The only gun control needed.

[M14 Shooter]

And we did the exact same thing here in America. It was called the Brady Bill, and it produced zero results. That's why when it came up for renewal, they turned the renewal down.

That's because it was a very watered down bill in the first place.

Heh.
How was the Brady Bill "watered down"?
Please be specific.

 

[M14 Shooter]

'Why would you want some guns banned? What makes some guns bad and others good?'
Guns in the hands of American nutters are always bad, and are used to kill people. Send in missionaries of civilization!

Oh look... another anti-gun loon, able to argue only from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[The Rabbi]

And we did the exact same thing here in America. It was called the Brady Bill, and it produced zero results. That's why when it came up for renewal, they turned the renewal down.

That's because it was a very watered down bill in the first place.

Heh.
How was the Brady Bill "watered down"?
Please be specific.

I can predict a response.
First, it grandfathered previously manufactured guns. Of course to ban those meant a taking under the 5th amendment and would have required the gov't to pay owners for them. Assuming anyone turned them in
Second, it allowed loopholes in the features. So the gun couldnt have a 30 rd magazine sold with it but if you bought a 30 rd magazine it would still fit.
And probably others.
None of them would make the slightest difference in gun crime whatsoever, needless to say. But libs' response to failed policies is always "we didnt do it enough" or "we needed to spend more."

 

[Dr Grump]

You mean like fully automatic AK47s of the type used in the Paris shootings?

Yep

 

[Dr Grump]

Why would you want some guns banned? What makes some guns bad and others good?

Because fully and semi-automatic guns can do a lot more damage than single-shot shotguns and rifles. Pretty straight forward really.

 

[Dr Grump]

Absolutely I want some guns banned.

A position for which you have no sound argument.

Yeah, I do.

 

[Dr Grump]

Nothing I have written is based on emotion. Just because you think it is doesn't make it so...

As soon as you post a position that you think is not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, I will illustrate for you and the rest of the world how it is based ion emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus, unsound.
You may now begin.
No, really. Bring it on. I dare you.

I dare you to engage in an honest debate instead of setting false parameters,

 

[M14 Shooter]

Absolutely I want some guns banned.

A position for which you have no sound argument.

Yeah, I do.

Lay it on me, brother.

 

[Dr Grump]

I can predict a response.
First, it grandfathered previously manufactured guns. Of course to ban those meant a taking under the 5th amendment and would have required the gov't to pay owners for them. Assuming anyone turned them in
Second, it allowed loopholes in the features. So the gun couldnt have a 30 rd magazine sold with it but if you bought a 30 rd magazine it would still fit.
And probably others.
None of them would make the slightest difference in gun crime whatsoever, needless to say. But libs' response to failed policies is always "we didnt do it enough" or "we needed to spend more."

Reducing the number of guns available would make no difference to gun crime? Er, you might want to rethink that...

 

[Dr Grump]

Lay it on me, brother.

Already laid out my positions. All of which are sound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing I have written is based on emotion. Just because you think it is doesn't make it so...

As soon as you post a position that you think is not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, I will illustrate for you and the rest of the world how it is based ion emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus, unsound.
You may now begin.
No, really. Bring it on. I dare you.

I dare you to engage in an honest debate instead of setting false parameters,

False parameters?

Challenging you to lay out what you think is a sound argument so I can show how it is based on emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus unsound - is a "false parameter"

Huh. In most places, a sound argument is the the basis for honest debate; as you cannot present one, you are apparently incapable of same.

Fact is, you know you cannot make a point w/o resorting to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, and so you shall continue to avoid doing so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lay it on me, brother.

Already laid out my positions. All of which are sound.

Ah.
So now you've devolved to lying -- both to me and yourself.

 

[Dr Grump]

Challenging you to lay out what you think is a sound argument so I can show how it is based on emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus unsound - is a "false parameter"

Huh. In most places, a sound argument is the the basis for honest debate; as you cannot present one, you are apparently incapable of same.

Fact is, you know you cannot make a point w/o resorting to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, and so you shall continue to avoid doing so.

As I have said, that is nothing more than your opinion. Having an opinion is fine.

