Horrific Newtown, CT school shooting

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, it's not. once made illegal, much of the demand will disappear. the street value of those already owned will rise-but if at the same time all private sales were banned(with stiff penalties for people who buy or sell privately), and cities instituted buy backs, many would be destroyed and gone forever. yes, right now many own these guns- because they can (yeah, the slippery slope argument). but if they can't, they'll get rid of them.

do you think everything should be left as is? that we just throw up our hands and say 'such is life' and not do a thing?

Actually, the desirability of those weapons will increase. Whether that translates to demand of undertaking the risk to get one through the black market is another matter. It becomes the forbidden fruit. Everyone knows that the gun was banned because it was "too good" in terms of performance, for the average guy to have.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Actually, the desirability of those weapons will increase. Whether that translates to demand of undertaking the risk to get one through the black market is another matter. It becomes the forbidden fruit. Everyone knows that the gun was banned because it was "too good" in terms of performance, for the average guy to have.

i disagree. you can't take the position that most people who own guns are law-abiding, and then turn around and say that certain guns would become more popular if made illegal.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i disagree. you can't take the position that most people who own guns are law-abiding, and then turn around and say that certain guns would become more popular if made illegal.

The law is not a constant. They are about to get more restrictive.

Some (not all) will not obey the new law. Nobody would get hurt any more than when the law was not in effect. The same guys who would not hurt anybody with an "assault" rifle still would not hurt anybody with that same rifle.

So good point on "law-abiding". The smart and determined will find a way to get what they want - though again, those kinds of people - the ones not of the sort to go hurt somebody with a gun - are not the danger in the first place.

This whole issue is degrading nationally to the point where people just want to see "something, anything" done so they'll feel better, even though the measures being proposed would not have helped avert this horrible crime.

And the professional politicians are acting more to further an anti-gun agenda rather than provide any real safety as a result of new legislation. And they know it.

As Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The law is not a constant. They are about to get more restrictive.

Some (not all) will not obey the new law. Nobody would get hurt any more than when the law was not in effect. The same guys who would not hurt anybody with an "assault" rifle still would not hurt anybody with that same rifle.

So good point on "law-abiding". The smart and determined will find a way to get what they want - though again, those kinds of people - the ones not of the sort to go hurt somebody with a gun - are not the danger in the first place.

This whole issue is degrading nationally to the point where people just want to see "something, anything" done so they'll feel better, even though the measures being proposed would not have helped avert this horrible crime.

And the professional politicians are acting more to further an anti-gun agenda rather than provide any real safety as a result of new legislation. And they know it.

As Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

no, i think most people understand that we don't need to do 'something'. big difference between a knee jerk reaction and common sense restrictions. only the ultra-zealous gun control folks are going to ask for a complete ban-everyone knows that won't happen.
by the same token, do we just say 'meh, can't do a thing'? no, no reason for that either.

[joeydb]

You know what's ironic?

For all the energy in debating this (which I much enjoyed - thanks), I'm probably not in the market for an assault weapon anyway.

But, saw this post out there, and apparently just the debate has really ramped up the gun buying.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/12/1...al-gun-buyers/

OK, many fear a "slippery slope", but emotions aside for both viewpoints - I wonder how many more people will have guns by the time any ban is enacted, and if they are doing it in response to anticipated legal measures, how long will the ban take for us to "break even" to the number of soon-to-be-banned guns that we have today?