The Virginia House of Delegates approved an assault weapons ban on a party line vote Friday. Fairfax County Democratic Del. Dan Helmer’s bill would end the sale and transfer of assault firearms manufactured after July 1, 2024. It also prohibits the sale of certain large capacity magazines. “This bill would stop the sale of weapons similar to those I and…

The Virginia House of Delegates approved an assault weapons ban on a party line vote Friday.

Fairfax County Democratic Del. Dan Helmer’s bill would end the sale and transfer of assault firearms manufactured after July 1, 2024. It also prohibits the sale of certain large capacity magazines.

“This bill would stop the sale of weapons similar to those I and many of the other veterans carried in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Helmer said.

  • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
    12·
    10 months ago

    What is a murder rate that you would consider to be acceptable such that you wouldn’t attempt to restrict the ownership of firearms of any kind by individuals?

    Well you see since I’m not pro-gun, I don’t think in terms of “all of these murders are acceptable”.

    Instead, whenever the laws failed, I would look at what could have been done to prevent that failure. If there truly was nothing that could have been done and no way of knowing, I would accept that.

    But nope, we’re not allowed to do that with guns. We just have to accept failure after failure because there is no amount of violence that will ever make the pro-gun crowd accept minor inconvenience.

    Guns sold to people with a history of domestic abuse? No change. Guns sold to people who shoot children in the head for ringing a doorbell? No change. Guns sold to people who let toddlers get their hands on them? No change.

    It’s also useful to point out that NZ enacted sharp restrictions after the Christchurch murders, and then realized that they were functionally useless, and have since relaxed and are on the cusp of abolishing those same laws, Because the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.

    Sorry, this can’t be true since you insisted it was an impossibility and surely you wouldn’t be a melodramatic liar?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      11·
      10 months ago

      Well you see since I’m not pro-gun, I don’t think in terms of “all of these murders are acceptable”.

      So, what you’re saying is that the murder rate is not important to you, because you oppose the individual ownership of firearms, regardless of whether or not they’re used to harm other people. Is that correct? So when you cite the murder rate as being your reason for banning firearms, that’s not your real reason at all. On the other hand, if it is your real reason, then you must have a number that you consider to be acceptable. Is it 1? 100? Or does any single person using an item or right in a way that is either illegal or harmful to other people sufficient cause to ban that <<thing>> or eliminate that right?

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        11·
        10 months ago

        Is that correct?

        Nope, and you’re probably perfectly aware it isn’t. But I won’t waste my time clarifying in a dead thread so do your pathetic little downvote and I’ll see you next school shooting.