Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Secius]

Clay PIGEONS!

/dumbass

Wait a minute, I thought Clay Pigeons were an endangered species...quick someone call PETA and the Sierra Club and um ...the EPA... quick.

Ugh. I hate PETA. Their intentions are well and pure, but their execution and targets are... well... terrible.

[Lolzieristan]

And semi-automatic weapons are REALLY nice for home defense. Odds are you WILL miss the first shot, esp. if you're not working with some type of shotshell with a really wide choke, and it really helps to be able to get off the second shot.

Plus, I remember reading an article in a magazine about a guy who sheltered-in-place during Katrina managed to scare off five looters circling his truck by charging them with an AKM. Chances are it wouldn't have worked as well with a single-barrel .410 pipsqueak shotgun. Assault weapons ARE scary as shit, and in my opinion it's a good thing. Just like how a number of burglars are allegedly scared off by the *kuh-clack* of a pump-action shotgun, it's another thing entirely to have a guy screaming at you in Russian while pointing a freaking Kalashnikov at your head.

Which is, of course, my prospective home defense plan, as soon as I get my Kalash. As of now it's screaming in Russian while pointing a Remington 870 at their head.

Ever fire an 91/30 model Mosin Nagant bolt-action? Russian infantry rifle, World War II. It has the joy of the *kuh-clack* and the ability to strike a target up to almost a quarter-mile away or hiding behind 1/2 inch thick steel plate, loud as a bomb, and holds 5 rounds. Add screaming in Russian to the mix and we're talking Vasily Zaitsev.

I own one, his name is Anton. It's way too long for clearing my house, b/c I have the 13-inch spike bayonet fixed at all times.

[Welstonia (Ancient)]

I voted yes, however, I think we are making a grave mistake focusing on guns, rather than focusing on the cultural of hyper-masculinity and violence that actually leads to these incidents. We should also, of course, make mental health care more accessible and affordable.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Clay PIGEONS!

/dumbass

Wait a minute, I thought Clay Pigeons were an endangered species...quick someone call PETA and the Sierra Club and um ...the EPA... quick.

Only gray spotted clay pigeons. Blue footed clay pigeons aren't.

[Fireye]

And semi-automatic weapons are REALLY nice for home defense. Odds are you WILL miss the first shot, esp. if you're not working with some type of shotshell with a really wide choke, and it really helps to be able to get off the second shot.

Plus, I remember reading an article in a magazine about a guy who sheltered-in-place during Katrina managed to scare off five looters circling his truck by charging them with an AKM. Chances are it wouldn't have worked as well with a single-barrel .410 pipsqueak shotgun. Assault weapons ARE scary as shit, and in my opinion it's a good thing. Just like how a number of burglars are allegedly scared off by the *kuh-clack* of a pump-action shotgun, it's another thing entirely to have a guy screaming at you in Russian while pointing a freaking Kalashnikov at your head.

Which is, of course, my prospective home defense plan, as soon as I get my Kalash. As of now it's screaming in Russian while pointing a Remington 870 at their head.

Ever fire an 1830 model Mosin Nagant bolt-action? Russian infantry rifle, World War II. It has the joy of the *kuh-clack* and the ability to strike a target up to almost a quarter-mile away or hiding behind 1/2 inch thick steel plate, loud as a bomb, and holds 5 rounds. Add screaming in Russian to the mix and we're talking Vasily Zaitsev.

I prefer to scream in Finnish when I fire mine.

It doesn't help that I'm the same height, weight & general build as him.

[Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia]

Ever fire an 91/30 model Mosin Nagant bolt-action? Russian infantry rifle, World War II. It has the joy of the *kuh-clack* and the ability to strike a target up to almost a quarter-mile away or hiding behind 1/2 inch thick steel plate, loud as a bomb, and holds 5 rounds. Add screaming in Russian to the mix and we're talking Vasily Zaitsev.

I own one, his name is Anton. It's way too long for clearing my house, b/c I have the 13-inch spike bayonet fixed at all times.

