Conquer Club

Very impassioned argument for what will be a very ineffective law.

She suggests, for example, that the Sandy Hook massacre was effective because the Assault Weapons Ban was no longer law. This is a dangerous suggestion to make.

thegreekdog wrote:Very impassioned argument for what will be a very ineffective law.

She suggests, for example, that the Sandy Hook massacre was effective because the Assault Weapons Ban was no longer law. This is a dangerous suggestion to make.

A typical suggestion for a shill like maddow to make. She even throws in that she is a victim of sexism as she sits in her comfy news anchor chair.

xeno wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Very impassioned argument for what will be a very ineffective law.

She suggests, for example, that the Sandy Hook massacre was effective because the Assault Weapons Ban was no longer law. This is a dangerous suggestion to make.

A typical suggestion for a shill like maddow to make. She even throws in that she is a victim of sexism as she sits in her comfy news anchor chair. Screw that dyke

Meh, I like Maddow. She is more intelligent than your average talking head (liberal or otherwise).

In the video above she's making the same argument everyone else makes with respect to the Assault Weapons Ban. Even if I was a card-carrying NRA member with 500 guns, I would have no problem with the Assault Weapons Ban. It's a highly ineffective law. If the NRA were actually an organization that was supportive of gun owners (rather than gun manufacturers), it would be indifferent to the Assault Weapons Ban.

She sucks. Lets make murder a crime then we dont have to ban guns. Oh... it already is a crime to kill. Looks like criminals dont follow the law. Go figure. I would of never thought.

warmonger1981 wrote:She sucks. Lets make murder a crime then we dont have to ban guns. Oh... it already is a crime to kill. Looks like criminals dont follow the law. Go figure. I would of never thought.

This is the absurdity of what she is suggesting tgd. I get their arguments but soooo many laws are broken when these mass shooting sprees take place, taking rights away from citizens is not the answer. You're an anarchist yourself are you not?

xeno wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:She sucks. Lets make murder a crime then we dont have to ban guns. Oh... it already is a crime to kill. Looks like criminals dont follow the law. Go figure. I would of never thought.

This is the absurdity of what she is suggesting tgd. I get their arguments but soooo many laws are broken when these mass shooting sprees take place, taking rights away from citizens is not the answer. You're an anarchist yourself are you not?

You guys are missing the point.

(1) Tragedy happens - indirect culprits include, but are not limited to: gun manufacturers/owners, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals and mental health generally, school security, media glorification of past massacres.

(2) People call for change related to the above indirect culprits. The calls for change are, by and large, emotional in nature and reactionary.

(3) One of these changes involve re-implementing the Assault Weapons Ban.

If you're a politician (or me), the question is what do you do? Do you support the Assault Weapons Ban? If so, how vocally? Do you come out against the Assault Weapons Ban? If so, how vocally?

My answer is that you remain indifferent with respect to the Assault Weapons Ban while simultaneously trumpeting the rights of gun owners. You make concessions on certain issues, like this Assault Weapons Ban, and stuff like the "gun show loophole" while pressing for better school security or better mental health options (or none of the above, in my case). You look like a hero on both sides and you understand that the Assault Weapons Ban is largely ineffective in both what it purports to do and what the NRA says it will do.

What the NRA Says it Will Do

The NRA's first basic argument is that the Assault Weapons Ban infringes upon individuals' Second Amendment rights. This basic argument assumes that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms (rather than being a collective right for a group of individuals to form a militia). Let's ignore that. The second thing this argument assumes is that there is no basis for denying an ultimate right to bear arms. There is no precedent for that. There are bans on bazookas, for example. Additionally, other rights are similarly limited (e.g. you cannot cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater; you can't look at kiddie porn).

The NRA's second argument is that not being able to carry around the banned weapons will make you subject to criminal attacks and you will lack the ability to defend yourself (call these the Youtube video arguments that what's-his-name puts up all the time).

Take a look at the wiki article on the old Assault Weapons Ban. The term "assault weapon" is defined as semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. The ban is on semi-automatic weapons that possess the cosmetic (COSMETIC!) features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. In other words, if a semi-automatic weapon looks like an automatic weapon, it is banned. There is a list of features which make a semi-automatic weapon look like an automatic weapon. For example, the following gun was banned: a semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines with a bayonet mount and grenade launcher. Take off the bayonet mount, the grenade launcher, and don't have the rifle accept detachable magazines and you have a legal weapon. The NRA called the law ineffective because the ban was cosmetic.

