Today was the 74th school shooting since Sandy Hook.

[pondwater]

i answered that .. it was abortion

Abortion? Are you high? I don't even know WTF you're talking about, I don't get it . What are you trying to say? Since there's less people due to abortion, there is less crime. Talk about a causation fallacy, lol. If that's the case, cancer and fatal car accidents have led to the decrease in crime also.

[Spider-Dan]

The claim is not false. Crimes with Assault weapons account for 1-2% of firearm crimes. How is that a tough national law if it's only affecting 1-2% of crime by firearms?

So now the assault weapons ban was not a "tough" law?  You seemed to believe otherwise when you were claiming that plenty of Democrats were voted out because of it.

So which one is it?  Was the 1994 assault weapons ban a unconscionable attack on liberty that crippled our Second Amendment rights, or was it a meaningless PR law that had no real impact?  Please make up your mind.

And while you're at it:  if gun bans don't work, why aren't more crimes being committed with military-grade machine guns that are illegal for the public to own?

Abortion? Are you high? I don't even know WTF you're talking about, I don't get it . What are you trying to say? Since there's less people due to abortion, there is less crime. Talk about a causation fallacy, lol. If that's the case, cancer and fatal car accidents have led to the decrease in crime also.

Let me connect the dots for you: the women who choose to have abortions are most frequently those who recognize that they are incapable of taking care of children (financially, emotionally, or both).  These children would otherwise grow up in poverty and/or neglect, and would consequently be in the highest risk pool of committing crime.

[Fau Teixeira]

Abortion? Are you high? I don't even know WTF you're talking about, I don't get it . What are you trying to say? Since there's less people due to abortion, there is less crime. Talk about a causation fallacy, lol. If that's the case, cancer and fatal car accidents have led to the decrease in crime also.

Inform yourself: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

[Dave Gray]

Abortion? Are you high? I don't even know WTF you're talking about, I don't get it . What are you trying to say? Since there's less people due to abortion, there is less crime. Talk about a causation fallacy, lol. If that's the case, cancer and fatal car accidents have led to the decrease in crime also.

There's a good book I read called Freakonomics that illustrated this pretty well.  It's not simply that there are fewer people, but specifically there are fewer people in social/economic situations that are most likely to grow up to be criminals.  Statistically speaking, abortions are had at higher percentages in poor communities or to people who aren't capable of raising well-adjusted, educated kids.  So, you see drops in crime about 15 years after abortion laws loosen.  This is shown in multiple parts of the world.  The same is true in reverse, where abortion laws become stricter -- booms in crime happen about 15 years later.

The cool thing about the book is that it doesn't make a judgement call on abortion.  It doesn't talk about right or wrong.  It just says THIS happens and THIS is the result.  They do this with many, many topics.  It's a really interesting explanation of how economic systems are used in non-traditional areas.

[pondwater]

So now the assault weapons ban was not a "tough" law?  You seemed to believe otherwise when you were claiming that plenty of Democrats were voted out because of it.

So which one is it?  Was the 1994 assault weapons ban a unconscionable attack on liberty that crippled our Second Amendment rights, or was it a meaningless PR law that had no real impact?  Please make up your mind.

Actually, it was both. The assault weapon ban was an infringement on the second amendment. However, I have read many reports and studies that have found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murder. I actually think some of the studies were from the FBI and Dept. of Justice.

BTW, can you explain to me the criteria, characteristics, or definition of an assault weapon as it relates to the assault weapon ban?

And while you're at it:  if gun bans don't work, why aren't more crimes being committed with military-grade machine guns that are illegal for the public to own?

Military-grade? As Bsmooth pointed out, the AR-15, M-16, M-4, are the same platforms, they are the same weapons with exception of the rate of fire. Meaning that the full auto Colt M16/M4 is the same as the semi auto Colt AR15 that I can buy at Walmart with exception of a few internal parts.