LOL. They're hell on drop ceilings.

[Endoria22]

Are you gun grabbing people trying to start a civil war? Because that is what this road will lead to. Watch who you run over, they might get back up and bite you in the ass.

[Spreewerke]

Ever fire an 1830 model Mosin Nagant bolt-action? Russian infantry rifle, World War II. It has the joy of the *kuh-clack* and the ability to strike a target up to almost a quarter-mile away or hiding behind 1/2 inch thick steel plate, loud as a bomb, and holds 5 rounds. Add screaming in Russian to the mix and we're talking Vasily Zaitsev.

I prefer to scream in Finnish when I fire mine.

It doesn't help that I'm the same height, weight & general build as him.

He did not use a Russian firearm, per se, but a rearsenaled Finn. capture, if memory serves me correctly.

[Veceria]

Are you gun grabbing people trying to start a civil war? Because that is what this road will lead to. Watch who you run over, they might get back up and bite you in the ass.

I have no clue what you're trying to tell us.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Are you gun grabbing people trying to start a civil war? Because that is what this road will lead to. Watch who you run over, they might get back up and bite you in the ass.

I have no clue what you're trying to tell us.

Here, have a picture;

[DaWoad]

I have no clue what you're trying to tell us.

Here, have a picture;

almost the entirety of that image is wrong.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Here, have a picture;

almost the entirety of that image is wrong.

I said have a picture, not have a correct picture, but the idea is what I was trying to deliver; you take away guns, there's probably gonna be an uprising.

[Morganutopia]

originally built as an assault rifle for the army.

so saying AR-15's were made for hunting is misleading to say the least.

Wait what.

Assault rifles can be used and made for hunting even if it was developed for the Army.

"AR-15 a Assault rifle" You know nothing of guns do you!

[Yes Im Biop]

originally built as an assault rifle for the army.

so saying AR-15's were made for hunting is misleading to say the least.

Wait what.

Assault rifles can be used and made for hunting even if it was developed for the Army.

The M16 was made for the army but based off of the AR-15.

[Lenninists]

Only in America can your mass murder dreams come true with the power of Bushmaster.

In all seriousness though I think assault weapons are reasonable for private ownership honestly, the reason there is so much violence in the US has a lot more to do with the war on drugs than people going to schools and shooting them up, people aren't craZy over guns in the US as much as they are crazy over drugs.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Only in America can your mass murder dreams come true with the power of Bushmaster.

In all seriousness though I think assault weapons are reasonable for private ownership honestly, the reason there is so much violence in the US has a lot more to do with the war on drugs than people going to schools and shooting them up, people aren't craZy over guns in the US as much as they are crazy over drugs.

Stay in school.

[Eylandia]

Assault weapons should be banned. As far as I see it I hear a few reasons for why assault weapons should be legal:

1) They're useful in hunting, not just for killing humans
2) Its our constitutional right to have the means to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government
3) It wouldn't make any difference

I'll answer these here:

1) As a bit of background to my points on this I'm an archer, and have been for many years. Frankly, if you need an assault rifle to hunt with you are an appalling excuse of a hunter. A bow and arrow is a perfectly capable hunting weapon, and is incredibly rewarding when you get that shot. An assault rifle takes away every ounce of challenge from hunting, indeed you cannot really call it hunting in my honest opinion. There is no need for automatic capabilities in a weapon when hunting, a single shot is enough to take down any animal if well aimed (and there in is the challenge and reward of hunting). Putting it another way, if you think hunting is a sport to be done with an assault rifle then you're missing out on the fantastically rewarding real sport of hunting with a bow and arrow or single shot rifle.

2) This doesn't make any sense to me. It suggests a definite undercurrent of paranoia in the American psyche. How on earth could a tyrannical government materialise in the US? The democratic institutions exist so that nobody could take power without the appropriate share of the vote and approval of the courts. The idea of foreign interference causing a tyrannical government is laughable. Either way, the idea that the United States will somehow materialise a dictatorship out of nowhere that every citizen will wish to rise against is crazy. Even if the ordinary citizen armed with their assault rifle were to rise up they would be slaughtered by modern military might. You place your faith in the institutions of government all day every day, you trust them to make sure that the road are in good enough state for you to get to work, you trust the military to keep your home safe, why do you not trust your government?

