NATION

PASSWORD

Should Assault Weapons be banned?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should Assault Weapons be banned?

Yes.
426
36%
No.
755
64%
 
Total votes : 1181

User avatar
Norjagen
Diplomat
 
Posts: 666
Founded: Feb 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Norjagen » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:23 pm

Faith Hope Charity wrote: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.


This. You don't give prey animals a better chance against predators by cutting off their horns and hooves. There seems to be this notion that by disarming innocent people, we can save their lives by making them easier to kill. The would-be killers will be so deterred by the raw, intense ease that they'll just decide to do something more challenging. Indeed, by making it easier for someone to kill a bunch of people by disarming them first, we deter people from even entertaining the notion that they might possibly be able to get away with something so easy.

In addition, the second amendment is the only method of enforcement that the people have when it comes to defending their rights. Without the means to fight back, they'd be at the mercy of any agency or entity that said "Free speech? LOL. No. So shoot me. LOL. Warrant? ORLY?"

One could make the argument that the US military would crush any attempt at domestic resistance. The argument is then made that we should disarm the people even further, to make them more able to defend their rights. With less firepower. The oppressors will be nice to them if they just fulfill their servile obligation to die as easily as possible when police or soldiers want them dead. ...LOL.
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards. :(

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

User avatar
Valkstadt
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1107
Founded: Oct 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Valkstadt » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:24 pm

Nua Corda wrote:
Valkstadt wrote: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.


Image

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:

Image

Which isn't.

Image

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.

Image

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?

Image

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.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
Thank you sir
Likes- Conservatism, the South, Classic Rock, the New Orleans Saints, College Football.

If you are so weak as to be hurt by mere words then I apologize. Political Correctness is bullshit. Learn how to take a punch.

User avatar
DuThaal Craftworld
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1258
Founded: Feb 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DuThaal Craftworld » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:29 pm

Ah.
That feeling when you win an argument on NS.
Eldar. Not Dark Eldar. Eldar.
FT+FanT
METAL BAWKSES

Nua Corda wrote:Read the rest of the quote by clicking the 'wrote' button.

Mindhar on The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
Nua Corda
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8342
Founded: Jul 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nua Corda » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:40 pm

Addendum:

Now, don't you for a second dare lump me in the with the "Teh ebil gubernemnts wat wanna nom on mah freedomz" lot. If assault weapons bans actually did eliminate gun crime, I'd support them. I'm not afraid of the government. If the government does something I don't like, I fight with the ballot box, not my rifle. I also don't carry for self-defense. My solution to crime is living in a good neighborhood, not carrying cash, not living in a big house and not driving a fancy car. If I was going in a bad neighborhood, and I mean a really bad neighborhood, I might bring a sidearm. Emphasis on might. Any firearms in my house go in a safe, and their ammunition goes in a separate safe. I own guns for one reason, and one reason only: they're fun, and I trust the meat I hunt a hell of a lot more than feedlot beef. And I oppose gun bans for one reason and one reason only: they interfere with my fun, without serving any purpose.
Last edited by Nua Corda on Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Call me Corda.
Sarcasm Warning! This post may not be entirely serious
Bullpups, Keymod and Magpul, oh my!
Bong Hits for Jesus!
Like Sci-Fi? Like Worldbuilding? Check out the Uprising Project!
Renegade for Life|Gun-toting Liberal. Because fuck stereotypes|Your friendly neighborhood gun nerd. Ask me anything!|Shameless Mass Effect Fan. I like Quarians a bit more than I should...|This nation is not a nation, and may or may not represent my views|I have been known to draw guns for folks, occasionally
Because people care, right?

User avatar
Zarkanians
Senator
 
Posts: 3545
Founded: Sep 12, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Zarkanians » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:43 pm

Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"
Identity--|--Perspective

User avatar
DuThaal Craftworld
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1258
Founded: Feb 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DuThaal Craftworld » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:47 pm

Zarkanians wrote:Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

Assault rifle definition;
assault rifle
as-sault rifle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed fully automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Is an AR-15 fully automatic?
No.
Is a Bushmaster ACR fully automatic?
No.
Is a civilian FN FAL fully automatic?
No.
It's not an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon. Now assault weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun movement based on cosmetics. The fact that my rifle is black with a pistol grip, foldable stock and flash hider does not make it any more deadly.
Next false statement?
And if you're going after full auto weapon, why? 1 crime since the tax stamp was introduced, and it was by a police officer.
Last edited by DuThaal Craftworld on Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eldar. Not Dark Eldar. Eldar.
FT+FanT
METAL BAWKSES

Nua Corda wrote:Read the rest of the quote by clicking the 'wrote' button.

