Definition of an assault weapon

[RF667799]

I never said that as a result of my solution all would be well. It was simply the first in a series of steps until the deaths are reduced to non-insane levels. Just as Trump tried to ban Muslims "until we can figure out what's going on," likewise introducing new regulations by raising the price of ammo to prohibitive levels until we can figure out what's going on is in order.

Afterwards, if we find that some issue unrelated to guns is the problem, then we can address it properly and relax or eliminate the new regulations entirely. In the meantime, we could save tens of thousands of lives.

At least you admit it is prohibitive. Prohibition always works so well.

 

[Cardinal]

At least you admit it is prohibitive. Prohibition always works so well.

You're confusing regulations with outlawing. Prohibitive regulations exist in all areas of governance. Prohibitive taxes on cigarettes is common, and for some reason this has not resulted in some massive black market with matching organized crime and death tolls seen during the era of Al Capone and Bugs Moran. The Prohibition Era analogy is just irrational hysteria.

Tobacco taxes are a proven strategy to reduce smoking, particularly among teenagers and low-income people. Given the high health costs of tobacco use, reducing smoking rates would lead to substantial health gains. Moreover, youth and lower-income people would benefit disproportionately from improved health, partially offsetting the regressivity of tobacco taxes, and lower-income children and families would be the primary beneficiaries of the expanded availability of early childhood education that these tax revenues would finance.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/higher-tobacco-taxes-can-improve-health-and-raise-revenue

 

[RF667799]

You're confusing regulations with outlawing. Prohibitive regulations exist in all areas of governance. Prohibitive taxes on cigarettes is common, and for some reason this has not resulted in some massive black market with matching organized crime and death tolls seen during the era of Al Capone and Bugs Moran. The Prohibition Era analogy is just irrational hysteria.


https://www.cbpp.org/research/higher-tobacco-taxes-can-improve-health-and-raise-revenue

I disagree even aside from the fact there is a black market in cigarettes. It might not be "massive" but that's because the tax isn't prohibitive. It is within the means of many. Maybe you just define the term differently, but I think your $1600 per bullet is prohibitive in the sense of disallowing nearly the entire population from legitimately purchasing the product. I believe you even stated that as the intention?

 

[Cardinal]

I disagree even aside from the fact there is a black market in cigarettes. It might not be "massive" but that's because the tax isn't prohibitive.

Except that it is demonstrably prohibitive because it prevents a significant portion of the population from affording cigarettes. The regulation was intended to reduce smoking, not outlaw it, and that goal was successful to a significant degree.

It is within the means of many. Maybe you just define the term differently, but I think your $1600 per bullet is prohibitive in the sense of disallowing nearly the entire population from legitimately purchasing the product. I believe you even stated that as the intention?

The aim isn't to "disallow." If that's what I meant then I would have suggested banning the buying or owning of ammunition rather than applying cost-prohibitive regulations to it.

 

[RF667799]

Except that it is demonstrably prohibitive because it prevents a significant portion of the population from affording cigarettes. The regulation was intended to reduce smoking, not outlaw it, and that goal was successful to a significant degree.



The aim isn't to "disallow." If that's what I meant then I would have suggested banning the buying or owning of ammunition rather than applying cost-prohibitive regulations to it.

There's no comparison to cigarette tax. A 1.7 million percent increase is prohibitive in line with my definition. It would prohibit virtually the entire private population from legitimately buying ammunition with the exception of the very, very wealthy. OTOH, there is a segment of the population who might even welcome what would be very lucrative expansion of the black market.

It was a funny Chris Rock routine. It owed its humor-like many comedy routines- to its absurdity.

 

[Nap]

I never said that as a result of my solution all would be well. It was simply the first in a series of steps until the deaths are reduced to non-insane levels. Just as Trump tried to ban Muslims "until we can figure out what's going on," likewise introducing new regulations by raising the price of ammo to prohibitive levels until we can figure out what's going on is in order.

Afterwards, if we find that some issue unrelated to guns is the problem, then we can address it properly and relax or eliminate the new regulations entirely. In the meantime, we could save tens of thousands of lives.

Drug prohibition, prison and criminal justice reform, education, mental health, and the single motherhood rate. These are the issues we need to focus on rather than argue over pointless gun regulations.

