Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Gone2Ground]

Okay. But that was a lot of things that aren't harmful at all, primarily pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, and folding stocks. Even many of the guns that were banned by name had no real reason for it.

What primarily did you feel in the 94 Assault Weapons ban was something that should have stayed illegal?

Mostly just the semi-auto rifles. The pistols and shotguns I'm okay with, and yeah, the pistol grips/suppressors/folding stocks are fine. But do you really need an AKM like this lying around your house?:

I just can't really see why anyone would need something that big. I believe the XM-15 they found with Lanza also falls under this category.

[Duff Ostrich]

There is no need for you to own that SMG/Assault Rifle. At all.

Submachine guns and semi automatic "assault" rifles are not equivalent in any way.

Moreover, civil liberties are not recognized on the basis of "need". They are recognized on the basis of "Why not?". Specifically, why shouldn't I be allowed to <perform a specific action>? If the answer to that question isn't sufficiently justified, then disallowing that action is wrong.

Applying this rationale to guns, it becomes clear that this so called "assault weapon" ban is not justifiable. Firstly because almost all crimes are committed with handguns anyway. Secondly because government research has not supported the notion that the 1994 ban had any observable effect on violent crime. And lastly because the actions of criminals are not enough to justify restricting the liberty of the entire civilian population, especially when most of them are responsible, law abiding adults and should therefore be treated as such.

With regards to semi automatic assault rifles, the gun control crowd really has no leg to stand on, and considering all the misconceptions people have regarding these weapons (holding down the trigger does NOT spray bullets in semi automatic weapons!), it makes the argument all the more frustrating to have.

[Gone2Ground]

Submachine guns and semi automatic "assault" rifles are not equivalent in any way.

Moreover, civil liberties are not recognized on the basis of "need". They are recognized on the basis of "Why not?". Specifically, why shouldn't I be allowed to <perform a specific action>? If the answer to that question isn't sufficiently justified, then disallowing that action is wrong.

Applying this rationale to guns, it becomes clear that this so called "assault weapon" ban is not justifiable. Firstly because almost all crimes are committed with handguns anyway. Secondly because government research has not supported the notion that the 1994 ban had any observable effect on violent crime. And lastly because the actions of criminals are not enough to justify restricting the liberty of the entire civilian population, especially when most of them are responsible, law abiding adults and should therefore be treated as such.

With regards to semi automatic assault rifles, the gun control crowd really has no leg to stand on, and considering all the misconceptions people have regarding these weapons (holding down the trigger does NOT spray bullets in semi automatic weapons!), it makes the argument all the more frustrating to have.

I am aware of how Semi-Auto works, thank you very much.

Using this theory of "Why not?", "Why" are citizens "Not" allowed to feel unsafe because people are carrying these weapons around, and "Why" are citizens "Not" allowed to protest against their presence?

I do not, nor ever have, nor have plans to, live in the USA. I was born in Scotland, raised in Germany, spend some of my teens in France, and now I'm in Canada. All of these nations have gun control laws. All of these nations do not have news reports that go "Worst school shooting in almost a year" (Not referring to this one, but there was another a few years back where the news report opened that way). Any country where these sort of shootings can happen on an annual basis is doing something wrong, and if it's not with gun control, its with mental care and therapy.

From this point on I will lurk in this thread, but no longer reply unless directly addressed, because this is all I have to say on this matter.

[Esau of Isaac]

Mostly just the semi-auto rifles. The pistols and shotguns I'm okay with, and yeah, the pistol grips/suppressors/folding stocks are fine. But do you really need an AKM like this lying around your house?:

I just can't really see why anyone would need something that big. I believe the XM-15 they found with Lanza also falls under this category.

I really don't mean to say this rudely, but your evaluation here is the exact problem that I'm talking about. You're saying that because it looks menacing that it should be banned. You don't know how dangerous it is, or what it is made of that actually makes it dangerous.

So, please explain to me. What about this semi-automatic rifle makes it too dangerous for someone to own?

[Duff Ostrich]

I am aware of how Semi-Auto works, thank you very much.

Using this theory of "Why not?", "Why" are citizens "Not" allowed to feel unsafe because people are carrying these weapons around, and "Why" are citizens "Not" allowed to protest against their presence?