3) It would make a difference, I don't care for statistics one way or another. I could produce a thousands stats which prove that gun control works and you could provide a thousand for the opposite. To quickly respond to the OP's point that "The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence" - that stat is the number of gun related crimes, not the number of people killed within those incidents. As far as I'm concerned, it might not make a difference to the overall number of gun related crimes, but it will reduce the numbers of those killed and injured in those crimes. Just look at it objectively, you cannot kill the same amount of people with a pistol than with an assault rifle capable of spraying entire classrooms in seconds. You can fire more bullets per second from an assault rifle than from a pistol, if that wasn't true why wouldn't the military use purely pistols? Why would anybody need an assault rifle if pistols were just as good? Without a doubt, the numbers of deaths due to gun crimes would decrease if civilian ownership of assault weapons was banned; whether the overall rate of gun crime reduces or not.

Overall, I see a role for certain firearms in society. Farmers sometimes need shotguns to do the important job that they do, I get that. But for all of the reasons that I have ever encountered arguing that assault rifles should be freely available to civilians are lame at best and worryingly paranoid at their worst. I trust the military and the police to be armed with weapons capable of killing human beings, that is an important element of the job that they do, and a reason for the critically important civilian oversight of the military and law enforcement. There is no place for unaccountable civilians to have weapons designed to kill humans with maximum efficiency. Certain guns should be legal for those who need them professionally for their jobs and for sport, but there is no place in either of these categories for assault weapons.

[Yes Im Biop]

Assault weapons should be banned. As far as I see it I hear a few reasons for why assault weapons should be legal:

1) They're useful in hunting, not just for killing humans
2) Its our constitutional right to have the means to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government
3) It wouldn't make any difference

I'll answer these here:

1) As a bit of background to my points on this I'm an archer, and have been for many years. Frankly, if you need an assault rifle to hunt with you are an appalling excuse of a hunter. A bow and arrow is a perfectly capable hunting weapon, and is incredibly rewarding when you get that shot. An assault rifle takes away every ounce of challenge from hunting, indeed you cannot really call it hunting in my honest opinion. There is no need for automatic capabilities in a weapon when hunting, a single shot is enough to take down any animal if well aimed (and there in is the challenge and reward of hunting). Putting it another way, if you think hunting is a sport to be done with an assault rifle then you're missing out on the fantastically rewarding real sport of hunting with a bow and arrow or single shot rifle.

2) This doesn't make any sense to me. It suggests a definite undercurrent of paranoia in the American psyche. How on earth could a tyrannical government materialise in the US? The democratic institutions exist so that nobody could take power without the appropriate share of the vote and approval of the courts. The idea of foreign interference causing a tyrannical government is laughable. Either way, the idea that the United States will somehow materialise a dictatorship out of nowhere that every citizen will wish to rise against is crazy. Even if the ordinary citizen armed with their assault rifle were to rise up they would be slaughtered by modern military might. You place your faith in the institutions of government all day every day, you trust them to make sure that the road are in good enough state for you to get to work, you trust the military to keep your home safe, why do you not trust your government?

3) It would make a difference, I don't care for statistics one way or another. I could produce a thousands stats which prove that gun control works and you could provide a thousand for the opposite. To quickly respond to the OP's point that "The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence" - that stat is the number of gun related crimes, not the number of people killed within those incidents. As far as I'm concerned, it might not make a difference to the overall number of gun related crimes, but it will reduce the numbers of those killed and injured in those crimes. Just look at it objectively, you cannot kill the same amount of people with a pistol than with an assault rifle capable of spraying entire classrooms in seconds. You can fire more bullets per second from an assault rifle than from a pistol, if that wasn't true why wouldn't the military use purely pistols? Why would anybody need an assault rifle if pistols were just as good? Without a doubt, the numbers of deaths due to gun crimes would decrease if civilian ownership of assault weapons was banned; whether the overall rate of gun crime reduces or not.

