Fact check: Would a U.S. House bill ban assault weapons?

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Kal'Stang, Apr 7, 2020.

  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow, what a transition you've made!

    British Australian living in Australia. No guns.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2020
  2. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have Australian friends who have guns, including a handgun. They just declined to comply with the law.
    I have always thought of Australians as kind of super-Americans, in terms of having an irreverent attitude towards authority, so I was surprised
    when they let their guns be taken away.
    I suppose the wonderful Castelmaine XXXX commercials would land people in prison nowadays, were similar ones to be made:
     
    chris155au likes this.
  3. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You do know that there was, for a period of time, an assault weapons ban. When it expired, it wasn't renewed. During that time, no one's guns were taken away.

    Yours is what is known as the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". I recommend a thorough study of the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit. You'll have to search for it, if you are interested in polishing your argument.
     
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wasn't much of a ban, eh? Hard to imagine how any such thing could have any effect on mass shootings.
    Given this, it impossible to soundly argue the necessity for said ban.
    A larger fallacy is declaring 'slippery slope' when the slab has already slid half-way down the hill.
     
  5. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do know that this bill goes much farther than that ban right? In fact it bans all semi-auto guns. Something that AWB did not do. That alone shows that this isn't a fallacy. Slippery slope, yes, but not a fallacy. For instance that AWB had grandfather clauses in it along with the ability to transfer a gun to your children upon death. This one does not have such a provision. In fact it bans ALL transfers. Yes, you get to keep your gun. But you can't transfer it to your children upon death.
     
  6. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I support the ban on AWB all semi-automatic weapons and felt that the original AWB didn't go far enough. Don't sweat it, as long as repubs control the senate, the bill is dead on arrival. Even if dems take back the senate, the repubs would filibuster it, and the odds of dems getting a super majority is unrealistic.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, such a ban.
     
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the 'slope' and it's foothill should be defined. Dems should tell repubs where we will draw the line, so the right can quit fear mongering on this issue.

    I see the slope as a repeal of the second amendment. That is not going to happen, ever. I see the slope as the right to own a limited number of non automatic an non semi automatic weapons for self defense. That number limited would have to be defined.

    the "foothill" should be the ban of automatic and semi automatic weapons, regulation of caliber, types of bullets, magazine size, this is the idea, I'll let other more expert persons hone this one. But, this is the general idea.
     
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Their answer is always "OK, now we want more"
    That's the bottom. You;re right , it won't because there will be a civil war before that happens.
    The 2nd protects the right to own and use firearms commonly used for traditionally legal purposes - how does this not violate the 2nd?
    You'll have to soundly demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, all of this.
     
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The total ban and government confiscation of all guns and arms would greatly reduce the number of deaths per year due to owning them.

    Yes, there are counter arguments, and I'm aware of logistics and pragmatic issues, but none of them refute the above fact, and that is my ONLY point.

    Of course, republicans, when presented with that fact, they are going to shout "okay, what's next, knives, BB guns, slingshots, spit wads" ? See, they are going
    to turn it into a strawman.


    Therefore, we should head in that direction. We should at least try to minimize gun deaths, anyway we can.
    To your highlighted point:

    Okay, mass shooter Person A has only a semi automatic weapon, and is shooting into a crowd of 100 people.

    mass shooter Person B has only a bolt action single shot rifle, shooting into a crowd of 100 people.

    In a period of 2 minutes, which of the two can kill the most people, and is the difference significant?

    Is not the answer person A and the difference is significant?
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If so, your point is meaningless, as the total ban and confiscation of all firearms will never happen.
    If you can soundly demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy for whatever it ism you want, you can do it w/o asking questions.
    Please proceed.
    Pro tip: A rewording of your question into a statement does not soundly demonstrate the necessity for or efficacy of, a ban on semi-automatic firearms.
     
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I answered my own question It does, in my view, that because a fully automatic weapon and semi-automatic gives the mass shooter the ability to kill far more people than he would be able to with only a bolt action rifle, or single action revolver, this supports the concept of regulation of the former, limiting ownership to military and police.

