Why Are Republicans Forced to Look Like Morons?

[bobevenson]

What about first at least making it harder for the "bad" guy to get a gun...or more like making it a little harder for the mentally ill to own a gun...esp. an assault rifle. ?

a) You can try to confiscate the 300 million guns in America, but the bad guys will never have any problem getting all the guns they want. You can forbid the manufacturing of guns and the importation of guns to no avail. The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars in its so-called war against drugs with absolutely no success. b) People who are mildly depressed are mentally ill. Do you want to deny them a gun?

[artisticsolution]

Bob: You can try to confiscate the 300 million guns in America, but the bad guys will never have any problem getting all the guns they want.

AS: Well that is not a reason to make more of these assault weapons and just giving them to anyone. Using your logic above if we kept the number of assault guns to 3 million...that is very different than allowing the number to get to 4 million...as it's 1 million less guns that the "bad guys" can get their hands on. Not to mention if we outlaw the "assault" weapons, eventually there will be less than 300 million due to the fact that when they are found one by one they will be destroyed. Eventually there will be way fewer than 300 million as I think it is a very rare "bad guy" who can actually manufacture his own weapon. So logic tells us...fewer weapons = fewer weapons in the wrong hands.

But lets think about it this way....tons of people can drive today without a license but few do. And yes, the Bad guy will always steal cars and drive them without a license....however...it's not a common thing. Regulation has worked in the area of cars. How many more people would be driving today if a license was not needed. How many people could operate a car safely without a course explaining the rules of the road? Not many. I don't think you would want someone like me to be driving without a license or some sort of regulation. I would be a danger to society for sure. I am already a bad driver and I have been trained...can you imagine if I was able to drive without any such training? Well this is the way I see gun owners now. I see them as a danger to themselves and the public without the proper training.

Bob:You can forbid the manufacturing of guns and the importation of guns to no avail. The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars in its so-called war against drugs with absolutely no success.

AS:But the war against guns is a totally different thing. Anyone can manufacture their own drugs. Not everyone can manufacture their own weapons. Plus drugs main purpose is not to kill. The drug problem is more about addiction and the war on drugs did not work because there was no 'bad guy' to wage a war against per se. There were only people who had addiction problems. These people should be helped...not sent to prison as if they were 'bad guys'. It was ridicules for laws to have sent the average citizen to prison....maybe the drug lords...which a few...but it was stupidity to waste the money on regular folk. That is why it was a failure.....not enough money and not enough prisons and most of all...not enough compassion for people who did nothing wrong. Laws can sometimes be worse than the so called "crime." Hey...that would make a good bumper sticker...lol.

Bob: People who are mildly depressed are mentally ill. Do you want to deny them a gun?

AS: Yes, I would deny them assault weapons. Look...the fact is that most mass murderers are mentally ill and are able to kill because it is convenient to find a weapon on every street corner. Just suppose for a second it was a little harder to find assault weapons? I think there would probably still be shootings...but not on the same scale. The statistics show that for every person saved by a household weapon.....45 are killed by accidental shootings. In the most recent mass shootings the "bad guy" did not "steal" anything....they went out and purchased the weapons or they used some that were conveniently placed in their own homes. Doesn't it stand to reason that some "bad guys" are too lazy to break in and steal assault weapons or go out to make a purchase, but rather just take what is conveniently within their reach...which means.... if there were less assault weapons there would be less crimes of passion/ crimes of instant gratification/ crimes of wild hair up your ass?

Let's put it this way....Nukes are very hard to get a hold of....how many nukes do you think would be used if everyone could own one? Do you think a ban on nukes is a good idea to stop the average person from using them? As I see it it is just a numbers game. It is simple math. It just makes sense.

[bobevenson]

You are against "assault weapons" based strictly on their looks. As far as operational capabilities, they are merely semi-automatic like most other weapons, even pistols. If you are against magazines that hold a lot of bullets, then say so, but magazines for rifles and hand guns are the easiest thing in the world to manufacture, and there is absolutely no way to stop their production and distribution.

[artisticsolution]

You are against "assault weapons" based strictly on their looks. As far as operational capabilities, they are merely semi-automatic like most other weapons, even pistols. If you are against magazines that hold a lot of bullets, then say so, but magazines for rifles and hand guns are the easiest thing in the world to manufacture, and there is absolutely no way to stop their production and distribution.

Ditto Bob. If you are for everyone owning nukes...then just say so. If you are not for just everyone owning nukes...then you too are against "assault weapons" you just don't know it. This is not a difficult concept Bob.

[bobevenson]

You are against "assault weapons" based strictly on their looks. As far as operational capabilities, they are merely semi-automatic like most other weapons, even pistols. If you are against magazines that hold a lot of bullets, then say so, but magazines for rifles and hand guns are the easiest thing in the world to manufacture, and there is absolutely no way to stop their production and distribution.

Ditto Bob. If you are for everyone owning nukes...then just say so. If you are not for just everyone owning nukes...then you too are against "assault weapons" you just don't know it. This is not a difficult concept Bob.

I think you're getting confused. The question at hand is about assault rifles that are sold in gun stores. Some people want to abolish the sale of these weapons due to their appearance, not because of how they operate. I think these people are quite naive because they really don't know what they're against, but being against "assault rifles" gives them a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Arising_uk]

...
I think you're getting confused. The question at hand is about assault rifles that are sold in gun stores. Some people want to abolish the sale of these weapons due to their appearance, not because of how they operate. ...

I'd have thought it exactly because of how they operate, large mags and ease of accuracy. There's a reason the military and guerrillas use them in urban environments rather than pistols.

[bobevenson]

...
I think you're getting confused. The question at hand is about assault rifles that are sold in gun stores. Some people want to abolish the sale of these weapons due to their appearance, not because of how they operate. ...

I'd have thought it exactly because of how they operate, large mags and ease of accuracy. There's a reason the military and guerrillas use them in urban environments rather than pistols.

In military use, these fully automatic weapons fire continuously after pulling the trigger. They are not sold in gun stores.

[martinm]

well, here in the UK, in about 1988, they banned handguns from public ownership. Gun crime was about 400 a year, since then gun-crime has declined to about 40,000 reports a year.

you figure.

1 criminals feel a lot safer as there are no handguns to face in a burglary.
2. the EU and the channel tunnel to get them into the country illegally (no searches).
3 draconian sentences for victims of crime who defend themselves.