Obama calls for assault weapons ban, background checks. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245540]And again, I'll point to the fact that most firearms related murders are committed with [b]handguns[/b] anyways, so legislation like that is absolutely pointless.[/QUOTE] It isn't pointless, it has saved plenty of lives in states like Mass. NY, NJ, even if most murders are committed with handguns the murder rates still went down.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245530]Having a different opinion is not the same thing as being uninformed, look at the AWB in Massachusetts, they currently have the lowest gun murder rate in the country.[/QUOTE] New York has a tough weapons policy, yet the gun murder rates are so high. Yore statement is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245547]Yes but England has an extremely low gun murder rate, but that same fact doesn't reflect the [I]crime[/I] rate including assaults and so forth.[/QUOTE] As I said before, the crime rate is to do with Britain being a shithole.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245547]Yes but England has an extremely low gun murder rate, but that same fact doesn't reflect the [I]crime[/I] rate including assaults and so forth.[/QUOTE] Yes but regardless of wether it affects crime rates, fewer people die as a result of it, it is still saving lives.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245578]Yes but regardless of wether it affects crime rates, fewer people die as a result of it, it is still saving lives.[/QUOTE] While impacting a much larger amount of perfectly happy people negatively.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39245556]New York has a tough weapons policy, yet the gun murder rates are so high. Yore statement is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Actually as a person living in NY, we've had some of the lowest murder rates in years recently, mainly in NYC. Murder rates do go down when gun legislation is enacted.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245585]While impacting a much larger amount of perfectly happy people negatively.[/QUOTE] Banning guns does not equal more crime. How could that possibly work.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245554]It isn't pointless, it has saved plenty of lives in states like Mass. NY, NJ, even if most murders are committed with handguns the murder rates still went down.[/QUOTE] I can't say whether or not it has saved lives because I can't view the alternate universe where no AWB passed in your state. Can you prove to me that murder rates weren't already on the decline when the AWB was passed, and the AWB was coincidental and not consequential?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245585]While impacting a much larger amount of perfectly happy people negatively.[/QUOTE] How much harm is it really doing? Like honestly these are machines, I don't see why %1 of the gun owning population being a little upset is more significant than saving lives.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245530]Having a different opinion is not the same thing as being uninformed, look at the AWB in Massachusetts, they currently have the lowest gun murder rate in the country.[/QUOTE] How is that even related? "Assault weapons" are used in a tiny minority of fatal shootings, most likely their AWB didn't do a thing.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245599]Banning guns does not equal more crime. How could that possibly work.[/QUOTE] I said nothing about there being an increase in crime? [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245617]How much harm is it really doing? Like honestly these are machines, I don't see why %1 of the gun owning population being a little upset is more significant than saving lives.[/QUOTE] I think it'd be a lot more than 1%.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245617]How much harm is it really doing? Like honestly these are machines, I don't see why %1 of the gun owning population being a little upset is more significant than saving lives.[/QUOTE] Theres 300 million guns in the US, several million of which alone are AR-15's. 1% is quite an understatement.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245623]I said nothing about there being an increase in crime?[/QUOTE] You said that a much larger amount of people are affected by crime in the UK if I am not mistaken,

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245617]How much harm is it really doing? Like honestly these are machines, I don't see why %1 of the gun owning population being a little upset is more significant than saving lives.[/QUOTE] Around half of the U.S. has access to firearms, that's about 150,000,000 people not 1%.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245599]Banning guns does not equal more crime. How could that possibly work.[/QUOTE] It works this way: If someone breaks into my home to rape my wife, I don't have a suitable line of defense. If someone corners me and tries to rob me, I'll have no option but to give them my wallet and phone. The answer is simple sir, the bullies, thugs, and criminals prey on people who they think are weaker and aren't going to fight back. God made all men. Samuel Colt made all men equal.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245609]I can't say whether or not it has saved lives because I can't view the alternate universe where no AWB passed in your state. Can you prove to me that murder rates weren't already on the decline when the AWB was passed, and the AWB was coincidental and not consequential?[/QUOTE] Well NY has more than just an AWB, we have a ton of gun legislation, some of the strictest in the nation, with recent passing of legislation gun deaths specifically have gone down about %20 each year. The murder rate in NYC specifically fluctuated between 600-800 deaths for years and now we're down to about 400 if I remember correctly.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245599]Banning guns does not equal more crime. How could that possibly work.[/QUOTE] Pretty simple. If criminals know that no law-abiding citizens possess firearms anymore, they would be less hesitant to commit crime against them.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39245651]Around half of the U.S. has access to firearms, that's about 150,000,000 people not 1%.[/QUOTE] I'm saying %1 of the [b]gun owning[/b] population, not the total population. About %1-3 of all guns are "assault weapons" as defined by the government.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245658]It works this way: If someone breaks into my home to rape my wife, I don't have a suitable line of defense. If someone corners me and tries to rob me, I'll have no option but to give them my wallet and phone. The answer is simple sir, the bullies, thugs, and criminals prey on people who they think are weaker and aren't going to fight back. God made all men. Samuel Colt made all men equal.[/QUOTE] I do not know or have never heard of anyone who any of these things has happened to. And if they did they would be all over the news.