither of you have articulated with any specificity, logic or reason.

But if you really believe that there is no way confiscation is every going to happen, I'd suggest you read up on England and Australia, both of which took firearms from their people. You might look into Diane Feinstein publically-stated goals...or the number of progressive pundits that advocate confiscation.

More importantly, why don't you explain how any of the proposed 'gun control' laws will have any influence on criminals and will not end up putting good people at a disadvantage?

The floor is yours.

 

[Billy000]

Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism.

Keep limiting those freedoms and eventually, you wake up one day and realize you were wrong.

Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence.

Which is why tyranny never took hold in the past...

Ignorance to history is no excuse.

Take limiting magazines on guns for instance.

So in the mean time we should allow you to pass a law that not only has ZERO effect on criminal use of firearms but in fact puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules?

Pass.

That's not limiting certain small freedoms, it's fucking insane. And to do so would only lead to further restrictions, all of which are unconstitutional to begin with.

There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen!

Tell that to Comrade Fienstien.

You assurances mean nothing.

It is true that limiting magazines would not have a significant impact on crime. However, they are unnecessary and are what contributed to the atrocities in AZ, CO, and Conn. Had these shooters had less powerful weapons, the death toll would have been different. Call that conjecture if you want, but It's common sense.

However, all of that is besides the point. It's funny how you believe the slippery slope FALLACY would apply to gun elimination yet you bring up Australia's gun control laws without acknowledging that the nation still allows gun ownership.

Also, England's gun related deaths is less than 100 per year. The US on the other hand has 11,000 gun related deaths per year. Even if you factored in population difference, the stats are still staggering. So yeah, gun control laws, in general, saves lives. Believe that.

 

[eflatminor]

Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism.

Keep limiting those freedoms and eventually, you wake up one day and realize you were wrong.



Which is why tyranny never took hold in the past...

Ignorance to history is no excuse.



So in the mean time we should allow you to pass a law that not only has ZERO effect on criminal use of firearms but in fact puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules?

Pass.

That's not limiting certain small freedoms, it's fucking insane. And to do so would only lead to further restrictions, all of which are unconstitutional to begin with.

There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen!

Tell that to Comrade Fienstien.

You assurances mean nothing.

It is true that limiting magazines would not have a significant impact on crime. However, they are unnecessary...

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement? BECAUSE a magazine ban has no effect on criminals, they are in fact necessary. We KNOW the bad guys will have them, so it is only reasonable that we not prevent good people from having the same. Unless of course you want thugs to have the advantage...

In addition, large cap magazines are necessary (or at least highly desirable) for several methods of hunting (wild boar and varmints for example) and many of the shooting sports (IPSC, 3 gun competition, etc).

Lastly, it's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

and are what contributed to the atrocities in AZ, CO, and Conn. Had these shooters had less powerful weapons, the death toll would have been different. Call that conjecture if you want, but It's common sense.

Your firearms ignorance is showing. High capacity magazines have NO relation to the power of the weapon, only the capacity.

And, given that changing magazines in front of terrified children would have made no difference, you are not able to state that "the death toll would have been different" with any credibility. That's not conjecture, it's a wild ass guess. Then there's the obvious: What makes you think a ban on high capacity magazines would have any impact whatsoever on a crazy person's actions?

There are many millions of high capacity magazines out there. Every low capacity (<10 rounds) can very easily be converted to high cap. Further, magazines are made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can't ban that. That point is, a ban would not have, nor will it, make a damn bit of difference.

However, all of that is besides the point. It's funny how you believe the slippery slope FALLACY would apply to gun elimination yet you bring up Australia's gun control laws without acknowledging that the nation still allows gun ownership.

Bullshit. What Australia faces today is a close to an all out ban as you get. If that's what your're calling "reasonable" gun control, you've outed yourself as a full on gun grabber.

Ain't gonna happen here. No way.

Molon Labe.

Also, England's gun related deaths is less than 100 per year. The US on the other hand has 11,000 gun related deaths per year.

So what? Do you care about HOW someone is killed or the fact that a murder has been committed? Is some that is knifed to death less dead that if they were shot? England has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than the US, a rate that skyrocketed following their gun ban. So much for "effective" gun control.

Further, for all the firearms in America, our murder rate still doesn't make the list of the top 100 countries by rate of intentional homicide. Kinda kills your argument that more guns equals more crime.

Bottom line, it is true that when Americans kill another, they tend to use a gun. That does not mean the gun did it. It's still people that kill, not firearms.

Even if you factored in population difference, the stats are still staggering.

