"Assault Weapons"

[The spartan]

Considering that 80% of guncrime in the USA is done with an illegal firearm, any supposed reduction in crime/murders that the anti-gun side asserts would come from strict firearm laws is just plain silly.

Banning firearms is also a horrible idea. Not only would you see a dramatic increase in crime, especially violent crime, but you would be empowering criminals (both by having an unarmed populace, and introducing a much more lucrative black market in smuggling firearms),

Quite right, which is why the government would need to institute a firearm ban (or much more likely, regulation) while at the same time putting a HEAVY penalty for having an illegal gun (say, 30-40 years of prison minimum). You WOULD see drops in gun crime at that point.

[Pickle_mole]

Sorry for double.

[Gelgoog]

Quite right, which is why the government would need to institute a firearm ban (or much more likely, regulation) while at the same time putting a HEAVY penalty for having an illegal gun (say, 30-40 years of prison minimum). You WOULD see drops in gun crime at that point.

and yet that will never happen. There is this thing called sentencing guidelines that prevents cruel and unusual punishment such as unfairly long sentences that do not meet the crime. There is no way people are going to get a life sentence for a non-murder crime.

Then again, prison sentences do not offer much of a deterrence anyways, super harsh punishments like that only serve to make sure people get more desperate when they are about to get caught. We can see how people in the 3-strikes states will act extremely violent on their 3rd strike, because they have nothing left to lose at that point.

So let me reiterate, further regulation will not help anybody, as law abidding citizens are going to continue to obey the current firearm laws while criminals will not. If your a drug dealer, you are more worried about getting shot by someone trying to rob your stash or by a rival gang member, then you are for getting busted for having a firearm. The only way your going to see a huge reduction in violent crime is by getting at its source not its symptoms. Just look at the crack cocaine epidemic of the 80s. As long as poor kids in gang infested cities can make several grand a week by doing a few hours work selling drugs, then what incentive do they have to work hard and study to become successful when they already make more money then most professionals. Until you solve that dilemma then you won't see a drop in violent crime.

Just to illustrate that guns are not the problem, look at cities with high crime rates and very strict firearms laws. Taking guns out of the hands of law abidding citizens does nothing to stem the flow of bloodshed, because those laws are simply ignored. You will never get 300 million guns off the street, and the more you try to do so, the more will find their way into black markets. We will also never have low crime rates like asian countries with homogeneous populations because when you mix alot of cultures you have alot more strife, not to mention that America is not of the communal mindset that alot of other nations are. We are very independent here, we value our privacy and encourage people to raise themselves by their bootstraps.

All of these reasons are why we have a high crime rate, and there are alot more, but it just illustrates how firearms have very little to do with our crime rate.

[The spartan]

and yet that will never happen. There is this thing called sentencing guidelines that prevents cruel and unusual punishment such as unfairly long sentences that do not meet the crime. There is no way people are going to get a life sentence for a non-murder crime.

Then again, prison sentences do not offer much of a deterrence anyways, super harsh punishments like that only serve to make sure people get more desperate when they are about to get caught. We can see how people in the 3-strikes states will act extremely violent on their 3rd strike, because they have nothing left to lose at that point.

So let me reiterate, further regulation will not help anybody, as law abidding citizens are going to continue to obey the current firearm laws while criminals will not. If your a drug dealer, you are more worried about getting shot by someone trying to rob your stash or by a rival gang member, then you are for getting busted for having a firearm. The only way your going to see a huge reduction in violent crime is by getting at its source not its symptoms. Just look at the crack cocaine epidemic of the 80s. As long as poor kids in gang infested cities can make several grand a week by doing a few hours work selling drugs, then what incentive do they have to work hard and study to become successful when they already make more money then most professionals. Until you solve that dilemma then you won't see a drop in violent crime.

Just to illustrate that guns are not the problem, look at cities with high crime rates and very strict firearms laws. Taking guns out of the hands of law abidding citizens does nothing to stem the flow of bloodshed, because those laws are simply ignored. You will never get 300 million guns off the street, and the more you try to do so, the more will find their way into black markets. We will also never have low crime rates like asian countries with homogeneous populations because when you mix alot of cultures you have alot more strife, not to mention that America is not of the communal mindset that alot of other nations are. We are very independent here, we value our privacy and encourage people to raise themselves by their bootstraps.

All of these reasons are why we have a high crime rate, and there are alot more, but it just illustrates how firearms have very little to do with our crime rate.

