Would it be fair to say that if you want to ban something...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...which is so difficult to define as to make "loopholes" so common and conforming but functional equivalents so simple that the task is meaningless?

A new AWB: an exercise in futility, pandering and photo ops.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Not if you actually want to ban something.

You ban it.

Of course, if you really don't want to ban whatever, the loopholes are a good idea.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. I maintain that if you're not able adequately define the object of the ban:

- then, in effect, there is no ban nor is one possible or...
- you have too little knowledge or experience to know what you're talking about.

Assault weapon bans are about not liking a black rifle and attempts to villainize its owners or the rifle itself.


The idea that a firearm, which by definition and common accusation is a deadly weapon, is harmful because it is "too deadly" is on its face, ludicrous. The NFA has drawn a line identifying by function that full-auto firearms require lengthy registration, investigation and controls. Semi-auto firearms are legal. Period. Attempts to say that, among deadly weapons, certain 'state-of-the-art' deadly weapons are 'too good' for civilians makes no sense.

Similar to the campaign that sought ban the M82A1 for a variety of unbelievable reasons, AWB laws attempt to say in essence that new rifles which represent today's finest in function and ergonomics are unfit for the public. Would it be reasonable to say that the Lancia Delta is too (insert adjective here) for the civilian to own?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. I am someone who would be quite happy to ban all guns.

I understand that's not very likely to happen.

But in my response to the OP, the object of the ban was not defined at all. So I do think my original response is valid. And has nothing to do whatsoever with my own personal, and not very popular willingness to ban guns.

I addressed the original statement about banning something was very general, and didn't address guns at all. I did understand, given that this post was in the Gun Control forum, that guns were being addressed. And therefore I'll cheerfully repeat my original response:

If you actually want to ban something, you ban it.

Of course, if you really don't want to ban whatever, the loopholes are a good idea.

If you, those who read this post, are in favor of guns being available, not being banned, then you either won't want legislation at all, or want lots of loopholes. I'm not arguing with you on this topic. I'm simply agreeing about loopholes. Honest.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. re: "If you actually want to ban something, you ban it."

Well, you can at least say you banned it. If you're essentially unable to sufficiently define the object of the ban, all you've really done is waste everyone's time (and possibly money.)

My point is that wasting that time and money is perpetuating a myth and it detracts from resources that could actually cut crime and improve life.

If you really want to help me out, you may have more luck banning weeds to cut down on my allergies.

[stone space]

5. "Black Rifles Matter!!!"

Assault weapon bans are about not liking a black rifle and attempts to villainize its owners or the rifle itself.

[Eleanors38]

2. The point of most bans is not workability, but punishment.

Certainly, public display of ones morality is a factor, as is the genuine belief (no matter how mistaken) that a ban will be positive for the public weal. But the driving ardency of any ban is the identification of a cultural enemy by the banned thing, practice or status, and the consequential pleasure in punishing that enemy.