The Assault Weapon Myth

[Karee 4,191]

Maybe in a couple of hundred years what you propose would work. It will do next to nothing in the next few decades, and we all know that. And don't lump me in with all gun owners, it's a generalization that you anti gun people like to make. Some people shouldn't have guns, many shouldn't have children either.

Yeah there's 330 million firearms in this country. Nothing in the short term is going to address that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So all these guns and people are complaining about law enforcement having access to military grade gear. No connection? Wow.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Maybe in a couple of hundred years what you propose would work. It will do next to nothing in the next few decades, and we all know that. And don't lump me in with all gun owners, it's a generalization that you anti gun people like to make. Some people shouldn't have guns, many shouldn't have children either.

From what I have said, how do you conclude that I am 'anti-gun'? More hopeless rhetoric from someone who is trying to portray himself as not being part of the problem. Gun owners could change the meme, they choose not to do so, so, we'll all have to enjoy the society you conspire to maintain, warts and all. Thank you.

[lostinblue 1,989]

So all these guns and people are complaining about law enforcement having access to military grade gear. No connection? Wow.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's not added anything.

[Curmudgeon 227]

The trouble with firearms is that anyone can lay their hands on them, good, bad and the ugly. This is true in any society, but it is especially true in the good old US were access to guns and ammunition is exceptionally easy for everyone, good, bad and ugly. Just in case there is any confusion, criminals are not a special social class that are doing their best to outwit the good guys. Criminals are in fact members of our society, they are people like us and they can legally own weaponry just the same as the rest of us until they commit their first crime which is why in the US there are so many more criminal incidents were firearms are involved. Having lots of guns in general circulation means that lots of people are going to do lots of things with them and some of those things will result in people being shot, sometimes fatally. Those of us who do not have guns do not contribute to this statistic in any shape or form, just so that's nice and clear.

[Ban Hammer 13,662]

Having lots of guns in general circulation means that lots of people are going to do lots of things with them and some of those things will result in people being shot, sometimes fatally. Those of us who do not have guns do not contribute to this statistic in any shape or form, just so that's nice and clear.

sometimes those who don't have guns do contribute to that statistic, they're called "victims"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sometimes people with guns get shot, sometimes with someone else's gun, sometimes with their own. They'd be victims also.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

From what I have said, how do you conclude that I am 'anti-gun'? More hopeless rhetoric from someone who is trying to portray himself as not being part of the problem. Gun owners could change the meme, they choose not to do so, so, we'll all have to enjoy the society you conspire to maintain, warts and all. Thank you.

You have all the answers. Why don't you change it? I don't remember who you were in your prior VJ life, were you wise and knowing then or is this a new gig?

[Teddy B 17,252]

For most people, owning a gun is reckless and foolhardy because most people do not have sufficient interest in weapons or target shooting to take the responsibility seriously and ensure that no harm comes to those who live with or around the gun owner. Start with that and see how you get on. Of course, it will not happen because such sentiments are anti-American, unconstitutional and flagrantly challenge the 2nd amendment. Nonsense of course, but that's the response from certain members of the gun owning fraternity.

Spot on!

[Teddy B 17,252]

And that may be true in the future, but what about the non smart guns out there now? What do all the anti gun and gun control advocates suggest. Not directed at you personally, I ask those here sincerely.

I laugh every time you go to the defeatest well on this issue. There's so many guns, whatever will we do??

Thirty years ago drunk driving deaths were a major issue in this country. But now due to new laws, dedication and hard work for a few decades, very positive changes have been made and thousands of lives have been saved.

60 years ago about 75% of the US population smoked cigarrettes, but now in 2014, due to new laws, dedication and hard work, it's estimated that less than 10% of the US population now smoke cigarrettes and thousands of lives have been saved.

Using your logic, these two problems would have been too difficult to tackle and we should have just accepted the fact that thousands of people will needlessly lose their lives every year.

I know all the gun people hate it but I still think smart guns will be very effective after a few generations.

I agree. Smart guns seem to be a very reasonable way to help prevent gun deaths.

[Karee 4,191]

I laugh every time you go to the defeatest well on this issue. There's so many guns, whatever will we do??

Thirty years ago drunk driving deaths were a major issue in this country. But now due to new laws, dedication and hard work for a few decades, very positive changes have been made and thousands of lives have been saved.

60 years ago about 75% of the US population smoked cigarrettes, but now in 2014, due to new laws, dedication and hard work, it's estimated that less than 10% of the US population now smoke cigarrettes and thousands of lives have been saved.

Using your logic, these two problems would have been too difficult to tackle and we should have just accepted the fact that thousands of people will needlessly lose their lives every year.

