[TheOrator]

But then again, I doubt that making assault weapons illegal would mean I'd need one to defend myself all of a sudden. Near as I can tell, they're legal now, noone owns them, and I don't need one to defend myself. I doubt banning them would create a run.

Right, few people have them anyway, and some people like shooting them at the range, so all-in-all the reason to keep them is "Shooting at pieces of paper is fun" and the reason for banning them is potential crime.

It seems to me then from your argument (and the earlier statistic of 1% of homicides being committed with assault weapons) that banning them isn't necessary for public safety, and one less unnecessary law is A-Okay with me.

[J m HofMarN]

Orator-

It's not often I can say this, but almost your entire post seems to be built on a misreading of mine. Here we go.

That's not true, plenty of people go to shooting ranges for recreational shooting all the time, and those who don't own assault rifles themselves can rent them, just for the range. The fact that this remains profitable means assault rifles hold a clear recreational value.

Yes. I did indeed say that assault rifles HAVE no recreational purpose. Did I say they didnt SERVE a purpose? I can beat a nail with a stapler, and that stapler is serving a purpose, but the purpose it has is to put staples in paper. It's hard to believe you accidentally misread that considering that that statement was followed up by me saying:

They may provide recreation, but their purpose is to fire off an inordinate amount of bullets.

And when fireworks go wrong--not your namby-pamby fountains or wheels, mind you, nice big FWEEEEEEEERRM BOOM fireworks--more than the drunk guy setting them off can get hurt.

Thats nice. When cars go wrong, INCLUDING namby-pamby cars, people can get hurt. Also, dogs, glass, plastic bags, hair dryers, and, ya know, everything. However this is what we refer to as an 'accident" and unless you can prove that fireworks accidents kill innocent bystanders at a higher rate than they kill people who were screwing around, you're not going to compare them to assault rifles.

I don't want to get out the horrible statistics on drunk drivers, but I could. All you need to know is that the driver usually survives the crash, and the victims don't.

Wow, nice paraphrasing there.

usually only injure the person using them (much like alcohol)

So from "fireworks USUALLY only injure the person using them much LIKE alcohol" you derived "Alcohol only injures the person using it." Good job.

I am still going to state that alcohol more often harms the person imbibing it than other people. Drunk driving might be a spectacular occasion where alcohol harms innocents, but I suspect that gets more coverage than a drunk guy stumbling down his stairs and hurting himself, or developing a liver condition.

just found a perfect reason why you would need an assault rifle: you live in a mob controlled neighbourhood and the mob have come to collect their "protection fee" but you don't want to pay or you cant pay.

Even by your mob movie logic your scenario fails. If you're a shop keeper and you threaten a fugging mobster with an assault rifle, you're not threatening an individual criminal, you're threatening the entire La Cosa Nostra organization. And, to paraphrase one Jack Nicholson "What they're going to do is they're going to come down here with some guys, and they're going to kill you. Which sure as you're born, they will do."

[Deucaon]

Even by your mob movie logic your scenario fails. If you're a shop keeper and you threaten a fugging mobster with an assault rifle, you're not threatening an individual criminal, you're threatening the entire La Cosa Nostra organization. And, to paraphrase one Jack Nicholson "What they're going to do is they're going to come down here with some guys, and they're going to kill you. Which sure as you're born, they will do."

Unless all business owners in the area start a vigilante group.

[TheOrator]

I read and understood your post, although I did miss the "usually" part of the alcohol quote (although I clearly said I paraphrased the quote!).

But you cannot honestly argue range shooting isn't a recreational activity. That's just what it is. It's done for fun, people pay money to do it, people's lone source of income is allowing people to do it on their premises. It is a recreational activity. I saw you said it had no purpose but thought you couldn't have meant it because that made no sense and directly contradicted the clause before it.

And your car example doesn't work because cars are tools. Fireworks are used exclusively as entertainment and the fact that you can screw up with them is why they're illegal here in Minnesota.