Did I say any of that should, or would happen? I said that that is how the government would find a way to lower gun crime by having more regulation. As for cruel punishment, I could actually understand 30-40 years for having an illegal firearm on your person, that is extremely fishy business.

Then again, prison sentences do not offer much of a deterrence anyways, super harsh punishments like that only serve to make sure people get more desperate when they are about to get caught

Hardly, a 30-40 year sentence is pretty intimidating. And as far as being desperate, that can happen with any given crime sentence. Whether a longer jail sentence would increase desparity at that point is doubtful as further crimes you commit would just cumulate.

You say "quite right" to the fact that 80 percent of guns used in crime are illegally owned/stolen, so then how could you say that government would need to institute a firearm ban or regulation?

Mmm, and you think those weapons started off as illegal firearms?

[Stark of Winterfell]

Hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns should be allowed. Because as many accidents and murders happen that might have been prevented if guns were not allowed, there are cases where guns save lives. It's too bad, but guns are needed. But the penalties for misusing them should be extremely harsh. Automatic weapons? No. Those should not be available to the general public.

[Gelgoog]

Mmm, and you think those weapons started off as illegal firearms?

stolen or smuggled. Nice trap, but you just show that any restriction is meaningless because criminals do not go through legal channels to get their weapons, so whats the point of restricting them even further if they all start out as legal weapons? we could send people to extreme psychological testing, background checks and whatever to make sure no criminal gets a gun, but as soon as they steal them, then they are in criminal hands. So the only people you are legislating is the people who are not the problem.

But the penalties for misusing them should be extremely harsh. Automatic weapons? No. Those should not be available to the general public.

they already have penalties. If you are caught using a weapon, particularly a firearm during the commission of a crime, its an automatic 10 years added onto your sentence not including the crime itself.

[Rich86]

But you certainly can't say it's invalid because it's written down

Which is lucky then as I did not say that. I am asking you to go beyond well it's written down so that's good enough for me - let's not think about the issue any further. So far you have been unable to go beyond it's written down.

I'd say both.

You'd say both? So you don't actually know?

Ironically, statistics show to anyone that if everyone owned a gun, crime would decrease.

And I'm guessing more people would also die. If we all had our own cell where we got locked away after work crime would also most likely decrease.

yet if the gov't just TRIED to regulate television, there would be an uproar. It's a sad commentary on where society's priorities are.

Sorry to break it to you but the government does regulate television. There are certain things you can, and cannot show - and certain things that can and cannot be shown at certain times.

They don't cause; they encourage. They put the idea in people's heads.

Video games encourage people to commit crimes - do you have any evidence for that?

Can you explain why you feel that because it's written down, it has to be wrong?

Can you explain why you feel the need to keep blatantly misrepresenting what I have said? I am not saying it is written down so it is wrong. I am asking you to tell me why it is RIGHT without reference to 'it's written down' - I've asked this multiple times now and you've not even attempted an answer.

The AWB will prevent them from getting weapons?

I didn't say that either

Prohibition was a disaster; people found ways to get alcohol anyway

One is a drug that many get addicted to - the other; is not.

The gov't is doing a terrible job regulating drugs; they will never be able to effectively keep guns from determined criminals.

One is a drug that many get addicted to - the other; is not.

The not-so-determined ones will get these novel things called "knives."

Luckily knives a) rarely go off by mistake b) have a very short range c) are not very effective for killing multiple people quickly.

No knives, eh? Life must be tough.

I wasn't aware bread knives etc were designed to kill? You must have a very odd set of kitchen knives.

I don't have the right to suggest that we ban your collection because I don't like how it looks.

Again I really don't recall saying we should ban anything of yours simply because of it's appearance - you continually misrepresent what I'm saying (is that intentional???) and it's making me wonder if I should bother with this discussion anymore as whatever I say is going to be ignored and replaced with something you'd rather pretend I said.

And we have defended it with MUCH more than "well it's written down,"

No you haven't. See the quotes further above - you've pulled blatant strawmen arguments out of the hat - nothing more.

since you seem to have no credible arguments, you like to dismiss ours by lumping them all together under that one little statements.

You've not addressed half of my arguments - just attacked strawmen arguments.

You may criticize them if you don't like them; you cannot use that as an argument to ban them by law.

....Again I don't recall arguing the point that my right to criticise gives me a right to ban.

You cannot ban anything of mine just because, in your opinion, I don't need it.

Lucky I did not say that either then. I want them banned because they are designed to kill people - and they do.

Woah; shattering cop-out. That's cute.

