How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[CLAX1911]

Of course you can. Read the OP!

No you can't.

Suicide is a problem and only briefly addressed on the OP. But this thread is about assault weapons.

Who's being assaulted what the hell are you talking about?

Feel free to open a thread if you want to focus on suicides.

You keep talking about assaults

Not sure what difference that makes. But what really gets you is when it's children. Especially when they're in their classrooms. This happens way to often in this country.

The only thing is you can't manipulate me because I'm smarter than you.

Can you think of anything you can do with an assault weapon that you can't do with a tire iron?

If you assault someone with a tire iron it is an assault weapon. The only way you can have an assault weapon is if you assaulted somebody.

So what the hell are you talking about?

If not then, if we were to follow your logic, we can safely ban assault weapons and nothing will be lost.

The logic is an assault weapon is whatever you use to assault someone.

I won't engage with your stupid lingo I'm going to play dumb until it frustrates you.

Because the gun industry has politicians of both parties in their deep pockets... And even Supreme Court Justices....

So we have a conspiracy theory with little or no evidence to back it up.

Now.... the question is if you can quote ONE of my proposals and rebut it.

Your proposal about what to do with weapons after someone uses them in an assault who cares?

I'm not wasting my time with anything else....

Yeah you're wasting your time with nonsense.

If you can, then do it. If you can't, then that proves that there IS no rebuttal. Everything else you write is only intended to distract from the fact that you can't address any of my proposals. Which is the same as endorsing them!

No it's to frustrate you to where you define what the f*** you're talking about when you say the phrase assault weapon I only know that to me something used to assault someone with. And every time you use the phrase I'm going to address it that way.

So either stop talking to me or tell me what the hell you're talking about.

 

[jaeger19]

My proposals are not for your community to implement. Not even for your state. They would need to be at a federal level in order for them to work.

But that means the proposals would have to be implemented at the state level.
So you would have to convince my community to comply because why?
Because you think lots of guns cause problems even though many states don’t have that problem. And we see that states you have enacted some of your proposals have higher murder rates than than we do
So they’ve given up firearms yet don’t see any benefits.

Looks like your arguments can be summarized as: 1- "I found this underdeveloped nation that we are better than" and 2- "We haven't had a mass shooting in my community yet". So, apparently, you read my proposals, thought long and hard, spent hours researching to find a rebuttal.... and THAT was all you could come up with...

I'll take it!!!

Well you did take it. Right in the shorts.
Because comparing Mexico with the us completely refutes your argument that your proposals will work.

Your premise that your proposals will work because they will reduce the publics ownership of firearms thus reducing the opportunity for criminals to get firearms and thus reduce crime.

Well mexicos draconian gun laws has severely reduced the public’s availability of firearms. It has an extremely low gun ownership rate. , yet its violent crime rate is very high.

You say “ but but but Mexico is different”
That’s right. And those differences such as poverty are the REAL causes of violence. And to lower violence, that’s what you need to reduce. Clearly severely reducing guns in mexicos society DID NOT WORK.
Your magic pill didn’t work.

Now take that to the us.
NY state has very restrictive gun laws that have severely reduced the number of firearms and number of people who own guns in ny state we
( which is what you say will work)
Yet its crime rate has a much higher murder rate than states like idaho with much higher gun ownership.

You’ll say “ but but if the law was federal criminals couldn’t get guns high capacity mags elswhere.”

But your proposal for magazines and firearms is to simply make the sale illegal. While there are tens of millions of high capacity magazines and firearms out there . So your proposal definitely will not restrict criminals from getting there hands on high capacity mags etc

Cost of enforcement will be astronomical and with little to no benefit.

All resources that could go to alleviating the actual causes of crime in ny like access to housing , access to good schools , alleviation of poverty. Etc.

