- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 26,458
- Reaction score
- 10,705
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
FACTS:
AR-15s:
- AR-15s are popular rifles in the United States. They fit in a category of weapons that Democrats want to ban that they call "assault weapons," which the proposed ban legislation generally distinguishes from most other semiautomatic firearms based on the presence of one or more physical features like a pistol grip or adjustable shoulder stock. The 1994 AWB required TWO of these features, whereas the latest proposed versions usually only require one of them for a weapon to be banned.
- AR-15s (and other semiautomatic rifles) without those features are readily available in gun shops in CA and other states that have "assault weapon bans" that are comparable to the federal ban proposed by Democrats.
- Those "compliant" AR-15s can very easily be converted into non-compliant AR-15s using legally-obtainable parts.
- Doing so in CA (for example) is a felony on the first offense, as it would be federally if Democrats' proposed ban were passed. Thus, a person convicted of adding a pistol grip to a semiautomatic rifle might not only spend more than a year (if not several) in prison, he would also be prohibited for life from ever owning a firearm again.
- Rifles of all kinds (including but not limited to AR-15s or other "assault weapons) account for a small percentage of murders in this country (around 3%).
Fast Cars:
- Most cars on the road in the United States are capable of exceeding even the highest posted speed limits anywhere on our roads, in many cases by a large margin.
- According to the NHTSA, speeding killed 11,258 people in 2020. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding
- Relatively inexpensive technology exists that could be included in cars at manufacture, or installed in aftermarket, that would make them effectively incapable (without modification) of exceeding the posted speed limit, and the underlying technology needed to implement that is already present on many newly-made vehicles.
- The penalty for speeding on the first offense and many subsequent offenses is typically a fine. Multiple offenses in a relatively short time can result in a short term suspension of the driver's license.
QUESTION:
If you had to ban one of these two things, and had the power to do so, would it be either "assault weapons" or cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit? Please pick one, and then respond to the thread and explain your reasoning. For purposes of responding this poll, assume that an "assault weapon" is firearm as defined in the federal legislation proposed by Democrats. Also, assume that the Constitution would allow, or could be changed to allow, whichever choice you make. This is not meant to be a debate over terminology or the Constitutionality of various proposals. Also, please note that "high capacity magazines" (however defined) are not "assault weapons," but rather a separate thing that Democrats want to ban together with assault weapons. They could be (and I believe have been in one or more states) banned by separate legislation, and are not the subject of this thread.
Finally, if you cannot honestly answer the poll without making an assumption not stated here, or without correcting what you believe to be an incorrect factual statement I've made, please make that assumption or correction, answer the poll, and then state what your assumption or correction was that allowed you to answer. I've tried my best to include all the relevant assumptions and to correctly state the facts as I know them, so please don't derail the thread if you disagree. Just fix it and answer, and we can debate that in the comments if needed.
AR-15's when used for the purpose they were created, destroy and kill.
Cars, when used for the purpose they were created, take their passengers between destinations.
Also, we are all in support of numerous laws regulating the use and safety of cars, so the comparison fails in at least two ways.
AR-15's when used for the purpose they were created, destroy and kill.
Cars, when used for the purpose they were created, take their passengers between destinations.
Also, we are all in support of numerous laws regulating the use and safety of cars, so the comparison fails in at least two ways.
AR-15s vs. fast cars, which should we ban?
AR-15s vs. fast cars, which should we ban?
"Destroy" and "kill" have no inherent negativity, yet you seem to imply they do.
Did you mistakenly use those terms as if they are synonymous with "murder"?
Ah, I think he means those cars that are specifically designed to kill the most people in the shortest time and are so very regularly used to do just that in America....
....annnnd which are subject to regulation and laws - even criminal code - regulating use? Insurance? Licensing?
Goddamn it's stupid in too many different directions.
The polls provided me with a choice: ban the thing that destroys and kills when used for the purpose it was created, or the thing that transports people between places when used for the purpose it was created. The choice was obvious to me.
"Destroy" and "kill" have no inherent negativity,
Your question was irrelevant, and it avoids the point of my argument.Your avoidance of my question is obvious to me.
"Destroy" and "kill" have no inherent negativity, yet you seem to imply they do.
Your question was irrelevant, and it avoids the point of my argument.
Nonsense. It confronts the terms you used in your argument. Are they inherently negative?
Amazing that I've managed to own both guns AND very fast cars for most of my life and yet I've never killed anybody with either.
If we could get the vast majority of people to be more responsible with both that would be a goal worthy of aspiring to.
But it sounds like @Noodlegawd is fixated on sussing out the closeted authoritarians who want to ban everything so he can yell
"Ya see? YA SEE? They wanna take away our rights!"
What are you, Turtledude's alter ego or something?
AR-15's when used for the purpose they were created, destroy and kill.
Cars, when used for the purpose they were created, take their passengers between destinations.
Also, we are all in support of numerous laws regulating the use and safety of cars, so the comparison fails in at least two ways.
The question is, is death and destruction more negative than transporting people between places? And the answer to me is obvious.
Explain your reasoning, if you have any.
Explain it, instead of relying on fallacy to make the claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?