I would note that fully automatic assault rifles are already banned (and have been banned since like the 1940s).

What Supporters Say it Will Do

Supporters of the Assault Weapons Ban believe that the law will succeed in reducing general gun violence and specifically the gun violence associated with mass killings. Let's ignore that mass killings occur in countries with bans on all guns. Let's also ignore that, pursuant to Ms. Maddow's speech above, the Sandy Hook guy could have killed less children had the Assault Weapons Ban been in effect (in other words, he would have killed 20 instead of 50, or whatever). Maybe that will be part of the new Assault Weapons Ban (the limit on the rounds per magazine), but the guy could have killed 20 people with two clips... still a massacre (sorry Rachel).

So was the original Assault Weapons Ban effective in reducing general gun violence and mass killings?

The Violence Policy Center, an organization committed to advancing gun control, called the Clinton-signed law ineffective because the ban was cosmetic. Hey, they agreed with the NRA on that!

The CDC did not find sufficient evidence to determine if the original Assault Weapons Ban was effective.

A research report from the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania submitted to the DOJ found that if the ban was renewed, its effecton gun violence would likeyly be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement because rifles in general are rarely used in gun crimes (more on that later).

But there is good news - the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence did some research that showed that in the five year period before enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban, assault weapons named in the ban constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF traced to crime. I highlighted the words to focus on. A spokesman for the ATF stated that he could not vouch for the validity of the report; probably because people just used guns that weren't banned (or took off their grenade launcher and bayonet mount).

From 1994 through 2013 (excluding Sandy Hook), there were 26 mass homicide incidents accounting for 403 deaths or injuries. Of those homicide incidents, 7 occured in the years the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ra ... :_Americas

Finally, I would note the following homicide statistics... at the peak of each weapon, the following number of homicides occurred:
- Handguns (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 14,000 homicides in 1993
- Knives (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 4,000 homicides in 1982
- Other guns (some of which are banned by the Assault Weapons Ban, but only cosmetically) - approximately 3,500 in 1980
- Other methods (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 3,500 in 2001
- Blunt objects (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 1,000 in 1989

In sum, both sides are stupid.

xeno wrote: Screw that dyke

How many tickets is that ride? Sounds scary.

TGD both sides are not for the American public as they claim. So yes both sides are dumb. The government touts freedom or fairness to life and liberty but both government and private business are out for themselves. The problem I have is that the government gives weapons to rebels in Syria to overthrow their government . Thats why I think they want to take away weapons that are actually able to defend against a mob or government . Common sense tells any half educated person guns dont kill it is the person pulling the trigger. There will always be a way to kill people without guns. Oklahoma bombing was done with hardware store supplies. Is fertilizer the killer or Timothy??

As far as i know a vast majority of gun crimes are done with a pistol. Im not 100% on that but i dont think it was with assault weapons . Maybe someone can look up some statistics.

warmonger1981 wrote:Thats why I think they want to take away weapons that are actually able to defend against a mob or government .

To be fair, the government took that ability away in the 1940s.

warmonger1981 wrote:As far as i know a vast majority of gun crimes are done with a pistol. Im not 100% on that but i dont think it was with assault weapons . Maybe someone can look up some statistics.

It's in the link above. Handguns account for far more crimes than any other weapon. It's just that no upper middle class white school children are getting killed with handguns, so we don't care about them as much.

EDIT - Sorry, it's not in the link above. It's on wiki though.

Government profiles for political gain or government security. Pic a topic and manipulate public opinion to swing in a favorable direction. If the government speeks it is like a pimp to a hooker. Rarely do they tell the truth or sincerely care for the well beings of people. Self preservation is all the government cares about. not any of us.

warmonger1981 wrote:Government profiles for political gain or government security. Pic a topic and manipulate public opinion to swing in a favorable direction. If the government speeks it is like a pimp to a hooker. Rarely do they tell the truth or sincerely care for the well beings of people. Self preservation is all the government cares about. not any of us.

