Wendy's Chili: False. The number of criminals possessing high-capacity magazines dropped every year during the ban. When the ban was lifted, the numbers skyrocketed.

Fair enough, but I'll pose this question again: has this resulted in any measurable uptick in the actual level of violent crime? Yes, the criminals "possessed" high-capacity magazines, but were they actually carrying out additional killings with them? I don't doubt that such legislation has reduced the percentage/number of crimes perpetrated with so-called "assault weapons" in hand. However, I'd like to see some kind of evidence that the displacement effect is anything less than total. I'm extremely skeptical of the notion that criminals either chose to commit additional murders due to the availability of these weapons or that they felt that their crimes were in any way impeded by the ban.

If the rationale for the ban is that these weapons are supremely dangerous killing machines, then it seems reasonable to expect a ban to produce a measurable life-saving effect in exchange for the cost of enforcement, right? Given the remarkably low percentage of such weapons used in crimes before the ban, I'm skeptical of the notion that the characteristics covered by the legislation were even especially desirable to criminals in the first place. We can argue about the Constitution until we all drop dead, but it seems to me that the legislation solved a problem that never existed and was primarily a feel-good measure.

MythDragon: justtray: Well I see the gun nuts have given up as usual. Peace children. I hope you grow up one day and realize your penis won't ever grow no matter how many guns you have.

Proud non gun owner for 30+ years.

Not owning something makes you proud?
Well hell, let me get in on that action

Proud non horse owner for 35+ years.
Proud non enema bag owner for 35+ years
Proud non chafing dish owner for 35+ years
Proud non dildo owner for 2+ years
Proud non Birkenstock owner for 35+ years

Wow. I already feel superiour to other people.

Yeah? Well I haven't fingerbanged a child in over 44 years. I have something Real to be proud of!

Dimensio: You are an established liar. Claims issued by you are not credible.

Good to know. Lying with citations is his new farky.

Mr_Fabulous: just try to keep that shiat away from my line of sight.

You may want to move to some of those wonderful African countries if you want to protect you snowflake eyesight from every straying to those horrors of guns.

Mr_Fabulous: Dear Gun Nuts:

Hi. You have an illness, and I pity you. But fortunately for you, it is a constitutionally protected illness. So go ahead and hump your AKs and jack off the barrel of your .357... just try to keep that shiat away from my line of sight. Please.

farking perverts.

Dear Mr_Fabulous,

Hello. You have an illness, but I don't really care enough about you to work up any pity. Your twisted imagination made you see gun fetishists everywhere, even though they don't exist. You have some pretty severe projection issues, but they are your constitutionally protected issues. So keep on rolling with them if you want, just don't try to infringe upon my rights with them. Please.

xanadian: cptjeff: I don't care if you have fun. Guns are serious weapons, not toys. Have fun at the range, again, I don't care. I do care when people think that their fun is more important than minimizing the number of serious weapons floating around in the criminal underworld.

So do something about the criminals. Deal with the cause, not just the symptoms.

The pro-gun nuts everywhere seem to think the world is made up of criminals and non-criminals. That criminals use guns to kill people and non-criminals won't ever. They never realize that many people become criminals on their first illegal use of a gun. Say, bringing it to a place that does not allow guns, or perhaps illegally storing a gun in an unsafe method, or shooting someone in a fit of anger or rage. It's the latter that occurs often enough with disastrous outcome for every one that politicians would like to control the way people (mis-)use guns. The public record of such occurrences will clearly amplify the rationale for sensible gun laws.

We live in an amazing country where the only thing bad that ever happens is the fault of people with guns and tiny penises. If we stopped letting people buy guns we would really move into the 21st century and crime would go away and we would probably cure cancer and send men to mars.

Publikwerks: Ask the Russians if they consider the Battle of Stalingrad a loss.

And we have our Godwin of the thread. Thank you, Publikwerks.

/Also, the Soviets lost 1,130,000. The Germans 841,000. Not exactly the 1:3 or 1:25 American:Guerilla loss ratio in the Vietnam or Afghanistan war conflicts that were originally brought up as a defense of the effeciveness of guerillas.

Splinshints: Why should I think gun owners are any less likely to do something that kills me by application of stupidity than someone driving around in a Ferrari? It's entirely reasonable to expect that some level of idiocy will occur and result in innocent people being hurt or killed and that's reason enough to discuss proper restrictions on ownership and use. Potentially dangerous items require a certain level of responsibility. How is it unreasonable to recognize and regulate that fact?

When you see someone abuse a Ferrari, or drive it in a careless & imprudent manner...arrest them. By default, they can buy one. And discussing "proper restrictions on ownership and use" is perfectly fair, but I believe that we disagree heartily on what those would be. In my opinion, treating citizens as adults by default is much more important than keeping sharp objects and guns out of their hands. I would certainly be glad to discuss instituting mandatory gun safety and handling classes for public schools; that would prevent a lot of accidents, and give a minimum level of understanding to people even before they became adults. Wouldn't you agree?

Splinshints: And that's called a debate. And since it's debatable, "because I want it" is not, by itself, a valid reason.

It is, though. If I say "because I want it", and you are not able to provide sufficient reason to counter that, you lose the legal debate. That it has been misused, that it would be misused, is insufficient reason. People buy gasoline every day without even being carded, much less a background check, and it could easily be used for malign purposes.

Splinshints: Safety concerns are an inherently legitimate reason for debate in relation to something that is explicitly intended for deadly purposes.

Great! I wouldn't mind safety regulations on guns. If a manufacturer makes a gun that is prone to firing unintentionally, there's a major problem. If a gun is prone to jamming or overpressure? Oh yeah, definitely the government's purview. But a gun is used for protection; it is not explicitly intended for deadly purposes. It may easily cause death, and is many times used to kill, but they are generally designed for protection, whether a soldier protecting himself (and his country), or a citizen protecting himself from a home invader.

stevarooni: People buy gasoline every day without even being carded, much less a background check, and it could easily be used for malign purposes.

Gasoline can be used to burn down whole buildings, killing many people very cheaply and with no training. We should get rid of it in favor of electric cars.

Zizzowop: but how the hell do you reload a gun that has a 'fixed' magazine?

You would typically load it from the top with the action open (similar to a bolt action rifle).

I was also wondering about the illegal pistol grip and telescoping stock-didn't know that was illegal,

If you want so see something funny watch this.

And that is why the AWB has become flippantly known as the 'Scary Looking Weapons Ban'