Mindhar on The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
Ensiferum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 922
Founded: Feb 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ensiferum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:48 pm

The fact that there are more yes votes than no votes just show how bad mental health care is in America. You do not need an assault rifle. Period. "Well what if the government is tyrannical?" 1) It has been for quite some time now, people argue when it started but it started alright. 2) Tunisia overthrew their government while having the lowest gun to citizen ratio in the world, which is odd seeing as assault rifles are NECESSARY to overthrow a tyrannical regime.

User avatar
Valkstadt
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1107
Founded: Oct 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Valkstadt » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:49 pm

Zarkanians wrote:Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

We aren't defending assault rifles. You just dont know what an assault rifle is. Please read Nua Corda's post
Likes- Conservatism, the South, Classic Rock, the New Orleans Saints, College Football.

If you are so weak as to be hurt by mere words then I apologize. Political Correctness is bullshit. Learn how to take a punch.

User avatar
Nua Corda
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8342
Founded: Jul 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nua Corda » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:51 pm

Zarkanians wrote:Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"


The question is why should you, not why shouldn't you.

1.) That's not going to be fixed. There are just so many guns in circulation in the US already that eliminating illegal guns is just not happening. That lower rate is because of registration and licensing, not bans of any sort. Not to mention that the availiblity of illegal guns is a factor of the illegal drug trade.

2.) The average civilian doesn't kill people.

Maybe because it's not? What ignorant people call an "assault rifle" is nothing of the sort.
Call me Corda.
Sarcasm Warning! This post may not be entirely serious
Bullpups, Keymod and Magpul, oh my!
Bong Hits for Jesus!
Like Sci-Fi? Like Worldbuilding? Check out the Uprising Project!
Renegade for Life|Gun-toting Liberal. Because fuck stereotypes|Your friendly neighborhood gun nerd. Ask me anything!|Shameless Mass Effect Fan. I like Quarians a bit more than I should...|This nation is not a nation, and may or may not represent my views|I have been known to draw guns for folks, occasionally
Because people care, right?

User avatar
Nua Corda
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8342
Founded: Jul 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nua Corda » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:52 pm

Ensiferum wrote:The fact that there are more yes votes than no votes just show how bad mental health care is in America. You do not need an assault rifle. Period. "Well what if the government is tyrannical?" 1) It has been for quite some time now, people argue when it started but it started alright. 2) Tunisia overthrew their government while having the lowest gun to citizen ratio in the world, which is odd seeing as assault rifles are NECESSARY to overthrow a tyrannical regime.


Let me reiterate: the question is not "why do you need it", the question is "what good would banning it realistically do".
Call me Corda.
Sarcasm Warning! This post may not be entirely serious
Bullpups, Keymod and Magpul, oh my!
Bong Hits for Jesus!
Like Sci-Fi? Like Worldbuilding? Check out the Uprising Project!
Renegade for Life|Gun-toting Liberal. Because fuck stereotypes|Your friendly neighborhood gun nerd. Ask me anything!|Shameless Mass Effect Fan. I like Quarians a bit more than I should...|This nation is not a nation, and may or may not represent my views|I have been known to draw guns for folks, occasionally
Because people care, right?

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Zarkanians wrote:
[snip]
Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

1) Gwaaah!
...
2) You are literally using 'literally' in an entirely incorrect manner,
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Libertarian California
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10637
Founded: May 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Libertarian California » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:54 pm

Define "assault weapon".
I'm a trans-beanstalk giantkin. My pronouns are fee/fie/foe/fum.

American nationalist

I am the infamous North California (DEATed 11/13/12). Now in the NS "Hall of Fame", or whatever
(Add 2137 posts)

On the American Revolution
Everyone should watch this video

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:55 pm

Ensiferum wrote:...You do not need an assault rifle. Period...

Source?
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Black cats luck
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 102
Founded: Dec 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Black cats luck » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:56 pm

Uhhhh no. Look at alstrilia after banning semi-automatics. Their crime rate went through the rough. But if you look at Switzerland, they require every person/citizen to have a wepon and they have one lowest crime rates. So no to banning assault riffles.
CATS
Yes bob is gone. But for good reason. I have no intrests on taking over the world with bob i got a new status!
Current status:Sir Caticus the Vampire
Contact me here if im not online at this timehttp://blackcatsluck3.deviantart.com/
❤BITTEN BY THE VAMPIRE QUEEN OF COOKIES❤
My favorite qoute that i made:"The universe is infinite. And anything is possible."-Me :P

User avatar
Zarkanians
Senator
 
Posts: 3545
Founded: Sep 12, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Zarkanians » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:58 pm

DuThaal Craftworld wrote:
Zarkanians wrote:Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

Assault rifle definition;
assault rifle
as-sault rifle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed fully automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Is an AR-15 fully automatic?
No.
Is a Bushmaster ACR fully automatic?
No.
Is a civilian FN FAL fully automatic?
No.
It's not an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon. Now assault weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun movement based on cosmetics. The fact that my rifle is black with a pistol grip, foldable stock and flash hider does not make it any more deadly.
Next false statement?
And if you're going after full auto weapon, why? 1 crime since the tax stamp was introduced, and it was by a police officer.