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245661]Well NY has more than just an AWB, we have a ton of gun legislation, some of the strictest in the nation, with recent passing of legislation gun deaths specifically have gone down about %20 each year. The murder rate in NYC specifically fluctuated between 600-800 deaths for years and now we're down to about 400 if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE] I'll ask again, can you prove to me that those gun laws are consequential and not coincidental. [img]http://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/current-events-news-politics-77/59050-tax-rates-coddling-rich-investors-tried-failed-idea-pirates-global-warming-png?dateline=1352060312[/img] This is proof of statistics being coincidental, not consequential.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39245666]Pretty simple. If criminals know that no law-abiding citizens possess firearms anymore, they would be less hesitant to commit crime against them.[/QUOTE] Except that is statistically wrong. Facts have it parts of the country with more guns have more gun crime. Meanwhile many European nations with fewer guns are experiencing lower rates of gun violence.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245661]Well NY has more than just an AWB, we have a ton of gun legislation, some of the strictest in the nation, with recent passing of legislation gun deaths specifically have gone down about %20 each year.[/QUOTE] New Hampshire and Vermont on the other hand can be described as "AK-47S FOR EVERYONE" and yet they are the nicest fucking states in the US.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245468]This I agree with. The current approach is representational only in boundaries, which are often gerrymandered anyway, and numerical representation. It's not easy to contact your representatives. It's largely a top-down approach rather than the bottom-up approach we intended.[/QUOTE] It isn't intended as a bottom up approach. It is a mixture. You aren't supposed to elect senators. Your state government is. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url] You aren't supposed to elect a president. Your state government is. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors[/url] The point is that people fucking suck and pass laws like assault weapons bans because THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Senators are intended to be elected by state legislators, and thus are more detached from the reactionary legislation. They are, however, given more scrutiny because they are elected by professional politicians to represent the interests of the state in the federal government. It was a brilliant system that we fucked up.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245532]Canada had a long gun registry for quite a while, go check out how that worked out for them.[/QUOTE] I'll tell you how well it worked, it failed miserably to do anything, got 2 cops killed, was at best 48% accurate, was never used to help solve a murder, and wasted $2 billion dollars over 17 years. In America, I have no doubt that a national gun registry would be even less effective, even less accurate, and waste at least 1 Trillion dollars by the end of the decade.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245684]I'm saying %1 of the [b]gun owning[/b] population, not the total population. About %1-3 of all guns are "assault weapons" as defined by the government.[/QUOTE] Whats the governments definition of "assault weapons". I've seen everything from being just being black, to having a pistol grip, or even just having a rail system. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;39245706]I'll tell you how well it worked, it failed miserably to do anything, got 2 cops killed, was at best 48% accurate, was never used to help solve a murder, and wasted $2 billion dollars over 17 years. In America, I have no doubt that a national gun registry would be even less effective, even less accurate, and waste at least 1 Trillion dollars by the end of the decade.[/QUOTE] Was hoping you'd take the bait :v: thanks

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39245525]I think you forgot that Congressmen have to be elected[/QUOTE] I think you forgot the biggest factor in who gets to go to congress is money.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245695]I'll ask again, can you prove to me that those gun laws are consequential and not coincidental. [img]http://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/current-events-news-politics-77/59050-tax-rates-coddling-rich-investors-tried-failed-idea-pirates-global-warming-png?dateline=1352060312[/img] This is proof of statistics being coincidental, not consequential.[/QUOTE] I don't have the stats off the top of my head but I don't think its a coincidence that a murder rate that was rising for decades drops significantly once gun legislation is introduced. If I can find the time I'll try to dig through some stats I collected when I had to write my mock-congress bill.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39245700]It isn't intended as a bottom up approach. It is a mixture. You aren't supposed to elect senators. Your state government is. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url] You aren't supposed to elect a president. Your state government is. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors[/url] The point is that people fucking suck and pass laws like assault weapons bans because THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Senators are intended to be elected by state legislators, and thus are more detached from the reactionary legislation. They are, however, given more scrutiny because they are elected by professional politicians to represent the interests of the state in the federal government. It was a brilliant system that we fucked up.[/QUOTE] I call it a bottom up approach in that they should do what their fucking constituents want. Contacting a congressman and not getting a canned response is rare.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245512]I'll be happy with a national gun registry[/QUOTE] Canada scrapped it recently, after it was proven it was a pointless waste of money and resources [QUOTE]stricter background checks (including a mental health examination)[/QUOTE] That's a sensed one. [QUOTE]banning the sale of magazines with 10 or more bullets[/QUOTE] This one is not. Harris and Klebold mostly used a 10-rounds pistol and a TWO-rounds shotgun. Limiting mag sizes only lead you to reload more often, and you can do it in a pinch after a bit of practice. [QUOTE]and the elimination of so-called "gunshow" loopholes that allow people to buy weapons at shows or online no questions asked.[/QUOTE] So, just file a 4473 for each private sale? Sure, why not. But good luck enforcing that.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245697]Except that is statistically wrong. Facts have it parts of the country with more guns have more gun crime. Meanwhile many European nations with fewer guns are experiencing lower rates of gun violence.[/QUOTE] That's because there are other, more significant factors at play here such as poverty rate, education.