ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your arguments on the other hand have been scare tactics, ad hominem attacks, skewed/manipulated statistics, anecdotal evidence, and faulty logic. Every bit of evidence/argument you have made was either debunked with a little additional reading or proven to be a fallacy.

What argument?

I asked for someone to tell me what "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment. No one was able to show me what arms they were because the Constitution doesn't make it clear.

No one has proven a thing here in defense of the "right" anyone has to carry assault-style weapons.

Dismissal isn't "debunking".

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you think banning a gun will reduce gun violence...

Point out where that has ever been my position.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It has been shown via statistics and posted that banning assault weapons leads to increased amounts/rates of violent crimes.

That has not been shown.

[Humerox]

And I liked you better here: [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think many would argue against that something needs to be done. I personally am for stricter background checks, government tracked weapons, and psychological reviews of people wanting guns, but the AR ban just seems unnecessary to me. If they do get banned, I honestly would not be hurting in the morning. I am actually just amazed by the mass amount of ignorance from both sides and how no one is listening to each other.

[Faron]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Point out where that has ever been my position.

It's pretty much implied. What other reason is there to ban unless it's under the belief that it will reduce violence?

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

assault-style is fucking stupid and everyone that keeps using it is fucking stupid.

The top gun and the bottom gun are in the same "assault" category in terms of destruction.

Why are they in the same assault category? Because they both shoot a bullet packed in a casing with gunpowder? Do you even know what that top gun is? I am doubting it, there is a pretty damn big difference in the two guns you just compared.... You should stick to playing with your bb gun...

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What argument?

I asked for someone to tell me what "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment. No one was able to show me what arms they were because the Constitution doesn't make it clear.

No one has proven a thing here in defense of the "right" anyone has to carry assault-style weapons.

Dismissal isn't "debunking".

This stance isn't worth my time going over entirely with you again(simply because we have been through the motions and you acted with a child's rhetoric and logic), but the vagueness of the term 'arm' was deliberate. It is an umbrella term and if you can't admit that then we are done here because I know not to battle ignorance.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That has not been shown.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...=93857&page=28

via statistics mind you. This does not mean proven.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And I liked you better here: [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am still there. I agree with many of the regulations you put forth. I don't like the gun shows where you can get extremely powerful guns with absolutely no government intervention. Those need to be stopped. I firmly believe in psychological evaluation of people purchasing guns specifically looking for proneness to anger and rage. If a person has any violent criminal record then the likelihood of them being permitted to carry a gun should be severely limited or just barred outright. More extensive background checks are also a good idea. I think we should also focus some of our efforts to dealing with those sick individuals who shot up the schools and such. However, as I stated before, I find the AR ban unnecessary and have put out reasons why I find it more of a scapegoat than an actual solution.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's pretty much implied. What other reason is there to ban unless it's under the belief that it will reduce violence?

No. I've stated my position clearly several times. I guess I haven't done it under this particular topic, so...

I believe that mass shootings like Aurora and Newtown can be stopped. In other threads I've brought up Australia as an example, and throughout all the debate the only thing that is clear is that in the 18 years before their gun legislation in 1996, they had at least 13 massacres. Since then they've had 0.

(The Childers fire was started by a nutjob that didn't even intend on killing anyone, and Monash was actually stopped by people there when the gunman had to reload...so let's not delve into those two incidents again.)

No one has debunked that study I presented. People have dismissed it and disagreed with it, but that's it.

I never have argued that legislation effectively reduced overall gun violence. I'm inclined to believe that less guns equals less violence, but statistical data can be brought forward for both sides.

[Lexical]

If you are bringing up Australia again, then you clearly didn't read vellatri's response to the whole thing.

[OforOppression]

i make the best threads