I agree. Smart guns seem to be a very reasonable way to help prevent gun deaths.

I'd argue that new laws had nothing to do with the reduction in cigarette smoking. People are finally realizing that it's something that can kill you earlier with little benefit. Not sure how laws affect that. Plus cigarettes are still perfectly legal.

While drinking and driving fatalities have been reduced over time, so have have all driving fatalities. I think there is a lower percentage of total automobile deaths related to alcohol since the early 80s which is the number that really matters. Again, how much of this is due to laws, and how much of this is due to the way society views drunk driving?

Drugs have been illegal for decades, and the laws have done nothing to reduce drug abuse. In fact I think the levels of drug abuse have risen in some instances. Heroin for example.

My point being, simply making something illegal may have some minor benefits, but unless attitudes change, laws aren't going to do the trick.

This gun issue is gong to be solved by passing more laws, that's for sure.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'd argue that new laws had nothing to do with the reduction in cigarette smoking. People are finally realizing that it's something that can kill you earlier with little benefit. Not sure how laws affect that. Plus cigarettes are still perfectly legal.

While drinking and driving fatalities have been reduced over time, so have have all driving fatalities. I think there is a lower percentage of total automobile deaths related to alcohol since the early 80s which is the number that really matters. Again, how much of this is due to laws, and how much of this is due to the way society views drunk driving?

Drugs have been illegal for decades, and the laws have done nothing to reduce drug abuse. In fact I think the levels of drug abuse have risen in some instances. Heroin for example.

My point being, simply making something illegal may have some minor benefits, but unless attitudes change, laws aren't going to do the trick.

This gun issue is gong to be solved by passing more laws, that's for sure.

Outlawing smoking in public buildings and on public transportation had nothing to do with a reduction in cigarrette smoking?

I'd be willing to bet that drug laws have an enormous affect on the amount of drug use in this country. Just because a problem exists, it does not mean the current laws are a failure.

I'm not going to argue the nuances of each case, you get the drift of what I am saying. With hard work and dedication, most anything can be achieved. This defeatist attitude towards firearms is nothing but a cop out.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Teddy B

[Karee 4,191]

Outlawing smoking in public buildings and on public transportation had nothing to do with a reduction in cigarrette smoking?

I'd be willing to bet that drug laws have an enormous affect on the amount of drug use in this country. Just because a problem exists, it does not mean the current laws are a failure.

I'm not going to argue the nuances of each case, you get the drift of what I am saying. With hard work and dedication, most anything can be achieved. This defeatist attitude towards firearms is nothing but a cop out.

No, I don't think outlawing cigarette smoking in public buildings and on public transportation had anything to so with the reduction in cigarette smoking. If it did, it was pretty minimal. People realized over time that they are bad for your health. People not wanting die early had more to do with it than anything. Not some laws.

People are using illegal drugs at basically the same rate they have been for 40 years. Some drugs have increased in use, others have declined. Also, it's given rise to all these violent drug gangs etc.

You can call it a cop out, but I call it reality. The firearm murder rate has been reduced drastically since the early 1990s, yet there are way more firearms in circulation. Legal and illegal. How do you explain that? Some of the gun nuts would argue that it's because there are more firearms. I don't buy that. I think it's because of the "lock em up and throw away the key" attitude in the legal system. Now some would say that is a success of the legal system. I'd argue that having the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, is hardly a success.

[Teddy B 17,252]

No, I don't think outlawing cigarette smoking in public buildings and on public transportation had anything to so with the reduction in cigarette smoking. If it did, it was pretty minimal. People realized over time that they are bad for your health. People not wanting die early had more to do with it than anything. Not some laws.

People are using illegal drugs at basically the same rate they have been for 40 years. Some drugs have increased in use, others have declined. Also, it's given rise to all these violent drug gangs etc.

You can call it a cop out, but I call it reality. The firearm murder rate has been reduced drastically since the early 1990s, yet there are way more firearms in circulation. Legal and illegal. How do you explain that? Some of the gun nuts would argue that it's because there are more firearms. I don't buy that. I think it's because of the "lock em up and throw away the key" attitude in the legal system. Now some would say that is a success of the legal system. I'd argue that having the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, is hardly a success.

How could not being allowed to smoke cigarrettes in 90% of the areas we frequent every day not result in a reduction of smoking cigarrettes? I think you are grossly underestimating that affect. When you make something more difficult for people to do, there will be less people doing it.

What exactly is your argument about drug laws? Do most people obey them or not? Do we have a drug problem? Yes, but that does not mean the current laws a re a failure. Last i checked, most people are not strung out on drugs.