I don't disagree with that. One must work within the system, however; in order to do that, one must pick his or her battles. For example, would you want to use your cache of political capital battling the ineffective Assault Weapons Ban or build up your cache of political capital by calling attention to the ability of the executive branch to kill Americans indiscriminately?

More towards Executive branch but the problem is that the government uses our money to do this crazy shit then we need to spend our money fighting it. To many fronts to battle not enough of our own resources. To many bait and switch scenarios.

thegreekdog wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:Government profiles for political gain or government security. Pic a topic and manipulate public opinion to swing in a favorable direction. If the government speeks it is like a pimp to a hooker. Rarely do they tell the truth or sincerely care for the well beings of people. Self preservation is all the government cares about. not any of us.

I don't disagree with that. One must work within the system, however; in order to do that, one must pick his or her battles. For example, would you want to use your cache of political capital battling the ineffective Assault Weapons Ban or build up your cache of political capital by calling attention to the ability of the executive branch to kill Americans indiscriminately?

It goes further.

Which politician wants to look the Sandy Hook residents in the eye, and say, "Sorry, folks, not a goddamned thing we can do to prevent the next one, therefore, we'll do nothing at all about it."

It's the truth; but which politician wants to say that to the moms and dads who lost their kids?

It's not just the Executive branch, you see.

Admittedly, Obama (having represented a state with neighborhoods where the numbers lost at Sandy Hook get lost in those neighborhoods annually due to "street violence") would like to do stuff to stop gun crime while still protecting the rights of decent citizens to bear arms.

He's not alone. Most of the representatives that have areas with high gun violence would like to see something done about that violence.

Unfortunately, "politicians" tend to try to act even when the action they plan won't fix the problem - and they know it won't. They'd rather be seen "doing something," than to be seen "doing nothing."

I love how she doesn't think her audience can count to 152.

Army of GOD wrote:I love how she doesn't think her audience can count to 152.

That annoyed me as well, but was done to prove the point. The point being that it would have been soooo much better if he had killed 20 kids instead of 50 (or whatever).

thegreekdog wrote: If the NRA were actually an organization that was supportive of gun owners (rather than gun manufacturers), it would be indifferent to the Assault Weapons Ban.

While the NRA no longer supports gun owners, it also doesn't support gun manufacturers. If anything, the opposite is true. There are more than a few cases where manufacturers actually are not in favor of NRA policies, but won't say anything because the threat of a boycott is just too serious.

(aka Smith and Wesson).

You raised some good arguments in this post, but I this is the only part that is really in contention.

thegreekdog wrote:

The CDC did not find sufficient evidence to determine if the original Assault Weapons Ban was effective.

Did you know that the main reason there is no evidence is that the NRA put pressure on the CDC. Officially, they did not, but…

thegreekdog wrote:


In sum, both sides are stupid.

LOL.. agreed.

I have had the opportunity to have some serious discussions lately with folks who are in places to make some changes. One thing I pointed out is that as long as the debate is “my child’s safety versus your ‘right’ to have a gun”, the “mom” side wins. The NRA no longer represents most real gun owners. Even so, most do join for a variety of reasons, most particularly because they tend to have the clubs where one can shoot, hold competitions, etc. Some very much buy into the “domino” type argument (if they take one, they will take them all….).

Anyway, I think that unless we want guns to be made illegal, we need to start doing a few unconventional things, like bringing shooting sports back into schools. The old “eddie Eagle” programs did not work, because they did not talk the real psychology of children into account. Sorry, but most 5-6 year olds, never mind 3 year olds really don’t understand that injuries and death are permanent, often just don’t have the self control to resist things they really want (aka the marshmallow test). Safety for young kids means keeping them away from guns except under very, very, VERY close supervision (I am OK with having many 5 year olds learn B.B. gun shooting on a one-one basis, but am with those who reject the idea that 4-5 year olds are OK out shooting deer, as they now can in PA). However, once kids get older, then safety involves allowing kids to learn to shoot in controlled situations, associating guns with sports and not gangs and crimes only. I realize that is an unconventional view, but I do hold to it.

