• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bill To Ban Assault Weapons Introduced In Senate

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jhhnn said:
Show us on the doll where the loony leftists touched you. Explain how guns serve as protection against them, other than in your warped imagination. WTF do you think they want to do to you, anyway?
Click to expand...

I did not personally endorse either worldview. The two extremes are as far apart as the east is from the west, and no reconciliation is possible. Your knee-jerk reaction is pathognomonic of the partisan disease that ails our country.

The supreme law of the land prohibits ex post facto criminalization, making so-called "assault weapon" bans completely ineffective at achieving their supposed goal of saving lives. See Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10.

As a pragmatic matter, increased funding for mental health is far more likely to achieve the stated goal of saving lives.
 
Muse said:
You are missing my point, which is that measuring the effects of terrorist attacks (and I do consider these mass murders terrorist attacks!) can't be assessed just in terms of integers (i.e. the number of "lives lost"). That's linear thinking and belies a pitiful lack of imagination. These atrocities affect people, they spread fear, anxiety, create negativity. Everyone understands this. Some deny it. Are you one of them?

And just because the great majority of owners of assault weapons have never killed anyone doesn't justify their having them. They entice unstable people to commit heinous crimes. They are not essential to the well being and happiness of owners. On balance, they should not be out there. Take your "horseshit" invective and shove it up your horse ass, BTW. I do not come here to hurl insults.
Click to expand...

Firepower freaks don't understand that they're a little bit nuts to crave it in the first place. Not a fucking clue. They certainly can't admit that people who have it & go over the edge can inflict a lot more damage when they do.
 
IEC said:
I did not personally endorse either worldview. The two extremes are as far apart as the east is from the west, and no reconciliation is possible. Your knee-jerk reaction is pathognomonic of the partisan disease that ails our country.

The supreme law of the land prohibits ex post facto criminalization, making so-called "assault weapon" bans completely ineffective at achieving their supposed goal of saving lives. See Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10.

As a pragmatic matter, increased funding for mental health is far more likely to achieve the stated goal of saving lives.
Click to expand...
claiming righties need guns to protect themselves from looney lefties is just outright bullshit.
 
ch33zw1z said:
claiming righties need guns to protect themselves from looney lefties is just outright bullshit.
Click to expand...

Again, I was presenting two different worldviews. You being of the former worldview will of course take issue with the latter worldview. They cannot be reconciled being so diametrically opposed. However, for persuasion purposes both are correct, and entirely real to the the people that hold them.
 
Fenixgoon said:
do you really think laws would be repealed to allow new, full-auto firearms into the public sphere? i certainly don't. fully auto firearms are horrendously expensive to obtain, on top of all the logistics required (approvals from various officials).

you're using something that virtually won't enter the public sphere to make an argument about public policy.
Click to expand...
Full auto is easily and cheaply achievable now though modification of semi-auto.
 
Last edited:
IEC said:
Again, I was presenting two different worldviews. You being of the former worldview will of course take issue with the latter worldview. They cannot be reconciled being so diametrically opposed. However, for persuasion purposes both are correct, and entirely real to the the people that hold them.
Click to expand...
youre representing alt-facts...and assume you know me based on a single statement thus far.

id adhere to a pragmatic world view. spend some time processing what that is.
 
ch33zw1z said:
youre representing alt-facts...and assume you know me based on a single statement thus far.

id adhere to a pragmatic world view. spend some time processing what that is.
Click to expand...

A worldview does not have to have a factual basis to be entirely real to a person.
 
ch33zw1z said:
no shit, alt-facts ring a bell?

bullshit is still bullshit, and will be called such as necessary.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why you will persuade no one of a different worldview.

I cannot persuade patients that they should vaccinate their children by starting with "you're an idiot and you believe bullshit"
 
Jhhnn said:
Show us on the doll where the loony leftists touched you. Explain how guns serve as protection against them, other than in your warped imagination. WTF do you think they want to do to you, anyway?
Click to expand...
His wallet? That's usually the first thing loony leftists go for, then guns and always freedom.
 
IEC said:
And that is exactly why you will persuade no one of a different worldview.

I cannot persuade patients that they should vaccinate their children by starting with "you're an idiot and you believe bullshit"
Click to expand...
so your approach is to cater to crazy, and hope to sway them with what exactly?
 
