[W:#74, #319]How many lives a year are saved by "thoughts and prayers"?

[Ethel2]

Nobody needs alcohol either. It kills a lot more people than "assault weapons" or "high caps". Should we ban alcohol too?

The difference is that for the most part people who drink too much only kill themselves. Drunk driving is already illegal. Assault weapons should likewise be illegal. There’s only one reason to possess an assault weapon: killing lots of people. It’s absurd that such weapons are legal.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The difference is that for the most part people who drink too much only kill themselves. Drunk driving is already illegal. Assault weapons should likewise be illegal.

Drunk driving is already illegal, and it still kills 10,000 people per year. Obviously it's not illegal enough. Shooting people is already illegal too, so by your logic, why bother with assault weapons?

There’s only one reason to possess an assault weapon: killing lots of people. It’s absurd that such weapons are legal.

That's not true. The overwhelming majority of people who own "assault weapons" do not own them to kill lots of people, any more than people buy vodka instead of beer so they can get more drunk for the drive home. It's no more absurd for "assault weapons" to be legal than it is for Ferraris to be legal.

What's so special about "assault weapons," anyway?

 

[watsup]

It's cute that you think post #256 addresses my point. Or a little scary. I'm not sure which.

See post #256.

 

[Noodlegawd]

See post #256.

Speaking of repeating onesself. I saw it, and I was duly underwhelmed.

 

[watsup]

Speaking of repeating onesself. I saw it, and I was duly underwhelmed.

See post #278.

 

[Ethel2]

Drunk driving is already illegal, and it still kills 10,000 people per year. Obviously it's not illegal enough. Shooting people is already illegal too, so by your logic, why bother with assault weapons?



That's not true. The overwhelming majority of people who own "assault weapons" do not own them to kill lots of people, any more than people buy vodka instead of beer so they can get more drunk for the drive home. It's no more absurd for "assault weapons" to be legal than it is for Ferraris to be legal.

What's so special about "assault weapons," anyway?

If it was possible to force people to refrain from driving drunk we should do that too. However the solution to these mass killings is much easier: you make assault weapons illegal. It won’t eliminate them but it will reduce the killings.
What is special about assault weapons (and you know this) is that you can fire off large numbers of rounds without reloading.
So you tell me: why do people need assault weapons? How many times do you need to shoot a burglar anyway? Six rounds is more than sufficient.

 

[watsup]

If it was possible to force people to refrain from driving drunk we should do that too. However the solution to these mass killings is much easier: you make assault weapons illegal. It won’t eliminate them but it will reduce the killings.
What is special about assault weapons (and you know this) is that you can fire off large numbers of rounds without reloading.
So you tell me: why do people need assault weapons? How many times do you need to shoot a burglar anyway? Six rounds is more than sufficient.

Oh boy, now you've gone and done it. The gun wackos will go ballistic!

 

[Crunchtime]

Nobody needs alcohol either. It kills a lot more people than "assault weapons" or "high caps". Should we ban alcohol too?

Or abortion?

 

[reflechissez]

Speaking of repeating onesself. I saw it, and I was duly underwhelmed.

You're one to talk. You have your very own thread that you started. Go there.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If it was possible to force people to refrain from driving drunk we should do that too.

It is possible. Just apply the same penalties to drunk driving that Democrats want to apply to putting a pistol grip on a rifle. I don't see Democrats working toward that, probably because it would require them to personally give something up, rather than just making other people give something up.

However the solution to these mass killings is much easier: you make assault weapons illegal. It won’t eliminate them but it will reduce the killings.
What is special about assault weapons (and you know this) is that you can fire off large numbers of rounds without reloading.

You obviously don't know what an "assault weapon" is. The worst mass shooting in modern history did not involve the use of a assault weapon. Look it up and get back to me.

So you tell me: why do people need assault weapons? How many times do you need to shoot a burglar anyway? Six rounds is more than sufficient.

Once again, what does need have to do with anything?

 

[Lycanthrope]

But only if guns are involved. If they're doing nothing in the face of equal or greater numbers of children from being needlessly killed as a result of other easily-preventable issues, no big deal, right?

Yes. Sorry, but yes. I'm disinclined to let innocents continue to die by gun violence and elected officials on both sides do nothing because "we haven't eliminated death by swimming pools yet!"

That argument is stupid.

 

[Lycanthrope]

That's a question of risk tolerance, just like with things other than guns. I have yet to see a proposed law that I believe would reduce risk to a degree that is worth it.

I personally believe it should be left up to the states to enact almost all gun laws, within the confines of the 2nd Amendment.

I personally believe punting responsibility to the states is a deliberate cop out that would be utterly ineffective.

 

[Citizen]

Mine was saved.

So if thoughts and prayers saved your live, why in the hell do you need a gun

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Saying a persons beliefs are pointless is mocking their faith.

If you told someone that the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves is nonsense, are you mocking their faith?

 

[Ethel2]

It is possible. Just apply the same penalties to drunk driving that Democrats want to apply to putting a pistol grip on a rifle. I don't see Democrats working toward that, probably because it would require them to personally give something up, rather than just making other people give something up.



