More guns is obviously the answer...

[esmith]

Indeed. By the same token, someone who can't tell the difference between bourbon and scotch has no business trying to ban drunk driving. Am I right?

If someone can't tell the difference between an LSD high and an MDMA high, they're in no position to have an opinion on drug policy. After all, if you haven't gone to at least one rave blitzed on Molly, how can you really know what you're banning?

see 2nd paragraph of Post #177

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

see 2nd paragraph of Post #177

Don't worry: I'm with you:

- if you've never shot a firearm, you don't get to have an opinion on gun policy.
- if you've never rejetted a carb, you don't get to have an opinion on automotive emissions standards.
- if you've never driven drunk, you don't get to have an opinion on drunk driving.
- if you can't explain the difference between GDP and GNP, you don't get to have an opinion on economic policy.
- if you've never taken part in a human sacrifice ritual, you don't get to have an opinion on human sacrifice rituals.

Don't knock it 'till you try it, right?

Edit: it's not enough that someone sees 30,000+ deaths a year as a problem that needs solving. Their opinion about this needless waste of human life is irrelevant unless they're intimately familiar with the way all those people were killed.

 

[esmith]

You just don't like the extension of the abbreviation in to 'assault rifle'.

Correct I, despise people who use propaganda to further their anti-gun rhetoric.

And please don't tell me that 3rd party risk insurance is a legal requirement because I have discussed that for years with US members.

Why should I when it is not a legal requirement. You confused?

Now....... How did your imaginary intruder gain entry in to your home , eh? What a joke.

By committing the crime of breaking and entering
And what leaves you with the conclusion that an intruder was imaginary?

 

[esmith]

Don't worry: I'm with you:

- if you've never shot a firearm, you don't get to have an opinion on gun policy.
- if you've never rejetted a carb, you don't get to have an opinion on automotive emissions standards.
- if you've never driven drunk, you don't get to have an opinion on drunk driving.
- if you can't explain the difference between GDP and GNP, you don't get to have an opinion on economic policy.
- if you've never taken part in a human sacrifice ritual, you don't get to have an opinion on human sacrifice rituals.

Don't knock it 'till you try it, right?

non-sequitur.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

non-sequitur.

Not at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

non-sequitur.

See below....

Don't worry: I'm with you:

- if you've never shot a firearm, you don't get to have an opinion on gun policy.
- if you've never rejetted a carb, you don't get to have an opinion on automotive emissions standards.
- if you've never driven drunk, you don't get to have an opinion on drunk driving.
- if you can't explain the difference between GDP and GNP, you don't get to have an opinion on economic policy.
- if you've never taken part in a human sacrifice ritual, you don't get to have an opinion on human sacrifice rituals.

Don't knock it 'till you try it, right?

The point I see....
If one knows little about guns, one shouldn't be advocating
for specific restrictions based upon technical differences.
Some of the misunderstandings about guns remind me of
the same regarding abortion, eg, rape can't cause pregnancy.
Tis best to understand what one weighs in on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See below....


The point I see....
If one knows little about guns, one shouldn't be advocating
for specific restrictions based upon technical differences.
Some of the misunderstandings about guns remind me of
the same regarding abortion, eg, rape can't cause pregnancy.
Tis best to understand what one weighs in on.

"Assault weapon" definitions in assault weapon bans are politically based, not technically based. They're not based on whether some characteristic of a firearm makes it more dangerous; they're based on two things:

- how far they think gun control can go before it violates the second amendment, and
- how far they think they have support to get something passed.

Based on purely technical grounds, the ideal solution is obvious: ban handguns. Get them completely off the streets. Anything less is not taking the issue seriously.

Maybe allow well-screened people to use handguns at shooting ranges, but only if this can happen without them leaking onto the black market.

The fact that the best and most effective solutions are mostly illegal and mostly politically unviable right now is why gun control advocates in the US are left pussyfooting around the edges of the problem. No **** that long guns don't kill that many people relative to handguns... but can you name a class of weapon that kills more people AND has a snowball's chance in Hell of being effectively controlled in the current political climate?

 

[oldbadger]

Correct I, despise people who use propaganda to further their anti-gun rhetoric.



Why should I when it is not a legal requirement. You confused?


By committing the crime of breaking and entering
And what leaves you with the conclusion that an intruder was imaginary?

Breaking what?
Can't you fix your place up properly?
And what for?

You keep diamonds at home?

Once upon a time gun makers and dealers liked the term assault rifle, it helped to sell them, then opinion turned upon them. It's a good term because they have no other real uses.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Assault weapon" definitions in assault weapon bans are politically based, not technically based.

That's incorrect regarding the "assault weapon" ban under the Clinton administration.
It didn't actually affect any assault weapons (per strict definition). But did affect some
which were similar in appearance. And the regulation, while politically motivated, was
indeed technical, eg, regulating things like finger grooves on handguns, cut-off date of
manufacture. Lack of technical understanding appears to have been rife in advocacy
for ( & writing of) that legislation.

 

[esmith]

Breaking what?

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

Can't you fix your place up properly?

And just how would you "fix" up your residence to stop someone from entering it. And no thank you, I don't want to live in a steel box with only vault type doors and no windows because that is about the only way to "almost" stop someone from entering. What would stop someone from forcing their way into you home when you answer the door?

Once upon a time gun makers and dealers liked the term assault rifle, it helped to sell them, then opinion turned upon them. It's a good term because they have no other real uses.

Ah, the typical "since I don't like certain firearms there must not be a use for them". Such a closed minded response.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Look.
The common-sense key initiates would be authorised training and qualification, police checks, home security assessments including a recognised quality of gun safe, licensing and MANDATORY 3rd party risks insurance. An additional check could be a psycho-evaluation.

You can fix your definition of assault-rifle where you all fancy, and then ban 'em because they have no sports or utility value at all.

Where civilians are enrolled in to a State militia or part-time police service they would have a variation on their licences.

See? You can keep your guns and rights, but 85 gun deaths and goodness only knows how many injuries per day is a dreadful situation for everybody who cares, I guess.

Where I live anybody can own a shotgun or rifle, depending on the above........

No, those are nursery rules for those who never want to grow up and always have a sugar tit to suck on. Let government parent you and pat you on the back and burp you. Yall are such good little boys. Man, praise God for 1776.

No, you need to define your 'assault rifle'. You're the one wanting to ban them. Not me. I'm fine with owning whatever you are calling an assault rifle.

What do you mean 'state militia'?

Oh gee, thanks. I get to keep my guns. So glad to hear. Accidents happen...everywhere, no matter what you are doing.

Really, can they own what you call an 'assault rifle'?

Good-Ole-Rebel