This photograph of the main cast of Seinfeld
was put in to break up the
monotonous text in this post.

And when you compare something using the word "like" you are saying they are alike, that is, the same thing in the respect referred to. You said fireworks and alcohol usually harm the doer more than the doee. I missed the usually so in that context my paraphrase was accurate. I formally retract it.

A quick look at statistics shows about three times as many people die from drinking alcohol themselves as are killed in alcohol-related crashes. While 3:1 would probably qualify as "usually," it is a bit more than seems implied by the term. I could not find statistics on alcohol-related homicide, but if (perhaps a large if, I don't really know) they number in the ten-thousands they would bring it close to a 1:1 ratio.

The Center for Disease [and I guess Recreational Explosive] Control was nice enough to tell me:

"Persons who are actively participating in fireworks-related activities are more frequently injured, and sustain more severe injuries, than bystanders."

Meaning of course you're right I can't really compare them to assault rifles, at least not in the hypothetical situations all the collateral damage they caused occurred in.



As was this screenshot from DOOM.

And while that argument isn't exactly the paragon of perfect reasoning, I don't suppose you could do anything to note that the last quote wasn't from me? I don't want that attributed...errm...incorrectly. Deucaon should get all the credit.



You know those great German chocolate eggs with the toys inside? Some idiot kids choked on the toys and they don't sell those eggs in America. Now since there wasn't an outcry I'm probably one of the few who liked those eggs but the fact they were banned because of the rare and extreme actions of others really put me out. Again not a perfect example but assault weapons are a difficult object to pigeonhole.


EDIT:I see now, I ask JM about it personally. I was misunderstanding the whole "recreational" argument. Quite frankly, he's got me. I can either concede defeat and accept they might as well be illegal or declare myself too apathetic to care. It's very tempting to help team up on Deucaon so I might just do the former.

This post has been edited by TheOrator: 11 June 2008 - 12:30 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Unless all business owners in the area start a vigilante group.

It took Jack Fugging Nicholson to keep the guieneas down Providence from killing Leonardo DiCaprio. Unless the small corner store owners vigilante union can get down to L street to talk to him, I doubt they're going to get any help.

Or maybe we're talking about a different movie. Yours sounds a bit more like a lifetime special where all the store owners are inexplicably women and they decide to take a stand, triumph over whatever medical condition they may have, and fight back against male mafia oppression with the help of their vanilla but vaguely supportive husband. It'd be like Erin Brockovich but with guns and stupid.

Orator-

Not to worry it was just a misinterpretation. There's always going to be a personal freedoms/danger to society meter that each of us has to set, but I'm glad we can agree that fireworks and booze fall more to the personal danger side than the danger to society side. Your rights end where mine begin, and all that.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 11 June 2008 - 12:45 AM

[TheOrator]

...but I'm glad we can agree that fireworks and booze fall more to the personal danger side than the danger to society side.

I always understood that, I was just never sold on assault weapons proving a valid threat to society. As you guys explained to Deuc and Deuc himself said at some point (or it may have been zewb) most crooks aren't armed with them anyway. Laser vision would be a huge threat to society if criminals had it but most of them don't.

[civilian_number_two]

Orator, I agree that 1% is a small stat. I used it to show that assault rifles aren't necessary to protect people from criminals, because assault rifles are used in so few crimes. I agree that you could use the same stat to say that assault rifles are not harmful and should therefore be banned.

So... I want a nuclear bomb. I am a collector and I want an MX, multiple impact reentry missile, able to strike 10 targets simultaneously each with a 300-kiloton payload. Since 0% of violent crimes have been committed with these things, surely it's not dangerous.