 

[Cardinal]

There's no comparison to cigarette tax. A 1.7 million percent increase is prohibitive in line with my definition. It would prohibit virtually the entire private population from legitimately buying ammunition with the exception of the very, very wealthy. OTOH, there is a segment of the population who might even welcome what would be very lucrative expansion of the black market.

$1600 per bullet was my proposal because that seemed like a logical number that would deter even irrational people who intended to commit murder. If you believe that a different figure, higher or lower, would accomplish the same end, then I'm open to suggestions. I'm happy to start with a lower number, but my thinking was this: what would be the cost of a full magazine? That would be 30 bullets in an AR-15* as just an example. At an average of 25 cents a bullet, that's $7.50. At a cost of $100 a bullet, that's $3000. That's certainly better, but I don't feel convinced that would deter a crazy person determined to murder people. However, at $1600 a bullet, now we're talking. The cost of that magazine is now $48,000. I could be wrong, but that sounds like a number that would deter even insane people from purchasing the magazine with the intent of murdering multiple people. Not because they would decide it was a bad idea (they're insane, after all), but because at that point a significant portion of the population is no longer able to afford it.

And for the eight billionth time, I acknowledge that this will create a black market. As long as this new black market doesn't create a volume of product that is equal to the normal volume, then I am okay with that.

*Before you jump down my throat for any errors in terminology, keep in mind that I don't actually care what the proper terminology is.

 

[Cardinal]

Drug prohibition, prison and criminal justice reform, education, mental health, and the single motherhood rate. These are the issues we need to focus on rather than argue over pointless gun regulations.

And I agree that you should. I wholly support your endeavors in these issues. They are indeed important.

 

[Kal'Stang]

$1600 per bullet was my proposal because that seemed like a logical number that would deter even irrational people who intended to commit murder. If you believe that a different figure, higher or lower, would accomplish the same end, then I'm open to suggestions. I'm happy to start with a lower number, but my thinking was this: what would be the cost of a full magazine? That would be 30 bullets in an AR-15* as just an example. At an average of 25 cents a bullet, that's $7.50. At a cost of $100 a bullet, that's $3000. That's certainly better, but I don't feel convinced that would deter a crazy person determined to murder people. However, at $1600 a bullet, now we're talking. The cost of that magazine is now $48,000. I could be wrong, but that sounds like a number that would deter even insane people from purchasing the magazine with the intent of murdering multiple people. Not because they would decide it was a bad idea (they're insane, after all), but because at that point a significant portion of the population is no longer able to afford it.

And for the eight billionth time, I acknowledge that this will create a black market. As long as this new black market doesn't create a volume of product that is equal to the normal volume, then I am okay with that.

*Before you jump down my throat for any errors in terminology, keep in mind that I don't actually care what the proper terminology is.

How To Make Your Own Bullets Today

And there are hundreds more websites out there detailing how. Your "solution" is bunk. Even assuming it would pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Cardinal]

How To Make Your Own Bullets Today

And there are hundreds more websites out there detailing how. Your "solution" is bunk. Even assuming it would pass Constitutional muster.

And I'm sure there are countless websites that will tell me how to cook my own meth or even build my own H-bomb. So what?

"And for the eight billionth time, I acknowledge that this will create a black market. As long as this new black market doesn't create a volume of product that is equal to the normal volume, then I am okay with that."

That was from the post you replied to which implies you read it. Clearly you did not.

 

[Kal'Stang]

"And for the eight billionth time, I acknowledge that this will create a black market. As long as this new black market doesn't create a volume of product that is equal to the normal volume, then I am okay with that."

That was from the post you replied to which implies you read it. Clearly you did not.

You're right, I didn't read it. Because I've seen you propose the same thing before. Repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to solve anything.

And the black market would easily create the volume of product that is currently normal....and then some. If you don't believe me then simply look to the War on Drugs.

 

[Cardinal]

You're right, I didn't read it.

Okay. If you don't read my whole posts then you obviously aren't fit to understand my arguments let alone respond intelligently to them.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Okay. If you don't read my whole posts then you obviously aren't fit to understand my arguments let alone respond intelligently to them.

