"Assault Weapons"

[Captain Jin]

What do you mean crime? That's a very broad term. What kind of crime? Crime involving the weapons that they are trying to ban? No.

[The spartan]

What do you mean crime? That's a very broad term. What kind of crime? Crime involving the weapons that they are trying to ban? No.

Was there a spike in crime, violant crimes in particular, when the AWB was in place? I.E. are assault weapons keeping crimes from happeneing?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Was there a spike in crime, violant crimes in particular, when the AWB was in place? I.E. are assault weapons keeping crimes from happeneing?

Crime overall went down quite a bit. However, AWs had no bearing in the matter, nor have crimes risen since the AWB expired.



I will say, though, that you can find a statistic for anything. This one seems pretty reliable though.

[The spartan]

Crime overall went down quite a bit. However, AWs had no bearing in the matter, nor have crimes risen since the AWB expired.



I will say, though, that you can find a statistic for anything. This one seems pretty reliable though.

That doesn't really answer my question. But take another look at that graph, what does it tell you? Because to me it just gives me two, seperate statistics that have corelation, but no causation. I have no doubt that the accuracy in that graph is reliable, I am saying is that graph really saying, what you think it is saying?

I actually read Freakonomics somewhat recently (last year, great book by the way) and it actually adresses that graph. Notice that drop off at 1995? Something actually happened to cause that 18 years before 1995, and that would happen to be Roe v Wade. All those would be criminals that would have just turned 18 were simply not born. Guns had nothing to do with that equation.

semi-automatic sporting rifles on the other hand are quite handy for personal home defense.

Forget it, stick to a handgun. It is much more wieldly weapon.

[The spartan]

If you doubt what it's saying, you have to come up with a better explanation. My response to your 1st attempt is below.

How do you mean?

On the contrary, you are making assumtions.

What reason is there to assume that the vast majority of aborted children would have grown up to become criminals? That is an absurd assumption.

Alas, I did speak abruptly, not fully explaining myself. Steven Levitt, a very good economist, actually did an entire study about it. Being an economist, he isolates variables in given situations and said, in his findings, that the legalization of abortion was infact the cause of huge decline in crime. He supports it by, but not limited to, noting that the states who voted to legalize abortion earlier witnessed a huge drop in crime themselves not at 1995, but at a similar 18 year span from the legalization. This isn't me making this up here, I just pointing to this study. He actually notes in another study, after eliminating variables, that there is no link between civilian ownership of guns and decreases in crime.

And, looking at the fall of crime on that graph, you would have to assume that about 75% of the kids who were aborted would have become criminals. That's the only way to account for the dramatic drop.

I don't know where you are pulling those numbers from, but that could very well be right. All the variables that attribute to a child growing up to be a criminal; low family income, single parent, resentful parents, etc., would be the same attributes of a would-be mother wanting a legal abortion.

Also, if you think that abortion is the cause, then you lead us to a very disturbing conclusion.

Let's kill all of our kids to reduce crime.

This is an absurd conclusion to say the least.

Haha, absurd indeed! But that is not what is being said. The abortion of "kids" by mothers who think they can not take of a child or even not want to take care of a child does reduce crime.

Besides, even if your assessment were correct, that wouldn't change the validity of the graph.

It is dealing with percentages!!! You must realize that the percentage is not dependent on the gross number to be valid.

Therefore, that graph is quite valid to the interpretation I have made. But here's another one anyway.

No...the fact the graph has no link between is variables is what is holding the "validity" of your graph back. But, once again, the validity of the graph is not what is in question, your interpretation of it is. The graph does a good job listing two, random variables side by side, and you are apparently using juxtaposition to relate them. Nowhere on that graph does it say how they are related. Much like in the same way where you could role a die and note that 6,3 and 6 appear in sequence many times and say "therefor, 6 and 3 must be related!", but they are just random variables.

And another which HUGELY validates my point.



By and large more guns = less crime. The high number of homicides in the US points to a moral failure in child rearing.

Also, note the two countries with the highest percentage of homicides.

The Irish have been fighting the British for decades.

Italy is run by the mafia in some areas.

Look at all the other countries.

...You are loosing me here...you are doing the same thing. Those graphs, once again, just show corresponding variables, in no way are they related.

[Treize]

Barrett is legal for citizens?!
That would be rather retarded, for what purpose would you need one??!

[MaximiIian]

Barrett is legal for citizens?!
That would be rather retarded, for what purpose would you need one??!

Hunting; what else? It's too big for home defence.

[Treize]

Hunting; what else? It's too big for home defence.