 

[jaeger19]

They would work by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on. And, as the OP explains, they won't eliminate ALL gun violence... not even all gun violence with assault weapons... but it will surely make them more difficult than just hopping by the neighborhood gun store, and walking out with an assault weapon and high capacity magazines

As pointed out. No it won’t . The secondary private market that will be left completely unregulated ALREADY accounts for about half of firearm sales. ( I gave you a citation showing that)

.. And since some people have pointed out that anything you can do with an assault weapon, you can do just as well with a knife, a rope or... even "a brick or a tire iron", then we have nothing to lose. Just use those.

No. They have pointed out that you can MURDER someone tge same.
Not say hunt an animal. Or defend yourself from an attacker etc.

You don’t realize that someone defending an attack is completely different than someone intent on murder.

I don't know what NONSENSE you're trying to make up now to try to hide your lack of arguments. I have NEVER used the word "polymer" in any of my posts. But the desperation you display by making up crap like this is further evidence that you can't rebut my proposals.

No. You didn’t use the word polymer. Which showed your complete ignorance when you told us all how you are going to wait until the “ high capacity magazines “ rusted”

BWAHHHHH Gosh that was HILARIOUS.

I gave to thank you for such a good laugh on a hard day.
You are too ignorant to know that a huge amount of high capacity magazines are made of polymer THAT DOES NOT RUST.

 

[Spock]

As pointed out. No it won’t . The secondary private market that will be left completely unregulated ALREADY accounts for about half of firearm sales. ( I gave you a citation showing that)


No. They have pointed out that you can MURDER someone tge same.
Not say hunt an animal. Or defend yourself from an attacker etc.

You don’t realize that someone defending an attack is completely different than someone intent on murder.

No. You didn’t use the word polymer. Which showed your complete ignorance when you told us all how you are going to wait until the “ high capacity magazines “ rusted”

BWAHHHHH Gosh that was HILARIOUS.

I gave to thank you for such a good laugh on a hard day.
You are too ignorant to know that a huge amount of high capacity magazines are made of polymer THAT DOES NOT RUST.

@jaeger19 has endless hypothetical irrelevant objections to every effort to minimize firearm violence typically without objective support.
This frantic, strawman scrambling is an effort to prevent any effort to reduce the access Americans have to firearms. At some level, he recognizes that reducing access will result in less firearm violence and that realization fundamentally conflicts with his world view that all firearm death and injury in America will still occur with or without firearms.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Who's being assaulted what the hell are you talking about?

Who is assaulted? Do places like the Las Vegas Harvest Festival, Robb Elementary School (Uvalde), Aurora, Parkland Florida.... ring a bell?

I'm afraid that if you have to ask THIS, you are waaaaay too far behind. Please read my sig and come back when you have enough information to participate in this discussion. But not before. I have neither the time nor the drive to hand-hold you through the history of gun violence in America.

Nothing personal.... just that it would be a waste of time.

 

[CLAX1911]

Who is assaulted?

An assault weapon is a weapon you assaulted someone with.

So you cannot have an assault weapon unless someone was assaulted.

Do places like the Las Vegas Harvest Festival, Robb Elementary School (Uvalde), Aurora, Parkland Florida.... ring a bell?

People were murdered in that case it was a murder weapon.

Don't get mad at me cuz you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm afraid that if you have to ask THIS, you are waaaaay too far behind.

Okay bye.

Please read my sig and come back when you have enough information to participate in this discussion.

You're conflating murder with assault what the **** would your signature have to do with that

But not before. I have neither the time nor the drive to hand-hold you through the history of gun violence in America.

So learn the difference between assault and murder and then get back to me.

If you murder somebody with a firearm it's not an assault weapon it's a murder weapon.

If you assault someone with a tire iron it's an assault weapon that's what that word means and I'm going to go with that meaning because you fail to explain it because you don't know what you're talking about.

Nothing personal.... just that it would be a waste of time.

Seen as your time is useless it's not really that big of a waste is it.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

But that means the proposals would have to be implemented at the state level.

Weird response. I say that they would need to be implemented at a federal level, and you interpret that to mean they would have to be implemented at a state level.

