Definitely in theory, and for organized groups with an agenda. For solos, it's not the same; in practice, you have Eric Robert Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski and their body counts pale in comparison.
Cause it was an organized terrorist attack by weirdo white supremacist militiamen, and had at least 4 people involved in the plot. Not really the same as your lone nutjob IMO.
Really. How exactly do you protect yourself or your family if your guns is locked up for child safety and it's not even beside you. Do people carry gun 24/7 in their own home? Most I heard is kids accidentally shooting themselves or others with their daddy's guns.
Well, you obviously shouldn't have said it then. Only with complete knowledge should you ever say or think anything. Nah, I'm kidding, everyone understood what you were saying. Just like you likely understand what people mean when they say assault weapon even if the definition is slightly nebulous. You know that it's a term of art that is generally meant to encompass weapons designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range, but has been put into legislation which refers to a variety of weapons. Just because there is no exact definition of an assault weapon doesn't mean that an "assault weapon" ban can't and should not exist or even or that it needs to be perfect in all situations. And while you might quibble with the exact parameters of what an "assault weapon" is or isn't or which features it has or needs not have, doing so is not a very strong attack against the belief that "assault weapons" need to be banned. A majority of Americans favor banning "assault weapons" and they would leave the details in determining what is or isn't an assault weapon in the hands of the legislature. Unfortunately strong well-funded interests tend to trump the will of the people on issues like these. What is an what isn't an assault weapon is an issue that would be decided after quite a bit of deliberation in committee. Because the term is subject to change, but is meant to encompass a certain spirit, your constant refrain asking for definitions is somewhat premature. To imply that people cannot be a proponent of an "assault weapons" ban simply because of the impossibility of a definition that applies perfectly in all situations, is very weak. Neither does pointing out whether someone calls it a clip or a magazine, somehow make their belief any less valid or justified than your own. By trying to make people hash out their own definition of "an assault" weapon on a message board, simply so you can nit-pick their phrasing or complete knowledge it doesn't undermine the need for a ban. Rather, the only thing it shows is a misunderstanding of how our government is run. Unless you know that already, and then it just a showcase of meaningless pedantry. On a related but unrelated note, did anyone catch the article in the Atlantic - The Philosophy of the Technology of the Gun? It makes for an interesting read and provide a bit more play on the way the nature of the gun influences what we use it for. I expect vigorous disagreement as to the scope of the effect or to whether the effect of guns on how we act should matter when deciding rights, but it's still a interesting aspect to the on going conversation about gun control.
Actually I have no freaking clue. Everyone has a different definition. Haven't you been reading their responses? I have and it's been hilarious! Use dumb buzz words on a poll and you can get any result you want. Say rifles (most people definition) and you will get a different result. We have already had a ban. It isn't premature at all. It brings someones uniformed reactionary view into a coherent action which can be judged. This is the only political debate with obtuse actions having no real definition and thus no ability to engage in real debate. I'm not making fun of people saying clip or magazine. He said magazine in his definition then claimed the gun I posted has a clip.
Your definition (lifted directly from wikipedia) is the EXACT OPPOSITE of fchowd0311's argument: His problem is they have great range. Your problem is close range. LOL I'm obviously being pedantic though? Find another avenue of attack please.
How many of these people wanted Saddam? Americans are serious about their guns. My coworkers were more concerned about how Obama was going to use Colorado to take their guns rather than the dead folks. I don't think they are in the minority either in the older white right wing crowd.
Uhh, so if you can't even nail down WHY these things you want to prohibit are bad( or WTF they are), isn't that a problem? A major roadblock in determining HOW to regulate and prohibit and what the effects, consequences, effectiveness, repercussions will be?
To expect a bunch of non-experts on a message board to have the answers about the exact contours of what is or isn't an "assault weapon", free of any possible redundancies or inconsistency is a waste of time. If we were to pass a new ban, the exact definition would be arrived at by the amalgamation of a bunch of expert testimony, run through many drafts, voted in what amounts to a series of sequential games by a members of the legislature from where it would hit the floor, be amended and then still have to be go into conference where it would be changed some more. People have been talking about why these things are bad, and you have been vehemently disagreeing on minor details when you really just want to say something like all guns need to be legal all ammo should be legal all size magazines should be legal and we need to lift the restrictions we have.
If you have the opinion that "assault weapons" should be banned you need to know what they are at the very least. I've asked what, 4-5 different people and got 4-5 different answers. It's like saying "I support a Killer Chemical ban!" We aren't even in the same ballpark on these answers either.
So what is your position? You seem to be making a bunch of arguments that rest on semantics. Should any weapons be banned? How about you present a definition of what weapons should or should not be banned. You complain about everyone else providing different definition so how about you provide your own. Or just say, "I dont think any weapons should be banned"
They do. In Switzerland they still have mandatory conscription and when you leave the cantonal militia, you keep your rifle. The difference is that crime rates in Switzerland are nothing like crime rates in the inner city so naturally there's going to be less violent crime. Also in Switzerland, due to the fact that everyone serves, people in general are much better educated about using guns and gun safety than here in the US which avoids a lot of the accidental gun deaths that are a problem here. (This also can be seen in rural communities in the US with larger rates of gun ownership but with less accidental deaths and lower rates of crime) The proper comparison to American urban areas is other similar urban areas with more restrictive gun laws. Switzerland is extremely different in a variety of other variables so directly comparing the two simply isn't fair. That's like comparing rural America to the inner city of a major American city.