England having the highest violent crime rate? Yes, that is staggering. But what really sucks is that the good English people are disarmed against all those violent thugs. How in the fuck is that a good idea?

So yeah, gun control laws, in general, saves lives.

Which is why Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC...and Mexico for that matter are so damn safe?

Fail.

 

[tinydancer]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go fuck themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

I remember the argument for abortion. It was to deal mainly with unwanted pregnancies due to rape, incest or abortion in case of the health of the mother.

Just a few decades later we have a Planned Parenthood person advocating that even if a baby is born alive after a botched abortion that the mother and the doctor have the right to kill the baby.

At this point in time in the abortion debate, not only have libs rolled the ball down the slippery slope they've dragged out a back hoe and are continuing to dig.

 

[westwall]

Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism.

Keep limiting those freedoms and eventually, you wake up one day and realize you were wrong.



Which is why tyranny never took hold in the past...

Ignorance to history is no excuse.



So in the mean time we should allow you to pass a law that not only has ZERO effect on criminal use of firearms but in fact puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules?

Pass.

That's not limiting certain small freedoms, it's fucking insane. And to do so would only lead to further restrictions, all of which are unconstitutional to begin with.

There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen!

Tell that to Comrade Fienstien.

You assurances mean nothing.

It is true that limiting magazines would not have a significant impact on crime. However, they are unnecessary and are what contributed to the atrocities in AZ, CO, and Conn. Had these shooters had less powerful weapons, the death toll would have been different. Call that conjecture if you want, but It's common sense.

However, all of that is besides the point. It's funny how you believe the slippery slope FALLACY would apply to gun elimination yet you bring up Australia's gun control laws without acknowledging that the nation still allows gun ownership.

Also, England's gun related deaths is less than 100 per year. The US on the other hand has 11,000 gun related deaths per year. Even if you factored in population difference, the stats are still staggering. So yeah, gun control laws, in general, saves lives. Believe that.

To own a weapon in Australia you must show cause. That means the rich and farmers are still able to own guns. That is not "allowing" gun ownership. That is heavily regulating gun ownership. Funny how you missed that.

Secondly the gun homicide rate in the UK is going UP, even after guns have substantially been removed from private ownership. Furthermore violent crime of all types has likewise seen a steady rise.

 

[Billy000]

Keep limiting those freedoms and eventually, you wake up one day and realize you were wrong.



Which is why tyranny never took hold in the past...

Ignorance to history is no excuse.



So in the mean time we should allow you to pass a law that not only has ZERO effect on criminal use of firearms but in fact puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules?

Pass.

That's not limiting certain small freedoms, it's fucking insane. And to do so would only lead to further restrictions, all of which are unconstitutional to begin with.



Tell that to Comrade Fienstien.

You assurances mean nothing.

It is true that limiting magazines would not have a significant impact on crime. However, they are unnecessary...

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement? BECAUSE a magazine ban has no effect on criminals, they are in fact necessary. We KNOW the bad guys will have them, so it is only reasonable that we not prevent good people from having the same. Unless of course you want thugs to have the advantage...

In addition, large cap magazines are necessary (or at least highly desirable) for several methods of hunting (wild boar and varmints for example) and many of the shooting sports (IPSC, 3 gun competition, etc).

Lastly, it's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.



Your firearms ignorance is showing. High capacity magazines have NO relation to the power of the weapon, only the capacity.

And, given that changing magazines in front of terrified children would have made no difference, you are not able to state that "the death toll would have been different" with any credibility. That's not conjecture, it's a wild ass guess. Then there's the obvious: What makes you think a ban on high capacity magazines would have any impact whatsoever on a crazy person's actions?

There are many millions of high capacity magazines out there. Every low capacity (<10 rounds) can very easily be converted to high cap. Further, magazines are made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can't ban that. That point is, a ban would not have, nor will it, make a damn bit of difference.



Bullshit. What Australia faces today is a close to an all out ban as you get. If that's what your're calling "reasonable" gun control, you've outed yourself as a full on gun grabber.

Ain't gonna happen here. No way.

Molon Labe.



So what? Do you care about HOW someone is killed or the fact that a murder has been committed? Is some that is knifed to death less dead that if they were shot? England has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than the US, a rate that skyrocketed following their gun ban. So much for "effective" gun control.

Further, for all the firearms in America, our murder rate still doesn't make the list of the top 100 countries by rate of intentional homicide. Kinda kills your argument that more guns equals more crime.