    I believe that the majority of the electorate wants congress to do something about mass shootings. Doing nothing is not an option. So, what would you suggest?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two things:
    1: All but one of the mass shootings in the US could have been perpetrated, with equal effect, with a pump-action shotgun
    2: Of the hundreds of million of semi-automatic firearms in the US, fewer than 10 are used each year in a mass shooting
    How is it necessary to ban semi-automatic firearms?
    How will you confiscate all the semi-automatic firearms?
    How will banning semi-automatic firearms have an effect on mass shootings?
    How does banning all semi-automatic firearms not violate the constitution?
    Rather than unnecessarily and ineffectively violate the rights of the law abiding, I suggest we make it easier for the law-abiding to defend themselves, specifically by getting rid of gun-free zones.
     
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Whether or not it will happen is a statement of time. Currently, i will agree with you. However, in time, as the winds change, ever so gradually, it just might. There was a time when the thought of a white girl marrying a black man was as far from the public consciousness as your assumption that the total ban on firearms will never happen.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
  15. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, the solution to guns killing people is more guns.

    That sounds like the perfect definition of insanity.

    If that is your position, then you support the right of citizens to carry assault weapons to Presidential rallies.

    Please explain to me the sanity of that position.
     
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even on the same planet as the total confiscation of firearms.
     
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mass shootings only last until the the arrival of the 2nd gun.
    I;d rather that gun be there when the shooting starts, not 10-15 minutes later.
    Insanity is repeatedly forcing people to remain helpless while a mass shooter works unopposed; the only rational, reasoned response to mass shootings is to make it easier for people to defend themselves.
    Fallacy: Non-sequitur

    I notice you didn't answer my questions:
    How is it necessary to ban semi-automatic firearms?
    How will you confiscate all the semi-automatic firearms?
    How will banning semi-automatic firearms have an effect on mass shootings?
    How does banning all semi-automatic firearms not violate the constitution?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
  18. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you admit, there is no fallacy and the slippery slope does indeed exist.

    I'm not going to bother arguing with you. I can see that it would be a waste of time. My vote will cancel out yours.
     
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,270
    Likes Received:
    16,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's fine. In truth, there is no right or wrong answer to guns. Some countries make them a right, some don't, and I suspect most do not.
     
  20. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The REAL ISSUE for arms isn't handguns or "assault rifles"
    In the army this is "small arms" stuff.
    For a people to stand up to their govt they need to possess the
    same firepower as that govt.. So we need to have citizen Trident
    nuclear submarines, a few carrier groups, an F35 and B52 air arm
    and a few tank divisions.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2020
  21. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many generals would defect against the US govt if a Bernie type tried to wipe out half the Nation
     
  22. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I support AR-15s !!!!
     
  23. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I support the right of citizens to hold Trident style nuclear missiles. These missiles were purchased
    by American tax payers and ought to be readily available to the taxpayers - either by rich individuals
    or by political groups or religious (both left and right for instance.)
    AF-15's serve to give a false sense of security against the government. But the missiles will guarantee
    true security and should be used often against state and federal intervention in our lives.
     
  24. NMNeil

    NMNeil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 2nd amendment give you the right to keep and bear arms, bear as in carry.
    If you are of such huge dimensions that you are able to carry a Trident missile, then you can own one. Provided you can get a holster that's 14 meters long 8)
     
  25. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    One would think that in this societal climate of uncertainty & angst, w/ record monthly gun sales (as per NICS checks) - there would be increasingly diminished tolerance for the mere notion of this anti 2A, draconian legislation! Apparently, the 'Left' is hoping to slip this through amidst the distraction of the Chinese Virus... IMHO if even a modicum of the bill were to pass it would lead to noncompliance & a stark showdown between the Constitutionally adherent citizenry & their overreaching overloads in State & Fed. governance...

     

Share This Page