Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[rogue06]

By banning assault weapons, and no, they are not banned if its legal to modify semi-automatics to automatics, universal background checks, closing loopholes in existing laws etc etc. Different states have different laws and some are more effective than others which is proof that regulations work without outlawing guns.

Remember that your "assault weapons" included a pistol that could only hold a single round that after discharging you needed to break open the firearm from which you had to manually extract the casing (although a few of the newest models included an ejector), reload it and close the firearm before firing again. Yeah, a real "assault weapon" there

0000000000000a2.jpg
Scary-looking illegal version of the
single-shot Thompson Contender


0000000000000a2b.jpg
Completely legal version with absolutely
no functional difference whatsoever

As I told you before what were classed as "assault weapons" had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the function of the firearm but was based upon cosmetics. Although you tried to goofily laugh that off despite the fact that, as I noted, even the staunchly anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence groused, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

Even the liberal SalonLos Angeles Times (again hardly a bastion of conservative thought and not a supporter of the Second Amendment) complained that the ban was a joke because it "focused on cosmetics" like flash suppressors and bayonet attachments.

But getting back to pistols, I guess since most revolvers are semi-automatic and in that these revolvers can be converted into rapid fire very easily, with one process was patented back in the 19th century, I guess that means they should be outlawed as well.





If you're actually serious about wanting to do something you should be demanding that the current laws be enforced because what difference will new laws make if the government ignores them? As I noted earlier:

^[1]. This was verified by a study conducted by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys which found that there has been a 25% drop in the number of prosecutions of firearm violation cases by the Justice Department recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) than the Bush Administration did.

So before we start passing new laws does it not seem reasonable that we actually start enforcing the laws on the books and begin prosecuting those who willfully lie on federal forms trying to illegally obtain firearms?






1. A similar thing happened during the Clinton Administration. After working so hard to pass the Brady Law and the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which prohibited firearms based on their appearance rather than functionality) in 1993 and 1994 respectively of the 23,000 cases that had been referred for prosecution by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives only arrested 56 people. One of Janet Reno's top aides even testified that they weren't all that interested in such prosecutions (enforcing the laws just passed). They appeared more interested in passing even more laws (which they would likely not enforce either).

The same thing happened under Obama. Despite all his tough talk prosecutions dropped over 42% during his Administration from what it was under George W. Bush.

So again what difference will passing new laws or expanding old ones make if they are not enforced?

[rogue06]

I think that was the strategy of the opponents of the 16th Amendment (let's bring the 16th Amendment to a vote to prove a point, because it will never pass, etc.). And now we are stuck with the income tax.

There were a few attempts to include a maximum rate in the amendment all of which were but a tiny fraction of current rates but these were shot down because it was feared that the government would quickly raise the tax rate to that maximum.

[rogue06]

I just have the best interests of others at heart. Think of all the lives that could be saved!

If we really want to go there... have you noticed just how many folks that are avidly pro-gun control are also enthusiastic supporters of abortion? Think of how many millions of lives that could be saved by banning abortion which was never directly covered by a specific Constitutional Amendment.

[rogue06]

And no one really needs bacon.

ECREE!!!!1!!!eleventy-one!!

[rogue06]

I don't think that would be practical. Again, ladders are in far more common use than guns are.

We could leave the use of ladders up to trained and licensed professionals.

[JimL]

This quote comes back to mind

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

Thats because you're very simple minded. It may tell you that, unlike many christian conservatives gun nuts here, he has a conscience, and is actually bothered when 60 human beings lose their lives and 470 end up in the hospital and he wants to do what he can to prevent it from happening again.

[rogue06]

Why not do it in the same way that we title and register vehicles?

So as long as someone kept their firearm on their property there would be no license or registration requirement?

[rogue06]

The reason that mass shootings don't make the Six O'Clock Report every night is that gun control actually does work.

Aren't you the same person who is always criticizing others for the logic they use and yet you offer this?

[rogue06]

This is obviously not a topic I've studied. Most of my intuition on guns comes from what I believe ought to be general common sense. Something I've learned while posting on this forum is that if we dig deep enough, we can pretty much allow statistics to argue whatever case we want. That said, using some quick google-fu, looks like there are about 434,259 knife injuries a year in the US as opposed to 136,118 injuries for ladders. I don't know how much more often knives are used than ladders. I imagine a good argument could be made that your average steak knife is inherently less dangerous than a ladder though, so we can probably discount those, as well as small pocket knifes, and the like. I don't know. I do know, though, that guns are more inherently dangerous than ladders and knives. I don't think there's much room for argument there.

We should restrict knives to trained chefs and the like. Others can not be trusted.

[One Bad Pig]

Thats because you're very simple minded.

I'm having a difficult time choosing between appreciating you for your frequent own goals or your penchant for impugning the intelligence of others while failing to evince an adequate grasp of English grammar.

[rogue06]

Speak for yourself!

He's obviously never been to a roguetech facility.

[JimL]

I'm having a difficult time choosing between appreciating you for your frequent own goals or your penchant for impugning the intelligence of others while failing to evince an adequate grasp of English grammar.

Thats because you're confusing intelligence with grammar.

[rogue06]

I believe, without data, that the real cause of the increase in violence we think we see is population density. You see the same sort of thing when you put too many rats too close together. We need to ban cities of over 10,000 people.

There has actually been a few interesting studies linking the rise of violence to things like the increase use of various perscription drugs (especially those designed to alter behavior) and even increased bureaucracy (people feel impotent and start lashing out in anger and frustration) among other things.

[rogue06]

People might abuse their right to keep and bear arms, so we should revoke the 2nd Amendment.

And people might abuse their right to free speech, so we should revoke the 1st Amendment, too.

The MSM keeps telling us how Trump and Republicans in general are evil and need to be stopped which, it can be argued, motivated a certain Bernie Sanders campaign worker to go to Washington, D.C. and try to murder a bunch of Republican congressmen.

[rogue06]

Prohibition actually worked better than most people realize.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

It's just those nasty unintended consequences like greatly expanding the power and reach of organized crime, deadly poisonings from homemade hooch... and the like had to ruin a good thing