Bottom line, it is true that when Americans kill another, they tend to use a gun. That does not mean the gun did it. It's still people that kill, not firearms.

Even if you factored in population difference, the stats are still staggering.

England having the highest violent crime rate? Yes, that is staggering. But what really sucks is that the good English people are disarmed against all those violent thugs. How in the fuck is that a good idea?

So yeah, gun control laws, in general, saves lives.

Which is why Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC...and Mexico for that matter are so damn safe?

Fail.

Why would the capacity of a weapon not have anything to do with its power? Is the gun not more effective in that sense? Why is it not acceptable to compromise on capacity on any level?

I never said a ban would have any impact on a crazy person's actions. It's just common sense he would have less sucess using a less powerful weapon (including capacity). The amount of bullets fired in one minute is completely relevant as well. Even so, my assumption about these weapons in massacre situations is no better than your assumption about having the upper hand in a situation of both parties using guns in a confrontational situation.

England having a high crime rate? Based on what? What crimes specifically? We are taking about guns and gun related deaths in the UK. The numbers on that speak for themselves.

There is also no causal link between less control laws and overall crime rate. To suggest that is stupid.

 

[westwall]

... the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence.

Do you really believe that will always be case? Are you willing to bet your life on it?

Yes, I do believe that. I suppose it would be remotely possible if some major catastrophe put the American people in fear. Of course, we are still a free society since 9/11.

This is not born out by historical fact. That's why our Founders didn't put in place a democratic government, instead they developed a representative Republic because that is a more sure way of protecting individual rights. Democracy's are notoriously fickle.

 

[westwall]

It is true that limiting magazines would not have a significant impact on crime. However, they are unnecessary...

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement? BECAUSE a magazine ban has no effect on criminals, they are in fact necessary. We KNOW the bad guys will have them, so it is only reasonable that we not prevent good people from having the same. Unless of course you want thugs to have the advantage...

In addition, large cap magazines are necessary (or at least highly desirable) for several methods of hunting (wild boar and varmints for example) and many of the shooting sports (IPSC, 3 gun competition, etc).

Lastly, it's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.



Your firearms ignorance is showing. High capacity magazines have NO relation to the power of the weapon, only the capacity.

And, given that changing magazines in front of terrified children would have made no difference, you are not able to state that "the death toll would have been different" with any credibility. That's not conjecture, it's a wild ass guess. Then there's the obvious: What makes you think a ban on high capacity magazines would have any impact whatsoever on a crazy person's actions?

There are many millions of high capacity magazines out there. Every low capacity (<10 rounds) can very easily be converted to high cap. Further, magazines are made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can't ban that. That point is, a ban would not have, nor will it, make a damn bit of difference.



Bullshit. What Australia faces today is a close to an all out ban as you get. If that's what your're calling "reasonable" gun control, you've outed yourself as a full on gun grabber.

Ain't gonna happen here. No way.

Molon Labe.



So what? Do you care about HOW someone is killed or the fact that a murder has been committed? Is some that is knifed to death less dead that if they were shot? England has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than the US, a rate that skyrocketed following their gun ban. So much for "effective" gun control.

Further, for all the firearms in America, our murder rate still doesn't make the list of the top 100 countries by rate of intentional homicide. Kinda kills your argument that more guns equals more crime.

Bottom line, it is true that when Americans kill another, they tend to use a gun. That does not mean the gun did it. It's still people that kill, not firearms.



England having the highest violent crime rate? Yes, that is staggering. But what really sucks is that the good English people are disarmed against all those violent thugs. How in the fuck is that a good idea?

So yeah, gun control laws, in general, saves lives.

Which is why Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC...and Mexico for that matter are so damn safe?

Fail.

Why would the capacity of a weapon not have anything to do with its power? Is the gun not more effective in that sense? Why is it not acceptable to compromise on capacity on any level?

I never said a ban would have any impact on a crazy person's actions. It's just common sense he would have less sucess using a less powerful weapon (including capacity). The amount of bullets fired in one minute is completely relevant as well. Even so, my assumption about these weapons in massacre situations is no better than your assumption about having the upper hand in a situation of both parties using guns in a confrontational situation.

England having a high crime rate? Based on what? What crimes specifically? We are taking about guns and gun related deaths in the UK. The numbers on that speak for themselves.

There is also no causal link between less control laws and overall crime rate. To suggest that is stupid.

Murders maybe...the per capita figures are still out, however violent crime is no contest, Wales and the UK are more violent than the USA.


"England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study
England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found."


"As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms. Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says a US academic."