Nope, it doesn't work when you use it incorrectly. The average American citizen does feel safe and they are absolutely free to protest our gun culture, though most are not even remotely inclined to. But no rational conception of natural rights includes the right to restrict the liberties of others so that you might feel a certain way. It's worth noting that the United States, unlike much of western Europe, does not have laws restricting free speech regarding a variety of topics, from racism to denying the Holocaust. In comparison, the US doesn't care if someone's feelings get hurt over something that's said or done, because making sure people feel a certain way isn't a job of the government.

I do not, nor ever have, nor have plans to, live in the USA. I was born in Scotland, raised in Germany, spend some of my teens in France, and now I'm in Canada. All of these nations have gun control laws. All of these nations do not have news reports that go "Worst school shooting in almost a year" (Not referring to this one, but there was another a few years back where the news report opened that way). Any country where these sort of shootings can happen on an annual basis is doing something wrong, and if it's not with gun control, its with mental care and therapy.

I don't agree with that at all. People have a tendency to look at a set of circumstances and assume that this must be either caused by, or solvable through, government action. The underpinning of America's comparatively violent culture may very well be caused by something that the government cannot do anything about. Is it our large population? Is it our characteristic disdain for government control? Is it fallout from our history of racial divisiveness and inequality, which we are only now recovering from? Maybe it really is because we have guns everywhere, but considering that crimes are very rarely committed with semi automatic rifles it is clear that those are most certainly NOT the cause, and yet it is that specific class of weapon you're telling me I don't "need" to have, and should therefore be disallowed from having.

I don't know why a small number of psychopaths with very similar sets of circumstances (usually white, usually intelligent, usually middle class, always male) are doing what they're doing, but the cause being presented as the answer is very problematic for a variety of reasons, mostly coming back to the undeniable point that the ban being discussed here is not going to make a difference.

The real reason they're going after semi autmatic rifles is because they would never be successful at banning the real prize: the handgun. You'd have a whole lot of Americans up in arms, figuratively and literally, before you'll ever touch those.

[Constable Reggie]

I have a serious question for people who support New York's new gun laws.

How will requiring that magazines can now only hold 7 rounds stop criminals from simply loading the max number of rounds in a magazine? Do you think Adam Lanza would have obeyed this law and only chambered 7 bullets in his pistols instead of the full amount? Because in my opinion, this new 7 round limit is quite possibly the stupidest gun control law I've ever seen implemented.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

Yeah, it would be silly to assume that these politicians have no idea what half the things that are being banned are and are just banning things because why the fuck not right?

[media]

I know this has been posted already, but it bears repeating. I'd be willing to bet most of these legislators have never touched a rifle in their life and don't know half of what they are talking about. They ban things that sound or look intimidating, without actually analyzing what is dangerous.

Whoever she is, she probably has all sorts of advisers and whatnot saying "this is bad, this too, ban them" etc. while she just sits there nodding her head like most figureheads and department leaders do. I'd like to think the people telling her things know something, at the very least. But who really knows what goes on in the White house.

You'd been arguing that if it saves lives from gun homicide then we should ban what is necessary. Banning all of them would save the most lives. I assumed this is what you were arguing, so if I missed what you were saying then that's my fault. Still, doesn't that mean at this point that you should sort of change your argument around a bit?

As Obama said, "if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try." And I agree with this statement and every point he states in that video in the link. I believe the USA is extremely lucky to have guns still so widely accessible despite all the gun violence that occurs year on year, unlike most other countries around the world like the UK, Japan and Australia, who have had some of the tightest gun laws implemented upon them (resulting in less deaths by gun, but that's beside the point here).

Which police officers where? What department, and in what area?

It varies.

I see. Well there goes that simple idea of mine then! I assumed coppers throughout the USA were issued the same guns.

Consider all sorts of things, hahahaha. Go look at some of the SOPA conferences and tell me with a straight face they knew what they were doing. The fact that all this new legislation is pouring in after a massacre doesn't help. It means that legislators' trains of thought are being overwritten with emotion, and not reason.

I never said a majority. Roughly 47% of households own a gun(s). and that's a great percentage.

Transportation Security Admission. It was created in response to 9/11. Tell me what how good a job you think they're doing and if what they're doing is worth the sacrifices we make.

"Emotion" exists because something very bad happened, which gives "reason" for something to be done about it. It's not a good idea to sit back and wait for all the "emotion" to vanish.