Point at a target. Pull the trigger with a bolt-action rifle or revolver. You make one bullet-hole; then you have to work the bolt or recock the gun. Point at it with a semi-automatic rifle, pull the trigger. In the same time, you can make five holes. Point at it with a fully automatic rifle and pull the trigger; depending on the weapon, you've made anywhere between five to twenty holes in the same time it takes to fire a bolt-action rifle and make it ready to fire again. And that's a conservative estimate. Point at the target with a knife, and you've made no holes, but I'm smart enough to realize that if anyone tried to ban guns outright in the states they'd have a rebellion on their hands anyway (which is pretty disturbing if you ask me).

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. I'm not saying that rifles aren't deadly, but they are CERTAINLY less deadly than fully-automatic weapons, and if we're going to get anywhere we need to start with banning the biggest threats.

Arguments about how there are lots of guns already hold no water, because the only thing that will happen if we don't ban them is that there will be more guns on on the market than there were before. If we're going to start getting rid of them, we need to start now.

Let's not forget that, in real life, you'd be so scared shitless by a criminal holding a gun that you'd be more likely to hit another civilian than you would be the bad guy. That's if you're trained in hitting moving targets, know exactly where the vital spots are on a human being, and are so precise that you'd be able to hit those spots.

And since we're giving definitions, here's one:

Assault:
Verb
Make a physical attack on.
Noun
A physical attack: "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"; "sexual assaults".
Identity--|--Perspective

User avatar
Zarkanians
Senator
 
Posts: 3545
Founded: Sep 12, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Zarkanians » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:59 pm

Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Zarkanians wrote:
[snip]
Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

1) Gwaaah!
...
2) You are literally using 'literally' in an entirely incorrect manner,


Not really. I'm pretty sure that these weapons are named 'assault rifles,' so yes, they are literally called assault rifles.

I'll concede it was unnecessary. But not incorrect.
Identity--|--Perspective

User avatar
Ensiferum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 922
Founded: Feb 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ensiferum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:59 pm

Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:...You do not need an assault rifle. Period...

Source?

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

User avatar
Ensiferum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 922
Founded: Feb 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ensiferum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:00 pm

Nua Corda wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:The fact that there are more yes votes than no votes just show how bad mental health care is in America. You do not need an assault rifle. Period. "Well what if the government is tyrannical?" 1) It has been for quite some time now, people argue when it started but it started alright. 2) Tunisia overthrew their government while having the lowest gun to citizen ratio in the world, which is odd seeing as assault rifles are NECESSARY to overthrow a tyrannical regime.


Let me reiterate: the question is not "why do you need it", the question is "what good would banning it realistically do".


Well seeing as you don't need them it can't do any bad.

User avatar
Zarkanians
Senator
 
Posts: 3545
Founded: Sep 12, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Zarkanians » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:01 pm

Ensiferum wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Source?

My source is the fact that I'm not insane


Clarification (or something; too lazy to figure out the right word at the moment) : you don't need to be insane to want one; you do need to be insane to need one.
Last edited by Zarkanians on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Identity--|--Perspective

User avatar
Arkinesia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13162
Founded: Aug 22, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Arkinesia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:03 pm

Nua Corda wrote: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.

It also costs money to enforce such a ban. It's a pretty hefty price to pay to *potentially* remove up to five percent of all gun murders, which is itself a subset of murders.

The cost-benefit isn't really adding up when we can just regulate “assault weapons” (nobody can ever give me a clear definition of what the fuck that means) and allow people to exercise their freedoms so long as they don't impede on others' right to life—and besides, when you can regulate “assault weapons” you can do so by levying taxes.

That WILL pass a cost-benefit analysis, when we can have greater public safety, respect for civil liberties, and increased revenues all in one package. How a modified AWB from the '94-'04 law (minus the mag limits, just tax bigger magazines) is not on the table as a compromise continues to bewilder me.
Last edited by Arkinesia on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Bisexual, polyamorous, atheist, Southerner, right-libertarian.

Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.

User avatar
Ensiferum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 922
Founded: Feb 17, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ensiferum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Zarkanians wrote:
Ensiferum wrote:My source is the fact that I'm not insane


Clarification (or something; too lazy to figure out the right word at the moment) : you don't need to be insane to want one; you do need to be insane to need one.


Precisely! Thanks for clearing that up. My point is that, if you NEED one you are mentally unstable or insane but if you WANT one that's just normal. Let's face it, guns are cool, but there is a difference between thoughts and actions.

