Assault Weapon Ban

Should be a pretty obvious "Duh!" I would think...

So the term is a complete red herring intended to deflect the issue.

Not at all. That's how law-abiding people use weapons: defensively.

Yes, and if we can guarantee that only law-abiding people exist, we can either allow or disallow all guns and it won't make any difference. Now, back in our reality, guns are used to commit crimes, and they are perfectly suited for that purpose; to describe the guns, as opposed to some people's intentions, as defensive, is at best trivial and misleading.

No, it isn't. The fraction of people who use guns criminally is vanishingly small compared to the number who use them defensively.

Has there ever been a human so threatening they needed to be riddled into swiss cheese for them to be dead?

I mean, closest I can think of was Rasputin, and even he finally gave up the ghost after a good drowning.

I mean, I know racist cops THINK black people have a Deadite inside that needs lots of lead to be exorcised, but that's cultural brainwashing combined with low IQ, and possibly some steroids and coke from the evidence locker
It's not a real thing.

Where are these super criminals that need the bullet shower?

The number of criminals is vanishingly small, period. It is still deliberately misleading to describe that as a property of guns as opposed to other weapons, and whenever people deliberately mislead others, you know they know they're losing the argument.

It might be more appropriate to read 'defensive weapon' not as the description of a specific weapon, but rather as the description of a specific defence. So you could defend yourself against crime by persecuting criminals, and by increasing education and equality, and of course by reducing the number of weapons around; or you could choose a defence that makes criminals more rather than less dangerous. At that point, you see why using a 'defensive weapon' is very much like fucking for virginity.

One can have many defensive weapons. The measures you describe have benefits on a societal level, but not an individual one.

Would you agree that "assault weapon" is a deceptive term?

You have just repeated a term that you have described as meaningless. Yes, one can have many weapons. One can also have many defences. That is not the same thing. Increasing the amount of weapons available to people who want to harm you weakens your defences.

Not true. An individual school child is much less likely to be killed if a person on a killing spree in their school doesn't have a weapon.

I don't know. I don't use it.

Given that we have been repeatedly informed that restricting guns won't stop people from carrying out mass murders as they will just find another method I'm confused as to why defensive guns are needed at all.

Unless guns do in fact make it a lot easier for people to incapacitate others.

Nothing personal, but do you have any fucking idea how bullets work, how energy is transferred, or human physiology in general? You are aware that somebody can be mortally wounded (will die with almost 100 percent certainty but just not right this very second) and still be a threat to others, right? And that moving targets are harder to hit than stationary targets making the odds of instantly stopping an armed (or assumed armed) criminal with only one shot very low?

Not to make it sound too simplistic, but it's all about context and the motivation for using the gun to incapacitate/kill others. If you buy a gun with the full expressed intention of shooting someone who pissed you off yesterday, that would be offensive. Buying a gun to protect yourself or others from unknown bad guys who want to shoot you/them in the future that would be defensive.

Ultimately, offensive vs defensive is the nature of a weapon's use, not the weapon its self. Handguns are considered to be defensive weapons, but are used offensively more than any other firearm in the U.S.

Makes sense - easy to conceal until it's "go time" for the criminal act. But defending your home and family (just one example) would best be done with a shotgun or rifle. It's already "concealed" until the bad guy gets through that door or window.

Yup. So rather than debating what the essence of a gun is, we should control who gets to use them and for what. You know, as in regulating them well.

they are regulated, except when the system BREAKS DOWN as in the FBI, the military, police, mental health, etc. do not pass the data along or take no action with that data. Maybe we can fix that without taking guns away from Forbin, Anc, MAOHS, Paladin, Zombie, etc.etc. who are responsible productive citizens. But feel free to grab that low hanging fruit, that's the path of least resistance after all.

BTW - here's a sample of what some of the folks here on wordforge (I won't bust on the foreigners they have little exposure to guns) think gun owners are like. It kicks in hot & heavy about 2:30 mark:

Good! How?

How? That's what we need to figure out. How to balance civil liberties (like privacy of patients in the mental health system) of everyone, not just current & future gun owners. So "gun control" is not so simple in a free country.

Yes. And that's not even counting misattribution, as when you quote @oldfella1962 and put my name on it.

Okay, so it's "we really need to be sure".

Armed criminal brought to you by a loose reading of the 2nd amendment, brought to you by the crazy 70's version of the NRA, brought to you by a murdering bigot!

so "murdering bigots" force criminals to take up arms? I can only interpret that as bigots rig the political/economic system forcing people into a life of armed crime.

Really? Everyone suddenly stopped calling for gun control? Evidence, please.

Pay attention

Oh, fuck you with your "nobody forces", passive aggressive shit.

Nobody forces anyone to take meth, but in the one state that made cough syrup a behind the counter thing, meth dried up.
Wow, who'd'a thunk?

Take crime's toys away, crime gets harder.
Wow, what a kooky concept.
Works everywhere its tried.
Le'ts not do it though.

You’re kinda naive

Hey, you've got Captain X's stamp of approval, and that really means something.

A rifle with high accuracy and the ability to continuously shoot without melting would only be considered defensive if carried continuously, i.e. in the shower.

By the way, lose the avatar. It lessens your stature, except among those who are too stupid to appreciate its irony.

Or unless you are too stupid to appreciate the humor AKA don't have a bug up your ass. Just sayin'