Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/21/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):Gun bans only impact law abiding citizens.
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/21/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):The AW ban was ineffective because it didn't take the illegal guns out of circulation.
Posted by tecwrg on 1/21/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):it has not.
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/21/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):Asked and answered.
Posted by seamar_116 on 1/21/2013 6:32:00 AM (view original):So is there any evidence to support the AW ban did anything to reduce shootings?
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/21/2013 12:35:00 AM (view original):stop being so disingenuous (look it up). The ban on assault weapons is intended to reduce one particular type of crime. No one is claiming that all crime is going to go down. Intelligent people are trying to reduce the opportunity for some nut case to gun down large numbers of people in a short amount of time. Like at a school, a mall, or a theater. Muggings, car jackings, rape, assaults, etc. will not be affected.Happy?
Your opinion that reducing guns reduces crime isnt evidence.
The Clinton gun ban didnt reduce crime or shootings.
Counties with gun restrictions have high crime and counties with more gin freedom have less crime.
I am not willing to just jump over this. This isnt some oddball issue.
I can show a logical connection between "Fire in a movie house" and panic.
I dont see the same connection between AW ban and shootings.
Stop pretending that your question has not been addressed.
The left has always went with "Guns cause crime"
They never had to prove it.
If it was answered than repeat the answer.
If it cannot be answered and you dont know how to respond stay silent.
Take as many of the illegal guns out of circulation as you can, it logically follows that that they will be involved in less shootings.
Feel free to deny that with your ultra right-wing NRA Kool Aid bullshit.
Are you claiming that Obama is suggesting taking away citizens guns?
Remember a man in a truck with some fertilizer and fuel oil took out over a thousand. Some Muslims with box cutters killed over 3 thousand.
In a free society it is almost impossible to prevent someone from killing people.
If you want to abolish the 2nd and take away everyone's guns you will not make people safer.
Where have I argued that we should take away everybody's guns? In fact I have argued just the opposite . . . abolishing the second amendment would be a horrible idea.
I'm suggesting that high capacity assault weapons are not needed by Joe Citizen. Nobody has made a good faith argument to counter that. If that's the case, make sales to and ownership by private citizens illegal. And if guns currently in possession are illegal, it's retarded to say "Bah, keep the ones you've got". So yes, take them out of circulation.
BTW, the "man in a truck with some fertilizer and fuel oil" killed 168 people, not "over a thousand". If you're going to continue to make your bad faith arguments, at least make half an effort to get what little facts you have straight.
And after "some Muslims with box cutters killed over 3 thousand", we saw a massive overhaul of airline security. Maybe you haven't noticed, but going from the check-in counter to boarding an airplane is a lot more cumbersome than it used to be.
1/21/2013 9:55 PM (edited)