Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Nua Corda]

Go ahead. Don't read the thread. I'd repost my post detailing why this is full of shit, but I'm too lazy and you're not worth it. Find it yourself, read it, and then you can talk.

I've got new for you... the rest of the free and democratic world (and even some places that aren't democratic like China) are doing a very good job keeping the guns out of criminals... AND they don't have random shooting sprees that hit the media all the time.

People can actually live in those places without being afraid of getting shot by their crazy neighbor for the most part. US has a lot of catching up to do...

Freedom to shoot up the whole neighborhood isn't a freedom to be valued...

You're looking at the world through the eyes of a 7th grader taking his first history class. You also didn't read the damn post.

The government is not out to get you. Take off the tinfoil hat and get some sun.

It's about being prepared.
Same reason why I own a gun isn't because I know criminals are out to get me, but because it can happen.

Prepare all you want. Doesn't make it any less silly.

[Jassysworth 1]

The threat of tyranny right now, at the turn of the century is the same as it was in 1700,1800, and 1900. And so what if just a rifle cannot take down an "armada", so are you going to just give up? And in addition, the Vietcong got alot done with just a rifle, a bayonet and some explosives.

The government is not out to get you. Take off the tinfoil hat and get some sun.

It's about being prepared.
Same reason why I own a gun isn't because I know criminals are out to get me, but because it can happen.

How come most of the rest of the world where things are working well (Europe, East Asia etc) have citizens that feel perfectly SAFE and happy for the most part without the need to own dangerous machines that shoot up the whole neighborhood at a whim?

[Nua Corda]

How come most of the rest of the world where things are working well (Europe, East Asia etc) have citizens that feel perfectly SAFE and happy for the most part without the need to own dangerous machines that shoot up the whole neighborhood at a whim?

L4rn to sociology, ecconomics, history... Aw screw it, l4rn to everything.

[Jassysworth 1]

I've got new for you... the rest of the free and democratic world (and even some places that aren't democratic like China) are doing a very good job keeping the guns out of criminals... AND they don't have random shooting sprees that hit the media all the time.

People can actually live in those places without being afraid of getting shot by their crazy neighbor for the most part. US has a lot of catching up to do...

Freedom to shoot up the whole neighborhood isn't a freedom to be valued...

You're looking at the world through the eyes of a 7th grader taking his first history class. You also didn't read the damn post.

And you are absolutely deluded if you think there aren't way more gun crimes in the United States than in any other civilized powerful country where they ban guns.

You know there are actually parts of the world where they for the overwhelmingly majority of the times, can keep guns out of the hands of both criminals and law-abiding citizens. AND they enjoy a much greater level of security than in the US where anyone on a whim can go out and shoot up the neighborhood...

Instead of falling back on the lame excuse of ''if you ban guns only criminals will have guns'' maybe the US should start to recognize how very much behind the rest of the developped world it is at controlling guns and get down to work to build a stronger, safer, and better gun-free America...

[Occupied Deutschland]

yes we should ban assault weapons...

we should ban all guns for that matter. Then the US can join the rest of the civilized world and not have so many school shootings...

There is no country in the civilized world with a ban on all guns. (Unless you count China as part of the civilized world, I'm pretty sure they have a ban on all combustion-operated firearms in private hands, not sure though, care to prove me wrong?)

How come most of the rest of the world where things are working well (Europe, East Asia etc) have citizens that feel perfectly SAFE and happy for the most part without the need to own dangerous machines that shoot up the whole neighborhood at a whim?

A variety of socioeconomic reasons. One major one however is the prevalence of rural areas in the United States and the (corresponding) prevalence of wildlife that likes to eat meat in those areas.

[Jassysworth 1]

How come most of the rest of the world where things are working well (Europe, East Asia etc) have citizens that feel perfectly SAFE and happy for the most part without the need to own dangerous machines that shoot up the whole neighborhood at a whim?

L4rn to sociology, ecconomics, history... Aw screw it, l4rn to everything.

how about you get out of your provincial bubble first and actually start watching the news and count the number of times gun crimes and spree shootings occur in the US compare to those that happen in other developed countries where guns are banned. You'll find a much higher frequency...