Cop-out? No I'm saying I don't have the ability to see with 100% accuracy how events would have panned out had a major event not occured. If you call that a 'cop-out' - well, that's just funny more than anything

May I ask where you live exactly so that this statement has context?

England

Our way won't eliminate crime; it will suppress it MUCH better than yours will.

Even if that statement is true - personally I'd rather live in a society where I don't need to worry about getting shot every day as everyone carries a gun.

There's less of it, genious.

Actually no, genious. There may be less recorded crime - that's it. You can't show that less breaches of the law occur.

Um, no; nobody was stupid enough to rob someone who packed heat

Yet people still get robbed despite 'packing heat.'

So you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who intentionally breaks the law?

I've not said that either.

Heroin has no purpose but that which does bodily harm

Actually forms of heroin are used for medicinal purposes.

[Pickle_mole]

If owning a gun allows a person to have a better mastery over their life, all the better right? With freedom of any sort you open yourself to danger but you should not ban the benefit of the many for the idiocy of the few. This country was built on freedom and responsibility and i want it to remain so.

And to all you Europeans out there, America is the most "free" country out there but we are turning more like you and it sickens me. You havent had to even think about freedom since 1944 because of my country and its strength yet you want to influence our elites into becoming like you? why so we can severly hamper our military and become even more dependant on government? even more suicidal in social policies? Europe owes a debt to America that can never be repaid unless you repell invaders of our land. The entire western world owes the United States for its survival. Listening to all these European Statists (and American) is disgusting and makes me wish to be isolationist and let europe drown in their own cesspool of self induced vomit. Suck it!


*rant over*

[sephodwyrm]

introducing a much more lucrative black market in smuggling firearms

NORINCO (a Chinese company) did see something in that.
Them brothers and amigos like the AKs. Fully automatic and outright illegal. Along with a few RPGs as well, I've heard.

In place of an assault weapons ban, I would like to propose something else:
- life sentence / capital punishment for abusing illegal firearms

[Pickle_mole]

NORINCO (a Chinese company) did see something in that.
Them brothers and amigos like the AKs. Fully automatic and outright illegal. Along with a few RPGs as well, I've heard.

In place of an assault weapons ban, I would like to propose something else:
- life sentence / capital punishment for abusing illegal firearms

A much better idea than a ban.

Quite right, which is why the government would need to institute a firearm ban (or much more likely, regulation) while at the same time putting a HEAVY penalty for having an illegal gun (say, 30-40 years of prison minimum). You WOULD see drops in gun crime at that point.

You say "quite right" to the fact that 80 percent of guns used in crime are illegally owned/stolen, so then how could you say that government would need to institute a firearm ban or regulation?

[Vequor]

They tried extremely extremely harsh penalties for everything in the 19th century, and that worked beautifully.

[magickyleo101]

@Ariovistus Maximus et al

STATISTICS:

1. "Assault weapons" do not pose a significant threat to public security. I have shown statistics that demonstrate that AWs are rarely used in gun crimes.

I admit that statistics put the gun control advocate in a hard place, but I don't think that ends the story. Statistics can be misleading (for example, mass shootings might be a small percentage of gun crimes but an assault rifle would be especially dangerous in such a situation).

Moreover I think the thing to remember here, and this is the core of my response, is that we're engaged in a costs/benefits balancing act. I agree that the statistics lower the probability that the AWB will do lots of good, but as long as the cost of the law is low it can still be justified.

Your task then, is to go beyond saying that the AWB might not do a lot of good (which we agree on) to point out how it is that having the AWB actually hurts anyone (especially if you're saying that the restrictions are just cosmetic).

5. My statistics further show that, not only do AWs have no relation to INCREASE in crime, but that more law-abiding civilians with guns = LESS crime.

This might be true, but it doesn't say anything about any specific kind of guns. Simple handguns might be enough.

WHETHER THE AWB RESTRICTS ANYTHING DANGEROUS:

Since AWs are functionally identical to a WIDE range of non-targeted firearms, THE LEAST you could do is be honest and admit that you are just out to ban all semi-automatic firearms.

I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the lethality of a weapon is determined only by its internal workings or mechanical function. Things like bayonets or pistol grips can make a big difference, especially in atypical situations like a school shooting. Thus, while you're right that banned weapons are mechanically very similar to non-banned weapons, there can still be a sense in which the banned weapons are especially dangerous and especially important to ban.