User avatar
Valkstadt
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1107
Founded: Oct 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Valkstadt » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Can I please be Piers Morgan? He has the most persuading case against guns and why they should be banned.
"You are a very stupid man arent you?"
"Are you insane or something?"
"Why are you so stupid and ignorant?"
:rofl: this guy is a moron
Likes- Conservatism, the South, Classic Rock, the New Orleans Saints, College Football.

If you are so weak as to be hurt by mere words then I apologize. Political Correctness is bullshit. Learn how to take a punch.

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:09 pm

Zarkanians wrote:Point at a target. Pull the trigger with a bolt-action rifle or revolver. You make one bullet-hole; then you have to work the bolt or recock the gun. Point at it with a semi-automatic rifle, pull the trigger. In the same time, you can make five holes (1). Point at it with a fully automatic rifle and pull the trigger; depending on the weapon, you've made anywhere between five to twenty holes in the same time it takes to fire a bolt-action rifle and make it ready to fire again. And that's a conservative estimate. Point at the target with a knife, and you've made no holes, but I'm smart enough to realize that if anyone tried to ban guns outright in the states they'd have a rebellion on their hands anyway (which is pretty disturbing if you ask me). (2)

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. I'm not saying that rifles aren't deadly, but they are CERTAINLY less deadly than fully-automatic weapons, and if we're going to get anywhere we need to start with banning the biggest threats. (3)

Arguments about how there are lots of guns already hold no water, because the only thing that will happen if we don't ban them is that there will be more guns on on the market than there were before (4). If we're going to start getting rid of them, we need to start now. (5)

Let's not forget that, in real life, you'd be so scared shitless by a criminal holding a gun that you'd be more likely to hit another civilian than you would be the bad guy (6). That's if you're trained in hitting moving targets, know exactly where the vital spots are on a human being, and are so precise that you'd be able to hit those spots.

And since we're giving definitions, here's one:

Assault:
Verb
Make a physical attack on.
Noun
A physical attack: "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"; "sexual assaults". (7)

1) Overestimate is overestimate. Besides, if you are comparing it to a revolver you're going to have the SAME EXACT RATE OF FIRE (maybe slightly slower or faster depending on the cylinder mechanism I suppose).

2) Not really. People seem to have this odd connection to things which they need to stay alive. England doesn't really have the problem anymore because they hunted them all out, but for western states in the US bears, wolves, and other sundry varieties of predatory critters are very common and pose a substantial threat.

3) Okay. Semi-automatic rifles aren't the biggest threat. Please check your argument and post again, or dial up your wikipedia for more information. This is a recording application "know your shit please".

4) Oddly, even with more guns on the market (and more dangerous 'assault weapons' as well since 2004) the homocide rate has been steadily decreasing. Hmmm...

5) No thanks.

6) Self-defense uses of guns aren't appropriate when one is being held up by a person who already has a gun. Either your being disingenuous in an attempt to score a point, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

7) Pointless (adj.) - of or having little or no relation to the topic at hand. Being irrelevant to the discussion. Eg: The use of this definition is pointless, much as the term 'assault weapon' is.

Why, you ask? Because if you're REALLY hinging on such technical labeling in the English language then the you have failed.

Besides, in the context of 'assault weapon' 'assault' is being used as an adjective, not a verb.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Curiosityness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 811
Founded: Jan 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Curiosityness » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:14 pm

Dilange wrote:
The New One wrote:
Why not? This kid would be dead if they were illegal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI


So obviously they shouldnt be illegal due to one occurance?

ok i take banning them back because poeple would just get them some how anyways just like drugs and things like that
left/libertarian
economic left:-2.88
social libertarian:-5.54

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:15 pm

Ensiferum wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Source?

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

So...no source then. Got'cha.

Ensiferum wrote:
Nua Corda wrote:
Let me reiterate: the question is not "why do you need it", the question is "what good would banning it realistically do".


Well seeing as you don't need them it can't do any bad.

Why do you insist on using statements of fact that you can't back up with a source?

Ensiferum wrote:Precisely! Thanks for clearing that up. My point is that, if you NEED one you are mentally unstable or insane but if you WANT one that's just normal (1). Let's face it, guns are cool, but there is a difference between thoughts and actions (2).

1) Right...because THAT standard certainly doesn't have any holes in it. Because people don't NEED very much. Food, water, shelter. Why do you need a car? Or a television? Clearly these should be banned as well because you don't NEED them you just WANT them. They're cool, but there is a difference between NEED and WANT.

2) ...Okay? Where did this come from? Left-field, is where this came from.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blargoblarg, Dresderstan, The Alma Mater, Trapoletanius

Advertisement

Remove ads