Do bullets have the same 'protected' status as guns in America? If not then theoretically it would be a lot easier to outlaw those, at least in terms of pushing through whatever legislation it required. I realize it's a stupid idea and highly unrealistic... so I figured I'd throw it out there with all the other solutions.
Originally posted by Robtard
@ddm I'd say most Left-wingers don't push for a "ban all guns".
You're right and that's a fair statement.
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know exactly. Am curious why an AK47 is legal though, that's a military-grade weapon. Though he could have done similar damage with an AR15-type and those are classified as "sports rifle" or something like that.
I can't see much user for the AK outside of just target shooting. It would shred meat if you're hunting. It's kind of stupid, really.
Originally posted by Surtur
The last assault weapon ban worked so well, why wouldn't we try again?In fact, I'm also thinking...who wants to try prohibition again too?
It's gotta work a second time, right?
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?
Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion. -snip
There is an argument for it. Really depends what you care about.
Originally posted by samhain
Do bullets have the same 'protected' status as guns in America? If not then theoretically it would be a lot easier to outlaw those, at least in terms of pushing through whatever legislation it required. I realize it's a stupid idea and highly unrealistic... so I figured I'd throw it out there with all the other solutions.
Yes and no.
eg it's legal to buy/possess armor piercing rounds, but it is illegal to sell armor piercing rounds in the US.
Why anyone outside of the police and military need AP rounds though.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes and no.eg it's legal to buy/possess armor piercing rounds, but it is illegal to sell armor piercing rounds in the US.
Why anyone outside of the police and military need AP rounds though.
Those kinds of little legal schisms really annoy me. Used to be illegal to have a fiberglass engine on your motorcycle even though you could totally legit buy one and have it installed that day.
Originally posted by samhain
Do bullets have the same 'protected' status as guns in America? If not then theoretically it would be a lot easier to outlaw those, at least in terms of pushing through whatever legislation it required. I realize it's a stupid idea and highly unrealistic... so I figured I'd throw it out there with all the other solutions.
Second amendment covers bullets as necessary for the operation of a gun.
Otherwise they could simply sell a gun without a trigger.
Originally posted by samhain
I see. A gun is still a gun without bullets though, is a gun still a gun without a trigger? Getting oddly philosophical now.
Nothing philosophical about it. A gun without ammunition can't be used. This has been backed up in courts, which is why the government can't simply tax ammunition as a de facto ban on guns.
Originally posted by cdtm
Nothing philosophical about it. A gun without ammunition can't be used. This has been backed up in courts, which is why the government can't simply tax ammunition as a de facto ban on guns.
Is the legal intention of guns to harm or kill though? It seems the definition would be for self-defense, if so, it could be argued that you could achieve that by firing a warning shot with a blank. I know I'm quibbling now, but I was wondering why I hadn't heard of people going after bullets with the same gusto as they do with guns, guess now I know.
Guns are meant to kill.
You don't "want" to use them to kill, ideally, but killing is kind of the point of a gun. And advocates (Which includes the general public, activists/lobbyists, and judges in the courts) will argue they SHOULD be capable of killing, for that time when it comes down to "Him or me", and no other options are available (Like retreating, or getting help.)
Originally posted by Robtard
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion. -snip
There is an argument for it. Really depends what you care about.
I remember we talked about this. They should a slight net-benefit to the assault weapons ban of like...1%-2% or something. That's lives saved.
I'm all for research-based, sound-science based, legislation and regulation. As long as we can prove the research was genuinely interested the results/science of the "study", I'm okay with policy being directly dictated with no-nonsense approaches and research.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In the 15 years since Republicans allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire, mass shootings have gone up 250%.
Do you have a citation for that that is not from an anti-gun source?
FBI has it at only 30 shootings and almost all of those were gang violence in Democrat-controlled cities.
And almost all of those shootings were from hand guns, not assault rifles. Sooooo...you're talking about two different topics.
It's like saying, "Semi-Trucks just implemented a new fuel efficiency technology but golf cart wrecks are up 250% since then."
Originally posted by Surtur
Dudes manifesto was headlined "The Inconvenient Truth".Surely that's a reference to a documentary by a right winger, full of right wing talking points.
Al Gore did not invent the term inconvenient truth, you retard. It is a term in the common parlance; that is why he chose it.
You would know that it is not a reference to a documentary had you actually read it. It is four pages of right-wing extremism, filled with support for Tarrant, Trump, and terrorism.