Today was the 74th school shooting since Sandy Hook.

[pondwater]

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!

Here you try to rationalize your misuse of terms to further your liberal argument. So you claim that illegal and banned mean the the same as regulated . Instead of changing the subject to cocaine and meth, lets stick with the topic at hand.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF)
The ATF enforces other federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, and arson in cooperation with other federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies.

You claim that "military grade" firearms are illegal and banned since they are regulated by the BATF and taxed. Since alcohol and tobacco are also regulated by the BATF and taxed. By your logic, surely you would agree that alcohol and tobacco would be illegal and banned also. You are just plain wrong or either just lying. Be a man and admit you're wrong.
 
Oh, by the way, Wikipedia seems to disagree with you about cocaine.

Cocaine is the second most popular illegal recreational drug in the United States (behind marijuana)[136] and the U.S. is the world's largest consumer of cocaine.[125] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_cocaine_in_the_United_States#Prohibition_of_cocaine_in_the_United_States

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?

No, it doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong. However, JaMarcus Russell has experience in the NFL, therefore he is more qualified to discuss the topic of football than someone who has no experience that doesn't even know the proper terminology of the subject matter.

I have experience with all of the weapons we are discussing. The fact that you didn't answer about your experience with firearms kind of shows that you don't have a clue about firearms in depth and would rather just push your liberal propaganda and opinions, not facts.

The reality is that you would argue with prostitute about the price of free pussy. I have seen many people on this forum say that you will argue about anything, just to argue. They are correct.

[masterfins]

The reality is that you would argue with prostitute about the price of free pussy.

Well can she really be considered a prostitute if the pussy is free???

[pondwater]

Well can she really be considered a prostitute if the pussy is free???

I'm sure that's the debate Spider would argue with her, lol

[Spider-Dan]

Oh, do you mean like the common mistake of referring to a "suppressor" as a "silencer"?

"Proper terminology" has NOTHING to do with the substance of this post, or even this thread.  In fact, the majority of your contribution to this thread has not been to object to the facts being stated, but to insist that we use less intimidating words to describe these facts:

"school shooting"
"assault weapons"
"military grade"
"illegal"
"silencer"

When it comes to the actual facts at hand, you have mistakenly cited a discredited article as a study* and you have claimed that gun crimes were reduced without tough new national laws when TWO significant national gun regulations (the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) were passed almost exactly twenty years ago.

These are relevant facts to the discussion.  The term military grade is not.

*Just so we don't get bogged down in more terminology: the difference between an "article" and a "study" is usually peer-review, which would have served to catch the glaring and amateurish error that discredited this article.

[pondwater]

Oh, do you mean like the common mistake of referring to a "suppressor" as a "silencer"?

"Proper terminology" has NOTHING to do with the substance of this post, or even this thread.  In fact, the majority of your contribution to this thread has not been to object to the facts being stated, but to insist that we use less intimidating words to describe these facts:

"school shooting"
"assault weapons"
"military grade"
"illegal"
"silencer"

When it comes to the actual facts at hand, you have mistakenly cited a discredited article as a study* and you have claimed that gun crimes were reduced without tough new national laws when TWO significant national gun regulations (the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) were passed almost exactly twenty years ago.

These are relevant facts to the discussion.  The term military grade is not.

*Just so we don't get bogged down in more terminology: the difference between an "article" and a "study" is usually peer-review, which would have served to catch the glaring and amateurish error that discredited this article.

Like a petulant child, you still can't admit you lie to further your "arguments". Here is a fact for you, being regulated doesn't mean illegal or banned no matter how you spin it. Anyhow, I'm done bro. You're beyond help, go annoy someone else.............

[Spider-Dan]

You're right: it is technically incorrect to call cocaine an illegal drug or to say that fully-automatic weapons are banned.

Neither of those facts have any impact whatsoever on a discussion about the war on drugs or gun control.  Those factoids are a distraction, used to steer the conversation away from the actual question at hand; in this case, the question is, "Why do criminals, who will purportedly ignore any new gun law, overwhelmingly comply with the laws that have nearly eliminated fully-automatic weapons?"

You have been unable to answer this question, and instead want to shift focus to what terms we use to discuss these weapons.