Are you paying attention to what you respond to?

So you would have to convince my community to comply because why?

Same reason your community has to comply with ANY other federal law.

I don't think your response is serious. I'll wait for a serious response. Sorry... but I don't feel like wasting my time on nonsense today. Try again tomorrow.... No guarantees, though.

 

[CLAX1911]

Weird response. I say that they would need to be implemented at a federal level, and you interpret that to mean they would have to be implemented at a state level.

Are you paying attention to what you respond to?

Paying attention to what you say is like paying attention to someone talking about how the moon landing was faked.

Same reason your community has to comply with ANY other federal law.

They don't. Did you know marijuana federally is illegal but in Colorado it's not.

I don't think your response is serious. I'll wait for a serious response.

But your argument is like claiming that the moon landing was fake.

Sorry... but I don't feel like wasting my time on nonsense today.

You never do anything but complain about wasting your time the amount of time you've wasted complaining about wasting your time might have been put to some productive use

Try again tomorrow.... No guarantees, though.

It's a guaranteed that you'll complain about how worthless your time is and how you're wasting it complaining about wasting it.

I guess political forum got tired of your crap.

 

[jaeger19]

Weird response. I say that they would need to be implemented at a federal level, and you interpret that to mean they would have to be implemented at a state level.

Nothing weird about it. Because it would have to HAPPEN at the state level. You could enact a federal law. But it won’t make a lick of difference if the states don’t follow it.
Marijuana is illegal at the federal level.
How’s that doing in the states?

Are you paying attention to what you respond to?

Trying but you make up a lot of crap.

Same reason your community has to comply with ANY other federal law.

See above about marijuana . My community and state does not complete with federal law.
Silly anti gunner.

I don't think your response is serious. I'll wait for a serious response. Sorry... but I don't feel like wasting my time on nonsense today. Try again tomorrow.... No guarantees, though.

It was serious. That’s your problem. It’s a serious response to someone who isn’t serious about debating since you refuse to defend and explain your own premise.

Now run away again.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

As pointed out. No it won’t . The secondary private market that will be left completely unregulated ALREADY accounts for about half of firearm sales. ( I gave you a citation showing that)

No. In my proposals the private market would be regulated too.


Try again with this NEW information in mind.

No. They have pointed out that you can MURDER someone tge same.
Not say hunt an animal. Or defend yourself from an attacker etc.

Why not? What's the difference?

Today I'm not in the mood for wasting my time with nonsense. So WHATEVER difference you can think of about shooting an animal or an attacker with an assault weapon and a 50 round magazine full of brass or steel Teflon-coated ammunition, the SAME applies to shooting people by a mass shooter.

 

[CLAX1911]

No. In my proposals

Rejected

 

[Feynman Lives!]

An assault weapon is a weapon you assaulted someone with.

No kidding! And what they did to those kids in Uvalde does not count as "assault", right?

Save the answer for tomorrow. Today my quota for responding to nonsense has been fulfilled....

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Marijuana is illegal at the federal level.

Yep! This would be one of those laws that we would HAVE to enforce.

Easier because if somebody dies from smoking marijuana, it would probably not make the papers. NO politician would lose their job.. But if a bunch of people are killed with an illegal assault weapon, the shooter, the seller and whoever provided it to the seller are ALL in deep shit! So there is an "incentive" to enforce it.

 

[Spock]

Nothing weird about it. Because it would have to HAPPEN at the state level. You could enact a federal law. But it won’t make a lick of difference if the states don’t follow it.
Marijuana is illegal at the federal level.
How’s that doing in the states?

@jaeger19 has never hear of the Supremacy Clause.

Trying but you make up a lot of crap.

See above about marijuana . My community and state does not complete with federal law.
Silly anti gunner.

It was serious. That’s your problem. It’s a serious response to someone who isn’t serious about debating since you refuse to defend and explain your own premise.

Now run away again.

Clearly @jaeger19 has been trapped by the inconsistency of his arguments.

