Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control Reform Activism
In reply to the discussion: Don't forget to talk about the harm of shooting to health and the environment [View all]CreekDog
(46,192 posts)20. Here's your post associating an AWB and supporters with wanting to get rid of all guns, everywhere
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2295115
Crepuscular (318 posts)
5. Why should you miss them?
If you didn't previously own one, you probably wouldn't. I don't own a Porsche, if a law was passed banning them, I wouldn't miss them much because it would not effect me personally. However, if I owned a Porsche and the government wanted to confiscate it, I might be a little upset, especially if the guy next door who owns a Corvette is allowed to keep his vehicle.
Banning AR-15's will accomplish almost nothing, as a number of other semi-automatic rifles that use high capacity magazines are exempted from the proposed AWB and will continue to be readily available to anyone who wants to purchase one. The proposed AWB, like the last AWB, focuses on cosmetics, not functionality. Again, using a car analogy, it's like banning blue cars but allowing red cars, a meaningless distinction, especially since it really wouldn't ban blue cars, only the future production of blue cars. Is a Porsche with a whale tail somehow intrinsically different than a Porsche without one? Not by any measurable degree. The same is true regarding the weapons included in the proposed ban in comparison to the weapons which would still be fully available for purchase and ownership. I realize that frustrates a lot of people who would like to see all firearms magically vanish from private ownership but sometimes the truth hurts.
Crepuscular (318 posts)
5. Why should you miss them?
If you didn't previously own one, you probably wouldn't. I don't own a Porsche, if a law was passed banning them, I wouldn't miss them much because it would not effect me personally. However, if I owned a Porsche and the government wanted to confiscate it, I might be a little upset, especially if the guy next door who owns a Corvette is allowed to keep his vehicle.
Banning AR-15's will accomplish almost nothing, as a number of other semi-automatic rifles that use high capacity magazines are exempted from the proposed AWB and will continue to be readily available to anyone who wants to purchase one. The proposed AWB, like the last AWB, focuses on cosmetics, not functionality. Again, using a car analogy, it's like banning blue cars but allowing red cars, a meaningless distinction, especially since it really wouldn't ban blue cars, only the future production of blue cars. Is a Porsche with a whale tail somehow intrinsically different than a Porsche without one? Not by any measurable degree. The same is true regarding the weapons included in the proposed ban in comparison to the weapons which would still be fully available for purchase and ownership. I realize that frustrates a lot of people who would like to see all firearms magically vanish from private ownership but sometimes the truth hurts.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Don't forget to talk about the harm of shooting to health and the environment [View all]
CreekDog
Mar 2013
OP
At shooting ranges, why can't people just get bullets there and not need to bring them in?
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#2
But you would not need them.And for sport, people used to have gladiator fights in arenas
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#4
Easy enough. Have the Mayors against Bullets in the streets buy all the gun stores
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#14
you're posting this here to continue your aggressive assault on proposed gun control measures?
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#8
Actually I was presenting my personal experience which was counter to the broad brushOP assumptions.
Remmah2
Mar 2013
#11
you were trying to argue that shooting is not harmful to the environment nor people
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#12
It is accurate, lead in the environment from guns has effected waterfowl in many places
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#15
Just pointing out that accuracy is important if you want to convince anyone
Crepuscular
Mar 2013
#16
Here's your post associating an AWB and supporters with wanting to get rid of all guns, everywhere
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#20
no, he thinks we are "gun grabbers" who want to ban all firearms from private ownership
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#26
you were the one who brought up the people who want to ban all private firearm ownership
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#32
you realize there is lead criteria already in environmental water quality standards
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#43
i asked you a question and you responded with some nonsense strawman about something else
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#47
i realize that you became interested in the gun issue at DU only after Newtown
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#65
well you have a point, i mean, it seems to have been more interesting than the 2012 election
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#70
SWANS DYING OF LEAD POISONING IN WASHINGTON STATE AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
freshwest
Mar 2013
#74
That's one method and very effective unless one is diligent at staying on topic. nt
flamin lib
Mar 2015
#79