Banning certain guns has nothing to do with emotion, but is common sense.

Licensing gun owners is nothing to do with emotion, but common sense.

Increasing background checks is common sense.

Nothing emotional about it all. Remember, I'm not even an American so I have no skin in the game.

You rambling on about "emotion, ignorance and dishonesty" is nothing more than a white elephant of reasoning. So have it. Keep on going.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ah.
So now you've devolved to lying -- both to me and yourself.

Yeah, right..

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would you want some guns banned? What makes some guns bad and others good?

Because fully and semi-automatic guns can do a lot more damage than single-shot shotguns and rifles. Pretty straight forward really.

OK, I see you dont have a clue what you're talking about.
Full auto weapons do not do more damage. They actually do less. Which is why the US military never trains soldiers on full auto fire. In any case full autos are highly restricted in what amounts to a de facto ban.
Charles Whitman did most of his shooting with a Remington 700. He killed 14 people.
If I ever planned to shoot up a school (c'v) I would use my Mossberg 12ga pump. A combination of #4 Buck and slug would wreak devastation and destruction far in excess of what a rifle could do.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can predict a response.
First, it grandfathered previously manufactured guns. Of course to ban those meant a taking under the 5th amendment and would have required the gov't to pay owners for them. Assuming anyone turned them in
Second, it allowed loopholes in the features. So the gun couldnt have a 30 rd magazine sold with it but if you bought a 30 rd magazine it would still fit.
And probably others.
None of them would make the slightest difference in gun crime whatsoever, needless to say. But libs' response to failed policies is always "we didnt do it enough" or "we needed to spend more."

Reducing the number of guns available would make no difference to gun crime? Er, you might want to rethink that...

Lemme check. Nope, reducing the number of guns would not reduce crime. Actually the opposite is the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

Challenging you to lay out what you think is a sound argument so I can show how it is based on emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty - and thus unsound - is a "false parameter"

Huh. In most places, a sound argument is the the basis for honest debate; as you cannot present one, you are apparently incapable of same.

Fact is, you know you cannot make a point w/o resorting to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, and so you shall continue to avoid doing so.

As I have said, that is nothing more than your opinion. Having an opinion is fine.

Banning certain guns has nothing to do with emotion, but is common sense.

Licensing gun owners is nothing to do with emotion, but common sense.

Increasing background checks is common sense.

Nothing emotional about it all. Remember, I'm not even an American so I have no skin in the game.

You rambling on about "emotion, ignorance and dishonesty" is nothing more than a white elephant of reasoning. So have it. Keep on going.

It is common sense that since licensing, background checks and turning in guns are all voluntary then people who know they will get caught will not do those things. Ergo, criminals will hold on to guns while honest citizens will lose them.
There is your common sense.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why would you want some guns banned? What makes some guns bad and others good?

Because fully and semi-automatic guns can do a lot more damage than single-shot shotguns and rifles. Pretty straight forward really.

Single shot? Like a musket? How the **** do you defend yourself with those? Oh, I get it, you're a burglar.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would you want some guns banned? What makes some guns bad and others good?

Because fully and semi-automatic guns can do a lot more damage than single-shot shotguns and rifles. Pretty straight forward really.

Single shot? Like a musket? How the **** do you defend yourself with those? Oh, I get it, you're a burglar.

See the theory here is that if you ban everything except single shot guns (I have a Ruger No. 1 and love it and it is single shot) then criminals will turn in their semi autos and no one will have a semi auto. Of course they wont and the idea is stupid but whatever.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why would you want some guns banned? What makes some guns bad and others good?

Because fully and semi-automatic guns can do a lot more damage than single-shot shotguns and rifles. Pretty straight forward really.

Single shot? Like a musket? How the **** do you defend yourself with those? Oh, I get it, you're a burglar.

See the theory here is that if you ban everything except single shot guns (I have a Ruger No. 1 and love it and it is single shot) then criminals will turn in their semi autos and no one will have a semi auto. Of course they wont and the idea is stupid but whatever.

Joe Biden can take care of business with two shots in the air so maybe one well placed shot is all that will ever be needed.