Coreece

What a wonderful day for Jesus. I don't think that's what he's implying.

Nothing on this? Ok then. Whose burden is it to backup your claims?

Let the conspiracy theories begin.

Ya, me neither sometimes. I'd clarify but it's not important and I don't really want to fight with you about it anymore.

There is a difference between emotional arguments and fallacious arguments.

Not true. My point is that faith based truth systems are fairly useless when it comes to addressing reality. You continue to dance around the question because there is nothing you could say beyond its gods will, they're in a better place and yada, yada, yada. See you're trying again to manipulate the situation and change the subject just so you can bash my faith which is irrelevant to the point being made. It just illustrates that you don't really care and that the question wasn't asked in good faith to begin with.

So the, your position is that you support some kind of a ban? But reserve the right to mock and ridicule others who support a different ban, or who do so for different reasons? The real question is why you or Weber don't say anything when they show support for anything other than an out right ban? Probably because they're more inline with your political and religious views.

Outrage! People are dying! Mother's don't care about what size bullet killed their child, nor do they care about excuses for owning these killing machines! What are we going to tell them?! We must ban these abominations of mankind immediately so that I'm not at a loss for words! Won't somebody please think of the children!

This is what gets me about many of these arguments. It often devolves to people trying to put a politically correct face on the statement "yes, it's an issue, but I just don't care." Well that's the inherent problem with these types of fallacious emotional pleas, especially when they're so unnecessary. It just reduces everything to an ethical/moral quandary and evokes irrational discourse on both sides whereby one has to accept the premise otherwise be accused of not caring about children, which in most cases is just absurd. And then the other person just looks like a hypocrite due to the glaring inconsistency with "thinking of the children," but only when it suites their agenda. It should also be noted that gowlerk falsely attributed that argument to me and therefore shouldn't be directed at me, at all.

And your argument is just the typical one the NRA makes. Like them you just don't have the guts to come out and just say it. Namely, "it's too bad about all the deaths, especially the kids, but it's worth it so that we can have our killing machines". Everyone's gotta die sometime.  How is that anything like my argument? I didn't say that I opposed a ban, and I even briefly described how I'd prefer to see such a ban implemented. You don't show compassion by exploiting the deaths of children and diverting attention away from facts and rational arguments for reasonable solutions.

Not faith. Hope. "Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see." Because we both know it wasn't asked in good faith and irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. It was just an extension of your plea for pity through the attempted manipulation of people's emotions and feelings about kids and faith, rather than by reason - and then on top of that you say you're trying to be honest.

Your decision to ban assault rifles is based on emotion, principle, personal opinion and faith that less kids will die, not facts. ...and that's fine. You just seem to have a hard time admitting it.

Wouldn't think of it. So then why try to change the subject? The bottom line here is that whatever religion you, (or aren't) you're obviously making decisions based on faith if you continue to ignore the facts I've posted.

Don't make me angry.

Exactly. You don't have to make decisions based on some imaginary hypothetical career as a grief counselor. (please don't tell me you're actually a grief counselor) Just be rational and look at the data. I posted a link to a study that suggests banning assault rifles may not be the best course of action at this time, and that perhaps collectively following a set of 3 different laws may be the way to go, but you don't seem too receptive.

Ignoring that those parents might not consider prohibition a bad thing, you're just struggling to find an equivalency. Now, if some asshole charged into first grade shaking a six pack of Bud Tall Boys and managed to waste some innocent kids with the foam you just might have a point. Or, maybe you're just struggling to see it. Your argument is essentially the whole "think of the children" thing. So think of the children. Thousands have died in drunk driving accidents and prohibition could possibly save lives. It may or may not work, and could present even more risk elsewhere, but if it's all about the children and your inability to console grieving parents, then why not just do it? And BTW, let's say we ban assault weapons. Do you really think that that would get you off the hook with the parents or that it would make things any easier for you when these types of shootings persist? I mean what are you going to say, "Nothing to see here folks, this was expected. They told us this might happen, but don't worry, the overall numbers will work out in our favor by the end of the year, you just wait. Don't feel bad - we saved lives today!"

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable explaining the dangers of prohibition in auditoriums across the country full of grieving parents whose children were killed by drunk drivers.

I agree, but the reality is that this is a thread about guns and therefore not unrealistic to talk about first.

Sure, but at the same time they don't have to contend with the 350 million guns that are already here. If they did, then many of their laws would be just as useless as you said they are over here. Problems with the sheer number of guns in this country aren't going away anytime soon, so in the meantime, it's nice to have effective, evidence-based prevention programs that you still refuse to acknowledge help open new doors for those in afflicted areas and most at risk for gun crime. And just to be clear, I'm not calling for such programs in lieu of reasonable gun laws. Three gun laws linked to a 30% reduction in gun homicide/suicide rates *note - The study indicated that more research is needed (as always) to see if such relationship is causal.