You obviously don't know what an "assault weapon" is. The worst mass shooting in modern history did not involve the use of a assault weapon. Look it up and get back to me.



Once again, what does need have to do with anything?

I know what assault weapons are. I know what the difference is between an automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon is. I don’t need you to patronize me.
There are laws in existence against driving drunk. There are ways to prevent habitual drunk drivers from starting a car engine.
The vast majority of these senseless killings are carried out with high capacity assault weapons. NO ONE needs them, just as no one needs to possess hand grenades.
You tell my why anyone needs a high capacity assault weapon. Then tell me your proposal to reduce the shootings.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes. Sorry, but yes. I'm disinclined to let innocents continue to die by gun violence and elected officials on both sides do nothing because "we haven't eliminated death by swimming pools yet!"

That argument is stupid.

I'll give you credit for admitting to having a massive double standard. Thanks for being honest.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I personally believe punting responsibility to the states is a deliberate cop out that would be utterly ineffective.

Why? What's the point of having states, if people who live in different states can't live by different rules that they prefer?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I know what assault weapons are. I know what the difference is between an automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon is. I don’t need you to patronize me.

You said "assault weapon," not semiautomatic weapon. Are you now proposing that we ban all semiautomatic weapons? Make up your mind.

There are laws in existence against driving drunk. There are ways to prevent habitual drunk drivers from starting a car engine.

Those laws and "ways" are so effective that only 10,000 people are being killed by drunk drivers every year.

The vast majority of these senseless killings are carried out with high capacity assault weapons.

Not true.

NO ONE needs them, just as no one needs to possess hand grenades.
You tell my why anyone needs a high capacity assault weapon. Then tell me your proposal to reduce the shootings.

As soon as you tell me what "need" has to do with anything. Do you "need" to drink wine or drive a car that can go 100mph? Both of those things, individually, kill a lot more people than "assault weapons."

 

[Ethel2]

You said "assault weapon," not semiautomatic weapon. Are you now proposing that we ban all semiautomatic weapons? Make up your mind.



Those laws and "ways" are so effective that only 10,000 people are being killed by drunk drivers every year.



Not true.



As soon as you tell me what "need" has to do with anything. Do you "need" to drink wine or drive a car that can go 100mph? Both of those things, individually, kill a lot more people than "assault weapons."

I gave you my proposal.
What’s your proposal to reduce the senseless violence due to mass killings by assault weapons and high capacity guns?
Assuming that continuing to do nothing isn’t a reasonable alternative.

 

[TurtleDude]

The guy who shot up the store in Buffalo was a lawful gun owner. We can't blame him?

the minute he decided to use the gun for illegal purposes, his possession was a violation of the law as well

 

[TurtleDude]

I gave you my proposal.
What’s your proposal to reduce the senseless violence due to mass killings by assault weapons and high capacity guns?
Assuming that continuing to do nothing isn’t a reasonable alternative.

life sentences on killers. when someone uses the term "assault weapon" i realize I am most likely dealing with someone who doesn't understand the issue very well when it comes to firearms types because the left often calls all sorts of things-including olympic rapid fire pistols to turkey hunting shot guns "assault weapons

when you are in a room full of 8 year old kids and control the door to that room, you can kill just about everyone with all sorts of weapons.

 

[Ethel2]

life sentences on killers. when someone uses the term "assault weapon" i realize I am most likely dealing with someone who doesn't understand the issue very well when it comes to firearms types because the left often calls all sorts of things-including olympic rapid fire pistols to turkey hunting shot guns "assault weapons

when you are in a room full of 8 year old kids and control the door to that room, you can kill just about everyone with all sorts of weapons.

Assault weapons should be illegal.
Automatic weapons should be illegal.
Semiautomatic weapons should be illegal.
High capacity handguns should be illegal.
The only purpose to possess these weapons is to kill a lot of people all at once.
So your proposal is life sentence for these killers? Isn’t that like locking the barn door after the horses are out?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

But, you have nothing but anecdotes for your argument.

You have no proof. One small short-term study tells you absolutely nothing about the conclusions of many big long-term studies done by professional theologians worldwide. Until you show me those studies, your own link is totally useless.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Why? What's the point of having states, if people who live in different states can't live by different rules that they prefer?

In this issue the rules of one state may negatively impact the other. No point in Colorado having strict gun laws if they can't stop people crossing the border with them.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I gave you my proposal.
What’s your proposal to reduce the senseless violence due to mass killings by assault weapons and high capacity guns?
Assuming that continuing to do nothing isn’t a reasonable alternative.

My proposal is to first do something about the thousands of easily-preventable deaths caused by drunk and reckless drivers every year. I think if we dish out 5-year prison sentences and a lifetime ban on driving for drunk driving and speeding on the first offense (essentially the same penalty as Democrats want to be able to impose for owning an 11-round pistol magazine), that should about take care of 90% of it.

And after we've saved 18,000 lives per year with that, if those of us with common sense have any time and political capital left, we can talk about what to do about the few dozen deaths that happen every year because of "high capacity guns" (because there are no deaths caused by the fact that "assault weapons" are legal).