[Hathram]

You're looking at the world through the eyes of a 7th grader taking his first history class. You also didn't read the damn post.

And you are absolutely deluded if you think there aren't way more gun crimes in the United States than in any other civilized powerful country where they ban guns.

You know there are actually parts of the world where they for the overwhelmingly majority of the times, can keep guns out of the hands of both criminals and law-abiding citizens. AND they enjoy a much greater level of security than in the US where anyone on a whim can go out and shoot up the neighborhood...

Instead of falling back on the lame excuse of ''if you ban guns only criminals will have guns'' maybe the US should start to recognize how very much behind the rest of the developped world it is at controlling guns and get down to work to build a stronger, safer, and better gun-free America...

If there is one thing man is good at, it's killing other men.
Take away their guns and they will go back to swords, staffs, hammers, knives, the ball and chain, crossbows, IEDs, spears, bows and arrows, brass knuckles, axes, halberds, etc. Take away their melee weapons and they will learn to kill each other with sticks, brooms, oars, baseball Bats, ice picks, ropes, stones, wire, etc. They will turn farming tools into weapons, examples being the sai, Kama, tridens and rete, Hoes, etc.
We will and have perfected the art of destroying the human body unarmed with systema, taekwondo, brazilian jujitsu, muay thai, pankration, etc.

[Nua Corda]

You're looking at the world through the eyes of a 7th grader taking his first history class. You also didn't read the damn post.

And you are absolutely deluded if you think there aren't way more gun crimes in the United States than in any other civilized powerful country where they ban guns.

You know there are actually parts of the world where they for the overwhelmingly majority of the times, can keep guns out of the hands of both criminals and law-abiding citizens. AND they enjoy a much greater level of security than in the US where anyone on a whim can go out and shoot up the neighborhood...

Instead of falling back on the lame excuse of ''if you ban guns only criminals will have guns'' maybe the US should start to recognize how very much behind the rest of the developped world it is at controlling guns and get down to work to build a stronger, safer, and better gun-free America...

Let's make a deal: I'll argue with you, when you read my posts and respond to them without cherry-picking. K? Because I hate having to repeat myself, and I've disproved most of your ramblings before you even posted them.

[Occupied Deutschland]

L4rn to sociology, ecconomics, history... Aw screw it, l4rn to everything.

how about you get out of your provincial bubble first and actually start watching the news and count the number of times gun crimes and spree shootings occur in the US compare to those that happen in other developed countries where guns are banned. You'll find a much higher frequency...

Spree shootings are statistical anomalies not fit for analysis as data points in any kind of comparison. I've never seen one and a brief google search couldn't find me one but what would be needed here for you to have any leg to stand on would be a study on firearm violence between a specific European country and the US whilst controlling for factors such as economic disparity, opportunity, urbanization, availability of mental health treatment, and a number of other variables that would have an effect that I cannot think of right now.

[Nua Corda]

L4rn to sociology, ecconomics, history... Aw screw it, l4rn to everything.

how about you get out of your provincial bubble first and actually start watching the news and count the number of times gun crimes and spree shootings occur in the US compare to those that happen in other developed countries where guns are banned. You'll find a much higher frequency...

At this point, I'm not sure whether you're deliberately ignoring and misconstruing my points, or if they're just cruising over your head at 30,000 feet.

[Big Jim P]

And you are absolutely deluded if you think there aren't way more gun crimes in the United States than in any other civilized powerful country where they ban guns.

You know there are actually parts of the world where they for the overwhelmingly majority of the times, can keep guns out of the hands of both criminals and law-abiding citizens. AND they enjoy a much greater level of security than in the US where anyone on a whim can go out and shoot up the neighborhood...

Instead of falling back on the lame excuse of ''if you ban guns only criminals will have guns'' maybe the US should start to recognize how very much behind the rest of the developped world it is at controlling guns and get down to work to build a stronger, safer, and better gun-free America...

If there is one thing man is good at, it's killing other men.
Take away their guns and they will go back to swords, staffs, hammers, knives, the ball and chain, crossbows, IEDs, spears, bows and arrows, brass knuckles, axes, halberds, etc. Take away their melee weapons and they will learn to kill each other with sticks, brooms, oars, baseball Bats, ice picks, ropes, stones, wire, etc. They will turn farming tools into weapons, examples being the sai, Kama, tridens and rete, Hoes, etc.
We will and have perfected the art of destroying the human body unarmed with systema, taekwondo, brazilian jujitsu, muay thai, pankration, etc.

