California judge overturns state's 32 year ban on assault weapons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

No??? You could own the libs. Just print one and post some pics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I don't want to, it would cost around 200 bucks for all the parts, if I really wanted an untraceable gun then that's a small price to pay for one, especially if I'm incapable of getting one legally.
But I'm not going to spend that money just to "pwn" some dork on a dying message board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciaban2.0

I don't want to, it would cost around 200 bucks for all the parts, if I really wanted an untraceable gun then that's a small price to pay for one, especially if I'm incapable of getting one legally.
But I'm not going to spend that money just to "pwn" some dork on a dying message board.

---

You can’t. I bet you could look at porn or flip a pancake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciaban2.0

If the point of your LAW or REGULATION is to stop criminals from doing something, then you have to ask yourself is it even going to work.

We have anti-littering laws to punish people who litter, so they won't litter again. If someone is looking to go on a suicidal murder spree, they're not thinking about long-term consequences. Your basically saying let's punish/regulate everyone because the perpatrator of this crime is dead, even though it won't stop future crimes from happening.

That's not something that should be done with people's constitutional rights.

---

Just because some can still potentially do bad things doesn't mean making them illegal/having punishment isn't going to decrease the activity though. You haven't shown anything remotely related to how effective it would be just pointed out that people in this country break laws. That's true and unrelated to the general reasoning behind them we use in this society just the type of argument we see when it is guns for some reason.

Yes and we have laws around murder too, that doesn't stop all bad people lol. Again this is insanity you are basically just saying we shouldn't have laws because some will break them. The point isn't that every single person always obeys the laws it is that you can hold people accountable/make clear the behavior isn't acceptable in our society etc. and as have noted most developed countries get this and most of our laws in place seem to as well. Only with guns do I see these arguments made, which again responding to Scoots I think it is clear where the disingenuous arguments are coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciaban2.0

I'd like to state first and foremost, that I'm not a gun owner, never have been, and I've never had guns in my home growing up, I've fired a gun with friends at a gun range once in my entire life.
I'm not pro-gun.
1)
If they didn't have access to guns they'd use something else that's easy. We know this because we see it happening.
On top of all that, with the way 3D printing of guns AND bullets have come along, even if you got the worlds most perfect gun *buy-back* (lol that's not what it is but w/e) people could still just print a gun and bullets and do whatever they want.

Targeting the underlying symptoms of violence is the only method that will produce a reasonable and actionable change in violence.

2)
What's their murder rate? I mean what your saying is the equivalent of "homeowners with pools are more likely to drown"
There is nothing morally or ethically worse about being killed by a gun vs a knife or rope or bomb etc.

---

First Bolded: Not nearly to the degree we are seeing mass shootings. You could add every mass knifing, and vehicular mass attack the last 10 years and they wouldn’t equal the number of mass shootings we’ve seen this year. No, there would not be nearly as many.

Second Bolded: Ironic because you’d think owning a pool would make you more likely to drown would be self evident, except in this scenario you’re the one literally denying more guns = more deaths. So you’re actually trying to argue more pools don’t equal less drownings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciaban2.0

Except we've seen bombs and cars and knives used for mass murder very effectively, obviously you can't use a car for home defense, but in an open area, why can't you run people over.

Guns offer certain situational advantages in mass murder, but cars also offer situational advantages in mass murder. So do knives.

---

It’s difficult to take you seriously when you be this disingenuous. If this is the case, then why don’t we Bam guns because hey, we can still use knives for self defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciaban2.0

1)
In Australia (the gold standard of *Gun-Buybacks*) they saw no drop off in suicides in the years after their *successful* gun buyback program, people killed themselves at the same rate, they just used different methods.

2)
The vast majority of mass shootings involve less than 3 people.
And more to the point, the social conditions in Europe are different than in the US.

---

1) Do you have evidence for your claim?

2) Yes, social conditions in Europe are different than the US, which makes it even more compelling that even in Europe, countries with more guns have more gun deaths.