If that's the case then why couldn't you respond to my whole post? :lamo

 

[Cardinal]

If that's the case then why couldn't you respond to my whole post? :lamo

Why should I give you the respect of reading your whole posts when you don't give me that same respect? Are you special in some way that is currently obscure to me?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Why should I give you the respect of reading your whole posts when you don't give me that same respect? Are you special in some way that is currently obscure to me?

Why should I read one entire post when you have repeated the same thing in multiple posts that I have read previously? Get a new argument and I'll gladly read it all. Until then, the same old argument made by you, can receive the same answer that I would have given you had I responded to the first time you made the argument.

 

[Harshaw]

So far nobody's been able to refute the logic of the idea. People keep saying "black market" over and over again but that doesn't actually refute the theory or the goal.

Except that 1) it will never happen, 2) it would be unconstitutional, and 3) the scheme would leak not like a sieve, but like a bucket with the entire bottom rotted out, sure, this idea is pure gold. You're obviously quite proud of it.

 

[Cardinal]

Why should I read one entire post

Because if you do then you will understand the entire argument being made, and there is even a chance that you'll respond intelligently to it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because if you do then you will understand the entire argument being made, and there is even a chance that you'll respond intelligently to it.

Since you already made the argument multiple times I understand your argument just fine.

 

[Cardinal]

Since you already made the argument multiple times I understand your argument just fine.

Since I responded to the point you made perhaps millions of times already, that is demonstrably untrue. Why do you pretend to read posts that you quite obviously do not? I don't crash threads and respond to your posts pretending that I read them. Why do you do that to me? Do you just not like my avatar?

 

[CLAX1911]

The NRA claims in its article, "The Great Arsenal of Democracy" that 25,065,834,000 rounds of .30 caliber ammunition were produced by the United States in the all of World War II. If that's true, and if what you say is true, then that means that private citizens currently hold forty times the total ammunition used in the single largest war we ever fought in. Jesus Christ, dude, that's enough. I mean, wtf.

What are you guys arming for? An alien invasion?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20030520/the-great-arsenal-of-democracy

maybe they just want it. What business is it of yours what people own?

 

[CLAX1911]

Because if you do then you will understand the entire argument being made, and there is even a chance that you'll respond intelligently to it.

There is nothing to understand.

Your argument is a joke. It is funny because it's absurd.

Do you know what absurd means? You wet your pants earlier about how I said it was humor and how that isn't an argument. That wasn't the argument the argument is that absurd things aren't logical. I explained why it was absurd and you changed the subject.

 

[Harshaw]

Since I responded to the point you made perhaps millions of times already, that is demonstrably untrue. Why do you pretend to read posts that you quite obviously do not? I don't crash threads and respond to your posts pretending that I read them. Why do you do that to me? Do you just not like my avatar?

Since you already made the argument multiple times I understand your argument just fine.

I think Cardinal just called you a racist, because I doubt he thinks you have a thing against Bond villain henchmen.

 

[CLAX1911]

Since I responded to the point you made perhaps millions of times already, that is demonstrably untrue.

Responding stupidly ad nauseam doesn't change that your response is any more valid. It doesn't matter how many times you do it. Its still refuted.

Why do you pretend to read posts that you quite obviously do not?

The refutation stands no matter what you say. Reading all of the times you said it wouldn't without explain why wouldn't matter.

I don't crash threads and respond to your posts pretending that I read them. Why do you do that to me? Do you just not like my avatar?

You just troll and play dumb.

 

[Harshaw]

There is nothing to understand.

Your argument is a joke. It is funny because it's absurd.

Do you know what absurd means? You wet your pants earlier about how I said it was humor and how that isn't an argument. That wasn't the argument the argument is that absurd things aren't logical. I explained why it was absurd and you changed the subject.

It is indeed a joke. Looks like he thinks stubbornness about it is its own argument. Hardly the first thread where he simply ignored what he didn't want to deal with and just continued to declare himself right regardless.

 

[CLAX1911]

I think Cardinal just called you a racist, because I doubt he thinks you have a thing against Bond villain henchmen.

He doesn't have a point. Im not sure if he's trolling or if he truly thinks he does have a point.