Just because 47% of households in the USA own a gun (I'm willing to bet that number's higher because not everyone owns a gun legally thus it wouldn't be counted), this does that necessarily mean they would all be "pissed off" with the banning of guns. But I'm not arguing for the banning of all guns here, I'm merely supporting the notion for the banning of "military-style" (to quote Obama) guns. The USA is already up to their bollocks in the things it would be crazy to think they could possibly be banned outright without some serious shit going down.

I have a serious question for people who support New York's new gun laws.

How will requiring that magazines can now only hold 7 rounds stop criminals from simply loading the max number of rounds in a magazine? Do you think Adam Lanza would have obeyed this law and only chambered 7 bullets in his pistols instead of the full amount? Because in my opinion, this new 7 round limit is quite possibly the stupidest gun control law I've ever seen implemented.

Adam Lanza stole the weapons from his mother, did he not? Assuming this law was in place at the time, it would have depended on whether or not his mother would have obeyed this law.

[Anouleth]

Consider all sorts of things, hahahaha. Go look at some of the SOPA conferences and tell me with a straight face they knew what they were doing. The fact that all this new legislation is pouring in after a massacre doesn't help. It means that legislators' trains of thought are being overwritten with emotion, and not reason.

I never said a majority. Roughly 47% of households own a gun(s). and that's a great percentage.

Transportation Security Admission. It was created in response to 9/11. Tell me what how good a job you think they're doing and if what they're doing is worth the sacrifices we make.

This is the reality of how modern politics works in America. Senators and Representatives no longer spend time researching the country they are trying to legislate for. Increasing amounts of the time of congressmen are spent fundraising or building political support in their own party, so they can be re-elected. This is why many bills nowadays are ghost-written by lobbyists. Being ghost-written by a lobbyist isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's probably better that a bill that concerns, say, private medical insurers is written by a person who knows quite a lot about private medical insurers rather than the elected representative who knows nothing about the subject. But in this case, it gives you the shitty choice of either putting the control of the nation's gun policy entirely into the hands of the NRA leadership, or putting it into the hands of know-nothings.

Nope, it doesn't work when you use it incorrectly. The average American citizen does feel safe and they are absolutely free to protest our gun culture, though most are not even remotely inclined to. But no rational conception of natural rights includes the right to restrict the liberties of others so that you might feel a certain way. It's worth noting that the United States, unlike much of western Europe, does not have laws restricting free speech regarding a variety of topics, from racism to denying the Holocaust. In comparison, the US doesn't care if someone's feelings get hurt over something that's said or done, because making sure people feel a certain way isn't a job of the government.

Actually, it is the job of the government to make people feel safe. Political philosophy differs on many things, but pretty much all political philosophy agrees that the most basic and important function of government to protect it's subjects from physical harm or coercion by establishing a monopoly on violence. Freedom of fear has been called a fundamental right of Americans since the 1940s. And it would seem pretty clear, that if you were, say, a Jew, and people were walking around making speeches calling for your extermination, calling you vermin, that you'd feel a whole lot less safe, and possibly be less safe too, and perhaps be in fear for your safety or your property, and that would make it a job of the government to do something. And yes, I do believe that hate speech does incite others to commit hate crimes.

So, if you believe that people have a natural right to feel safe in their own homes, to feel safe while walking down the street, or indeed, to feel and be safe in any location in which they have a right to be in, you should also accept that there is an argument for restricting hate speech. Or indeed, for restricting many other activities that make people feel unsafe, like sending people death threats or stalking people.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Anouleth

[Excellen Browning]

Nukes are probably just too expensive for your average citizen, though.

doesn't the top 2% of all American citizens hold like 99% of all private capital? I'm pretty sure there's a market for it, albeit small. And hey, just because there's a small market, doesn't mean there's no demand at all and no profit to be made!

[Constable Reggie]

As Obama said, "if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try." And I agree with this statement and every point he states in that video in the link. I believe the USA is extremely lucky to have guns still so widely accessible despite all the gun violence that occurs year on year, unlike most other countries around the world like the UK, Japan and Australia, who have had some of the tightest gun laws implemented upon them (resulting in less deaths by gun, but that's beside the point here).

So you agree that we should ban knives and the ability to curl your hands into fists, which cause more deaths per year than assault rifles. Because that would reduce knife and fist violence, so we have an obligation to try that.

