[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts". As I have asked before, "what exactly were these supposed 900 exceptions?" And how would not having those exceptions saved lives? That's gone unanswered twice now.

You keep throwing out that "900 exceptions" and "of course with those exceptions it accomplished nothing" yet continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect.

I mean no disrespect Jim, but you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, since I've never once made that statement.


Again, something that cannot be supported. Especially when you consider: The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG

Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Let's also consider that in just about all cases that an AR-15 is sold in a state that doesn't have an active AWB, a standard-size magazine is 20 or 30 rounds.

I'd guess demand is quite a bit higher than you'd guess, especially when considering you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms, firearm laws and availability.

"Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts""

You're absolutely right. What I am talking about has never been done before, so how can I come up with facts that support it? All I have is what, at least to me, appears to be this nugget of common sense...

certain weapons make it a lot easier to kill large numbers of people. If we make it harder for would-be mass murderers to get their hands on these things, we might be able to reduce the carnage they leave in their wake.

" continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect."

I didn't see that you asked me for that until now.

Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post

A quote... (though I couldn't find any supporting data for the '900 exceptions' that was from a Charles Krauthammer editorial

"only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn’t fall under the ban"

"you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything."

I never said otherwise. I have no data to prove that slaughtering unborn babies for convenience is immoral either, but it's common sense, at least to me. Some things can be proven emperically, some are more conceptual. I guess the best I can offer in terms of proof is this...when I was in the USMC, I never once told my kids to leave the rifles at the base and bring handguns. That sort of supports my belief that certain weapons are more effective than others, at killing large numbers of people.

And if you agree with that, it seems natural that you'd agree that we need to make it as difficult as possible for would-be mass murderers to get these weapons. All I'm saying is, we should have a conversation about whether or not there are reasonable steps we can take, to accomplish that (make it harder for kooks to get these things). Maybe we are doing all we can. I don't know. But it's worth looking at.

I have said repeatedly that I'm not necessarily in favor of banning anything. All I have said is that we should have a rational, honest, debate.

"The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG[/url]"

I have said in this thread, the AR-15 is just a scary-looking version of a small game hunting rifle. I have said in this thread, that the AR-15 isn't necessarily what I'm referring to, when I say that certain weapons are so potentially lethal, that we need to look at availability. I'll concede that, you made a perfectly valid point there.

"Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Fascinating. But irrelevent. Again, I have said repeatedly that typical street crime and random mass murders are two very different scenarios, and therefore they warrant different solutions. Also, why pick Alabama? Are you saying that rifles are never used in homicides anywhere? Are you aware of what happened in CT?

I wasn't aware that statisticians had conculded that what happened in Alabama in 2010 is necessarily indicative of what will happen everywhere else. There were zero shark attack deaths in Alabama in 2010. Does that mean sharks are extinct?

Johnny, I never, ever said that such a ban would eliminate all crime. I have repeatedly said the opposite. I concede that most gun deaths involve handguns. That does not, in any way whatsoever, refute my theory that lives might be saved if we restrict availability of the most weaopns that are most effective at killing the largest numbers of people in the smallest amount of time.

"you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms"

And the more I theorize on it, the more misstatements I might make, I'm no expert. One doesn't need to be an expert, I don't think, to conclude that it might be a good idea to discuss the pros and cons of the availability of the most lethal weapons. Pointing out that you can kill someone with your bare hands, doesn't refute my point. That would only refute my point if I was stupid enough to say that a limited ban would eliminate all crime.