England overall has a much lower homicide rate period 1.2 vs 4.8 for the US, however culteral differences, and the vastly more homogenous population of the UK is more important for those differences.

England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study - Telegraph

BBC NEWS | UK | Why Britain needs more guns

 

[deltex1]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go fuck themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

...... Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy....

No one besides homos wanted gay marriage...and look what's happening now...the slope to Gomorrah...

 

[OriginalShroom]

Anyone who is either stupid, ignorant, foolish, or partisan enough to beleive that there is no such thing as a "slippery slope" is either pretending to be or is ignorant of American Political History.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go fuck themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

Considering that leftists have achieved everything they've ever done through incrementalism, this post trying to tell us there's no such thing is pretty fucking hilarious.

Contrary to your ignorant religious prejudices (Yes, I know that's redundant), polyamory is alive and well outside of the Mormon community. It's a big, bright, diverse world outside your mom's basement and your own imagination. Why don't you try getting out in it and meeting some of the people in it?

New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You: Scientific American

It never ceases to amaze me how, for all leftists' claims to be supporters of sexual freedom and alternative lifestyles, they are the most prudish, straightlaced, cloistered, ignorant, sexually-uptight people outside of Muslims, and even that's debatable.

"Limiting small freedoms doesn't lead to totalitarianism" . . . except in every place that's ever HAD totalitarianism, dumbfuck.

Seriously, you need to have the blood flow to your brain checked by a professional.

 

[westwall]

Anyone who is either stupid, ignorant, foolish, or partisan enough to beleive that there is no such thing as a "slippery slope" is either pretending to be or is ignorant of American Political History.

Of ALL history!

 

[Cecilie1200]

He does have an point in the OP about the NRA.

Chuckles, the only "point" he has in the OP is the one on his dunce cap.

 

[Redfish]

slippery slope----------the same argument that Kennedy and Johnson used to get 58,000 americans killed for nothing in viet nam. or was it the domino theory? same idea.

What is happening in the USA today is that our culture is being destroyed in the name of political correctness----------for some asinine reason we think its wrong if anyone ever gets their feelings hurt for being outside the norm-------accordingly the aberation becomes the norm.

we are living in a sick society. sick societies die.

 

[Billy000]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go fuck themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

Considering that leftists have achieved everything they've ever done through incrementalism, this post trying to tell us there's no such thing is pretty fucking hilarious.

Contrary to your ignorant religious prejudices (Yes, I know that's redundant), polyamory is alive and well outside of the Mormon community. It's a big, bright, diverse world outside your mom's basement and your own imagination. Why don't you try getting out in it and meeting some of the people in it?

New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You: Scientific American

It never ceases to amaze me how, for all leftists' claims to be supporters of sexual freedom and alternative lifestyles, they are the most prudish, straightlaced, cloistered, ignorant, sexually-uptight people outside of Muslims, and even that's debatable.

"Limiting small freedoms doesn't lead to totalitarianism" . . . except in every place that's ever HAD totalitarianism, dumbfuck.

Seriously, you need to have the blood flow to your brain checked by a professional.

It doesn't fucking matter if people outside of the Mormon church, the movement is completely insignificant. It is never going to get anywhere. The fact that you think it will is a testament to your stupidity.

Like most conservatives, you clearly lack any critical thinking skills. Limiting personal freedom does not.lead to totalitarianism. Every country in the world has laws that limit personal freedoms. Are you really so stupid to believe that isn't true? It's so unbelievably pathetic that you generalize liberals as all being the same. You are as dumb as a post.

Just because ONE scientific study has evidence of psychological benefit, it doesn't mean they are advocating for it politically. Get a fucking clue.

 

[eflatminor]

It is true that limiting magazines would not have a significant impact on crime. However, they are unnecessary...

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement? BECAUSE a magazine ban has no effect on criminals, they are in fact necessary. We KNOW the bad guys will have them, so it is only reasonable that we not prevent good people from having the same. Unless of course you want thugs to have the advantage...

In addition, large cap magazines are necessary (or at least highly desirable) for several methods of hunting (wild boar and varmints for example) and many of the shooting sports (IPSC, 3 gun competition, etc).

Lastly, it's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.



Your firearms ignorance is showing. High capacity magazines have NO relation to the power of the weapon, only the capacity.

And, given that changing magazines in front of terrified children would have made no difference, you are not able to state that "the death toll would have been different" with any credibility. That's not conjecture, it's a wild ass guess. Then there's the obvious: What makes you think a ban on high capacity magazines would have any impact whatsoever on a crazy person's actions?