"Emotion" exists because something very bad happened, which gives "reason" for something to be done about it. It's not a good idea to sit back and wait for all the "emotion" to vanish.

Just because 47% of households in the USA own a gun (I'm willing to bet that number's higher because not everyone owns a gun legally thus it wouldn't be counted), this does that necessarily mean they would all be "pissed off" with the banning of guns. But I'm not arguing for the banning of all guns here, I'm merely supporting the notion for the banning of "military-style" (to quote Obama) guns. The USA is already up to their bollocks in the things it would be crazy to think they could possibly be banned outright without some serious shit going down.

You didn't refute my point. Legislators are using emotional response (lol the kids at Obama's speech) to support their argument for gun legislation. They're not looking at the inherent reasons behind the school shootings, or alternative solutions, because their lack of good judgement from emotion stop them from looking deeper than "guns killed children".

As for "military-style guns", you're still missing the point about why that's stupid. You're reasoning your argument behind banning them just because they look threatening.

Adam Lanza stole the weapons from his mother, did he not? Assuming this law was in place at the time, it would have depended on whether or not his mother would have obeyed this law.

Right, so he would obviously have loaded up extra magazines with only seven rounds instead of ten, because if you're going to kill several children, you should go ahead and follow this law, just in case.

Actually, it is the job of the government to make people feel safe.

Nope. Go look up Warren v. D.C.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

So you agree that we should ban knives and the ability to curl your hands into fists, which cause more deaths per year than assault rifles. Because that would reduce knife and fist violence, so we have an obligation to try that.

While dangerous in their own right, fists and knives do not come remotely close to the lethality of an assault rifle; although they (fists and knives) are far more common. Why do people own assault rifles? They are not necessary for any situation other than for use in a war zone. Why do people own knives? All sorts of things. Camping, cooking, amongst other things. You can't stop people killing people if they really want to, but you can at least take some reasonable steps towards making it harder for them to do it. Banning knives would not be reasonable. However banning assault rifles is reasonable.

You didn't refute my point. Legislators are using emotional response (lol the kids at Obama's speech) to support their argument for gun legislation. They're not looking at the inherent reasons behind the school shootings, or alternative solutions, because their lack of good judgement from emotion stop them from looking deeper than "guns killed children".

Emotional response? I prefer to think of it as common sense.

Right, so he would obviously have loaded up extra magazines with only seven rounds instead of ten, because if you're going to kill several children, you should go ahead and follow this law, just in case.

Okay.

[Rehab]

I don't know if my page got cut out of sight at the bottom of the page before last, but switchblades, a kind of knife whose purpose is to be concealed and whipped out very quickly to be used against a living being, are illegal to own or carry in some places, including some states in the U.S., and the degree to which they're sold interstate is federally limited.

To my understanding, the "should we ban (potentially dangerous type of object)" rhetorical question is a dead end, because even when it can't be answered "uh well we already have to some extent," in practice everything is considered on a case-by-case basis.

Full disclosure: Reggie's reference to fists reminded me that in a chapter of Hajime no Ippo, the main character forced his boxer friends not to fight back against some hooligans that then proceeded to rough them up, because boxers' fists are classified as lethal weapons and assault with a deadly wep could get their boxing licenses chunked. Looking it up, I have not yet found any case where a martial artist was required by law to register their body as a lethal weapon, though I think a couple times somebody to whom it would theoretically apply may have gotten a harsher sentence because they beat somebody unusually hard? I don't think that'd really count as being "regulated," though, even if true, though I guess things like boxing organizations count as a kind of regulation? Not what we're talking about though blah. Nice job not doing your homework, Ippo

Edited January 17, 2013 by Rehab

[Constable Reggie]

While dangerous in their own right, fists and knives do not come remotely close to the lethality of an assault rifle; although they (fists and knives) are far more common. Why do people own assault rifles? They are not necessary for any situation other than for use in a war zone. Why do people own knives? All sorts of things. Camping, cooking, amongst other things. You can't stop people killing people if they really want to, but you can at least take some reasonable steps towards making it harder for them to do it. Banning knives would not be reasonable. However banning assault rifles is reasonable.

