Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Gun Manufacturers]

Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.

What would banning full auto/select fire weapons do? It won't impact crime (IIRC, there have been 1-2 crimes committed by legally owned full auto/select fire weapons since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and one of those was committed by a police officer), so what benefit are we looking for?

Just because you don't see a legitimate reason for something, doesn't mean it should be banned.

[Laiosenia]

No, it is unnecessary to ban any weapons. What is necessary, however, is a more secure process to acquire them.

[The Realm of Edenio]

In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.

[Arkinesia]

What's an assault weapon?

[Valkstadt]

The price of ignoring the chance of a tyrannical government can be as high as six million dead Jews. So yeah, I'm not going to take my chances. Remember, Germany was a democracy right before Hitler came to power.

Hitler banned guns too. That turned out pretty well.
If guns are banned what happens when America as a Republic falls? America and Rome are alot alike. We just haven't fully became the Empire yet. It will eventually just be whoever commands the military rules the country because no one will be able to do anything. Just like the final century of the Roman Empire.

[Valkstadt]

In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal

[Idaho Conservatives]

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal

What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

[Gun Manufacturers]

First define 'assault weapons'.
I AM very much in favor of banning outright all fully automatic weapons.

Why? During the North Hollywood shootout, two men using full autos killed no one. The Virginia Tech shooter used semi-autos.

The full auto weapons used in the North Hollywood shootout were not legal full auto weapons, they were semi auto weapons illegally converted to fire full auto.

[Gun Manufacturers]

IMO, if you want to go thru a thorough background check, put down as much as $100,000 for the gun, and spend around $10 in ammo per second of trigger time to get a machine gun, then the ball is in your court.

Would that not still effectively put automatic weapons out of reach of the majority of Americans?
Actually let me put it another way.
Which is cheaper and more effective?
Banning automatic weapons outright, or making them prohibitively expensive?

More effective for what? A complete ban on full auto/select fire weapons won't do anything to reduce crime.

[Meinkraft]

I just want the law to be just open enough so I can drive this around.

[Aurora Novus]

Ask the Infantry.

Ask them what? How unrealistic fantasies become reality? Do they have experience in that?

To be fair, it's not that irrational a complaint. All states inevitably become self-serving entities, and will eventually descend into corruption. It's happened before in the U.S., it's going on currently, with some of the policies in place currently, and it could get even worse in the future.

[Nua Corda]

What's an assault weapon?

That's very much open to debate.

In the context of military hardware, it's usually something like a SMAW, or a large cannon used for, well, assaulting fortifications.

In the context of paranoid, uneducated people? It's any kind of firearm that looks scary.

[Valkstadt]

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal

What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.

[Norjagen]

In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.

It's already happened, in effect. The National Firearms Act of 1934 categorized automatic weapons as restricted items. In order to own one, a prospective buyer needs to register with the ATF, get fingerprinted, undergo a stringent background check, purchase a tax stamp for 200 dollars, obtain written permission from his local chief LEO, and conduct the transfer through a licensed dealer. All of this, of course, is in addition to any state or local laws and permits involved.

In addition, further legislation prohibits the sale of automatic weapons made after May of 1986 to anyone other than Military or Law Enforcement. This has capped the number of registered machine guns circulating in the marketplace, and driven the prices up, pricing all but the very wealthy out of such firearms.

No, it is unnecessary to ban any weapons. What is necessary, however, is a more secure process to acquire them.

That is an easy suggestion to make, but how do you propose we force buyers and sellers to conduct business in this more secure way? Anyone can visit a friend's house, exchange cash at the dinner table and leave with a firearm. As it stands, this is legal, so long as the firearm remains within a single state. Passing a law mandating background checks would criminalize this behavior, but how would it be enforced?



And regarding semi-auto rifles in general; so-called "assault weapons" ("patrol rifles" if bought by a cop, "personal defense weapons" if fully auto and bought by a cop, btw) account for less than one percent of all murders committed in the United States, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. The majority of murders are committed with handguns. Of course, a politician trying to make a mark without committing electoral suicide can't go after handguns, because they'll lose their right to play the "I support your right to self-defense" card.

Here's why they're focusing on modern sporting rifles: They're an easy target. At least, they were in 1994. They've become much more mainstream since the sunset of the last AWB. Without any real solutions, and yet under pressure to "do something," they're lashing out at semi-autos, because they think it will result in a feel-good moment for their constituents, without fixing the real problems, and without prematurely ending their own careers.

[Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia]

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal

What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

When someone 200 yards away is threatening you or your loved ones and you NEED a rifle to take them out, are you going to blast holes in the walls all day or drop the target?

/sarcasm

[Gun Manufacturers]

In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal

As stated before multiple times by multiple people, the bolded statement is wrong.

As to mag capacity, there are reasons for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Target shooting and defense are good reasons. An argument can be made that varmint (such as prairie dog) hunting can also benefit from magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

[Idaho Conservatives]

What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.

Now that's fifty, not eleven.

Why not fifty? Why not thirty? Why not ten? Why not one? Where do we draw the line on mag capacity at, and why?

[Eliasonia]

No

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.

What would banning full auto/select fire weapons do? It won't impact crime (IIRC, there have been 1-2 crimes committed by legally owned full auto/select fire weapons since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and one of those was committed by a police officer), so what benefit are we looking for?

Just because you don't see a legitimate reason for something, doesn't mean it should be banned.

Only one, actually. And yes, it was the police officer.

[Norjagen]

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.