I've identified in other posts a couple of things which make banned weapons especially dangerous:

ADVANTAGES OF BANNING BAYONETS:

Shooters are frequently tackled when they're reloading, and I imagine it would a lot harder to tackle a guy with a bayonet.

EXAMPLE ONE
EXAMPLE TWO
EXAMPLE THREE

ADVANTAGES OF BANNING PISTOLE GRIPS:

In a shooting situation it's often necessary to take a gun from the shooter's hands by force. The pistol grip gives the shooter an advantage in melee combat and makes the gun harder to take away.

Potential Costs of the AWB

No potential cost? Not to the government, maybe. But in the end the economy will take a hit. As I said, there are a number of companies that deal specifically with the distribution of AWB-targeted firearms to the public. DPMS Panther Arms is a big one.

That is quite a potential cost, especially in this economy.

I think it's important to avoid the broken window fallacy here. If guns in violation of the AWB ban can no longer be sold, people who would buy those weapons will most likely simply buy another weapon (or, at the very least, another product). The companies currently making those weapons can shift product lines to a complying product pretty easily (they just take off the bayonet mount, etc.).

[Pickle_mole]

You say that you imagine a bayonet would make it harder but have nothing else to offer, you also say that pistol grips offers an advantage in melee and is harder to take away, all of this is conjecture. And even if i was willing to relent to these "facts" would i want to legislate to ban them because of an EXTREMELY slim perceived threat? It is very hard for me to understand how someone can say you cant have a pistol grip on your semi-automatic rifle yet a pistol (that has a pistol grip) is okay? I whole heartily disagree when you say you shouldn't ban on the mechanics, The mechanics are the only logical thing you could ban!

Awesome!!! You're so totally right!!! I mean, can I go 50 miles an hour? Check! Can I go 40 miles an hour? Check! So obviously I can go 90 miles an hour!!!!1111

Poor analogy, should have gone with drunk driving, But then again an analogy is the weakest form of argument, too easy to pick apart.

[magickyleo101]

You say that you imagine a bayonet would make it harder but have nothing else to offer, you also say that pistol grips offers an advantage in melee and is harder to take away, all of this is conjecture. And even if i was willing to relent to these "facts" would i want to legislate to ban them because of an EXTREMELY slim perceived threat? It is very hard for me to understand how someone can say you cant have a pistol grip on your semi-automatic rifle yet a pistol (that has a pistol grip) is okay? I whole heartily disagree when you say you shouldn't ban on the mechanics,

Again, as long as the cost of a ban is low, even a low probability of benefit will be enough to justify it.

The mechanics are the only logical thing you could ban!

The more I see you use the word "logical" the less I think you actually know what it means...

Poor analogy, should have gone with drunk driving, But then again an analogy is the weakest form of argument, too easy to pick apart.

Awesome!!! I too find that the easiest way to "refute" an argument is to flatly assert that it's a bad argument without any justification!!!!

Besides, if you don't like that argument you could respond to the "bombs from household items" argument that you've conveniently ignored....

[Pickle_mole]

The more I see you use the word "logical" the less I think you actually know what it means...

semantics is so boring

[Gelgoog]

WHETHER THE AWB RESTRICTS ANYTHING DANGEROUS:



I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the lethality of a weapon is determined only by its internal workings or mechanical function. Things like bayonets or pistol grips can make a big difference, especially in atypical situations like a school shooting. Thus, while you're right that banned weapons are mechanically very similar to non-banned weapons, there can still be a sense in which the banned weapons are especially dangerous and especially important to ban.

I've identified in other posts a couple of things which make banned weapons especially dangerous:

does that mean we should ban scopes , because they might offer a sniper the ability to kill more people. How about red dots, because they make weapons faster to aquire on a target. How about weapon mounted lights, because they could blind an officer temporarily until he is shot. all of these things are hearsay and banning them is unlikely to do sqaut. I can't believe you using the red herring arguments of the bayonets and pistol grips. hypothetical situations have no business in determining law.

guess what, my M1 garand without a pistol grip or bayonet is more dangerous in melee combat then some plastic ar15. The metal buttplate on that rifle will kill you when I buttstroke you in the face with it, same as the barrel will go through your skull.



if you notice, how when the teach melee combat with a rifle, that they actually do not hold onto the pistol grip because it actually makes thrusting and swinging the weapon more difficult.

If your worried about the difficulty of disarming someone because they have a pistol grip, then you should be very afraid of the lanyard...this new string technology prevents weapons from being taken away....