I do take exception to one point you rejected. I think paying much greater attention to mental health IS very much a big aspect of this. I don’t look at that from the punitive end, though, because it’s a failed game. We cannot predict who will and will not harm others reliably, so saying (just as an example) anyone diagnosed with xyz should not be able to own a gun is ineffective. Having more community based mental health services, offering easier access to services that are available and tracking the results of various programs to ensure we are promoting the things that work and doing away with the things that do not.. that is what we need.

On the other hand, saying anyone convicted of using a gun inappropriately should not be allowed to own one.. AND enforcing that rule in a real way is reasonable. Domestic violence, animal abuse and suicide attempts are all situations that probably ought to have more attention, where people convicted of those crimes ought to truly be prohibited from buying guns. Someone convicted of embezzling.. maybe not.

warmonger1981 wrote:Government profiles for political gain or government security. Pic a topic and manipulate public opinion to swing in a favorable direction. If the government speeks it is like a pimp to a hooker. Rarely do they tell the truth or sincerely care for the well beings of people. Self preservation is all the government cares about. not any of us.

OH BULL.

Claiming that the government is some unified force that works against average people is the oldest and stupidest game in the book. We DO live in a democracy (OK -- Republic), though plenty seem intent on destroying that.

Its not "the government" that fights for all that, its individuals and groups of individuals who will benefit, particularly corporations and lobbiests (many of whom are corporations in essence if not in reality).

How about coming up with some real, workable solutions instead of just throwing out "gov'ment bad... erp".

PLAYER57832 wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:Government profiles for political gain or government security. Pic a topic and manipulate public opinion to swing in a favorable direction. If the government speeks it is like a pimp to a hooker. Rarely do they tell the truth or sincerely care for the well beings of people. Self preservation is all the government cares about. not any of us.

OH BULL.

Claiming that the government is some unified force that works against average people is the oldest and stupidest game in the book. We DO live in a democracy (OK -- Republic), though plenty seem intent on destroying that.

Its not "the government" that fights for all that, its individuals and groups of individuals who will benefit, particularly corporations and lobbiests (many of whom are corporations in essence if not in reality).

How about coming up with some real, workable solutions instead of just throwing out "gov'ment bad... erp".

Let's say that both of your hands are infected with a flesh-eating disease. Usually, people will say, "well, let's cut off the right one, but not the left one because that one is necessary." Those people unsurprisingly die.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Did you know that the main reason there is no evidence is that the NRA put pressure on the CDC. Officially, they did not, but…

Provide a link or something. Otherwise, this can be disregarded with prejudice.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I do take exception to one point you rejected.

I didn't reject mental health issues; I merely noted that others had rejected it. You know what all those mass murderers had in common? They had guns, they wanted attention and they had mental health issues. So far our government and the media has concentrated on the first issue and not the second two.

Player it is the government that is ultimately unified under multiple agencies ultimately against the will of most people. Why then is this country becoming more devided? You do understand that corporations are for the most part our government run through lobbyists. If this country was for the people then the tax code would be different or the Fed would be audited. Or maybe get rid of the Fed since every American is a slave to them. Why do we print our own money give it to the Fed then they give it back with interest? There is not enough cash to pay all debts. Print the money but now inflation hits. Pretty basic stuff but no one in government cares enough to fix the problem. Fractional banking should be done away with

thegreekdog wrote:Very impassioned argument for what will be a very ineffective law.

She suggests, for example, that the Sandy Hook massacre was effective because the Assault Weapons Ban was no longer law. This is a dangerous suggestion to make.

I consider it a more dangerous to not accept it was actually, possibly the truth.

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Very impassioned argument for what will be a very ineffective law.

She suggests, for example, that the Sandy Hook massacre was effective because the Assault Weapons Ban was no longer law. This is a dangerous suggestion to make.

I consider it a more dangerous to not accept it was actually, possibly the truth.

Watch the video again. Count how many times the guy had to reload under the "Assault Weapons Ban" scenario.

Then realize that Maddow is not just talking favorably about the Assault Weapons Ban, she is indicating that the Assault Weapons Ban is NECESSARY for something like Sandy Hook to not happen again. That's ridiculous for the reasons laid out in my lengthy post on page one. So... do you have an alternative explanation? Are you confident that the Sandy Hook guy would not have used the same weapon that looked less scary? I mean, because that's what the Assault Weapons Ban actually bans: weapons that look scary. Anyway, go read my lengthy post and come back.