Now that's fifty, not eleven.

Why not fifty? Why not thirty? Why not ten? Why not one? Where do we draw the line on mag capacity at, and why?

Not to mention, the killer will clearly only have one mag. Right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLYNBF9FajU I mean, it's not like reloads happen quickly or anything. ...Right?

[Valkstadt]

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal

As stated before multiple times by multiple people, the bolded statement is wrong.

As to mag capacity, there are reasons for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Target shooting and defense are good reasons. An argument can be made that varmint (such as prairie dog) hunting can also benefit from magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I think the whole Gun Control Debate is a bunch of liberals trying to take advantage of the SHES shooting and make it an issue with gun control. Banning guns will only make those that obey the law defenseless. Criminals will still find a way to illegally obtain guns much like they do with cocaine, pot, heroin and other "illegal" substances that are all over the streets.

[Faith Hope Charity]

First of all... what a vague question, secondly, what defines an assault weapon? Anyone can pick up just about anything and use it to assault someone else, so methinks the terms is more likely applied to a few tools that a few in the government would like to confiscate from the general law-abiding public and strengthen the hand of criminals.

I for one am not in favor of any weapons ban... weapons help keep the citizens and government on equal footing. I refuse to be a helpless subject with no means of recourse against an abusive, power-grabbing government.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

As stated before multiple times by multiple people, the bolded statement is wrong.

As to mag capacity, there are reasons for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Target shooting and defense are good reasons. An argument can be made that varmint (such as prairie dog) hunting can also benefit from magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I think the whole Gun Control Debate is a bunch of liberals trying to take advantage of the SHES shooting and make it an issue with gun control. Banning guns will only make those that obey the law defenseless. Criminals will still find a way to illegally obtain guns much like they do with cocaine, pot, heroin and other "illegal" substances that are all over the streets.

But no, TEH EBIL BWACK WIFLES R KIWWING EBERYONE!

[Nua Corda]

What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.

This is an SKS. It doesn't have a detachable magazine. It has a 10+1 round integral magazine and is loaded with 10 round stripper clips. It's 100% ban legal. For killing unarmed civilians, it's just as effective as this:



Which isn't.



This is an SMLE. It's a bolt-action rifle. It also feeds from 10 round stripper clips (the magazine is detachable, but only one magazine was issued while it was in service with the British, and clips were expected to be used. The magazine can be welded to the frame). It's also totally ban legal. And guess what? It's also perfectly good for killing tons of unarmed people.



This is a Martini-Henry. It's a single-shot rifle. It was used by the British during the age of imperialism. It was devastatingly effective against the Zulus, and other African tribes which had no guns.


What's the point of all this? "Assault weapons bans" are useless. They ban cosmetic features that have little to no effect on actual functionality of the rifle.

Wanna guess which gun kills more people than any other?



Short-barreled, small caliber revolvers and other handguns. Rifles, according to the FBI, account for roughly 2-5% of total murders. Shotguns account for an almost identical percentage. The rest (~90%) are either handguns, or firearms that defy classification.

Even if an AWB did eliminate all crime committed with "assault weapons", it would stop a grand total of under 5% of gun crime. And it would be incredibly unfair for us responsible gun owners. And that's assuming it would work. See, here's the thing: even if you ban the manufacture of these weapons, there are millions of them out there. Even if you ban the sale of them, there are still millions out there. If you confiscate all of them, you're either going to have to not compensate the owners, or you're going to spend an absurd, and I mean absurd, amount of money in buybacks. And even then it will be almost impossible to enforce. And you'll create an illegal market for them. A market with no background checks, no waiting periods, no oversight of any kind.

So, please. Don't advocate these stupid, ineffective, and unnecessary laws.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.

This is an SKS. It doesn't have a detachable magazine. It has a 10+1 round integral magazine and is loaded with 10 round stripper clips. It's 100% ban legal. For killing unarmed civilians, it's just as effective as this:



Which isn't.



This is an SMLE. It's a bolt-action rifle. It also feeds from 10 round stripper clips (the magazine is detachable, but only one magazine was issued while it was in service with the British, and clips were expected to be used. The magazine can be welded to the frame). It's also totally ban legal. And guess what? It's also perfectly good for killing tons of unarmed people.



This is a Martini-Henry. It's a single-shot rifle. It was used by the British during the age of imperialism. It was devastatingly effective against the Zulus, and other African tribes which had no guns.


What's the point of all this? "Assault weapons bans" are useless. They ban cosmetic features that have little to no effect on actual functionality of the rifle.

Wanna guess which gun kills more people than any other?



Short-barreled, small caliber revolvers and other handguns. Rifles, according to the FBI, account for roughly 2-5% of total murders. Shotguns account for an almost identical percentage. The rest (~90%) are either handguns, or firearms that defy classification.

Even if an AWB did eliminate all crime committed with "assault weapons", it would stop a grand total of under 5% of gun crime. And it would be incredibly unfair for us responsible gun owners. And that's assuming it would work. See, here's the thing: even if you ban the manufacture of these weapons, there are millions of them out there. Even if you ban the sale of them, there are still millions out there. If you confiscate all of them, you're either going to have to not compensate the owners, or you're going to spend an absurd, and I mean absurd, amount of money in buybacks. And even then it will be almost impossible to enforce. And you'll create an illegal market for them. A market with no background checks, no waiting periods, no oversight of any kind.

So, please. Don't advocate these stupid, ineffective, and unnecessary laws.

You just earned yourself a quote.