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

okay, that doesn't really change my point

an assault weapons ban probably won't help much. which is why you need an every weapons ban. and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. :^)

It banned laws purely on their cosmetic design rather than any functionality it had, along with banning things that don't really have any impact on gun operation such as "high capacity magazines", or pistol grips, which were played off as making aim better somehow.

Where did the optimistic rating go, I need it real bad right now.

Conveniently we have a process for repealing amendments. Good luck getting the votes. It banned assault weapons.

attack the arguments, not the generalized character of the arguers

I would be all for this if guns really were a huge societal threat. But once again, guns as an entire category kill statistically virtually no one at all per year. Less than the statistical margin of error in the census are killed per year by firearms. Why should we completely ban something that doesn't even kill a statistically significant amount of people? Why not just work to reduce the harm caused, without turning everyone who already has them into paper criminals?

I think it's entirely ironic that pro-gun people use the argument that "criminals don't follow laws!" Then what's the point of any law whatsoever if they're going to break it anyways?

We've pretty tight gun control in Norway, it's quite nice. Highly recommended

It's just a distraction tactic. Somehow they're reasonably effective everywhere else so they have to desperately come up with reasons why the US can't follow suit.

Here's the actual text if you want to get into the nitty-gritty: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text

okay, so how many more people need to be killed by guns for you to accept that they're dangerous? i mean it's not like they're weapons designed for the sole fucking purpose of killing or anything.

Well that's... useless. No wonder it didn't work. That's certainly not what I had in mind in regards to an assault weapon ban.

It ain't even that either, apply the same argument to traffic laws, healthcare. There would be no reason to have any laws against rape, because you know criminals will rape someone anyways and break the law. It's literally stupid.

this is what I kind of see it as too - if, as gun owners say, this previous ban only really effected gun items that have nothing to do with the effectiveness ( ? ) of a gun, then of course the ban had no effect on gun violence

all i'm hearing from this is "yeah this is reasonable but it would be annoying so no"

Once again: other things are VASTLY MORE DANGEROUS. But deemed acceptable. Why not ban those too? I literally do not give one single shit that guns were designed to kill, that is an utterly irrelevant factor in deciding whether or not something should be banned. The ONLY thing I value is QUANTIFIABLE HARM CAUSED, which guns are low on the list for. I want to live in a society where individuals are free to do what they want as much as can be allowed. If 385 people die per year because I'm allowed to own a rifle? So be it. Why not, if 88,000 people dying per year due to alcohol-related causes is perfectly okay? Is my hobby of drinking more important their lives? What do I need alcohol for? Why not just ban it, to play it safe?

Guns are as dangerous on their own as a hammer or a rock is. They can't do anything until someone utilizes them. The objective should be to prevent people with bad intentions from using one. Desperation isn't necessary when the reasons are so clearly obvious. Beyond just the 2nd amendment you have the sheer saturation of guns in the United States that would make enforcement, especially confiscation , nearly impossible if you rolled out European-style gun control laws in the short term. Maybe a long term strategy where you ban the manufacture or ownership of certain guns will let you cut down the supply but guns aren't exactly perishable so that will take a long time. Gun control in other countries works because they didn't start out with a massive level of firearms available to private citizens for hundreds of years and, if they did, those citizens had no problems handing them over to the government. Americans have a problem with both of these.

I suggest you restructure this argument because you're making pro-gun folk look terrible.

Maybe you should read the thread before you post, because this has already been addressed.

Surely you can see why people would assume you would be working off the base of the prior assault weapon ban, from where "assault weapon" as a term was created by burueacrats to describe a firearm with an arbitrary list of attachments or appearances, especially when you don't actually explain what your ideal "assault weapon" ban would look like. Echoing what I said earlier, if you just want to ban semi-automatics, just say that.

Hasn't that changed in regards to the latest mass shootings? Almost every one since Sandy Hook of them were from using an AR-15, a tool used for killing people, not wounding them, not hunting, not for sport. Developed to kill people in the most efficient way possible. How many would have died at pulse, Las Vegas, San Bernardino, if there were no ar-15s? Say what you will about the ban, but refined ergonomics can directly account for better accuracy, usability, and killing potential. Imagine how many more would have died at pulse if the shooter had a full-auto AR-15 with a drum mag and forward grip? Imagine how many fewer casualties there would be if the shooter had to use a handgun, shotgun, or otherwise?

I don't see how. The argument seems to be that guns kill people, and if we ban guns (or at least, certain guns) then less people will die as a result of guns. How is this not the same as arguing that alcohol kills people, and if we ban alcohol, less people will die as a result of alcohol?

I literally do not give one single shit that guns were designed to kill, that is an utterly irrelevant factor in deciding whether Man that's pretty convenient, it's almost like if you completely ignore the fact that guns are weapons then it's pretty easy to see why they're not dangerous at all. Why not, if 88,000 people dying per year due to alcohol-related causes is perfectly okay? It's almost like there's more people who drink alcohol in the US than people who own guns. Nah, that can't be right. Is my hobby of drinking more important their lives? What do I need alcohol for? Why not just ban it, to play it safe? Is your hobby of making pew pew shooty noises in your backyard more important that preventing literal children from being killed in droves? Is this the argument you're going with? I want to live in a society where individuals are free to do what they want as much as can be allowed. If 385 people die per year because I'm allowed to own a rifle? So be it. what the fuck am I reading

I don't see how. But it is frustrating when no one is willing to engage with a point or say why it is invalid, only that it is. There are an estimated 263 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States in 2015. Same year? 265 million guns. Guns are not more rare than cars.

The big problem for everyone is, this is exactly what we can expect to happen again.

So this is what it comes down to, is it? Are you still going to hold to the "millions will become paper criminals" argument, because now it seems like your real motive is showing through: It's your hobby versus their lives.

I agree with this post quite a bit - though I think the utilitarian purpose of a gun ultimately endows the person who wants to utilize it with a lot more options than a hammer or a rock. It does very much boil down to bad intentions, but I also think a tool like a gun ( here in the united states ) has been treated too playfully and been taken too lightly in our culture for so long that we're seeing the compounded effects of a broken system aligned with societal ( economical, educational, mental ) hardships that are more a lot more common every day.

Did you really just ignore the part about how they're necessary tools of transport? that are constantly made safer btw AND regulated. Your argument shows such a clear BS agenda