ImageImageImageImageImage

OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

Moderators: mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule

LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#81 » by LoyalFan » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:52 pm

yaboynyp wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:i like facts and figures. black and white. so lets talk some simple definitive gun facts


there are enough guns currently in circulation in our country that every man woman and child can have at least 1 gun. that means well over 300 million guns. for every gun, semi automatic, they come with 1-3 magazines. that means anywhere from 300-900 million magazines. for every gun owner that buys a gun that uses magazines they always buy extra, from 2-10 extra magazines on top of what comes with the gun when they purchase them. in particular to the ar15 magazine there an online retailer named budsguns who recently sold 3-5 years worth of ar mags in a 72 hour period. this is on top of the easy estimate of 2-3 billion already in circulation. magazines are also not serialized nor are they tracked. also the modern gun magazine holds between 11-19 for a pistol and 30 for a rifle.



so now that we have those numbers out there lets ask some questions. 300(+) million guns in circulation already. easily 2/3rd of them are semi automatic that hold magazines that hold 11 or more rounds. we can make a safe guestimate that there are easily more than 2 billion magazines for various guns, and honestly easily double that number, already in circulation

what type of law do you think can possibly be passed that will have any effect on gun violence given those numbers. this country estimates 11k gun related murders, give or take a few less than drunk driving deaths.



what kind of law do any of you think can honestly be passed. or even better. do you think this is a "law" solution or a moral humanity solution

do you think it is justified to punish the majority for the acts of the few


Some restrictions may help some people, none of the restrictions being proposed are draconian in nature (universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole etc), is gun violence not a problem in the US? Do we not owe it to our society to try?

Just because laws are difficult to enforce doesn’t mean you just throw your hands in the air and say forget about it..




do note that i said only 2 of his options were a problem. the assault weapon band as well as magazine restriction are draconian. draconian and useless.
i did not say the laws were difficult to enforce. i said they were literally impossible. and the majority of the people you would enforce them on, people who dont break laws, is pointless.

drugs are illegal in this country. how effective has that ban been for us. how much has it cost the country to enforce that ban?
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 16,144
And1: 1,334
Joined: May 06, 2001

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#82 » by ORANGEandBLUE » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 pm

You can't have any laws without an impact on innocent people's rights. Even the most basic law- against murder- occasionaly infringes on innocent people's rights, because people are falsely convicted.

If you're position is that there is no balance between order and liberty- that it's better to let 1,000 (+) crimes occur than to infringe on one innocent person's rights- then you are not an opponent of gun control. You are an opponent of law and civilization. You are an anarchist.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#83 » by LoyalFan » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:01 pm

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:You can't have any laws without an impact on innocent people's rights. Even the most basic law- against murder- occasionaly infringes on innocent people's rights, because people are falsely convicted.

If you're position is that there is no balance between order and liberty- that it's better to let 1,000 (+) crimes occur than to infringe on one innocent person's rights- then you are not an opponent of gun control. You are an opponent of law and civilization. You are an anarchist.



that is a very creative stretch of the imagination and i applaud it.

the fact of the matter is the debate is truly about banning assault rifles and magazines over 10 rounds. neither of these things makes the public safer in any shape or form. its that simple
if the debate was about banning handguns i would have much more respect for the argument. THEN you would simply be talking about making people safer. you still run into the pesky 2nd amendment but the intentions could at least be looked at as genuine.
AndroidMan
Veteran
Posts: 2,953
And1: 262
Joined: May 06, 2010
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#84 » by AndroidMan » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:07 pm

yaboynyp wrote:
AndroidMan wrote:I've stayed away from this thread for a reason, as I'm aware the anti-gun people will keep flinging their nonsensical arguments(GONYK,Hawthorne, and others) What I will say is that I'm extremely impressed at arguments brought forward by alphadogz. He makes good cases not only for how inept the law will be, the deeper problems of society, but also for how corrupt our government really is. We had our spats, but alpha has really impressed me with his knowledge over some of these subjects, well articulated. Of course E86 usually lays some solid points down as well. Continue the discussion while I get popcorn.

Will even give a shout out to lliiknicksiill33 and ballboy loyalfans for solid arguments.


Nobody cares….