I don't believe in universal personal freedom. I think some things should be disallowed, and too bad if they happen to be things you like or even things you make money from. Frankly, in this thread, I am lukewarm on the idea of banning assault weapons. What interests me most here is the ridiculous belief Decaon professes, being that without universal assault rifle freedom, we will shortly be helpless at the hands of small squads of close-quarter-combat trained gangsta thugs (possibly Black, but apparently also maybe Italian). All of his evidence argues the opposite, and all of his anecdotes are from films. His estimation of American violence as well as intelligence comes from third party sources and run-of-the-mill xenophobia. I'm curious to see where it goes; in another thread he found it necessary to argue that wolves believed in god, so I have my fingers crossed.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 11 June 2008 - 02:54 AM
Reason for edit:: upped my payloads to 300-kiloton to match the MX

[Deucaon]

I always understood that, I was just never sold on assault weapons proving a valid threat to society. As you guys explained to Deuc and Deuc himself said at some point (or it may have been zewb) most crooks aren't armed with them anyway. Laser vision would be a huge threat to society if criminals had it but most of them don't.

I thought shotguns were as easily to attain as pistols. I could be wrong.

Orator, I agree that 1% is a small stat. I used it to show that assault rifles aren't necessary to protect people from criminals, because assault rifles are used in so few crimes. I agree that you could use the same stat to say that assault rifles are not harmful and should therefore be banned.

So... I want a nuclear bomb. I am a collector and I want an MX, multiple impact reentry missile, able to strike 10 targets simultaneously each with a 300-kiloton payload. Since 0% of violent crimes have been committed with these things, surely it's not dangerous.

I don't believe in universal personal freedom. I think some things should be disallowed, and too bad if they happen to be things you like or even things you make money from. Frankly, in this thread, I am lukewarm on the idea of banning assault weapons. What interests me most here is the ridiculous belief Decaon professes, being that without universal assault rifle freedom, we will shortly be helpless at the hands of small squads of close-quarter-combat trained gangsta thugs (possibly Black, but apparently also maybe Italian). All of his evidence argues the opposite, and all of his anecdotes are from films. His estimation of American violence as well as intelligence comes from third party sources and run-of-the-mill xenophobia. I'm curious to see where it goes; in another thread he found it necessary to argue that wolves believed in god, so I have my fingers crossed.

So now I'm a racist and xenophobe! And you guys say I have a wild imagination (though you all seem to think the scenarios I describe are from movies which would mean that I posses little imagination) though your imaginations have run wild when trying to figure out what stereotype I actually belong to.

[civilian_number_two]

I didn't say you were racist, but your attacks on America as a nation of ignorant rednecks too stupid to be trusted with the responsibility of the guns you are certain they desperately need ... well they speak for themselves. I don't think I used the phrase "run-of-the-mill xenophobia" incorrectly. Understand that doesn't mean that I believe you clinically suffer form the psychological illness of the same name. It's a pretty common exp​ression to describe the sort of national stereotyping you've been guilty of. So don't flip out, or at least, don't flip out in ways not justified by the context.

And yeah, shotguns are easy to purchase. Easier possibly than handguns.

PS: there is a way to remove the parts of the quoted text that you don't plan to respond to. If utilised, it makes your posts better, and puts hair on your chest.

[J m HofMarN]

Deuacon couldnt be bothered to respond to my post, or anyone's core argument really, I guess because either I'm on sim-ignore again, or he was busy watching The Departed so he could better cite his sources.

We're not saying you're xenophobic because we're desperate and need to employ insults. Only very, very silly people resort to such tactics. No, it's just that when you argue that an entire nation is a violent post apocalyptic movie version of itself, and then claim that it's citizens are all idiots when rebuffed, you do look a tiny bit xenophobic so it's only fair to call you on that.

I don't see where you get the idea that anyone thinks you're terribly imaginative. So far all of your stereotypes seem to be more gleaned from movies than from your own view, and I dont recall Civ saying you were a great inventor in his posts.

Orator-

Very true, but that one percent of crimes is often going to be the percent that involves the largest number of innocent bystanders, for instance massacres, drive by shootings, etc. Assault rifles are innacurate with a high rate of fire, so even if the criminals dont mean to target civilians it's still possible to hit them.

[Deucaon]

And yeah, shotguns are easy to purchase. Easier possibly than handguns.