Furthermore, fully auto, or as you say "military grade" weapons are in not illegal to own. The tax stamp will cost you $200, and you must wait 90 days before being able to receive the firearm. With those two criteria, as long as you have a clean background, you do not need any special license, just the stamp. I would assume that more crimes are not committed with full auto(military grade, LOL, so fucking funny) weapons because - semi auto is more to accurate, easier to keep on target, and $200 cheaper. I've fired both and full auto is not good for accuracy, especially when your adrenaline is pumping.

Let me connect the dots for you: the women who choose to have abortions are most frequently those who recognize that they are incapable of taking care of children (financially, emotionally, or both).  These children would otherwise grow up in poverty and/or neglect, and would consequently be in the highest risk pool of committing crime.

So which one is it?  Was it the 1994 assault weapons ban the reason of the 50% decline in firearm violence even when there are numerous studies that show virtually no impact on crime rates. Or was it abortion rates, which at best is a hypothesis, as there is no real way to measure it.

I love how you and the democrats use these made up scary media frenzy terms like "assault weapons" and "military grade". It really shows you lack of knowledge about firearms.

[Spider-Dan]

Actually, it was both. The assault weapon ban was an infringement on the second amendment.

Was it an insignificant, meaningless infringement with no real impact?  Or was it a drastic curtailment of key constitutional rights?  Pick one.

BTW, can you explain to me the criteria, characteristics, or definition of an assault weapon as it relates to the assault weapon ban?

Would you like me to post a link to the (expired) law for you so you can read the definition yourself, or would you prefer I paste the text of the law into this thread?  I'm not sure what the point of this question is.

Military-grade? As Bsmooth pointed out, the AR-15, M-16, M-4, are the same platforms, they are the same weapons with exception of the rate of fire. Meaning that the full auto Colt M16/M4 is the same as the semi auto Colt AR15 that I can buy at Walmart with exception of a few internal parts.

So, not the same, then.

Don't the versions of these weapons used by the military have selectable rate of fire?  If so, why are criminals using inferior legal versions when the illegal military-grade versions are the-same-but-better (i.e. the same options, plus one more)?  Could it be because illegal weapons are harder to get?

I am also forced to wonder why criminals everywhere choose not to use illegal silencers.  Could it be because the ban on silencers works?

Furthermore, fully auto, or as you say "military grade" weapons are in not illegal to own. The tax stamp will cost you $200, and you must wait 90 days before being able to receive the firearm. With those two criteria, as long as you have a clean background, you do not need any special license, just the stamp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Categories_of_firearms_regulated

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.

In other words, unless you can convince your local chief of police to sign off on it, you may not own a machine gun as a private citizen.  Even in the two states (TN and AK) where laws have been passed requiring CLEOs to sign off on these kinds of requests, you effectively still need their permission; one TN Sheriff added a signing statement stating that he could not verify that the weapon would not be used for unlawful purposes, the ATF denied the application, and the county authorities ruled that the signing statement complied with the letter of the TN law.

I would assume that more crimes are not committed with full auto(military grade, LOL, so fucking funny) weapons because - semi auto is more to accurate, easier to keep on target, and $200 cheaper. I've fired both and full auto is not good for accuracy, especially when your adrenaline is pumping.

If full-auto is inferior and useless, why are these weapons even produced, and why do militaries use them?  Isn't the point of a military to use the most effective weapons possible?

And if you are saying that $200 is enough to deter a criminal from using a fully-automatic weapon, how can it be that making guns more expensive (by, say, greatly increasing regulation on them) will not deter gun crime?

I love how you and the democrats use these made up scary media frenzy terms like "assault weapons" and "military grade". It really shows you lack of knowledge about firearms.

I suppose we should stick to more technically accurate terms, like "it's exactly the same except for the rate of fire" and "there's no difference except for a few internal parts."

Maybe next you can tell me how two guns are exactly the same except for their effective range, or maybe how there's no difference between gun A and gun B other than the kind of ammunition they use?