And as long as the predatory members of society can and will kill and maim using any means at their disposal, it behooves the civilized majority to have the means to efficiently defend themselves. Namely, firearms.

[Occupied Deutschland]

[snip]A sane person doesn't need a gun, they can defend themselves with their bare hands if they need to but in most cases they know they'll be fine whereas gun nuts always think people are after them

I probably fall under that cute little pejorative of 'gun nut'.

I have a concealed carry license, and I carry regularly. I also open carry sometimes for comfort or, rarely, to make a point. I own two weapons that would be classified as assault weapons under new legislation.

I don't think people are after me (except insomuch as they seem to consistently seek to discredit and insult me as if I were insane by using pejoratives like 'gun nut' and claiming that I am a paranoid schizophrenic). Neither am I insane.

Frankly, I'm a little tired of the veiled (or not so veiled) implications that I AM insane because of my desire to own firearms and have them with me at some times because of circumstances you nor anyone in Congress is capable of understanding.

Edit: Y'know what, I need to keep on going on this rant. I could be an ally of the gun control movement. I could be a friend. Private sales are a portion of the law where some kind of oversight would be beneficial. I wouldn't appreciate such oversight, but I would grudgingly argue for it because, if done correctly, there would be little infringement on the rights of gun owners and there would be a rather good deal of potential societal benefits. But I don't, because any ideas that have been proposed addressing private sales have been drastically inappropriate (national registries) or the proposal has been masked behind metric fucktons of bullshit laws against 'assault weapons', magazines (and/or 'clips'), aesthetic features of rifles, and other horseshit that does jack all to promote public safety.

I'm willing to fuckin' compromise, just not to stupid ideas. So until those stupid ideas stop, I'm staying exactly where I am, being rather unimpressed by the gun control logic that leads to 'assault weapons' garbage.

I'd have a modicum of respect at least for the argument if it was used consistently and politicians tried to institute bans on the number one most used weapon in homicides in America (handguns). I wouldn't AGREE, nor would I be open to compromising with such a position, but I would respect the position as being a consistent application of logic I disagree with. But since most (I only say most because there is conceivably out there a bill that doesn't do this) of the bans revolve around which scary black rifles some Congressmen doesn't like I find myself mostly just dumbfounded at how such sheer outrageous nailing your own foot to the floor stupidity can exist, even in Congress.

[The Lone Alliance]

How come most of the rest of the world where things are working well (Europe, East Asia etc) have citizens that feel perfectly SAFE and happy for the most part without the need to own dangerous machines that shoot up the whole neighborhood at a whim?

When was the last time an entire neighborhood was actually 'shot up' by a spree killer?

[Big Jim P]

[snip]A sane person doesn't need a gun, they can defend themselves with their bare hands if they need to but in most cases they know they'll be fine whereas gun nuts always think people are after them

I probably fall under that cute little pejorative of 'gun nut'.

I have a concealed carry license, and I carry regularly. I also open carry sometimes for comfort or, rarely, to make a point. I own two weapons that would be classified as assault weapons under new legislation.

I don't think people are after me (except insomuch as they seem to consistently seek to discredit and insult me as if I were insane by using pejoratives like 'gun nut' and claiming that I am a paranoid schizophrenic). Neither am I insane.

Frankly, I'm a little tired of the veiled (or not so veiled) implications that I AM insane because of my desire to own firearms and have them with me at some times because of circumstances you nor anyone in Congress is capable of understanding.

Hey, at least they aren't outright calling you a criminal for wanting more than one gun. I forget who called me that repeatedly in the last gun control thread.

Personally, I think the gun control people are incapable of standing up and defending themselves and they really hate and fear those who are.

[Big Jim P]

[snip]A sane person doesn't need a gun, they can defend themselves with their bare hands if they need to but in most cases they know they'll be fine whereas gun nuts always think people are after them

I probably fall under that cute little pejorative of 'gun nut'.

