Elinda wrote:
The author seems to be a condescending ***, blowing all the latest catchphrases out his butt.
I couldn't get past 'white bread suburbanite's.
I couldn't get past 'white bread suburbanite's.
Can't say I disagree, almost lost me there too.
Eske Esquire wrote:
EDIT: Though I'll readily admit that I've seen enough uninformed pundits decrying "assault weapons" without the slightest inclination of what they're talking about. That kind of ignorance is a problem, but one can't let it distract from more meaningful debate.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 2:39pm by Eske
One should ensure that they're somewhat educated on the subject before arguing against it and having a "meaningful debate" though don't you think?
trickybeck wrote:
Really this event is just being used as a bugaboo or a tool to pass some sort of broader-reaching gun legislation than can help reduce the thousands of commonplace gun murders every year. In this regard, you're correct that assault rifles aren't being used in the most homicides, it's handguns. But you take in slack on the rope when you can get it, I suppose.
Agreed, so what would be a more practical approach to it? Banning all handguns, or just certain kinds such as those with clips, or certain capacity clips?
trickybeck wrote:
A third thing that's dumb about this article is the idea that just because the previous legislation mis-targetted cosmetic features of assault rifles, that the new one will too. Who says that her new legislation is going to be identical to the old one?
And if your big problem is that the legislation poorly defines what an assault rifle is, then why wouldn't you argue to improve that definition? Instead of calling the whole thing worthless? (Obviously - the reason why is because he just wants to advocate pro-gun positions, not to fix the problem).
Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 3:40pm by trickybeck
And if your big problem is that the legislation poorly defines what an assault rifle is, then why wouldn't you argue to improve that definition? Instead of calling the whole thing worthless? (Obviously - the reason why is because he just wants to advocate pro-gun positions, not to fix the problem).
Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 3:40pm by trickybeck
The legislation would have to be changed or it would be pretty worthless. The gun manufacturers would just do the same thing as last time and modify weapons to conform to the standards allowed. Better defining it might work, again assuming you could do so without allowing loopholes for manufacturer's to manuever around.