Saying they’re different isn’t a get out of jail free card to dismiss data you do not like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

I think it would be foolish to equate the efficiency of one to the other, knives to guns, clubs to guns, ball peen hammers to guns. Someone twisted enough to cause mayhem and death would take another path, just not be as efficient. I’m not trying to convince you of anything, your opinion is set on this matter. What I would say is that there is a very distinct line between someone that owns a firearm for self defense or sport and a criminal intent on breaking the law....

---

I agree it’s be foolish: it’s obvious which is more efficient. Which is why all this talk of they’d just use a knife as if it’s be just as bad a scenario is disingenuous at best and outright naïveté at worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

The gun buy backs were not very effective because there are a lot of guns that the government doesn’t know about. You won’t find criminals standing in line to hand over the tool of their trade.

And that is the point that I don’t hear anyone copping to, you can make all of the laws you like and only those that are already living lawful lives are going to comply. Criminals probably applaud gun control laws, makes for less resistance when they ply their trade.

There are no laws that will be effective in reducing gun violence until you can make sure that criminals can’t use them. I think that is the single biggest point that just chaps my hide is that legal gunowners are expected to comply first and not the criminals. From where I stand that leaves me just a wee bit vulnerable and I ain’t having none of it thank you very much...

---

This is factually incorrect. Honestly, this is why it’s so frustrating talking guns with anyone pro-gun. They are literally ignorant of the data and findings and then just say the same incorrect platitudes. We KNOW there are laws that would be effective in reducing gun crimes, shootings, and gun deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

Suicide is a separate matter, I’m not trying to be insensitive here but the battle over guns is not about suicide....

---

It is not a separate matter. I’m not trying to be insensitive here but the reason you want it to be a separate matter is because you know it destroys your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Just because some can still potentially do bad things doesn't mean making them illegal/having punishment isn't going to decrease the activity though. You haven't shown anything remotely related to how effective it would be just pointed out that people in this country break laws. That's true and unrelated to the general reasoning behind them we use in this society just the type of argument we see when it is guns for some reason.

Yes and we have laws around murder too, that doesn't stop all bad people lol. Again this is insanity you are basically just saying we shouldn't have laws because some will break them. The point isn't that every single person always obeys the laws it is that you can hold people accountable/make clear the behavior isn't acceptable in our society etc. and as have noted most developed countries get this and most of our laws in place seem to as well. Only with guns do I see these arguments made, which again responding to Scoots I think it is clear where the disingenuous arguments are coming from.

---

One of the main arguments AGAINST the death penalty is that it's never been shown to decrease murder, and states that have gotten rid of it, or brought it back have seen no decrease in murder rates.
Just like in putting some law or restriction against owning something, the question you have to ask is, will it reduce people from gaining or doing the activity you want.
Going back to the 3D printing argument for a moment, there are places that have made it illegal to own or possess or print a gun from home, there is no way to regulate it, or stop people from doing it, so how effective are these laws.

Let's say you get your *assault weapons* ban (that's EVERY weapon but w/e) how is banning me from printing a gun and using it in a crime going to ACTUALLY stop me from doing so, if all I have to do is download a file and press print, and then go watch a movie while the printer does its job?


Laws and regulations have different effects based on their punishments, the laws against speeding and littering are to deter people from doing them, even though not everyone follows the law, and people continue to break it. However, those criminals in those cases will still be on the outside and part of society.
The point of laws around things like murder is to remove the offender from society because the crime they committed is so heinous we can't trust that they won't do it again.

How does a ban on a type of firearm stop people from acquiring it if they can just print it themselves? This has long been the problem with drug regulation. You'll just create an unregulated unsafe black market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciaban2.0

One of the main arguments AGAINST the death penalty is that it's never been shown to decrease murder, and states that have gotten rid of it, or brought it back have seen no decrease in murder rates.
Just like in putting some law or restriction against owning something, the question you have to ask is, will it reduce people from gaining or doing the activity you want.
Going back to the 3D printing argument for a moment, there are places that have made it illegal to own or possess or print a gun from home, there is no way to regulate it, or stop people from doing it, so how effective are these laws.

Let's say you get your *assault weapons* ban (that's EVERY weapon but w/e) how is banning me from printing a gun and using it in a crime going to ACTUALLY stop me from doing so, if all I have to do is download a file and press print, and then go watch a movie while the printer does its job?


