Orlando

[ShockerPrez]

So. AR 15s, and whatever other gun that fits the mold is banned tomorrow....

Then what? We start raiding peoples houses that have them? Ask the law abiding people to turn them in? How does this proceed?

All the gun manufacturers lay off or shut down?

Then what happens when a guy takes a couple shotguns and a few loaded handguns into a place and does this again?

I dont know. Just thinking aloud.

Not sure that giving more power to a federal government is ever a good thing. Especially one as corrupt and incompetent as the one we have. Both sides of the aisle.

[jdshock]

Then why bring it up? You say we should arbitrarily pick guns to ban, and then say it wouldn't have worked. Why are you advocating for a law that doesn't work based on your own standards? What are you advocating?

Go back to my first post. I'm advocating that people stop saying bombs, knives, cars, etc. all mean that we shouldn't have an assault rifle ban. That's it.

Further, even if I had advocated for an assault rifle ban, why would that preclude me from advocating for a separate law that would help prevent situations like Columbine? I brought it up to list somewhat similar mass shootings where I don't believe the shooters had large institutions behind them helping them procure weapons or knowledge in any way. I don't have faith that the shooters at Columbine could have purchased weapons on the black market.

And lastly, you're so adamant that Columbine is "proof" of a program's ineffectiveness. Is a single instance of a person driving 95 mph proof that a speed limit is ineffective? It is only proof that it is not 100% effective.

[wufan]

The argument I am putting forward is that it is the right of every American citizen to protect their selves and properties; and to bare arms as necessary. I'm guessing you don't agree with this; if so, we need to work backwards first. Do you agree that we are granted the right to protect ourselves? The right to bare arms? If yes, a semi-automatic rifle (such as a hunting rifle) is an effective tool for the job. Whether or not someone chooses to use their hunting rifle is up to them. Just because I don't chose to do so, doesn't mean that I should give up the right. It is irrelevant if it is a regularly used tool. It is an effective and legal tool.

[ShockdaWorld]

Since "Orlando" has turned into an AR-15 thread, just imagine the cash the feds could make seizing "assault rifles" from law abiding citizens and selling them off to one of the cartels.

[wufan]

But you're still missing the logical component. Terrorist attacks via bombs don't mean that guns should be lawful. There is no logical connection between those two points.

I 100% agree with this statement that there is no logical component. That's why you are missing the argument. No one is making that argument. They are arguing that banning things doesn't stop terrorism and using bombs as an example.

[wufan]

Assume with me that a ban on assault rifles would be some level of effective.

I disagree with this assumption which is why we can't get to a common ground on the getting rid of guns with pistol grips thing.

[wufan]

Go back to my first post. I'm advocating that people stop saying bombs, knives, cars, etc. all mean that we shouldn't have an assault rifle ban. That's it.

Further, even if I had advocated for an assault rifle ban, why would that preclude me from advocating for a separate law that would help prevent situations like Columbine?

If you've got a law to prevent Columbine, why ban assault rifles? Couldn't you just enact that law and folks could keep their scary guns?

[shocka khan]

The argument I am putting forward is that it is the right of every American citizen to protect their selves and properties; and to bare arms as necessary.

I don't know whether you shave your arms (bare arms) or not, but the word you need to use is bear. 'Bare' means without addition; basic and simple, and 'Bear' means (of a person) carry.

I think you are referring to people carrying arms.

[MoValley John]

But you're still missing the logical component. Terrorist attacks via bombs don't mean that guns should be lawful. There is no logical connection between those two points.

Assume with me that a ban on assault rifles would be some level of effective. Some people who would kill with a lawful, easily procured weapon are deterred. Some killers would switch to bombs, some would utilize the black market, but some are effectively deterred because they don't have the time or resources or knowledge to procure another option. So on the one hand we have this benefit, some number of killers that are deterred. On the other side of the scale, we have the burden. Your freedom that is infringed by an assault rifle ban. The best argument I've heard in this thread comes from @rrshock: saying he thinks they're fun to shoot. That enjoyment would go away because, presumably, anyone who just shoots them for fun will be deterred by the fact that they are illegal.

And such a law would almost certainly be somewhere between 0% and 100% effective. There are alternate means to kill people, but they are harder. @pinstripers: post showed an extreme example of a knife attack. Fewer people were killed than in Orlando and it took 10 attackers. More easily procured weapons tend to be less effective at killing people. Weapons like bombs either take serious amounts of planning, knowledge, or an ability to sneak large amounts of explosives into the desired area. As ineffective as the TSA is sometimes, we haven't seen a bomb threat on a plane in the US in a long time. A full ban on assault rifles is likely to prevent at least one depressed teenager from shooting a dozen classmates sometime, right? I know everyone in this thread is trying to say it's 0% effective, but humor me for a moment.