That's not the point though. First, knives/fists still kill more people than assault weapons per year, so lethalithy is irrelevant. Second, you agree with Obama's idea that we should ban things which will in turn theoretically save lives. The consequences of banning them is irrevelant, because it'll still save lives. Sharp knives and fists kill more than assault rifles, so it would be more effective if we banned those things, instead of banning something that only takes an extremely small percentage of murders. As shown by the last AWB, a new one will again likely not affect crime. All it does is ensue a symbolic (false sense of security, meet TSA) victory against the dangers of guns, and put even more burdens on responsible users.

Emotional response? I prefer to think of it as common sense.

Then your idea of common sense is different from mine. My common sense (banning guns based on their appearance, also referencing the fact that we already had a [extremely ineffective] ban 10 years ago is stupid) is backed by evidence. All you're saying is "guns kill people, assault weapons look scary, therefore we should ban them" without regarding the facts that we already had a (failed) assault weapons ban, and that assault weapons are hardly used in murders. Right now, people are looking at the fact that an assault weapon killed children, therefore we should ban them. And that's definitely not common sense in my mind.

Okay.

So you agree it's stupid.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Original Alear]

What kind of argument is that? Guns don't kill the person using it, most of the time. It's not even remotely the same thing. You might as well say "my cat likes yarn therefore we shouldn't ban guns".

Hey, don't underestimate McD's. They're pretty fucking dangerous, maybe even more than the Mickey Mouse Mafia.

What have I said that warrants a source?

Nearly everything, including "the way I see it." That's how I see it XD

And that's sarcasm. There were some things you said earlier I checked, just like with other ppl, and while I did have arguments I thought were useful, I deleted them, because I didn't think they were particularly useful.

I see. Well at this point in time it's all a matter of opinion, no matter what figures from previous years-old passed laws produced. I am curious as to the exact details of the up and coming proposed bill regarding firearms.

What is not a matter of opinion - or so it seems to me - is that gun violence is "overstated" compared to homicides overall. That is, a large number of our total homicides, are gun homicides. And, guns are one of our most controlled instruments of death. Certainly, it is not for lack of laws surrounding their ownership, that people seem to come to possess them. And not for lack of laws, and information agencies, that their use is diagnosed as "homicide", "self defense" and the like.

It's not that I agree, or disagree, that guns are important, but assuming that new or old legislation is particularly important is, I think, wrong. Perhaps I am wrong, but the environment of being fed up with government, from Americans, which perhaps they themselves overstate, means that government will likely at best create an environment for change. If anything, pro-gun-control folks might consider being concerned with what the Supreme Court will be doing (and anti-gun), and as someone without a truly vested opinion, as always, I feel no compunctions calling attention to that possibility, as I may well be wrong in any case, and irrelevantly so, in thinking that a far-reaching decision would be made there if anywhere on this issue.

(hopefully not relevantly wrong - oh, to be that, the fear)

It's not for nothing, folks, that a death is a death and he used to post on SF.

Full disclosure: Reggie's reference to fists reminded me that in a chapter of Hajime no Ippo, the main character forced his boxer friends not to fight back against some hooligans that then proceeded to rough them up, because boxers' fists are classified as lethal weapons and assault with a deadly wep could get their boxing licenses chunked. Looking it up, I have not yet found any case where a martial artist was required by law to register their body as a lethal weapon, though I think a couple times somebody to whom it would theoretically apply may have gotten a harsher sentence because they beat somebody unusually hard? I don't think that'd really count as being "regulated," though, even if true, though I guess things like boxing organizations count as a kind of regulation? Not what we're talking about though blah. Nice job not doing your homework, Ippo

I don't know anything about true regulation, but the line about boxer's fists "being" lethal weapons I've seen before, and probably is true to some extent. It's not that the boxers have regulated fists outside the rings, I'd expect, but somehow I think that a trained martial artist or fighter's body - especially trained for commercial violence - would be subjected to "additional scrutiny" - that is, because of their competency in fighting, be expected not to use overwhelming force. Maybe I'm wrong though :D I haven't done my homework either!

Edited January 17, 2013 by Mouse

[Esau of Isaac]

Whoever she is, she probably has all sorts of advisers and whatnot saying "this is bad, this too, ban them" etc. while she just sits there nodding her head like most figureheads and department leaders do. I'd like to think the people telling her things know something, at the very least. But who really knows what goes on in the White house.

Whatever the case, what is being banned is based entirely on aesthetics and not actual danger.