I'm going to go out on a limb and believe you're serious. If that is the case, would you rather fight off someone wielding a shotgun with an assault rifle or a pistol? Assuming you were in a closed environment.

PS: there is a way to remove the parts of the quoted text that you don't plan to respond to. If utilised, it makes your posts better, and puts hair on your chest.

Just what I need, more hair on my chest.

Deuacon couldnt be bothered to respond to my post, or anyone's core argument really, I guess because either I'm on sim-ignore again, or he was busy watching The Departed so he could better cite his sources.

And you guys say I have a wild imagination (though you all seem to think the scenarios I describe are from movies which would mean that I posses little imagination) though your imaginations have run wild when trying to figure out what stereotype I actually belong to.

I thought I did reply to your post.

I didn't say you were racist, but your attacks on America as a nation of ignorant rednecks too stupid to be trusted with the responsibility of the guns you are certain they desperately need ... well they speak for themselves. I don't think I used the phrase "run-of-the-mill xenophobia" incorrectly. Understand that doesn't mean that I believe you clinically suffer form the psychological illness of the same name. It's a pretty common exp​ression to describe the sort of national stereotyping you've been guilty of. So don't flip out, or at least, don't flip out in ways not justified by the context.

We're not saying you're xenophobic because we're desperate and need to employ insults. Only very, very silly people resort to such tactics. No, it's just that when you argue that an entire nation is a violent post apocalyptic movie version of itself, and then claim that it's citizens are all idiots when rebuffed, you do look a tiny bit xenophobic so it's only fair to call you on that.

In my defence, both JM and Civ described Americans as being idiots who either cant lock up their house properly or would tell everyone (including criminals) that they have a valuable weapon at their house as soon as they got one.

[J m HofMarN]

I thought I did reply to your post.

Ok, so you responded to me saying that your scenario is a fantasy that would only appear in film, by saying that I think your scenario is a fantasy that would only appear in film. That's a most astute observation, but simply restating my assertion doesn't do much for your argument against it.

In my defence, both JM and Civ described Americans as being idiots who either cant lock up their house properly or would tell everyone (including criminals) that they have a valuable weapon at their house as soon as they got one.

Actually you read that into what we said, and that was an incorrect inference. I said that assault rifles are hard to conceal so they would be a target for someone when they broke into the home. Thieves dont go into your house knowing what's there. They decide the house looks like a good and easy mark, go in , and see what's good to take. If they see an assault rifle, they'll probably take it.

Americans can't lock up their houses properly? What in the hell? First you say hordes of mafia assassins with automatic weapons want to break into suburban homes and kill the inhabitants, then what difference could having locked doors possibly make unless you're talking about a bank vault? (Hint, despite what you may have seen in Die Hard, most Americans dont have bank vaults.)

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, your question is irrelevant since if attacked with a shotgun I could also use a shotgun. An assualt weapon is unnecessary. If you want to extend the metaphor now and say "but what if he had an illegal assault weapon?" then I have to ask "Well what if he had the Tarrasque?" We've been over this ground before, and it comes back to the same: American cities are not close-quarter combat zones filed with deadly thugs (or for that matter mythical beasts). I have been to a US gun show, and I have never seen an assault rifle in my life.

What JM said about inference. I never said Americans couldn't lock up their houses, or that they went about advertising their contents. I do know where you got that, but it's such a stretch it would send Reed Richards to the chiropractor.

Of course JM, if you put the AR in the panic room, it might be harder to get at. Plus you could release non-lethal nerve gas into the rest of the house while you sat inside there watching your invasioners pass out on video. Of course, if they came at you in armoured atmosphere suits with drop packs, you'd be hooped. Those things have the laser cutters, you know.

[Deucaon]

Are semi automatic rifles allowed for civilian use in America?

[civilian_number_two]

They're largely restricted. They were banned for a while, and now the legislation is state-by-state and in flux.

Completely unrestricted is the Tarrasque!