My question: how many deaths (if we could hypothetically know that information) would need to be prevented for you to support a ban?

I'm not necessarily against limitations, but I'm concerned where "reasonable gun control" goes. Reasonable is different to everyone. We can look at abortion from the 70's to today. In 1978, late term abortion was considered by just about everyone as abhorrent, today, not so much. Liberal ideology always moves incrementally left. Today ban AR's, tomorrow ban 9mm's, next week ban shotguns. In 20 years, the Red Rider will be an assault weapon, I know a guy who already thinks so.

Moreover, banning AK's and AR's isn't preventing any of these attacks. Period. As I noted, Columbine was pulled off with shotguns, a 9mm and a plinking rifle. A ban on one type of gun just moves the terrorist to a gun that isn't banned. If you want to deter one of these attacks by a ban, you better ban all guns. Again, France has very restrictive gun laws and that has stopped nothing.

[jdshock]

The argument I am putting forward is that it is the right of every American citizen to protect their selves and properties; and to bare arms as necessary. I'm guessing you don't agree with this; if so, we need to work backwards first. Do you agree that we are granted the right to protect ourselves? The right to bare arms? If yes, a semi-automatic rifle (such as a hunting rifle) is an effective tool for the job. Whether or not someone chooses to use their hunting rifle is up to them. Just because I don't chose to do so, doesn't mean that I should give up the right. It is irrelevant if it is a regularly used tool. It is an effective and legal tool.

I certainly agree that the 2nd Amendment exists, and I agree that the Supreme Court has stated we have a right to defend ourselves due to the 2nd Amendment. That is where the right comes from. Whether I think the 2nd Amendment should be changed or anything is wholly irrelevant. I absolutely agree that under the current system that American citizens have a right to bare arms and to bear arms.

Your progression loses me, though. There's no reason that the 2nd Amendment necessarily allows us the right to utilize a certain type of weapon. Your argument is that it allows something if it "is an effective tool for the job." Machine guns are effective at protecting a person. A person booby-trapping their property with chemical weapons or mines would find themselves effectively protected. The Supreme Court has never said we have a right to every weapon that is effective at protecting us.

I 100% agree with this statement that there is no logical component. That's why you are missing the argument. No one is making that argument. They are arguing that banning things doesn't stop terrorism and using bombs as an example.

Orlando couldn't have happened with a knife. Orlando couldn't have happened with the types of bombing attacks people have linked to. Orlando couldn't have happened with a car. Even though bad things can be done with knives, bombs, and cars, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop the bad things done in Orlando.

I disagree with this assumption which is why we can't get to a common ground on the getting rid of guns with pistol grips thing.

I was asking you to assume for a moment. Are you so incapable of contemplating a different viewpoint that that proved impossible? I was asking you to take a leap that it would be more than 0% effective because I wanted to find out how effective it needed to be.

If you've got a law to prevent Columbine, why ban assault rifles? Couldn't you just enact that law and folks could keep their scary guns?

Columbine is obviously just acting as a red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You're using it to distract from the discussion. And you cleverly deleted the section of my post pointing out that one instance fails to prove a law is 0% effective.

[wufan]

I don't know whether you shave your arms (bare arms) or not, but the word you need to use is bear. 'Bare' means without addition; basic and simple, and 'Bear' means (of a person) carry.

I think you are referring to people carrying arms.

It didn't look right, but I didn't look it up. Thanks!

[MoValley John]

Columbine is obviously just acting as a red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You're using it to distract from the discussion. And you cleverly deleted the section of my post pointing out that one instance fails to prove a law is 0% effective.

But you were the one that listed Columbine, originally. Now that the truth comes to light that the Columbine massacre didn't involve any "assault" weapons, or large capacity magazines, it's a red herring? No, it's not a red herring, it's a fact, it's a statistic. If we really want to stop gun violence, and we really thought a ban would work, we would start with the weapons that kill the most Americans, handguns, not AR's. Sawed off shotguns, not AR's. And if you're gonna ban sawed off shotguns, you have to ban all shotguns, because we already have laws on sawed off shotguns, those laws aren't working.

The only effective gun control is to ban all guns. Are you ready to be honest and say that's your goal?

[wufan]

I certainly agree that the 2nd Amendment exists, and I agree that the Supreme Court has stated we have a right to defend ourselves due to the 2nd Amendment. That is where the right comes from. Whether I think the 2nd Amendment should be changed or anything is wholly irrelevant. I absolutely agree that under the current system that American citizens have a right to bare arms and to bear arms.

