Black cats luck wrote: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.
Actually, Switzerland doesn't have one of the lowest crime rates. But a ban would be no more effective there than it would be here.
Zarkanians wrote:DuThaal Craftworld wrote: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).
Let's start with a simple question, so I know how much I need to explain: have you ever fired a gun? If so, what kind? Did you fire at multiple targets?
Zarkanians wrote: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.
Automatic weapons have been used in a grand total of two murders since the introduction of ATF tax stamps. One of those was by a police officer.
Zarkanians wrote: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.
Absolutely not true. Even if you ignore everything I said about "assault weapons" almost never actually being used in crime, starting to "get rid of them" is going to do next to nothing. The VAST majority (we're talking in the 80-90% range here) of illegal guns are handguns, usually revolvers, and usually pretty old. All the criminals who need or want guns now, for the most part have them. Those that don't, can't afford them, or are prevented by geography. The rate of confiscation will never catch up with the amount already out there. It would take decades to see any noticeable effect at all, even if you totally banned all handguns.
Zarkanians wrote: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.
I'm not going to argue much with this, because I don't buy into the whole "concealed carry self-defense" stuff a whole lot, but I say this: it's not hard to incapacitate or kill someone with a gun. Shooting someone in the leg or arm actually has a pretty high chance of killing them, because those major arteries will bleed out very quickly. Most of the chest is occupied by the lungs, and being shot just about anywhere with a good sized bullet will have you on the ground, if you're not hopped up on PCP.
Zarkanians wrote: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".
This is meaningless and irrelevant verbiage which I strongly hesitate to dignify with a response.
Ensiferum wrote:Occupied Deutschland wrote:Source?
My source is the fact that I'm not insane
Ah. So all gun owners are insane now. Lovely. See, this is why we can't have an effective debate, or effective laws: both sides demonize eachother relentlessly.
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.
Let me rearrange that for you: "Well seeing as you don't need
them movies,
it then banning them can't do any bad"
I'm honestly a little miffed that because you don't like my hobby, you propose to ban it even though you completely fail to provide a good reason to do so, on the basis that it doesn't affect you.
More AWB deconstruction:
!