I have a concealed carry license, and I carry regularly. I also open carry sometimes for comfort or, rarely, to make a point. I own two weapons that would be classified as assault weapons under new legislation.

I don't think people are after me (except insomuch as they seem to consistently seek to discredit and insult me as if I were insane by using pejoratives like 'gun nut' and claiming that I am a paranoid schizophrenic). Neither am I insane.

Frankly, I'm a little tired of the veiled (or not so veiled) implications that I AM insane because of my desire to own firearms and have them with me at some times because of circumstances you nor anyone in Congress is capable of understanding.

Edit: Y'know what, I need to keep on going on this rant. I could be an ally of the gun control movement. I could be a friend. Private sales are a portion of the law where some kind of oversight would be beneficial. I wouldn't appreciate such oversight, but I would grudgingly argue for it because, if done correctly, there would be little infringement on the rights of gun owners and there would be a rather good deal of potential societal benefits. But I don't, because any ideas that have been proposed addressing private sales have been drastically inappropriate (national registries) or the proposal has been masked behind metric fucktons of bullshit laws against 'assault weapons', magazines (and/or 'clips'), aesthetic features of rifles, and other horseshit that does jack all to promote public safety.

I'm willing to fuckin' compromise, just not to stupid ideas. So until those stupid ideas stop, I'm staying exactly where I am, being rather unimpressed by the gun control logic that leads to 'assault weapons' garbage.

I'd have a modicum of respect at least for the argument if it was used consistently and politicians tried to institute bans on the number one most used weapon in homicides in America (handguns). I wouldn't AGREE, nor would I be open to compromising with such a position, but I would respect the position as being a consistent application of logic I disagree with. But since most (I only say most because there is conceivably out there a bill that doesn't do this) of the bans revolve around which scary black rifles some Congressmen doesn't like because...well there's really no logical reason beyond the way they look.

[Republica Newland]

If you need one than you have a mental issue as you think you need it to protect yourself.

Years of deliberation have brought us this. This is gun control wisdom at its' apogee. If you want to protect yourself you have a mental issue. A round of applause,gentlemen.

[Big Jim P]

If you need one than you have a mental issue as you think you need it to protect yourself.

Years of deliberation have brought us this. This is gun control wisdom at its' apogee. If you want to protect yourself you have a mental issue. A round of applause,gentlemen.

Indeed: When you have no argument, demonize the opposition.

[Hathradic States]

3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

Extremely late, but it worked pretty damn well for the Polish and French resistance.

[Big Jim P]

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

Extremely late, but it worked pretty damn well for the Polish and French resistance.

And they did well with some absolutely atrocious weapons. Some that make the cheapest "Saturday night special" look like the epitome of the gun makers art.

[Hathradic States]

Extremely late, but it worked pretty damn well for the Polish and French resistance.

And they did well with some absolutely atrocious weapons. Some that make the cheapest "Saturday night special" look like the epitome of the gun makers art.

Exactly.

[Screensaver]

Holy Shit. I was under the impression that this forum was dominated by liberals and yet look at the poll results. Back on topic though I support an assault weapons ban.

[Cameroi]

ban manufacture and sale of anything you wish. ban possession of nothing.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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".

An outright ban on full auto/select fire weapons won't do anything to reduce gun crime, therefore there's really no reason to ban them. They're already very difficult to get (even if you have the tens of thousands of dollars to afford one), and they're not used in crimes.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

That's not a reason to ban them, since it wouldn't do anything. I'd rather my legislators work on crafting laws that actually accomplish something.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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


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


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.

Yes, wants should be heavily discouraged if not outright banned. You do not need a car. You do not need a computer. They should be restricted. It only makes sense. It doesn't come from left field at all, it's just common sense. It's perfectly fine to like guns, but to need one is not okay. If you need one than you have a mental issue as you think you need it to protect yourself. A sane person doesn't need a gun, they can defend themselves with their bare hands if they need to but in most cases they know they'll be fine whereas gun nuts always think people are after them

So, police officers and the military have mental issues? People with physical handicaps that live in bad areas have mental issues?

Let's see your credentials, so we know that you're qualified to make such determinations as to who is sane or insane.