Well, given that Trump is President, you never know what lunatic might be "voted" into office in the near to distant future, so it's nice to have some options. And if you think that the people couldn't stand against military forces, just look at Afghanistan that put up a relatively respectful fight with assault rifles we gave them decades ago to fight the Russians. And it's not just that. Our vulnerable lifestyles of excessive consumption are heavily dependent on digital electronics and a sketchy power grid. I was in Downtown Detroit during the Northeast blackout that only lasted a couple days and it was fucking chaotic. I couldn't imagine if that lasted for an extended/indefinite period. So when SHTF, it would be nice to have at least a couple standard rifles and a few shotguns for necessary provisions.

And that's fine, it's an emotional issue. Emotions are probably the main reason I'm even entertaining the idea of a possible (tho unlikely) assault weapons ban. The additional lives lost are significant to the families of the deceased. Emotionally it IS significant, statistically however, when it comes to overall gun violence/homicide rates, it's not. Handguns have been used in more mass shootings and have killed/injured significantly more people overall than assault rifles: 340 mass shootings with 1,141 deaths in 50 years from 1966-2016 271 of those 340 mass shootings DID NOT involve an assault rifle - 787 Killed, 869 Injured 67 of those 340 mass shootings DID involve an assault rifle - 351 Killed, 511 injured However, when assault rifles are used, significantly more people are killed on average per mass shooting: Assault Rifles - 5.7 Deaths and 7.6 Injuries Handguns/other - 2.9 deaths and 3.2 injuries Given the increase in both the number of mass shootings and the use of assault rifles, this is obviously a growing concern, but still not statistically significant when talking about gun homicide rates overall, at least not yet anyway. https://rockinst.org/issue-area/assault-weapons-mass-shootings-and-options-for-lawmakers/ (BTW, feel free to round those numbers up to the next whole person. I know saying things like "no statistical significance" in this type of context and using fractions of dead people may sound a bit insensitive and maybe even offensive to some, but I assure you, it's just the objective nature of numbers.) Tho the 1994 assault weapons ban had little effect on gun violence/homicide rates, it did result in a 25% reduction in the number of assault weapons used in mass shootings. I'm not sure what that number would translate to in terms of of lives saved if a similar ban was implemented today - and we'd also have to consider the significant increase in the number of assault weapons since 2004 and the effect it would have on that 25% reduction. Again, I get why people would support a ban on these types of guns, but it seems more of an emotional decision based on principle and personal opinion, and most likely wouldn't yield the results many might expect. Tho we'd likely see some sort of reduction in would-be deaths, It's doubtful that this type of ban would change the dynamics surrounding mass shootings, let alone gun homicides in general. We'd certainly need to do a hell of a lot more. . . https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/05/el-paso-shooting-dayton-gun-control-laws-should-not-be-weapons-bans/39317131/ "The study analyzed 10 different state firearms laws over a 26-year period and found three that, when enforced in conjunction with one another, reduced the rate of homicides and suicides by more than a third. Neither banning assault weapons nor banning high-capacity magazines shows any statistical significance in reducing firearm-related homicide rates, according to the study."

Ya right, the only time blacks can get special funding from the feds to improve their communities is after a natural disaster. Maybe Lake Michigan's "record deepness" will flood Chicago and wash away their guns. It might very well be the only hope given the level of obstinance displayed by both republican and democrat politicians (along with people like Kallend) that refuse to implement sensible gun laws AND prevention programs aimed at actually reducing the gun homicide rate. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if the state of our inner cities remained exactly the same for another 50 years.

I remember that stat from several years ago and wasting a lot of time trying to find data to support it. I never found out where it originated and whether or not it was based on a lie, some type of erroneous extrapolation or a very broad definition of "gang-related."

I can understand wanting to ban them based on principle alone, but if we were to implement something like that, I'd prefer they be phased out over time at the state level with as little publicity as possible so as not to create commotion that drives the numbers in the wrong direction. And tho the previous ban was shown to have had a minimal effect, we'd be better off had it never expired in the first place.

You are dreaming if you think that. That's fine, ignore the evidence if you want - but it doesn't change the fact that it's much more realistic than anything you've proposed. All this talk about banning garlic and gorillas in the room. Are you capable of articulating your thoughts and having a conversation like a normal person instead of playing these stupid word games? If you have something meaningful to say, the please, for the love of fuck, spit it out.