NEWS: Students With Concealed Weapons: Worst Idea Ever

This stems back to the AWB which only covered cosmetic features and not anything to do with actually lethality nor did it have any real effect on gun crimes. No of course gun companies market their products however I feel you are giving that marketing far too much power in your assumptions. Thats what I am calling on you to either back up the claim with facts or at least state it as an uninformed opinion.

Anyhow it's trivia night and so I'm off.

And there was me, about to ask you if you could find any links that backed me up. Since you feel you're so much better informed than me, and all.

I'd also be curious to know you think whether the marketing that gun makers do is largely ineffective. Because that seems to be your opinion.

I did actually do a quick search for you but found nothing, which does not mean it's not out there. I just did not find in in my 5 minutes of looking.

Again tho I think you are putting too much into marketing and not enough into the fact that a gun gives a criminal an edge over his victim being th emotivation, some of the guns people use are butt ass ugly but they are cheap. Now if you were to say cost is a major factor then we would be in agreement there as high cost high end guns are far less likely to be used than cheap crappy mass produced shit guns like a hi point.

crazy americans

How do you figure?

In Ireland, even the cops don't have guns. But they do have sticks.

you're bad at logic. the fact that some people like the way certain guns look does not mean that gun sales will go down if guns stop looking like that. most people who decide to buy a gun will stick with their decision even if they can't find one that 'looks cool'.

laws passed based on that sort of thinking didn't have a big impact the last time--even the most slanted reports call the effects of the assault weapons ban "mixed", and nobody has noted any rise in the number of crimes committed with assault weapons since the ban's sunset. any attempt at further legislation in this vein will simply result in gun manufacturers putting out slightly-modified versions of the same weapons they produce now, just like it did last time--and, just like last time, it will have no effect on the actual volume of guns being sold (and, therefore, no possible effect on crime).

banning guns based on what they looked like is exactly the kind of hare-brained scheme that makes passing effective, meaningful legislation a nightmare for those of us who have the first god damn clue what we're talking about.

i'm not sure it's fair to say that this debate is still centered around the concept of guns on campus. when considering the intent of the second amendment--which is one of the many sidebars this thread has pursued--considering guerrilla doctrine is perfectly logical.

also, i left for a week and this thread is still kicking. i'm pretty sure that at this point, federal law protects this thread's right to life.

That decision should be up to the states.

It's rather interesting that the idea of guerrilla warfare and uprisings have come up in this thread (which is far from the intent I had as the OP, but whatever). When I was an undergrad, I wrote several papers for a History of Warfare class (history minor, English major . . . yup, the most worthless combination around that doesn't include dancing), including one on the Irish Uprising of 1916. You may have heard of it. This was the movement that gave birth to the IRA, who were the inventors of modern urban guerrilla warfare. One intersting book I picked up is the Handbook For Volunteers Of The Irish Republican Army: Notes on Guerrilla Warfare (although my copy is older with a white cover instead of green and brown)

Anyway, someone was saying that certain types of weapons are necessary in order to start an uprising, or words to that effect. If I may, I would like to quote a line from the section "Arms"

The weapons discussed include sub-machine guns, light machine guns, shotguns, explosives, grenades, pistols, automatic rifles, flame-throwers, rifles, 2" mortars, and rocket launchers.

And that's it. Nowhere does it say that these weapons are needed or essential. In fact, if you look at it, it is saying "get used to making it up as you go along."

The weapons of guerrilla warfare are not the assault rifles; they are homemade explosives and an ability to blend in with the crowd.

Now, I may be wrong, but I'm more inclined to believe the guys who invented the concept than a random dude on the interwebs. The tactics invented by General Mick Collins are still being successfully used today. I don't condone them, and I don't like them. But don't go around saying that all these "manuals" are telling people they need to stock up on 30 round clips for poorly made SKSs.

You can't be saying that automatic weapons would not make a guerilla campaign easier.

Actually, for some parts, they would make it more difficult. They are harder to hide than a pistol when the time comes to hide amongst the population, and they use up more bullets.

OK. I think you're still missing the point somewhat, but that's fine. It's not the people who decide to buy a gun I'm talking about, so much as the people who decide to buy another gun.

Now, your second point: I agree that the AWB was badly framed. But:
one failure in practice does not mean that the basic idea was wrong.

You should also consider that if a weapon is designed to look menacing, it's not surprising that it sells to people who want to look dangerous, and not surprising that other people don't want it sold to them. (Whence the AWB, I am pretty sure.) Which was my point in the first place.

Just whats wrong with multiple guns?

Actually no the AWB was literally a lets get rid of scary guns that look like machine guns to us and the streets will be safer. I'm not against common sense gun legislation it is a machine designed to kill after all, I'm against stupid legislation designed to save us from scary pictures of guns without looking at the root causes of why people shoot people.

it still doesn't work. people who want to own lots of guns will own lots of guns, even if none of them have barrel shrouds or forward-placed magazine wells or whatever silly thing the legislators decide is dangerous this week.

even if that's true, it doesn't necessarily follow that people who want to look dangerous won't buy a gun--or another gun--if 'dangerous-looking' guns aren't available.

the AWB was badly framed because it was based on exactly the sort of logic you're using. what you're failing to grasp is that the concept you're presenting has already been tried, and it didn't work. an effective ban on 'assault weapons' is not going to take into account what a weapon looks like, it's going to take into account what a weapon does. it's that simple.

That is true, as things stand. Now, how many of those guns find their way into criminal hands?

No it is not that simple.

- First off, nobody except you is talking about "an effective ban on 'assault weapons'".

- Second, if you as a gun-owner and gun-advocate do not take into account the views and beliefs of people who don't own guns, you should not be surprised when they treat you and yours as if you're dangerous. Which, you know, might be because you have guns. And the more threatening they look, the less accommodating those people will be.

- Third, I already said this, which you chose to ignore:

Would you like to address that?

Depends. Are they one-per-purpose, or what? How secure are they? Are they likely to be targeted for theft and sale?

But you can't dissociate the pictures from the buyer, can you? That's been my point all along.

the same number as you'd see falling into criminal hands if you outlawed dangerous/military/cool-looking guns.

that is correct. everyone else is talking about ineffective bans on assault weapons.

where, exactly, am i failing to take into account the views and beliefs of people who don't own guns?

the basic idea is based on faulty logic and incomplete information. its failure in practice is simply further proof of something that is obvious to those of us who know which end goes 'bang'.

people who buy guns--whether its their first gun or their fifth--are not going to stop buying guns simply because they can't find one that looks dangerous/military/cool/whatever. therefore, the total volume of gun sales will remain basically the same even if you reduce the number of guns that look dangerous/military/cool/whatever, because gun manufacturers will simply produce and sell guns that don't look dangerous/military/cool/whatever. since the total volume of gun sales will not decrease, the total number of guns available to criminals will not decrease. ergo, banning weapons based on how dangerous/military/cool/whatever they look will have no impact on crime.

Fine, whatever. We're going round in circles. You say potato, I say tomato. Neither of us can be bothered to find a source, and I doubt there are any to be found. So, meh. Done here.

ah, no, that's not actually true. i've provided sources which show that the AWB--which was based on the same logic you're saying should be used--had little to no impact on crime. even its proponents admit that it didn't do much (though they have different ideas as to why).

moreover, i live in the US, which has relatively unrestrictive gun ownership laws; you live in the UK (or at least your profile up until a week or so ago says you do), which has relatively strict gun ownership laws. chances are, i know a hell of a lot more gun owners than you do, which means i probably have a much clearer understanding of what their buying habits are likely to be.

oops wrong thread!