As Obama said, "if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try." And I agree with this statement and every point he states in that video in the link.

Didn't you just get done saying that's not what you think though?

We shouldn't ban things simply for the potentiality to save lives, or even the actuality of it. We'd absolutely save lives by banning people from participating in physical sports, eating fast food, or riding motorcycles, but no one in this topic is interested in doing that.

"Emotion" exists because something very bad happened, which gives "reason" for something to be done about it. It's not a good idea to sit back and wait for all the "emotion" to vanish.

An excess of emotion is the antithesis to making good decisions. In grief and frustration people have done extraordinarily stupid things that they would not have done otherwise.

Enacting legislation out of an emotional response rather than a logical one is an unarguably bad decision. It simply should not be done.

Just because 47% of households in the USA own a gun (I'm willing to bet that number's higher because not everyone owns a gun legally thus it wouldn't be counted), this does that necessarily mean they would all be "pissed off" with the banning of guns. But I'm not arguing for the banning of all guns here, I'm merely supporting the notion for the banning of "military-style" (to quote Obama) guns. The USA is already up to their bollocks in the things it would be crazy to think they could possibly be banned outright without some serious shit going down.

What is a "military-style" gun? Anything that looks like it could be held by a soldier?

doesn't the top 2% of all American citizens hold like 99% of all private capital? I'm pretty sure there's a market for it, albeit small. And hey, just because there's a small market, doesn't mean there's no demand at all and no profit to be made!

That's an extraordinary exaggeration of capital ownership, but no, it's lower (but still surprisingly high). I think it was the top 440 income-earners with ~30%, or some such. In any event while I'd naturally blanch at that, income inequality itself is not an indicator of an unbecoming society.

While dangerous in their own right, fists and knives do not come remotely close to the lethality of an assault rifle; although they (fists and knives) are far more common. Why do people own assault rifles? They are not necessary for any situation other than for use in a war zone.

What is an assault rifle?

Full disclosure: Reggie's reference to fists reminded me that in a chapter of Hajime no Ippo, the main character forced his boxer friends not to fight back against some hooligans that then proceeded to rough them up, because boxers' fists are classified as lethal weapons and assault with a deadly wep could get their boxing licenses chunked. Looking it up, I have not yet found any case where a martial artist was required by law to register their body as a lethal weapon, though I think a couple times somebody to whom it would theoretically apply may have gotten a harsher sentence because they beat somebody unusually hard? I don't think that'd really count as being "regulated," though, even if true, though I guess things like boxing organizations count as a kind of regulation? Not what we're talking about though blah. Nice job not doing your homework, Ippo

I haven't read the manga in years, but I'm pretty sure nothing was said about him being registered as a lethal weapon, but that he would be banned from boxing professionally if he was caught in a fight with another person because the boxing organizations would find it unbecoming conduct.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Rehab]

Yer Mouse almost said Mice there my guess is that the reality is along the lines you say

Could be my mistake, but I'm preeeetty sure the translation I saw used the phrase lethal weapon, though maybe not "registration" in any real form. Though I don't exactly remember whether he was more voicing worries about how the courts would look at it or the boxing-license-taken-for-conduct thing, so maybe I'm just filling in blanks in my memory here.

I've seen the odd bit of chatter skimming the search results that the trained-fists-classified-as-lethal-weapons thing remains a commonly believed myth even among sportswriters and coaches, though.

[Aere]

What is an assault rifle?

This question bothered me (though I was skimming, so tell me if this was your point), because I'm pretty sure you know full well what an assault rifle is. My problems are with full-auto ones, in any case.

In regards to Hajime no Ippo (my favorite manga), it is stated multiple times that the fists of a professional boxer are classified as lethal weapons. Whether or not this is true in the real world, or outside of Japan, I don't know.

[Constable Reggie]

Automatic assault rifles are extremely limited and regulated in the US, to the point you may as well consider them banned.

[Esau of Isaac]

This question bothered me (though I was skimming, so tell me if this was your point), because I'm pretty sure you know full well what an assault rifle is. My problems are with full-auto ones, in any case.

No, I don't know precisely or even more than vaguely what an assault rifle constitutes. Are AR-15s assault weapons? AK47s? FALs? Can you define what make these models assault rifles, if so?

For the record, fully-automatic weaponry has been more or less banned from civilian use except in rare cases since the mid 30s.