You cared enough to respond, and I didn't even mention you. Are you still angry about me refusing to talk to you from the other thread?
User avatar
moocow007
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 97,532
And1: 24,984
Joined: Jan 07, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
       

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#85 » by moocow007 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:16 pm

While I'm neither for or against this bill per se, my question is this...what's the plan to help prevent the Adam Lanza, Dylan Kliebold, Eric Harris, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Chos of the world? Sure taking away the favored method for people like these to commit their crimes are nice and all, but at the end of the day, the killers are still very much there...and more importantly...there are other ways to kill people besides shooting them. So instead of going out with a mass shooting bang, is it ok if they go out over a long period of time with rope and knife and stalking the unexpected victims? The mental health system, the child protective services, the educators that are supposed to help identify and prevent kids becoming monsters are still grossly inadequate across the board and all over the place. When do politicians "go to war" to improve those things (i.e. the more people things). It's almost that we're more interested in making sure rabid dogs running loose don't bite anyone than trying to help prevent dogs from going rabid in the first place.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#86 » by LoyalFan » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:26 pm

moocow007 wrote:While I'm neither for or against this bill per se, my question is this...what's the plan to help prevent the Adam Lanza, Dylan Kliebold, Eric Harris, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Chos of the world? Sure taking away the favored method for people like these to commit their crimes are nice and all, but at the end of the day, the killers are still very much there...and more importantly...there are other ways to kill people besides shooting them. So instead of going out with a mass shooting bang, is it ok if they go out over a long period of time with rope and knife and stalking the unexpected victims? The mental health system, the child protective services, the educators that are supposed to help identify and prevent kids becoming monsters are still grossly inadequate across the board and all over the place. When do politicians "go to war" to improve those things (i.e. the more people things). It's almost that we're more interested in making sure rabid dogs running loose don't bite anyone than trying to help prevent dogs from going rabid in the first place.



if there was a real answer to this i am pretty sure we would have done it already to be honest with you.
there is 1 answer but it is not politically acceptable to most. the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. this happened days after with the shooting in portland as well as a shooting in texas.
this is a very slippery slope and like i said not something all can wrap their heads around. but it is what it is and is something that does mitigate the death. and something the media and pro gun restriction supporters dont want you to know. and it happens more often than you will ever know because the media doesnt want you to know.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#87 » by LoyalFan » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:05 pm

alphad0gz
Analyst
Posts: 3,284
And1: 405
Joined: Oct 10, 2008

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#88 » by alphad0gz » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:11 pm

So now that MOST agree that there is no way to stop murderers and killers bent on doing just that, the question becomes how to prevent that from happening. As has been said, there is no way to stop the first attack, short of people ignoring obvious signs and showing diligence, but that is a slippery slope (kids telling on friends and family in Nazi Germany). There is a great line form the "Untouchables" movie. It is uttered as "What are you prepared to do?". Sort of says it all. What pisses me off is this gun law/control stuff used as political cache to influence ignorant voters and make no mistake, most voters are ignorant as hell. Look how many people in here had no idea what an assault rifle was and how different (or not) it is from standard rifles in function. Or how few people actually die from them as opposed to other means of murder. We're all lazy to varying degrees and it makes us easy prey.
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#89 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:54 am

LoyalFan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:i like facts and figures. black and white. so lets talk some simple definitive gun facts


there are enough guns currently in circulation in our country that every man woman and child can have at least 1 gun. that means well over 300 million guns. for every gun, semi automatic, they come with 1-3 magazines. that means anywhere from 300-900 million magazines. for every gun owner that buys a gun that uses magazines they always buy extra, from 2-10 extra magazines on top of what comes with the gun when they purchase them. in particular to the ar15 magazine there an online retailer named budsguns who recently sold 3-5 years worth of ar mags in a 72 hour period. this is on top of the easy estimate of 2-3 billion already in circulation. magazines are also not serialized nor are they tracked. also the modern gun magazine holds between 11-19 for a pistol and 30 for a rifle.



so now that we have those numbers out there lets ask some questions. 300(+) million guns in circulation already. easily 2/3rd of them are semi automatic that hold magazines that hold 11 or more rounds. we can make a safe guestimate that there are easily more than 2 billion magazines for various guns, and honestly easily double that number, already in circulation

what type of law do you think can possibly be passed that will have any effect on gun violence given those numbers. this country estimates 11k gun related murders, give or take a few less than drunk driving deaths.



what kind of law do any of you think can honestly be passed. or even better. do you think this is a "law" solution or a moral humanity solution

do you think it is justified to punish the majority for the acts of the few


Some restrictions may help some people, none of the restrictions being proposed are draconian in nature (universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole etc), is gun violence not a problem in the US? Do we not owe it to our society to try?

