Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

All that banning something will do is keep those who follow the laws from using it.

I agree, all laws are useless and we should remove them immediately.

[kaijyuu]

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work if you only use it on small parts of people's arguments.

[Leafsnail]

I quoted and responded to the entire argument.

[kaijyuu]

* kaijyuu checks

Whadda'ya know.

* kaijyuu bows out ungracefully, bumping a table as he leaves.

[misko27]

* kaijyuu checks

Whadda'ya know.

* kaijyuu bows out ungracefully, bumping a table as he leaves.

Lesson learned: Check before you defend. Sometimes people really are that stupid.

[Flying Dice]

Banning body armor does the same thing as banning assault rifles and the like: it makes it theoretically more difficult for serious criminals (organized bank robbers and the like) to arm themselves, but does fuck-all about the fact that the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, or that legally purchased and owned weapons are still quite often used in crimes or stolen and then used in crimes. Maybe it's a useful step, I'unno. I remember an old video of a bank robbery where two guys with AKs and body armor managed to kill a whole ton of police officers because they could shoot straight through cinderblock walls and so forth, and the ordinary PD couldn't get through their ballistic vests or w/e for a lethal hit.

e: THIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Seriously, let the crazy militia types have their private armories; they mostly live out in the boonies anyways. If we're going to muster the political capital to get some reforms passed, start with a blanket ban on handguns. That leaves out hunting weapons, and still allows the possibility of shotguns or whatever for home defense. Handguns are the first and foremost issue in gun crime: they're cheap, concealable, easily disposable, and incredibly common.

and handguns are the easiest to illegally make, because you need less material, and the best for a legally carrying person to carry. banning wont do anything, what with all the guns floating around, the best way to reduce crime would be to employ more people, with government programs, somewhat like they did in the depression. but banning weapons will not really help that much.

I... I have to hand it to you. This is the first time I've seen someone make that same old "Why bother dealing with the problem at the source," argument by suggesting that if the sale of handguns is outlawed, criminals will all just make their own. Y'know, as opposed to the whole "There are already too many in circulation, can't put the cat in the bag fellas," thing.

That aside, widespread public works projects a la the New Deal are perhaps one of the only things less likely to happen than a blanket ban on handguns. I'll be charitable and assume that you aren't really familiar with the tendency among the right and center to brand everything that even mildly hints at government involvement in anything except the bedroom as communism socialism (because they're totally the same thing). 

[Mr Space Cat]

The thing about banning body armor is kinda moot since most people wouldn't have body armor to defend against bullets anyway. Most people wouldn't be planning on getting shot at if they could help it, making a need for armor unnecessary, and furthermore: body armor can get kinda expensive. Unless the government just hands out body armor to everyone in the country "just in case" (which would be highly impractical if only because it'd get expensive) it really doesn't make a ton of difference if it's banned from general civilian* use, because a majority of people probably wouldn't have the armor or plan on getting the armor in the first place and wouldn't be effected by the ban.

*I assume Australia would still use armor for law enforcement, right?

The thing is guns can deter someone from attacking. Armor can't deter as much. If you have armor on it would help take damage but wouldn't help you deter or fight back against an attacker with a gun as much as your own gun would. You can't just wave a suit of kevlar at someone saying "Oooooh, don't mess with me, I've got protection!" and expect the same results as you'd get with a gun.

[Tack]

Yeah, but I'd be much more likely to rob a bank if I knew the police couldn't taze me, bro.

[zombie killer]

Yeah, but I'd be much more likely to rob a bank if I knew the police couldn't taze me, bro.

bank robbers usually get alot more than tazed.

crap, that was a joke, wasn't it.
you really don't get tone through the monitor.