[pondwater]

Was it an insignificant, meaningless infringement with no real impact?  Or was it a drastic curtailment of key constitutional rights?  Pick one.

It was a meaningless infringement of a key constitutional right that had no real impact.

Would you like me to post a link to the (expired) law for you so you can read the definition yourself, or would you prefer I paste the text of the law into this thread?  I'm not sure what the point of this question is.

I would like you to tell me what characteristics makes an "assault weapon" and "assault weapon"

So, not the same, then.

Yes pretty much the same.

Don't the versions of these weapons used by the military have selectable rate of fire?  If so, why are criminals using inferior legal versions when the illegal military-grade versions are the-same-but-better (i.e. the same options, plus one more)?  Could it be because illegal weapons are harder to get?

Who said that civilian semi auto firearms are inferior? Fully auto and semi auto both have their own purpose. If you think that fully auto is better for killing lots of people as quickly as possible, you're wrong. Your ignorance about firearms is astounding.

I am also forced to wonder why criminals everywhere choose not to use illegal silencers.  Could it be because the ban on silencers works?

The correct term you are looking for is a suppressor. Anyhow, just so you know, there is no ban on suppressors(silencers as you say) and they are not illegal. They are subject to the same provisions as fully automatic weapons. And actually, suppressors can be illegally made rather easily at home. So no it's not that hard to get your hands on one if that's your fancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Categories_of_firearms_regulated

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.

In other words, unless you can convince your local chief of police to sign off on it, you may not own a machine gun as a private citizen.  Even in the two states (TN and AK) where laws have been passed requiring CLEOs to sign off on these kinds of requests, you effectively still need their permission; one TN Sheriff added a signing statement stating that he could not verify that the weapon would not be used for unlawful purposes, the ATF denied the application, and the county authorities ruled that the signing statement complied with the letter of the TN law.

Not sure your point. Are you saying that private citizens in the US don't own fully automatic firearms, suppressors, and SBRs? Are you saying that these items are illegal for US citizens to own and operate? I personally know several myself, and they didn't have any problems besides the wait times, the BATF is kind of backed up these days with all the applications they are getting. But you are welcome to believe any kind of silliness you want to.

If full-auto is inferior and useless, why are these weapons even produced, and why do militaries use them?  Isn't the point of a military to use the most effective weapons possible?

Who said inferior and useless? Different tools have different applications. If you're shooting at unarmed and unprepared people then full auto is not the most effective tool for the job. I think you watch to many Rambo movies, step away from the TV.
How often do you fire a weapon? Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon?

And if you are saying that $200 is enough to deter a criminal from using a fully-automatic weapon, how can it be that making guns more expensive (by, say, greatly increasing regulation on them) will not deter gun crime?
I suppose we should stick to more technically accurate terms, like "it's exactly the same except for the rate of fire" and "there's no difference except for a few internal parts."

Yes, I guess $200 dollars is going to deter someone when there is a cheaper alternative that is more effective. However, if they all cost $200 more, then you take the alternative away and the extra $200 just becomes and extra expense of being a criminal. If you think that an extra $200 tax on firearms is going to curtail crime then you aren't very bright.

None of this is going to happen anyhow, I'm just entertaining your liberal fetishes and fantasies. Spider, it doesn't matter if you are 110% wrong and you know it. You will still argue, twist and spin facts, and make up all sorts of crazy things to make yourself look smart and further your liberal agenda. How about this, you keep arguing and I'll continue to own all of my firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo for the next 30-50 years of my life. Get over it.

[EKnight]

Just want to point out the absurdity of believing we have "rights." We have no rights. Anyone who believes we do is dumber than a bag of hair. We have a bunch of suggestions written 200+ years ago that the idiots didn't have enough sense to figure out should also apply to women, minorities, people who were illiterate and the poor. Our "rights" were created by wealthy, literate, slave-holding, land-owning men. They're not God-given. They're not irrevocable- just ask all the Japanese-Americans put into internment camps in the 1940's and had all of their rights taken away for no reason at all. Rights aren't rights if they can be arbitrarily revoked. It's nonsense to believe anything else. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

I would like you to tell me what characteristics makes an "assault weapon" and "assault weapon"

You can read the criteria for the definition of an assault weapon under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban here.  Are you happy now?