Just because laws are difficult to enforce doesn’t mean you just throw your hands in the air and say forget about it..




do note that i said only 2 of his options were a problem. the assault weapon band as well as magazine restriction are draconian. draconian and useless.
i did not say the laws were difficult to enforce. i said they were literally impossible. and the majority of the people you would enforce them on, people who dont break laws, is pointless.

drugs are illegal in this country. how effective has that ban been for us. how much has it cost the country to enforce that ban?


Again just because laws are difficult to enforce does not mean we should not have them. Are you saying it should be legal for someone to use heroin, or crack cocaine? What is a practical reason for someone to own an assault weapon?
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#90 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:01 am

AndroidMan wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:
AndroidMan wrote:I've stayed away from this thread for a reason, as I'm aware the anti-gun people will keep flinging their nonsensical arguments(GONYK,Hawthorne, and others) What I will say is that I'm extremely impressed at arguments brought forward by alphadogz. He makes good cases not only for how inept the law will be, the deeper problems of society, but also for how corrupt our government really is. We had our spats, but alpha has really impressed me with his knowledge over some of these subjects, well articulated. Of course E86 usually lays some solid points down as well. Continue the discussion while I get popcorn.

Will even give a shout out to lliiknicksiill33 and ballboy loyalfans for solid arguments.


Nobody cares….


You cared enough to respond, and I didn't even mention you. Are you still angry about me refusing to talk to you from the other thread?


Nope, didn’t get mad in the first place.. Lmao just think your above comment was idiotic and well pointless, but it’s totally in line with all of your comments so carry on… I’m sure Big E and Alpha Dogz get a warm fuzzy feeling every time you slurp them in this forum anyways, maybe one day if you try really hard you can grow up to be just like them lil homie :)
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 90,150
And1: 55,027
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#91 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:01 am

moocow007 wrote:While I'm neither for or against this bill per se, my question is this...what's the plan to help prevent the Adam Lanza, Dylan Kliebold, Eric Harris, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Chos of the world? Sure taking away the favored method for people like these to commit their crimes are nice and all, but at the end of the day, the killers are still very much there...and more importantly...there are other ways to kill people besides shooting them. So instead of going out with a mass shooting bang, is it ok if they go out over a long period of time with rope and knife and stalking the unexpected victims? The mental health system, the child protective services, the educators that are supposed to help identify and prevent kids becoming monsters are still grossly inadequate across the board and all over the place. When do politicians "go to war" to improve those things (i.e. the more people things). It's almost that we're more interested in making sure rabid dogs running loose don't bite anyone than trying to help prevent dogs from going rabid in the first place.


That's why we have elections. Conservatives want to shut down government so that private industry can take over almost everything. Nationally, they're in big trouble - and they know it. That's why they are attacking from within, i.e. state elections.

I heard a report on NPR that people are now moving to communities which match their polarized political views. I know, for me, I could not live far, if not in, a major city. Eventually, I see myself moving to the pacific nw.

Don't get mad. Vote.
POSTING POLICIES:
1. Posts are dictated but not proofread most of the time. It depends.
2. All typos are not the fault of the real Harthorne Wingo, may he Rest In Peace.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,089
And1: 24,396
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#92 » by E-Balla » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:04 am

30% of gun crime is with illegal weapons (it's higher in the northeast and on the west coast). This law is useless and very kneejerk. I think to first make some positive changes the anti-gun politicians needs to understand what they want to do with these laws. Is it to make less crime, make less mass shootings, or make it seem like your actually doing something while really not (ding ding ding). This was a dumb idea. People need to not jump on things and use logic next time.
User avatar
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,099
And1: 206
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#93 » by yaboynyp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:07 am

GC Pantalones wrote:30% of gun crime is with illegal weapons (it's higher in the northeast and on the west coast). This law is useless and very kneejerk. I think to first make some positive changes the anti-gun politicians needs to understand what they want to do with these laws. Is it to make less crime, make less mass shootings, or make it seem like your actually doing something while really not (ding ding ding). This was a dumb idea. People need to not jump on things and use logic next time.