 

[CLAX1911]

No kidding!

So I don't know what you mean by assault weapon ban. Why not just ban assault unless you want to ban tire irons

And what they did to those kids in Uvalde does not count as "assault", right?

No that was murder I think the murder weapon was taken. Either way the creep that did it is dead so he's banned from breathing

Save the answer for tomorrow. Today my quota for responding to nonsense has been fulfilled....

 

[JMB1911A1]

No. In my proposals the private market would be regulated too.

How would you enforce this? And don’t say “pass laws to make it illegal”. What specific enforcement mechanism will stop criminals from selling illegal items to other criminals?

Try again with this NEW information in mind.


Why not? What's the difference?

Today I'm not in the mood for wasting my time with nonsense. So WHATEVER difference you can think of about shooting an animal or an attacker with an assault weapon and a 50 round magazine full of brass or steel Teflon-coated ammunition, the SAME applies to shooting people by a mass shooter.

 

[CLAX1911]

Clearly @jaeger19 has been trapped by the inconsistency of his arguments.

You should be careful redlining your irony meter so much.

 

[jaeger19]

@jaeger19 has never hear of the Supremacy Clause.

Spock has never seen marijuana dispensaries on every block imeven though marijuana is illegal federally.

Clearly @jaeger19 has been trapped by the inconsistency of his arguments.

Clearly you were trapped by the inconsistency of your argument.

Spock: “ we need to fear the death and mayhem caused by firearms.
Spock” ha , there is no need for a gun to protect yourself BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR”.

We all see your intellectual disconnect.

 

[jaeger19]

You should be careful redlining your irony meter so much.

Okay now THAT was funny!

 

[jaeger19]

Yep! This would be one of those laws that we would HAVE to enforce.

Easier because if somebody dies from smoking marijuana, it would probably not make the papers. NO politician would lose their job.. But if a bunch of people are killed with an illegal assault weapon, the shooter, the seller and whoever provided it to the seller are ALL in deep shit! So there is an "incentive" to enforce it.

Great. Explain how you plan to “ enforce” this law.
Let’s say I sell a high capacity magazines to a person who is a mass shooter
How do you plan to prove I sold it to him

 

[RF667799]

Spock has never seen marijuana dispensaries on every block imeven though marijuana is illegal federally.

Clearly you were trapped by the inconsistency of your argument.

Spock: “ we need to fear the death and mayhem caused by firearms.
Spock” ha , there is no need for a gun to protect yourself BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR”.

We all see your intellectual disconnect.

"Firearm prevalence is a very important quantity to understand firearms as risk factors. No, Firearm prevalence can't be determined."

"A firearm existing in a home is a RISK FACTOR! Firearms in storage don't count as prevalence."

 

[RF667799]

No. In my proposals the private market would be regulated too.


Try again with this NEW information in mind.


Why not? What's the difference?

Today I'm not in the mood for wasting my time with nonsense. So WHATEVER difference you can think of about shooting an animal or an attacker with an assault weapon and a 50 round magazine full of brass or steel Teflon-coated ammunition, the SAME applies to shooting people by a mass shooter.

That doesn't make sense. It's like you're saying that since "mass shootings" are illegal, then shooting animals or attackers should be as well.

If that isn't what you were trying to say, my apologies. Add a dash of coherence and cook that shit again.

 

[jaeger19]

"Firearm prevalence is a very important quantity to understand firearms as risk factors. No, Firearm prevalence can't be determined."

"A firearm existing in a home is a RISK FACTOR! Firearms in storage don't count as prevalence."

I know.
So silly isn’t it?
Adam Lanza s mother kept her firearms in a gun safe. “ not prevalence”!!

 

[P_T]

The point of all of this is there are Sass holes out there intent on killing you.
You better be ready to see them and defend yourself. If not, you are a chicken arcs victim again.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

No that was murder

So you want to call them "murder weapons". Fine with me. Not sure what difference that makes.... but... whatever blows your mind....