Yes pretty much the same.

Pretty much the same, except for an insignificant detail like rate of fire?

Who said that civilian semi auto firearms are inferior?

They are inferior because they lack the option to select full-auto.

The correct term you are looking for is a suppressor. Anyhow, just so you know, there is no ban on suppressors(silencers as you say) and they are not illegal.

Is cocaine illegal?  How about crystal meth?  Oops, if you refer to either of those things as "illegal drugs" and say that they are "banned," you're wrong, because they are actually controlled substances and are quite legal.  What a fun and entertaining game this is!

I find it incredibly absurd that gun enthusiasts seem to love to argue endlessly about minutia like "you called it a clip but the proper term is a magazine" and "you said bullet but you should have said cartridge."  This is the equivalent of saying, "you called it a shooting when the correct term is homicide, therefore you are not qualified to discuss this topic."  You have no substantive point to make, so instead you want to argue over terminology (e.g. whether a shooting on school grounds is technically a school shooting).

And actually, suppressors can be illegally made rather easily at home. So no it's not that hard to get your hands on one if that's your fancy.

So why aren't the vast majority of gun crimes being committed with suppressors, then?

Who said inferior and useless? Different tools have different applications. If you're shooting at unarmed and unprepared people then full auto is not the most effective tool for the job.

This statement does nothing to explain why criminals were happily using fully-automatic weapons prior to the 1934 law banning them.

How often do you fire a weapon? Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon?

How many games have you played in the NFL?  Have you ever played a single down of professional football?

Will your answers to the those questions mean that any football opinion you have that conflicts with that of, say, JaMarcus Russell, is automatically and necessarily wrong?

Yes, I guess $200 dollars is going to deter someone when there is a cheaper alternative that is more effective. However, if they all cost $200 more, then you take the alternative away and the extra $200 just becomes and extra expense of being a criminal.

By this logic, if we slap an extra $200 tax on everything but shotguns and revolvers, then we can practically eliminate all gun crime committed with non-shotgun/revolver firearms (exactly as we have with fully-automatic weapons), right?

I mean, if you are claiming that the $200 registration tax is effectively dissuading hardened criminals from obtaining fully-automatic weapons, then this should be easy to reproduce.

[Fau Teixeira]

i'm really not a fan of the micro-quote method of thread back and forth, it makes it obnoxious to read and difficult to follow, furthermore you're quoting the post right above yours .. pretty silly if you ask me.

Who

I don't like that you used the word "Who" here, especially since you capitalized it. It makes me think of the band, and why would you start a sentence by talking about The Who? It doesn't make any sense at all. Are you purposefully trying to throw the thread off topic by your very first word of this phrase?

said

This is a fantastic word, especially in rhyming games. You could rhyme it with fred, or bed, or even head. Most importantly is that you used a past tense, which is a bit nostalgic. I like nostalgia. Well done.

that

Here, you're back to making no sense whatsoever. How can we possibly know what "that" refers to when we don't even know what "this" is. I think this is more communist redirection and anti-american propaganda. I'm sure "that" is Osama's Obama's favorite word.

civilian

NOW we get to the crux of the issue. Your disdain for civilians is just jumping off of the screen. I can feel the undertones of this word. I bet you think we are all sheep and the government is really the wolf and not the sheep-hound we think they are.

semi

This is what i'm talking about. Optimus Prime was a semi-truck, so obviously you're referring to the leader of the autobots here. I like this direction. When i was a little boy the original transformers movie came out and it played in a double feature with the my little pony movie. Knowing that boys will sit through a crap ton of ponies to get to the transformers, they made it the 2nd part of the double feature. I found that to be unfortunate.