What laws do you suggest?
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,089
And1: 24,396
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#94 » by E-Balla » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:22 am

yaboynyp wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:30% of gun crime is with illegal weapons (it's higher in the northeast and on the west coast). This law is useless and very kneejerk. I think to first make some positive changes the anti-gun politicians needs to understand what they want to do with these laws. Is it to make less crime, make less mass shootings, or make it seem like your actually doing something while really not (ding ding ding). This was a dumb idea. People need to not jump on things and use logic next time.



What laws do you suggest?

I don't know but this law is doing nothing but covering up the real issues.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 90,150
And1: 55,027
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#95 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:27 am

GC Pantalones wrote:
yaboynyp wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:30% of gun crime is with illegal weapons (it's higher in the northeast and on the west coast). This law is useless and very kneejerk. I think to first make some positive changes the anti-gun politicians needs to understand what they want to do with these laws. Is it to make less crime, make less mass shootings, or make it seem like your actually doing something while really not (ding ding ding). This was a dumb idea. People need to not jump on things and use logic next time.



What laws do you suggest?

I don't know but this law is doing nothing but covering up the real issues.



Weak.
POSTING POLICIES:
1. Posts are dictated but not proofread most of the time. It depends.
2. All typos are not the fault of the real Harthorne Wingo, may he Rest In Peace.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,089
And1: 24,396
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#96 » by E-Balla » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:36 am

How about you require a course to get a gun license? It'll be way better than this crap. Maybe try to stop CRIME and not GUNS.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 90,150
And1: 55,027
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#97 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:45 am

GC Pantalones wrote:How about you require a course to get a gun license? It'll be way better than this crap. Maybe try to stop CRIME and not GUNS.



"A course." That's it? That's how your solving this problem?
POSTING POLICIES:
1. Posts are dictated but not proofread most of the time. It depends.
2. All typos are not the fault of the real Harthorne Wingo, may he Rest In Peace.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 35,089
And1: 24,396
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#98 » by E-Balla » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:52 am

HawthorneWingo wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:How about you require a course to get a gun license? It'll be way better than this crap. Maybe try to stop CRIME and not GUNS.



"A course." That's it? That's how your solving this problem?

You have a better solution?
User avatar
johnnywishbone
General Manager
Posts: 9,698
And1: 1,361
Joined: Sep 04, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#99 » by johnnywishbone » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:56 am

GC Pantalones wrote:30% of gun crime is with illegal weapons (it's higher in the northeast and on the west coast). This law is useless and very kneejerk. I think to first make some positive changes the anti-gun politicians needs to understand what they want to do with these laws. Is it to make less crime, make less mass shootings, or make it seem like your actually doing something while really not (ding ding ding). This was a dumb idea. People need to not jump on things and use logic next time.


So because only 70% of crime is with legal weapons we shouldn't put additional restrictions on the types of guns and ammunition you can purchase?

I really don't understand the argument you are trying to make.
Play time is over.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 90,150
And1: 55,027
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: In Your Head, USA
   

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#100 » by HarthorneWingo » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:57 am

GC Pantalones wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:How about you require a course to get a gun license? It'll be way better than this crap. Maybe try to stop CRIME and not GUNS.



"A course." That's it? That's how your solving this problem?

You have a better solution?



How am I supposed to trust you with the fate of the country? What does this course involve exactly.

As for my suggestions: What about the mentally ill? What about centralized mandatory registration? Closing the "gun show loophole"? A majority of NRA members support these measures. As for military style weapons, if people want to have fun shooting them or any other high powered assault rifles, they can do that at "well-regulated" sports complex that is designed for people to safely do that. You don't need those weapons in the house.
POSTING POLICIES:
1. Posts are dictated but not proofread most of the time. It depends.
2. All typos are not the fault of the real Harthorne Wingo, may he Rest In Peace.

Return to New York Knicks