I hear they make them for keys as well

I think it's important to avoid the broken window fallacy here. If guns in violation of the AWB ban can no longer be sold, people who would buy those weapons will most likely simply buy another weapon (or, at the very least, another product). The companies currently making those weapons can shift product lines to a complying product pretty easily (they just take off the bayonet mount, etc.).

And how is this to do with broken windows. If I remember correctly from my studies, broken windows has to do with not fixing a broken window in a neighborhood and hence it invites more crime. Dilapidation invites crime. Again during the AWB no one could demonstrate that it had any effect on crime at all....sooo which leads me to not understand why your in such huge support of it. If your goal is a reduction in crime, then clearly the AWB failed miserably.

[magickyleo101]

does that mean we should ban scopes , because they might offer a sniper the ability to kill more people. How about red dots, because they make weapons faster to aquire on a target. How about weapon mounted lights, because they could blind an officer temporarily until he is shot. all of these things are hearsay and banning them is unlikely to do sqaut. I can't believe you using the red herring arguments of the bayonets and pistol grips.

guess what, my M1 garand without a pistol grip or bayonet is more dangerous in melee combat then some plastic ar15. The metal buttplate on that rifle will kill you when I buttstroke you in the face with it, same as the barrel will go through your skull.

Banning one dangerous thing doesn't mean you have to ban every other dangerous thing. It's a balancing of costs and benefits. Cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban them because the cost of doing so would be quite high. Bayonets don't kill many people, but we still ban them because there's no real cost to doing so.

With scopes, we don't ban them because people use them for lots of legitimate purposes (hunting) and the cost of doing so would be high.

hypothetical situations have no business in determining law.

Think about what you write before you say it.

That a harm is currently hypothetical has never been a reason not to ban them. It's illegal to possess a nuke even though the harms of an individual owning one are all hypothetical.

And how is this to do with broken windows. If I remember correctly from my studies, broken windows has to do with not fixing a broken window in a neighborhood and hence it invites more crime. Dilapidation invites crime. Again during the AWB no one could demonstrate that it had any effect on crime at all....sooo which leads me to not understand why your in such huge support of it. If your goal is a reduction in crime, then clearly the AWB failed miserably.

I take it clicking on the link I provided for you was too hard? The same thing for writing grammatical sentences?

[Gelgoog]

Banning one dangerous thing doesn't mean you have to ban every other dangerous thing. It's a balancing of costs and benefits. Cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban them because the cost of doing so would be quite high. Bayonets don't kill many people, but we still ban them because there's no real cost to doing so.

we ban bayonets? hmmm thats funny because the AWB is over, and it only banned bayonet lugs, not bayonets. The AWB also expired in 04' so I have my fearsome bayonet lugs again ....hurray!

With scopes, we don't ban them because people use them for lots of legitimate purposes (hunting) and the cost of doing so would be high.

ah, so you ban one evil feature that to my knowledge has done little to no harm to the general public, and yet something like a scope that invariably enhances the performance of a rifle is ok. Seems a bit like your stuck on the things that make rifles look evil, but not the ones that actual make a weapon more deadly. Your argument seems to be falling apart.

Think about what you write before you say it.

That a harm is currently hypothetical has never been a reason not to ban them. It's illegal to possess a nuke even though the harms of an individual owning one are all hypothetical.

wow, and you use such a lame example as a counter? Individuals can not own nukes because they are a weapon of mass destruction, that even shady governments are not allowed to have access to. There is nothing hypothetical about them being banned. There is no use for a nuke in the civilian world, and it has no relation to this discussion, but thanks for trying to "look" smart.

I take it clicking on the link I provided for you was too hard? The same thing for writing grammatical sentences?

oooo testy are we.

relate your evidence to the discussion, dont just post a link and say go fetch. I could say that what was in that link benefits my argument as much as yours.

A pistol grip does not make a weapon substantially easier to hold onto, since most hunting rifles already have pistol grips, its not just an evil feature of "assault weapons". thats why its called a pistol grip stock. You know what works really well for stopping rampage shooters...

[Ariovistus Maximus]

PLEASE see my comment about sports cars. You can't miss it; it has big red text in it.

I admit that statistics put the gun control advocate in a hard place, but I don't think that ends the story. Statistics can be misleading (for example, mass shootings might be a small percentage of gun crimes but an assault rifle would be especially dangerous in such a situation).

So you admit that past performance has no bearing on your opinion? It doesn't bother you that, just because something has never worked before, it might not work if you try it again?

Just because my idea has been proven to work better than your idea is no reason to implement my idea?

