Questions for gun control advocates, part 1

[Shamash]

57. You've never been long on logic or intelligence

Which is why I had you on ignore, and will put you back on ignore after these two replies. I never thought I would see the day when I would long for stone space's company, but your reply almost reaches that threshold.

So feel free to avoid actually answering the questions or actually pinning yourself down to a position you can be referenced on, secure in the knowledge that I will neither see it nor respond to it again. Further replies will be left to those more able to tolerate your particular brand of inanity.

1) Does the weapon shown qualify as an "assault weapon" under NY or CT law? If so, then it is certainly fair to call it one for purposes of argument. If you wish to append your name to a statement saying that a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine and a folding stock should not be banned, by all means do so.

2) The bulge in murder rates is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that weapon availability was the reason for it. Since the weapon shown was available with no restriction (and could be ordered through the mail), and is an "assault weapon", it makes an admirable case for comparison to total bans on the weapon in multiple states. If on the other hand, other factors were responsible for the bulge in rates, well I guess that's where control efforts should go and you would not see a need for an assault weapon ban...



Looks to me like correlating easily available assault rifles and homicide rates gives you 15 years of no problems. However, I am not stupid enough to say there is a causal link between the two. How do you feel about a causal link between availability and murders? And hey, wasn't there as assault weapon ban in 1999 that apparently did absolutely nothing and a Brady Act in 1993 that did not seem to make any difference in an already declining murder rate? It's almost like correlating US gun laws and murder rates has a correlation of zero! Wait, it's exactly like that.

3) If you feel that this sort of weapon should be banned, you are arguing for banning a 60-year old piece of technology that was 1) once far more easy to acquire, and 2) had no evidence of correlation with harm because of that availability. It is not too much to ask if there is anything else you want to ban that meets those criteria. Manual transmissions? Nylon stockings? Steel-belted radials? Or do you just have an obsessive fear of guns?