There are many millions of high capacity magazines out there. Every low capacity (<10 rounds) can very easily be converted to high cap. Further, magazines are made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can't ban that. That point is, a ban would not have, nor will it, make a damn bit of difference.



Bullshit. What Australia faces today is a close to an all out ban as you get. If that's what your're calling "reasonable" gun control, you've outed yourself as a full on gun grabber.

Ain't gonna happen here. No way.

Molon Labe.



So what? Do you care about HOW someone is killed or the fact that a murder has been committed? Is some that is knifed to death less dead that if they were shot? England has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than the US, a rate that skyrocketed following their gun ban. So much for "effective" gun control.

Further, for all the firearms in America, our murder rate still doesn't make the list of the top 100 countries by rate of intentional homicide. Kinda kills your argument that more guns equals more crime.

Bottom line, it is true that when Americans kill another, they tend to use a gun. That does not mean the gun did it. It's still people that kill, not firearms.



England having the highest violent crime rate? Yes, that is staggering. But what really sucks is that the good English people are disarmed against all those violent thugs. How in the fuck is that a good idea?

So yeah, gun control laws, in general, saves lives.

Which is why Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC...and Mexico for that matter are so damn safe?

Fail.

Why would the capacity of a weapon not have anything to do with its power?

Because a firearm's power is determined by the caliber of the round (the diameter) and the amount of gunpowder in the brass behind it (and how fast/slow that powder burns). It has nothing to do with the number of rounds that firearm is designed to hold.

Is the gun not more effective in that sense?

Depends entirely on the intended use.

Why is it not acceptable to compromise on capacity on any level?

Because no criminal/crazy will agree to the 'compromise', which therefore ensures your ban on capacity will only effect law abiding citizens, putting them at a disadvantage against the thugs that couldn't care less about your rules.

Now why in the fuck would you want to give criminals an edge?

Further, which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?!

I never said a ban would have any impact on a crazy person's actions. It's just common sense he would have less sucess using a less powerful weapon (including capacity).

This statement demonstrates the insane nature of your argument. One one hand, you acknowledge that criminals/crazies will not follow the law while on the other, you suggest they'll end up with a "less powerful weapon", by which I assume you mean a firearm with less capacity.

Do you not see the contradiction here?!

You cannot make the millions upon millions of existing magazines go away. You cannot ban metal and springs. You cannot possibly think that yet ANOTHER gun control law will all of a sudden be complied with by criminals. So, once again, your proposal only hurts those that obey the law and puts them at a disadvantage against those that don't.

Insane, no?

The amount of bullets fired in one minute is completely relevant as well. Even so, my assumption about these weapons in massacre situations is no better than your assumption about having the upper hand in a situation of both parties using guns in a confrontational situation.

You might want to rethink that statement. Logical disconnect.

But to be clear, I'm not assuming anything. I only state with certainty that criminals will not follow your rules and that putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage is insane.

England having a high crime rate? Based on what? What crimes specifically? .

Violent crimes, which as far as I'm concerned, is the only type of "crime" that really matters. England and Wales have the highest violent crime rate in Europe and much higher than in the US. Violent crimes refer to murder, rape, etc. Lots of articles out there about it.

Just as importantly, the rate of violent crime increased dramatically in England AFTER the ban/confiscation of civilian owned firearms. Same happened in Australia. This during a time period in which crime rates around the world were dropping! Now why would you want that?

We are taking about guns and gun related deaths in the UK. The numbers on that speak for themselves.

Then I ask you again, why do you care HOW someone is murdered? Further, "gun related deaths" include suicides. We're talking about people hurting others, not themselves.

A few facts to consider:
1) Japan, with it's disarmed population, has a combined murder/suicide rate equal to that of the US. They kill themselves FAR more frequently than US citizens (while murdering others far less of course)...but they do so without anyone owning a gun. So please, stop blaming guns for self inflicted deaths.

2) America has the highest rate of firearm ownership in the world and the most guns overall. Yet, there are well over 100 countries, many of which allow NO civilian firearm ownership, with higher murder rates. If guns are the problem, how is that possible?

Once again, are you concerned about murder and other violent crime or just when a firearm is used? Why?

There is also no causal link between less control laws and overall crime rate. To suggest that is stupid

Bullshit. 25 states allow their citizens to purchase a firearm, strap it on and walk down the street. Yet, 4 out of 5 murders in America are committed in the other 25 states with stricter gun control laws. You were saying something about stupid???

Sorry, but if you take the emotion out of it and look at the facts with specificity, you're argument fails. Logic and reason...try it!