Yet you argue that since guns have been used in crime, we should ban them?

Sir, your arguments have been well-worded and intelligent. However, I would like to define something for you:

Idiocy - using the same solution to the same problem in the same environment and expecting different results.

Also, at the end of the above, you use yet another hypothetical argument. You tell me that I have not provided concrete evidence, yet your reason for banning bayonets is that someone could use them. All of your evidence is either philosophical or hypothetical.

Moreover I think the thing to remember here, and this is the core of my response, is that we're engaged in a costs/benefits balancing act. I agree that the statistics lower the probability that the AWB will do lots of good, but as long as the cost of the law is low it can still be justified.

There is NO evidence and EXTREMELY LOW PROBABILITY that the AWB will help anything!

So far you have demonstrated that someone, someday, might use a bayonet. OK, I'm FINE with taking bayonet lugs off! But YOU won't stop there! That's why I draw a line; you won't stop!

Other than bayonets, there is no distinguishing feature of an AWB-targeted firearm that makes it more dangerous.

Pistol grips? You think those apply? Let me tell you why there are pistol grips.

Pistol grips improve the shooter's accuracy in automatic fire mode from the hip.

AWs do not have automatic fire. Only with training will you hit anything by firing from the hip.

The point of pistol grips is to give greater stability. However, you don't need help with stability unless you are firing several rounds per second; you simply don't need improved stability because 1-2 shots per second doesn't jar you very much.

Your task then, is to go beyond saying that the AWB might not do a lot of good (which we agree on) to point out how it is that having the AWB actually hurts anyone (especially if you're saying that the restrictions are just cosmetic).

That's absurd. YOU are the one who want's to change the system; YOU have to prove why it will help!

If I sue you, it is my responsibility to PROVE why I am justified in such action. YOU are not required to prove why I should not sue you UNTIL I GIVE MY OWN PROOF!

YOU want to TAKE ACTION. I wan't things to stay as they are. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you.

In taking action, it is the responsibility of the taker of said action to demonstrate why it should be taken to begin with.

Banning one dangerous thing doesn't mean you have to ban every other dangerous thing. It's a balancing of costs and benefits.

Also, you quite obviously don't understand the gun market.

DPMS is an extremely focus company (AR-15s); it CANNOT shift production. If DPMS's product is banned, it would not be able to shift into the wider market because there are already companies that deal in it! Do you not understand economics?

Century International deals with making replicas of military hardware. Same look, totally different function. If AWs are banned, Century Int'l is dead for the same reason as DPMS; the whole basis of the company is to deal in a very specific line of products.

Cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban them because the cost of doing so would be quite high. Bayonets don't kill many people, but we still ban them because there's no real cost to doing so.

Sports cars have NO SPECIFIC PURPOSE other than high speed (already illegal) and COSMETICS.

Thus, sports cars and assault weapons are almost identical in purpose within their respective fields, except for one thing.

Sports cars have extraordinary ability to break speed limits. However, AWs do not have unique ballistic, fire rate, or muzzle rate characteristics.

Therefore, sports cars make it easier to break the law (AND I HAVE STATISTICS TO SHOW THIS) and look good.

AWs just look good; they do not make it easier to break the law, because they simply aren't used.

Conclusion? You can't show how the cons of sports cars outweigh the pros, so we should ban them.

What is the only reason that banning sports cars will never work?

THEY LOOK GOOD!!! PEOPLE WILL GO BALLISTIC IF WE DON'T LET THEM HAVE SPORTS CARS ON THE BASIS OF COSMETICS!!!!!!!!!

Your argument is sunk; I can't see how you can bluff your way out of this.

If you respond to this statement, I demand an extremely detailed response. I will not allow you to gloss over this point.

Moreover, you cannot demonstrate that it is an inconsistent analogy;

An assault weapon is to firearms what a sports car is to motor vehicles.

(another respons to the above statement

There is little cost in banning white shoe strings either. People can just move on to grey and black ones.

Actually, I find it hugely amusing that you can't present evidence that bayonettes have caused more deaths in violent crime than shoestrings have.

You can't find a documented case of a bayonett crime, can you?

I'll help you; I found one. But the bayonet was not attached to a gun, and it was not used in a violent crime; it was used in a cult ceremony. Since it was not attached to a gun, it was a knife.

[Surgeon]

ADVANTAGES OF BANNING PISTOLE GRIPS:

How about those deadly but convenient slings which make it nigh on impossible to take a gun away from someone?