auto

It's about time that you brought Henry Ford into the conversation. As an early adopter of the assembly line, he more or less automated car production. However, his family owns the Detroit Lions. Therefore i must assume from this obviously solid Causal link that you are a lions fan.

firearms

It's not my bag of tea, but if you like dipping your arms in flammable jelly, lighting them and running around yelling firearms at your neighbors before jumping into your pool. I just don't know what to tell you. I'm normally an open minded guy, but you need help.

are

The shifting in style to a more phoenetic one is appreciated. The letter R is also one of my favorites. Right after F and M and K. The rest of the letters are more or less tied for last. Except for S, I hate S. I even like the wierd russian backwards K more than S.

inferior

I don't know why you need to be insulting, There's no need to call names here. We're all adults having conversations about obviously important topics. These discussions will have a giant impact on humanity and i feel we can really achieve something here on this board by just talking about serious topics point by point ad nauseum.

?

You sir are a racist. Why assume we're all "english". I'll have you know that our mexican friends also use ¿ I don't know what you have against spanish. It is the official language of Miami after all.

[Spider-Dan]

I disagree.  The point on proper terminology is completely separate from the point on whether any of us have NFL experience.

[pondwater]

I had another reply typed up, until I saw Fau's post and figured that I had better things to do than debate nonsense and foolishness. And just think, you're the site administrator too, great contribution to the discussion, awesome job .

Anyhow, great conversation guys, enjoyed it. All the admins, mods, and liberals here at TDMMC, you win this debate thread. Just like all the other threads in this very small forum. Live it up and enjoy your spectacular forum victory, but somehow I don't think it will really matter one way or the other.  You may all now go and plead your case to congress, the American people, and the supreme court.

While you're wasting your time doing that,  I'll do something productive and go open my gun safe and clean, polish, and fondle a couple dozen high capacity, large caliber firearms and assault weapons. Then I'll inventory a few thousand rounds of my personal ammunition. I'm confident that I'll retain possession of them all for a very long time. Anyhow, let me know how your plan to disarm America works out for you and good luck to you.

BTW Spider, A personal friend of mine who is in possession of several NFA items, has read this thread. Your posts have amused and bewildered him. He said that, "since you want illegal firearms off the streets, that you should call the BATF and turn him in and explain to them that the terms illegal, banned, and regulated all mean the same thing." Again, good luck to you in your efforts.

[Fau Teixeira]

thanks ! .. i do what i can to keep you guys on your toes.

[Spider-Dan]

BTW Spider, A personal friend of mine who is in possession of several NFA items, has read this thread. Your posts have amused and bewildered him. He said that, "since you want illegal firearms off the streets, that you should call the BATF and turn him in and explain to them that the terms illegal, banned, and regulated all mean the same thing."

You shouldn't capitalize the article "a" in the middle of a sentence.  Your inability to use proper English makes you clearly unqualified to comment with credibility on this topic.

Is it not incredibly enlightening and productive to completely ignore the ideas being discussed and instead focus on the minutiae of terminology and grammar?

[pondwater]

You shouldn't capitalize the article "a" in the middle of a sentence.  Your inability to use proper English makes you clearly unqualified to comment with credibility on this topic.

Is it not incredibly enlightening and productive to completely ignore the ideas being discussed and instead focus on the minutiae of terminology and grammar?

I will not comment on gun control anymore. But I would like to address your previous few posts.

I agree that grammar and proper English have nothing to do with this thread. However, proper terminology and definitions of words we use have everything to do with this topic. A mistyped capital "A" or misspelled word on a 4.5 inch smart phone is a common mistake and doesn't change the meaning of my post. But if you are saying the words illegal and banned have the same definition as regulated. Then you are just lying to further your liberal agenda or to just argue to satisfy some strange fetish you have. If you don't know the meaning of the words you are using, then you have no business pretending that you do.