IEC said:
As a pragmatic matter, increased funding for mental health is far more likely to achieve the stated goal of saving lives.
Click to expand...
Pragmatic? The right is not pragmatic on guns or mental health. Increased mental healthcare would require the unlikelihood of increased funding, but it is a convenient counter to the gun problem argument. Anyone with a gun who kills people with it (fulfilling its originally intended design) must be crazy, so crazy must be addressed, and is the only possible solution? No sane man can become crazy or incensed? Let's not forget that Reagan killed off much of the extensive mental healthcare that used to be available in this country.
 
IEC said:
I did not personally endorse either worldview. The two extremes are as far apart as the east is from the west, and no reconciliation is possible. Your knee-jerk reaction is pathognomonic of the partisan disease that ails our country.

The supreme law of the land prohibits ex post facto criminalization, making so-called "assault weapon" bans completely ineffective at achieving their supposed goal of saving lives. See Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10.

As a pragmatic matter, increased funding for mental health is far more likely to achieve the stated goal of saving lives.
Click to expand...

Your choice of language reveals your leanings. Had you said people own firearms for a variety of reasons, both real & imaginary, I would have agreed with you.

Your ex post facto argument is bullshit. It just means people can't be punished for something they did before it was made illegal. We could, for example, declare any firearm that accepts a stanag magazine or similar & the magazines not already in the hands of private owners to be NFA items or that they must be registered as such when changing hands. We could prohibit the manufacture & sale of those & similar items after a certain date.

Is there some reason beyond freedumb that such weapons should be in the hands of a populace nutty enough to elect Donald Trump as President?
 
IEC said:
I did not personally endorse either worldview. The two extremes are as far apart as the east is from the west, and no reconciliation is possible. Your knee-jerk reaction is pathognomonic of the partisan disease that ails our country.

The supreme law of the land prohibits ex post facto criminalization, making so-called "assault weapon" bans completely ineffective at achieving their supposed goal of saving lives. See Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10.

As a pragmatic matter, increased funding for mental health is far more likely to achieve the stated goal of saving lives.
Click to expand...

Wait, are you claiming that an assault weapons ban couldn’t ban the ownership of weapons already purchased? That’s badly wrong.

Regardless, as established in other threads increased restrictions on gun ownership is just common sense. Guns are most frequently purchased for self defense and research shows they actually do the opposite. I see no reason to make our gun laws conform to emotional attachments of gun owners.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
As if it's ever been hard? People can make AK-47 receivers from a shovel blade, it's old technology.
Click to expand...
And your point is that I shouldn't have used the word "now" when describing the ease to convert semi-auto to auto? I still maintain that it is easier (to go on the internet or otherwise) now than with the information you provided. Either way, the ease of doing something so potentially violent isn't the issue (IMO) as much as semi-auto availability is. People will always find a way...
 
I think its about high time we pass some new gun control legislation. Perhaps requiring monthly mental health checks on registered gun owners. Those that pass will be allowed to tote assault weapons where they please and those that do not will be referred to a phsychiatric evaluation by Nurse Ratched (assuming, of course, the inspectors can dodge a few bump stock rounds).

53e9486722508.image.jpg
 
Jhhnn said:
Please. It's obviously necessary that we have trucks in the hands of civilians. It's not necessary for firepower freaks to have such dangerous toys. I mean, that's what it's all about, isn't it- military firepower? WTF is it really good for other than indulging dark fantasy & killing people? I'll bet you know somebody who's dying to have one of these-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkoWaVz6U3M

It's the same thing, only better.
Click to expand...


I might be wrong, but my take on interchange's comment is that there's a psychological factor in the appeal of military-looking long guns (assuming that's the correct term for guns that aren't hand-guns smgs or shotguns?). This bill doesn't sound very likely to achieve much, to me (surely most killings are with handguns, and any law that depends on specific cosmetic features and nomenclature is going to be evaded or 'gamed' very easily?)...but still, I think there's something in that point.

There might be some sort of psychological feed-back involved with the spree-killers who seem to fetishise these particular weapons. They are drawn to them, and the more they collect them and gloat over them, the greater the urge they get to actually use them.

Seems apparent also in the way some of them dress for their rampages, like they are guerrillas or special-forces rather than just shooting defenceless targets.

No idea how significant a factor that is (I actually think it's probably a very minor one), but it does seem like a real phenomenon.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol. What a bizzarro world you live in. Outside of this forum how much human contact do you have?
Click to expand...
What a stupid statement and what an idiotic question. I live in the real world and i'm on my way to a powder puff flag football game in a few minutes. After which i'm taking my wife out to Sunday night dinner. A real person living in the real world, just because someone doesn't agree with you politically doesn't mean they aren't human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top