Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The studies you cite are faulty on at least one count--they only surveyed people incarcerated.
That leaves a gaping unknown hole regarding actual crimes committed.
|
It's called cross sampling and every poll in the world is based on cross sampling. Look at the polls in the presidential race. Do you get a call for each and every one of those polls? It's a sampling of a group that represents a whole. I will agree that the numbers are not going to be 100%, but the will be close.
Yes, only those incarcerated were polled. How do you suggest we survey those who never got caught?
Quote:
|
Also, unless we know what percent of the population actually committed a gun related offense, those figures are artificially inflated. If 70% of our population is incarcerated due to drug related offenses (it is) and only ~8% are due to violent offenses (they are), then we want to know the percentage of those 8% who used such a weapon, not the entire 100% population--because we know that an IV heroin user isn't relevant to the count of how many people use these weapons unless his crime was bucking a .45 for a fix.
|
You should read the survey. It si broken apart with type of gun, type of crime, where they got the gun and a few other items.
Quote:
In regard to your last paragraph. You can disagree with my statement, I can't convince you about the intent of the bill because your mine appears made up already. When a bill winds its way through Congress, everyone gets to piddle with it until it's passable. I don't know what the machinations were that rendered it toothless in the end. But our representatives didn't sit around thinking of ways to scare the public into losing their 2nd amendment rights. They were dealing with a real problem of people shooting larger numbers of people than was the usual case in a more rapid fashion than a typical handgun and sport rifle.
I also made my position clear on the matter that it's downright nonsense to say a bill didn't intend to ban a particular function when manufacturers found loopholes to continue making rifles that did not vary in too much function.
|
A real problem of people shoting larger numbers of than was the usual case in a more rapid fashion that a typical handgun and sport rifle huh? Explain how a semi-automatic rifle shoots faster than a semi-automatic pistol? Or did you mean that to shoot 30 people with a glock required a reload where with a AR-15 you wouldn't have to with a 30 round mag? An AR-15 is a sport rifle so I will assume you are talking about bolt action type rifles here. But if we are talking about rounds being thrown downrange in a given time frame, what about the SKS, it didn't make the list but will fire 30 rounds just as fast as an AR-15.
Using the same logic that was used on the AWB, here is my solution to vehicular homocide by drunk drivers. First we survey everyone that goes into a bar as to what they will drink, then we look to see if those people get into wrecks that result in a person loosing their life. Then whatever drinks caused the most fatality accidents, we make illegeal. Now I know that won't solve the problem because people will drink other things, but hey, it looks good on paper, I'm trying to solve the problem of people killing people by doing something that is already illegeal.
I'm not arguing about intent. I'm arguing about what the bill did when it was passed....not a whole lot. Wheather the intent of the bill or not, it made certain rifles illegeal to manufacture that contained certain physical charistics. No weapon was baned based on how it functioned. Tell me, how does a telescoping stock affect the function of a rifle? How does a bayonet lug affect the function of a rifle?
Quote:
Are you suggesting that you would support a ban if it criminalized all multi-round rifles that were easily concealable, highly portable, and rapid firing?
Or are you just picking at a bill and finding reasons retrospectively that justify the conclusion you already came to?
|
First, I would not support such legislation, however if I were to endorce a bill, then yes it would have to ban all semi-automatic rifles, not just the ones that look scary. I am not mearly picking at a bill retrospectively....I have been picking at this bill for about 3 to 4 years now. When the bill went into affect I was not old enough to worry about it much. As I got older, I started to worry about it more and more and pick it apart. Personally I own a pre-ban AR-15 and see no reason why the cosmetic features should be banned.