Your progression loses me, though. There's no reason that the 2nd Amendment necessarily allows us the right to utilize a certain type of weapon. Your argument is that it allows something if it "is an effective tool for the job." Machine guns are effective at protecting a person. A person booby-trapping their property with chemical weapons or mines would find themselves effectively protected. The Supreme Court has never said we have a right to every weapon that is effective at protecting us.



Orlando couldn't have happened with a knife. Orlando couldn't have happened with the types of bombing attacks people have linked to. Orlando couldn't have happened with a car. Even though bad things can be done with knives, bombs, and cars, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop the bad things done in Orlando.



I was asking you to assume for a moment. Are you so incapable of contemplating a different viewpoint that that proved impossible? I was asking you to take a leap that it would be more than 0% effective because I wanted to find out how effective it needed to be.



Columbine is obviously just acting as a red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You're using it to distract from the discussion. And you cleverly deleted the section of my post pointing out that one instance fails to prove a law is 0% effective.

First off, I want to thank you for a civil debate. I think it's great that we can cordially disagree. My progression goes to semi-auto weapons (of any type). The reason is because those weapons allow for discriminant targets. Booby-trapping your house or use of chemical weapons is indiscriminate.

Yes, I can suppose that it would be helpful to ban weapons, and under those circumstances I would say we should ban weapons. How effective? 95% effective. I could compromise on that number, but that's where I could agree.

I can stop talking about Columbine if you can.

[jdshock]

But you were the one that listed Columbine, originally. Now that the truth comes to light that the Columbine massacre didn't involve any "assault" weapons, or large capacity magazines, it's a red herring? No, it's not a red herring, it's a fact, it's a statistic. If we really want to stop gun violence, and we really thought a ban would work, we would start with the weapons that kill the most Americans, handguns, not AR's. Sawed off shotguns, not AR's. And if you're gonna ban sawed off shotguns, you have to ban all shotguns, because we already have laws on sawed off shotguns, those laws aren't working.

The only effective gun control is to ban all guns. Are you ready to be honest and say that's your goal?

I listed Columbine as one of several examples of mass shootings in which I think the killers would be deterred by effective legislation. One of the weapons utilized by the Columbine shooters was specifically developed to take advantage of the loopholes available in the 1994 legislation. In fact, a quick internet search indicates that at least one state has classified it as an assault weapon. I thought Columbine would help prove my point. People have latched onto it for other various reasons. It was a mistake to bring it up because it detracts from the discussion at hand. It's not going to persuade either side: the legislation isn't the type of legislation being discussed in this thread so it's not going to persuade me and obviously your side thinks it is evidence the legislation failed. It's not about the "truth comes to light," it's just a bad analogy.

I don't believe that we need to start with weapons that kill the most Americans. If handguns provide a great benefit because they satisfy the protection element of the 2nd Amendment, and there is a smaller risk of mass shootings, then it's possible that they shouldn't be subject to a ban.

As to your last point, I also mentioned this above: I don't believe that a state can outlaw all guns. I don't believe the federal government can outlaw all guns. The 2nd Amendment would have to be changed. So in my "honest" opinion, I don't support legislation that would ban all guns. I do believe under current law, a state or the federal government could ban assault rifles, which is the topic at hand.

[jdshock]

First off, I want to thank you for a civil debate. I think it's great that we can cordially disagree. My progression goes to semi-auto weapons (of any type). The reason is because those weapons allow for discriminant targets. Booby-trapping your house or use of chemical weapons is indiscriminate.

Yes, I can suppose that it would be helpful to ban weapons, and under those circumstances I would say we should ban weapons. How effective? 95% effective. I could compromise on that number, but that's where I could agree.

I can stop talking about Columbine if you can.

Thank you for your comments. I've always enjoyed debating with you even though we tend to disagree fundamentally about many of these issues.

Just as a clarification, it would need to be a 95% reduction in mass shootings, right? I think it's been something like 200 people killed in mass shootings since 2010 (I am certain not all of those deaths have come from assault rifles, but that's not really important for my question). For you to support a ban on assault rifles, that would need to drop to like 10 or fewer over the next 6 years (and, obviously, not see other deaths skyrocket, such as bombs, etc.). So to you the risk of government tyranny and the importance of freedom in this area would not be worth a 25% reduction in mass shootings to something like 150 over the next 6 years? I appreciate your answer, and I don't really have anything else to say. I was only interested in finding out how highly people valued the right to own assault rifles.