The newswire article fallaciously states: 'Recently released data from the FBI clearly show that the dire predictions by anti-gunners last fall over the end of the so-called 'assault weapons ban' have proven to be groundless, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) noted today.

The FBI reported that for the first time since 1999, homicides declined last year 5.4 percent in cities with more than 1 million people, and overall, murders fell 3.6 percent nationwide.'

1) The Assault Weapons Ban is not 'so-called' - it IS called that (The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003, 108th Congress, 1st Session, S. 1431).

2) Has there really been enough time to calculate the effect of LAST FALL'S repeal of the AWB? It's not like 'anti-gunners' were arguing that as a result of the repeal General Mills would be offering AK-47's in your morning Cheerios.

3) The straw man that SAF apparently is constructing is that 'anti-gunners' believe that a direct relationship exists between ban and violence: if assault weapon ownership were not illegal, hordes of people would be getting their hands on them and blasting eachother away. They cannot or will not recognize the more subtle paths between socialization, law, deviance and behavior. Given their use of the language in this article, I'm guessing that subtlety is not their speciality.

Like most straw men, this argument can be blown down in even the most moderate wind. Pfah.

It's all about CONTROL. 'Nuff said.

plahaha. you said 'straw man'. loki's eye twitches and his teeth move around in his head.

i give a small rat's fart for either side of the gun control argument, but i think it's funny that the nra, who writes the book on hysteria, so loudly accuses opponents of the same. it's a big girly shriek fest between suburban mall-things that want everything safe and sanitized and loud dolts with small dicks yelling EEK EEK and clutching their skirts I MEAN KILTS (sorry, butch).

MadTurk wrote:'1) The Assault Weapons Ban is not 'so-called' - it IS called that (The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003, 108th Congress, 1st Session, S. 1431).'

You misunderstood. The weapons banned are 'so-called' assualt weapons; the more accurately descriptive title would have been 'The Wicked Cool Looking, But Otherwise Functionally Unlike Actual Assault Weapons Ban.'

MadTurk wrote:'2) Has there really been enough time to calculate the effect of LAST FALL'S repeal of the AWB? It's not like 'anti-gunners' were arguing that as a result of the repeal General Mills would be offering AK-47's in your morning Cheerios.'

But they were arguing that the sunset of this ban would lwad to the proliferation of these weapons, and that would lead to widespread bloodshed. The ban accomplished zero impact on gun crime while it was in place, and it's sunset has not brought the effects predicted by the anti-gun lobby. And yeah Turk, although not exactly worried about guns in you cheerios, the anti-gun crowd's problem with the sunset of this ban is that you (and I mean you personally) could own a real wicked cool looking rifle if you wanted one.

MadTurk wrote:'3) The straw man that SAF apparently is constructing is that 'anti-gunners' believe that a direct relationship exists between ban and violence: if assault weapon ownership were not illegal, hordes of people would be getting their hands on them and blasting eachother away. '

It's not straw-man. It is the actual argument of the anti-gunners that there is a direct link between gun ownership and violence. It is their actual arguement that the wicked cool looking but otherwise not at all assault weapons (along with all other guns) that were banned cause hordes of people to go out and shoot each other.

MadTurk wrote:'They cannot or will not recognize the more subtle paths between socialization, law, deviance and behavior.'

It is those who insist that inanimate objects are the root of man's violence against man, rather than man, that 'cannot or will not recognize the more subtle paths between socialization, law, deviance and behavior.'

MadTurk wrote:'Given their use of the language in this article, I'm guessing that subtlety is not their speciality.'

Since you pulled the 'staw-man' card; ad-hominem. :P

MadTurk wrote:'Like most straw men, this argument can be blown down in even the most moderate wind. Pfah.'

Since it was not blown down, then it's not straw-man? (syllogism ;))

vladtweano wrote:'i give a small rat's fart for either side of the gun control argument, but i think it's funny that the nra, who writes the book on hysteria, so loudly accuses opponents of the same.'

I don't think anyone could tell me what you mean by this. That probably serves your purposes.

vladtweano wrote:'it's a big girly shriek fest between suburban mall-things that want everything safe and sanitized and loud dolts with small dicks yelling EEK EEK and clutching their skirts I MEAN KILTS (sorry, butch).'

And I mean serves your purposes very well.