Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

As stated above, in my eyes, the only people who should have their hands on any gun should be someone who absolutely needs a gun of that lethality. In the case of assault weapons, that should be no civilian whatsoever. The cost of a ban is irrelevant, unless said cost is a higher loss of life than there would be without said ban. And there is nothing that would be sufficient to convince me that such a scenario would ever happen.

Pro-Gun Guy: "Here is a list of reasons, using rationality and factual evidence, as to why your suggestion is will not work" Anti-Gun Guy: "You just want more people to die! la la la I'm not listening to you" That is the gist of your post.

Here's another interesting facet of this whole debacle: The political reality. Who do you think is going to be the one to push for this assault weapon ban? The Republicans? Hah! No. It's gonna be a Democrat cause, through and through. The United States is currently undergoing an unprecedented assault on the very foundations of our democratic system, and the Republican party is the means through which this attack is being carried out. The last thing the left in America needs to do is champion an ill-conceived crusade against a constitutionally protected right, held nearly and dearly by a large portion of the country, that will alienate even moderate Republicans into rallying against the left. Is it really a good idea to foster more division, fighting, and hatred between the left and the right in this age of Donald Trump and post-factual debate? If the Democrats managed to successfully ram through a federal assault weapons ban, the entire right wing in America would be up in arms (probably literally). They'd rally against left wing ideology because their fears of an attack on gun rights have now become 100% entirely justified. The left would become a villain in the eyes of even sympathetic right wingers. There wouldn't be another Democratic president for the next 16 years. Every attempt to stave off the decline and decay being realized through the Trump administration would be in jeopardy if the Republicans were able to rally the country around them to fight off the "Evil Democratic anti-gun crusade" Is that worth stopping not even 385 deaths per year? Something to think about.

Then let me turn it around: even if it doesn't work, why should we not implement a ban?

Why should we not implement a ban on cars? because its fucking stupid thats why

What's the point of enacting laws that do nothing? Do you actually want feel good laws just to actually feel good about it? Here I thought you wanted change, not to be happy at the thought of change.

Several people, including myself, have literally already explained why not.

If what I call "playing it safe" is what you call "feel good", then yes, you can say I just want feel good laws. Again, let me flip it around: what if assault weapons had already been banned for civilians since their creation? What reason would you have to rally around them being unbanned, even if you were supported by the fact that there wouldn't be a single death that results?

Please, please please please at least be logically consistent. Why is necessary to turn millions of people into criminals in order to save a couple hundred people per year from guns ? When it is not necessary to do so in order to save thousands to tens of thousands of people from cars? Or alcohol? Or drowning?

Explain to me how the justification of "playing it safe" can only be applied to this scenario without making a legal precedence to ban and confiscate other properties by the government? They weren't, so I don't see the point in "what ifs". It's impossible to say with absolute certainty that "not a single death" would result from a ban from the inception of firearms.

So you're saying an assault weapon ban shouldn't happen because so many people already own them.

Answer my question, please.

if the law does not work, what is the point of the law?

Assault weapons bans have never done anything to curb crime, why try again and remove peoples property and rights, thinking it'd be different this time?

The answer I have to your question is one you already preemptively stated as invalid, so I don't see the point. But again, you're saying that an assault weapon ban is a bad thing because so many people already own them? Is that the only reason?

Assault weapon ban bad because: TURNS MILLIONS INTO CRIMINALS EXPENDS POLITICAL CAPITAL ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING It's not "playing it safe", it's "cost for no benefit"

https://twitter.com/mlbaruchman/status/977642065818394624

Depending on how you look at it i guess you could say i do drive my gun to work as i carry everyday

Hey, wanna know a small fact ? There is a ban on cars. There is a ban on cars that are unsafe, unwarranted to be on the road (NASCAR cars, F1 cars, monster trucks etc. ). The VW Golf models that have higher emissions that were allowed via cheating ? Ye, those are banned and are to be scrapped.

That's not how this works. What are you trying to do here? Your gun accompanied you to work. It was not required for you to get to work. And unless you're a LEO, security guy, guns salesman or big-fuckin-pest controller it almost certainly wasn't required for your job.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the god damn country that wants a sensible reform.

How do you suggest we regulate animal pests that decimate agriculture in the south, or keep predator populations such as wolves and foxes leveled so not to attack livestock?

Those cars aren't banned outright, they're prohibited from being driven on publicly owned roads. You can do whatever the hell you want with them on your own property. And emissions cause quantifiable harm to every living being on the planet simply by existing.

This is the dumbest fucking argument. People who start making parallels with guns and cars. Especially this shit, this borderline slippery-slope crap of "Well why don't we just ban cars?!" Cars are TOOLS. They are designed, by it's very basics, to transport people and objects from A to B. Guns are WEAPONS. They are designed, by it's very basics, to kill and destroy. The first rule of firearms is to not point it at something you do not wish to destroy. There is no "first rule" of driving a vehicle. Furthermore, cars have EXTENSIVE license requirements. Depending on where you go, it's increasingly strict, and some vehicles are even classed and need upgraded licenses to drive. You pay taxes on vehicles, you pay insurances, you have to report vehicles to agencies to make sure they are up to road regulation or else they aren't permitted for use.

I can name a few, like paying attention to the road so you don't kill someone with a mutliton hunk of metal.

These kind of go without saying, though. My point is there's no specific, agree'd on RULESET in the sense of "Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 3" the way there are for firearms. No matter who you ask, when it comes to firearms, there is a "Rule 1" and that rule is always the same.

Well then I'll say this: I'm not suggesting a law that would instantly turn millions of people into criminals overnight. I know that'd be a stupid, unworkable move. I'd enact a ban in the same way that certain countries are starting to phase out gas-powered cars: issue no new ones, offer incentives for existing owners to turn theirs in, and then - years down the line, long after everyone has had a chance to take up that offer or otherwise dispose of theirs - only then, make them outright illegal. However, I'm aware that yes, even that would bring costs. But one thing I won't budge on is that civilians should have never gotten their hands on assault weapons in the first place, and that no cost short of a greater potential loss of life would outweigh moving towards a world where assault weapons are EVENTUALLY illegal for civilians to own, or for that matter, any gun is EVENTUALLY illegal for anyone who doesn't need and properly applies for one to own. What you see as property and a right, I see as a privilege that was only ever assumed due to oversights arising from technology outpacing law, and I consider that privilege irrelevant if it means saving even a single life more than otherwise. Yes, other things may such as car crashes inadvertently kill more than assault weapons. But guns only kill, and regardless of whether you think that's a valid justification or not, to me, it's justification enough that I'd rather no one has one unless necessary. Time will tell whose side wins out here, but I'm feeling pretty confident about my odds considering the current zeitgeist.

Funny how a tool designed to transport people ends up killing more people per year than the guns that serve no purpose but to kill

See this post, guns are tools too: I don't see the relevance. Background checks are an extensive requirement, though? And certain weapons, such as machine guns, require more checks and hoops to jump through to get, akin to your 'increasingly strict' statement. Insurance is on vehicles because they can cause incredible amounts of damage that is expensive to repair, both to the vehicle itself and whatever it comes in contact with. Are you suggesting we implement a gun insurance? And I don't see the purpose of saying cars need inspections as a point against guns. Guns are far less complicated machines nor do they accelerate climate change, so there's no need for annual inspections of firearms, making the comparison pointless.

Please define what you consider to be an assault weapon.