[Anouleth]

Hmm, maybe this is the problem with gun legislation in America: nobody actually knows anything about guns! They just pretend to on internet forums, but when it comes to a real question, they admit they have no real knowledge. Hah, I have exposed your country for the rotten sham it is.

[Original Alear]

Yer Mouse almost said Mice there my guess is that the reality is along the lines you say

Advertising for the Red Mars series:

OvO

--v--

OvO

Farmers! Farmers from Minnesota! I tell you this now, I lied in answer to every single question! I answered exactly opposite to what I really felt, and this is what allowed me to score as normal.

OvO

--v--

OvO

The test made you lie. [sax]

Have you ever lied?

Well, no, Sax said, blinking as though the idea had never occurred to him, I told the truth to every single question.

Such a parody of the scientist, John thought. He even wore a lab coat. Seeing his characteristic blink made John think of a story he had heard one of Sax's assistants tell, to a laughing audience at a party: in a secret experiment gone awry, a hundred lab rats that had been injected with an intelligence booster became geniuses. They revolted, escaped from their cages, captured their principle investigator, and strapped him down and retro-injected all their minds into his body, using a method they invented on the spot - and that scientist was Saxifrage Russell, white-coated, blinking, twitching, inquisitive, lab-bound. His brain the sum of a hundred hyperintelligent rats,

'and named for a flower like lab rats are, it's their little joke, see?'

Well it's alright, I know I'm not rat(s).

What do you say, Michael? How do you account for yourself?

You may be underestimating the strength of the RMMPI. There are questions which test how honest you are being.

...

Do you think it's a bad sign we all consider ourselves such liars? [Maya]

It's been healthy to talk about it. No one has to feel they were unusually dishonest to get aboard. [Arkady]

emphasis mine, showing doubt @_@

Hmm, maybe this is the problem with gun legislation in America: nobody actually knows anything about guns! They just pretend to on internet forums, but when it comes to a real question, they admit they have no real knowledge. Hah, I have exposed your country for the rotten sham it is.

Nuuuuuuuuuu.

That's not really rotten though.

EDIT: My assumption, regarding assault weapons, is that they are particularly suited for:

-Handling multiple opponents.

-Doing more damage with each shot/hit (possibly penetrating certain barriers as well).

-Firing quickly, and more importantly, without as much attention to prepping the gun between each shot (?).

-Often have fairly large clips, to avoid reloading issues.

I figure people who play FPSs w/ reel'ish guns might know more? I'm sure wiki is a decent source for this.

I've seen the odd bit of chatter skimming the search results that the trained-fists-classified-as-lethal-weapons thing remains a commonly believed myth even among sportswriters and coaches, though.

I wonder if Liebling subscribed to that myth in any of his boxing essays, because it sounds familiar to me.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Mouse

[Esau of Isaac]

Hmm, maybe this is the problem with gun legislation in America: nobody actually knows anything about guns! They just pretend to on internet forums, but when it comes to a real question, they admit they have no real knowledge. Hah, I have exposed your country for the rotten sham it is.

Or maybe the problem is what I have been saying for pages that you are purposely misconstruing to make a pointless sarcastic quip and behave like a massive douchebag: That what is and is not an assault rifle (at least for the purposes of actual gun control, as in "assault weapon") is debatable, and the term is a buzzword used in today's society to represent guns that just look menacing.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Dandragon]

Ok. We have like a bunch of pages of arguing over this and it's gotten us nowhere. Maybe we should just stop before any of us say something we would regret.

[Original Alear]

Ok. We have like a bunch of pages of arguing over this and it's gotten us nowhere. Maybe we should just stop before any of us say something we would regret.

It's worth saying it will probably not get us anywhere. I'll also say that for my part, this topic, even a bit of the recent stuff, has been helpful, in trying to understand my own POV (not that I understand how that might get anyone anywhere). I avoided quoting and responding to some things that appeared to me like further misunderstandings in the last few posts, and I think I'll bow out from making more openly trivializing remarks from now on. Thanks very much dan. Good post.

[Balcerzak]

I saw that Obama was seeking to limit the size of magazines to 10 bullets.

Apparently the 13 bullet clip in the handguns I was shooting in December is a High-Capacity Magazine. This strikes me as hilarious.

...And sad, because it's really not.