(November 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(November 25, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sporting handguns or berrettas still isn't representative of gun ownership.
That's why I left it open as to whatever you wish to plug into there. Berettas, shotguns, assault rifles, I don't care what you consider representative of gun ownership in the US. I wasn't trying to make a point about what happens in your country, only that these things outside of certain very specific instances are illegal in mine. Why do I keep having to say these things twice? You want to keep whatever weapons you own, that's fine, you do that. I don't want to take them off you; your nation has laws that allow you to have them and until or unless that changes, I will defend what you consider to be your rights. I might not agree with them, but they're yours by legal definition. Similarly, here in my country such weapons are a cultural anathema and a punishable offense. Whether one or the other, or neither, of these approaches is the 'correct' one is hardly for me to say.
Now whether you think the law ought to be changed, that's a completely different matter and one way beyond the scope of anything I've said or even have much of an opinion on.
(November 25, 2012 at 6:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Violent crime has fallen in the US consistently. Despite being a nation of gun nuts. If violent crime and offensive weapons are not synonymous then I don;t expect to see any justifications for firearm prohibition (or tightening of existing regulations) based on violent crime statistics.
No, I said "not necessarily synonymous". Whether it's me not being clear enough in my choice of words or others misinterpreting them, I'm starting to get annoyed now.
If you can manage to control your annoyance long enought to answer my question, I would appreciate it.
The question is, what is the purpose of the laws against "offensive weapons"?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
