- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?
Actually it is not a unrealistic comparison. MANY PEOPLE believe that violence is some music leads to violence - from Charles Mason to the Rolling Stones to rap and rage music about cop killing songs. And they could say "EVERY ONE OF THOSE SONGS USES A 6 STRING GUITAR!" Therefore, we should outlaw guitars and similar instruments with more than 5 strings.
There are two flaws in your arguing "those elements make a firearm more dangerous."
1. Inherently, firearms are meant to be dangerous.
2. Contrary to what you seem to believe, passing laws to try to make firearms inaccurate is nonsensical and dangerous.
Obviously you do want hunting and target shooting outlawed by deliberately trying to make firearms incapable of doing either. Maybe you would want manufacturers to be required to put on loose and non-adjustable inaccurate gun sights too - and with triggers that sometimes just go off on their own.
Back to the guitar analogy, it would be to add to regulations that it is illegal to allow guitars to be tunable.
And I liked your post, not because I agreed with you but because you're demonstrating reason and not making accusations.
As far as banning musical instruments, I don't think that's a realistic comparison. I know some people think the music I make is ghastly, but it's never killed anyone (yet)
However, I think you are "begging the question" when it comes to the "cosmetics". We're here discussing whether those features do or do not make a weapon more dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a criminal. Just declaring that they are not is just a short circuiting of the debate, and will not do anyone any good. Particularly with regards to an issue where many, and probably most, people already have their minds made up.
I think it's obvious that many on the right are concerned that the public support for gun safety laws will result in additional restictions being placed on gun ownership. What do you think would be a more effective way of countering that sentiment - a sane and sober discussion of the various features (what they are, what they do, how they can be used) or strident declarations that "THEY'RE PURELY COSMETIC!!" followed with insults directed at anyone who disagrees with that assertion?
Remember, a lot of people believe that people who like guns are nuts to begin with. Do you think the more strident talk is going to make them see your side as more rational, or will it enhance their perception of gun owners as being a crowd of hysterical loons?
Actually it is not a unrealistic comparison. MANY PEOPLE believe that violence is some music leads to violence - from Charles Mason to the Rolling Stones to rap and rage music about cop killing songs. And they could say "EVERY ONE OF THOSE SONGS USES A 6 STRING GUITAR!" Therefore, we should outlaw guitars and similar instruments with more than 5 strings.
There are two flaws in your arguing "those elements make a firearm more dangerous."
1. Inherently, firearms are meant to be dangerous.
2. Contrary to what you seem to believe, passing laws to try to make firearms inaccurate is nonsensical and dangerous.
Obviously you do want hunting and target shooting outlawed by deliberately trying to make firearms incapable of doing either. Maybe you would want manufacturers to be required to put on loose and non-adjustable inaccurate gun sights too - and with triggers that sometimes just go off on their own.
Back to the guitar analogy, it would be to add to regulations that it is illegal to allow guitars to be tunable.