1 shot routs the whole forrest and blows the animal apart, not a very effective hunting rifle

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Umm, IPA35, have you been watching youtube movies of hunting rabbits with .50BMG???

Well, let me enlighten you.

RABBITS, you see, are considered small game.

.50 BMG is in no way too big for elk, moose, or bear.

Also note that some people actually hunt at extremely long ranges. Especially on the Great Plains, where there is no cover, and you can't sneak up to deer and shoot at 50 yds...

Thus the Barrett is ideal.

Besides, you guys act as if the Barrett is the standard hunting rifle of the nation. The thing is rare! It's expensive!!!

[MaximiIian]

1 shot routs the whole forrest and blows the animal apart, not a very effective hunting rifle

That depends on:
a) What animal it is.
b) Where you hit the animal at with said .50cal round.
c) What you're planning to do with the animal afterwards.

[the_mango55]

Again, considering that guns in America are legal, the question one must ask is not "Why would someone need that" it's "Why should it be illegal." And the answer should be better than "It looks scary"

Barrel shrouds and bayonet mounts do not increase crime.

[the_mango55]

@ magickyleo101 - You still haven't answered this:

Considering that guns in America are legal, the question one must ask is not "Why would someone need that" it's "Why should it be illegal." And the answer should be better than "It looks scary"

Barrel shrouds and bayonet mounts do not increase crime.

[Viking Prince]

@ magickyleo101 - You still haven't answered this:

Considering that guns in America are legal, the question one must ask is not "Why would someone need that" it's "Why should it be illegal." And the answer should be better than "It looks scary"

Barrel shrouds and bayonet mounts do not increase crime.

The government is to be restricted and contained to perform only the actions authorized by the citizens. Citizens are to be free unless there is a clear need to restrict and contain to protect the rights of other citizens.

It in not up to the citizen to show need for an action. Why not ban all red colored clothing? Should a citizen be required to then show a need for red colored clothing?

Do you want to rephrase the question?

[Copperknickers II]

This all comes down to the Right to Bear Arms. The fact is, assault weapons are solely military weapons - there is no argument for them being used as self-defense.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Hey nice thread Ariovistus, but you're still probably going to have to basically repeat this same thing over and over again in every "OMG GUNS" thread on this (and probably many other) forum.

Edit:

This all comes down to the Right to Bear Arms. The fact is, assault weapons are solely military weapons - there is no argument for them being used as self-defense.

Ahahaha

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The government is to be restricted and contained to perform only the actions authorized by the citizens. Citizens are to be free unless there is a clear need to restrict and contain to protect the rights of other citizens.

It in not up to the citizen to show need for an action. Why not ban all red colored clothing? Should a citizen be required to then show a need for red colored clothing?

Do you want to rephrase the question?

Wow VikingPrince! You really cut right into the issue. "The government is to be restricted and contained."

IT'S PERFECT! I can't say I've ever heard it better! +rep for you!!!

Truly you have a way with words which I can only aspire to now.

I'd still agree with the basis of the question you were referring to, of course.

This all comes down to the Right to Bear Arms. The fact is, assault weapons are solely military weapons - there is no argument for them being used as self-defense.

That is by no means factual.

EDIT: I have demonstrated why on a number of previous and future posts.

Hey nice thread Ariovistus, but you're still probably going to have to basically repeat this same thing over and over again in every "OMG GUNS" thread on this (and probably many other) forum.

I know; it's amuzing, isn't it?

Really, I think that people wouldn't be so frightened of guns if they had experience with them. Everybody knows how that is; you're scared of things you don't understand. They seem mysterious, and they might go off if you just TOUCH them...

[Gelgoog]

This all comes down to the Right to Bear Arms. The fact is, assault weapons are solely military weapons - there is no argument for them being used as self-defense.

right, which is why you can not buy an assault rifle without a class 3 license, a 3 month background check and a $200 tax stamp. its also why assault weapons cost upwards of $15,000 or much more, because in 1986 any new production for civilian ownership was banned, meaning the amount of assault rifles in the country is very very small.

semi-automatic sporting rifles on the other hand are quite handy for personal home defense.

[the_mango55]

The government is to be restricted and contained to perform only the actions authorized by the citizens. Citizens are to be free unless there is a clear need to restrict and contain to protect the rights of other citizens.

It in not up to the citizen to show need for an action. Why not ban all red colored clothing? Should a citizen be required to then show a need for red colored clothing?

Do you want to rephrase the question?

Uhh, no.

Because you just said the same thing I did.

[sephodwyrm]

Are assault weapons responsible for most of the gun-related casualties in the US?

[Captain Jin]

No, handguns are the principal firearm used in all forms of firearm violence and armed robberies etc.