[TonyB0D]

Just a clarification, not all states allow concealed carry.  NJ does not allow carry of any kind.  They are also super strict about transporting in your car; I have to follow many strict protocols just to go to the range.

[Phishfan]

NJ does not allow carry of any kind. 

Yes they do, they just make it very strict so most people don't qualify

" 1. In the case of a private citizen shall specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun. Where possible the applicant shall corroborate the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies; "

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

[bsmooth]

Anyway, this bogus, non-peer-reviewed "Harvard study" has already been thoroughly debunked.  You'll forgive me if I quote myself from another forum:

Given your apparently newfound trust in the reliability of studies from Harvard (and the fact that the studies I cited are actually, you know, studies from Harvard, instead of unreviewed opinion pieces), I look forward to your prompt reversal of opinion on this issue.

I apologize for being a little late, but you are grossly wrong Spider. All the journals at Harvard are published and peer reviewed. It says so on the website for all the journals. So this one was peer reviewed. and at 46 pages, it is hardly an unreviewed opinion piece.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/orgs/journals/#HarvardJournalofLawPublicPolicy

"Students at Harvard Law School produce scholarly journals devoted to specific substantive areas of the law and to various approaches to examining legal developments. These peer reviewed publications offer invaluable practical experience in legal writing, editing, and scholarship"

[TonyB0D]

Yes they do, they just make it very strict so most people don't qualify

" 1. In the case of a private citizen shall specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun. Where possible the applicant shall corroborate the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies; "

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

That might be the law on the books but they do not issue carry permits of any kind to anyone except for ex-cops.

[Spider-Dan]

I apologize for being a little late, but you are grossly wrong Spider. All the journals at Harvard are published and peer reviewed. It says so on the website for all the journals.

Where does it say that everything published is peer-reviewed?  Please cite.

If it was peer-reviewed, then everyone who reviewed it did a horrible job, as there was a glaring error that invalidated the main premise behind the article.  As I already mentioned, the authors repeatedly cited the example of Luxembourg (which has virtually no gun ownership) with a murder rate of 9.01 per 100,000 as one of the highest in Europe, when the actual murder rate was 1/10th of that (0.901), which is one of the lowest.

[Phishfan]

^^^ He gave the link.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, I saw his link.  It says that they are peer-reviewed journals (which is true), but that is not the same thing as saying that everything published in them is peer-reviewed.  For instance:

Storytelling and Political Resistance: Remembering Derrick Bell (with a story about Dalton Trumbo), Harvard Journal on Racial and Ethnic Justice
“Unsportsmanlike” Conduct and That Richard Sherman Interview, Harvard Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law
Book Review of Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia, Harvard Journal of Law & Gender

I am rather skeptical that any of the above articles were peer-reviewed (in the academic sense of being subject to evaluation by other experts in the field before publication).

[bsmooth]

Yes, I saw his link.  It says that they are peer-reviewed journals (which is true), but that is not the same thing as saying that everything published in them is peer-reviewed.  For instance:

Storytelling and Political Resistance: Remembering Derrick Bell (with a story about Dalton Trumbo), Harvard Journal on Racial and Ethnic Justice
“Unsportsmanlike” Conduct and That Richard Sherman Interview, Harvard Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law
Book Review of Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia, Harvard Journal of Law & Gender

I am rather skeptical that any of the above articles were peer-reviewed (in the academic sense of being subject to evaluation by other experts in the field before publication).

Sorry to disappoint you, but I provided the information made available from Harvard. If you think Harvard is lying or that their use of the term "peer reviewed" is being used incorrectly, then it is up to you to provide evidence to back your theory. I do not have to provide evidence to support your claims. I provided evidence that shows your earlier claim that it was an opinion piece and not peer reviewed is incorrect...according to Harvard.

[Spider-Dan]

No, you did not.  You provided evidence that they are peer-reviewed journals, which does not mean everything published in them is peer-reviewed (see: the above examples).

But even if that particular item was peer-reviewed, that doesn't change the fact that it was critically flawed and the conclusions are therefore suspect.  I already provided links to several other Harvard studies that come to the opposite conclusion.  So if Harvard studies mean something, why are you so quick to dismiss all the ones that say more guns = more gun crime in favor of the one flawed one that says the opposite?