Laws and regulations have different effects based on their punishments, the laws against speeding and littering are to deter people from doing them, even though not everyone follows the law, and people continue to break it. However, those criminals in those cases will still be on the outside and part of society.
The point of laws around things like murder is to remove the offender from society because the crime they committed is so heinous we can't trust that they won't do it again.

How does a ban on a type of firearm stop people from acquiring it if they can just print it themselves? This has long been the problem with drug regulation. You'll just create an unregulated unsafe black market.

---

Well I am not really for the death penalty and there has been data covered plenty by valade in this thread (and others) relating to guns and our country’s problems currently.

I am not sure it prevents you from making the gun or getting it if you have $. If you have one and it’s seen you can now be punished very easy though because it’s illegal. The idea again isn’t that the law will prevent everyone, what about all the people without 3D printers? You keep trying to harp on the most obvious point that criminals will be criminals. The laws are in place for society’s safety and allow us to find bad people/hold them accountable easier. You can potentially bust large chains of sellers when possible/cooperation/evidence if those who have these weapons (whether they used them to kill yet or not).

I am not claiming no one will have guns. As you noted people can still get explosives rocket launchers or whatever that are illegal. How many are used regularly though to kill others? Seems like there’s a gap between usage despite those having similar potential/possibility. You seem to just keep fighting about common sense reasons for having laws in place though. You even note we literally do this with drugs. There is likely to be a black market on most illegal items in that sense so again why should guns be the one things treated different than any other tool/weapon/drug/law?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciaban2.0

One of the main arguments AGAINST the death penalty is that it's never been shown to decrease murder, and states that have gotten rid of it, or brought it back have seen no decrease in murder rates.
Just like in putting some law or restriction against owning something, the question you have to ask is, will it reduce people from gaining or doing the activity you want.
Going back to the 3D printing argument for a moment, there are places that have made it illegal to own or possess or print a gun from home, there is no way to regulate it, or stop people from doing it, so how effective are these laws.

Let's say you get your *assault weapons* ban (that's EVERY weapon but w/e) how is banning me from printing a gun and using it in a crime going to ACTUALLY stop me from doing so, if all I have to do is download a file and press print, and then go watch a movie while the printer does its job?


Laws and regulations have different effects based on their punishments, the laws against speeding and littering are to deter people from doing them, even though not everyone follows the law, and people continue to break it. However, those criminals in those cases will still be on the outside and part of society.
The point of laws around things like murder is to remove the offender from society because the crime they committed is so heinous we can't trust that they won't do it again.

How does a ban on a type of firearm stop people from acquiring it if they can just print it themselves? This has long been the problem with drug regulation. You'll just create an unregulated unsafe black market.

---

OGM still lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I agree it’s be foolish: it’s obvious which is more efficient. Which is why all this talk of they’d just use a knife as if it’s be just as bad a scenario is disingenuous at best and outright naïveté at worst.
You totally ignored the point that I conceded that other methods of mayhem would not be as efficient, you just cherrypicked the part you wanted to refute.


This is factually incorrect. Honestly, this is why it’s so frustrating talking guns with anyone pro-gun. They are literally ignorant of the data and findings and then just say the same incorrect platitudes. We KNOW there are laws that would be effective in reducing gun crimes, shootings, and gun deaths.

Check the numbers from our own government in relation to the assault weapon ban of '94, little to no reduction in violent crime during the ban


It is not a separate matter. I’m not trying to be insensitive here but the reason you want it to be a separate matter is because you know it destroys your arguments.

---

It does nothing to affect my argument at all, you're the one on a crusade to include that in the discussion. I certainly don't speak for anyone other than myself and this is how I feel about suicide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corralski

It does nothing to affect my argument at all, you're the one on a crusade to include that in the discussion. I certainly don't speak for anyone other than myself and this is how I feel about suicide

---

I’m not on a crusade to include it, all gun deaths are inherently included when discussing gun deaths. You are on a crusade to say “when discussing gun deaths, we must exclude these gun deaths”.