Overall, I see a role for certain firearms in society. Farmers sometimes need shotguns to do the important job that they do, I get that. But for all of the reasons that I have ever encountered arguing that assault rifles should be freely available to civilians are lame at best and worryingly paranoid at their worst. I trust the military and the police to be armed with weapons capable of killing human beings, that is an important element of the job that they do, and a reason for the critically important civilian oversight of the military and law enforcement. There is no place for unaccountable civilians to have weapons designed to kill humans with maximum efficiency. Certain guns should be legal for those who need them professionally for their jobs and for sport, but there is no place in either of these categories for assault weapons.

What's an assault weapon?

[Eylandia]

Assault weapons should be banned. As far as I see it I hear a few reasons for why assault weapons should be legal:

1) They're useful in hunting, not just for killing humans
2) Its our constitutional right to have the means to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government
3) It wouldn't make any difference

I'll answer these here:

1) As a bit of background to my points on this I'm an archer, and have been for many years. Frankly, if you need an assault rifle to hunt with you are an appalling excuse of a hunter. A bow and arrow is a perfectly capable hunting weapon, and is incredibly rewarding when you get that shot. An assault rifle takes away every ounce of challenge from hunting, indeed you cannot really call it hunting in my honest opinion. There is no need for automatic capabilities in a weapon when hunting, a single shot is enough to take down any animal if well aimed (and there in is the challenge and reward of hunting). Putting it another way, if you think hunting is a sport to be done with an assault rifle then you're missing out on the fantastically rewarding real sport of hunting with a bow and arrow or single shot rifle.

2) This doesn't make any sense to me. It suggests a definite undercurrent of paranoia in the American psyche. How on earth could a tyrannical government materialise in the US? The democratic institutions exist so that nobody could take power without the appropriate share of the vote and approval of the courts. The idea of foreign interference causing a tyrannical government is laughable. Either way, the idea that the United States will somehow materialise a dictatorship out of nowhere that every citizen will wish to rise against is crazy. Even if the ordinary citizen armed with their assault rifle were to rise up they would be slaughtered by modern military might. You place your faith in the institutions of government all day every day, you trust them to make sure that the road are in good enough state for you to get to work, you trust the military to keep your home safe, why do you not trust your government?

3) It would make a difference, I don't care for statistics one way or another. I could produce a thousands stats which prove that gun control works and you could provide a thousand for the opposite. To quickly respond to the OP's point that "The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence" - that stat is the number of gun related crimes, not the number of people killed within those incidents. As far as I'm concerned, it might not make a difference to the overall number of gun related crimes, but it will reduce the numbers of those killed and injured in those crimes. Just look at it objectively, you cannot kill the same amount of people with a pistol than with an assault rifle capable of spraying entire classrooms in seconds. You can fire more bullets per second from an assault rifle than from a pistol, if that wasn't true why wouldn't the military use purely pistols? Why would anybody need an assault rifle if pistols were just as good? Without a doubt, the numbers of deaths due to gun crimes would decrease if civilian ownership of assault weapons was banned; whether the overall rate of gun crime reduces or not.

Overall, I see a role for certain firearms in society. Farmers sometimes need shotguns to do the important job that they do, I get that. But for all of the reasons that I have ever encountered arguing that assault rifles should be freely available to civilians are lame at best and worryingly paranoid at their worst. I trust the military and the police to be armed with weapons capable of killing human beings, that is an important element of the job that they do, and a reason for the critically important civilian oversight of the military and law enforcement. There is no place for unaccountable civilians to have weapons designed to kill humans with maximum efficiency. Certain guns should be legal for those who need them professionally for their jobs and for sport, but there is no place in either of these categories for assault weapons.

What's an assault weapon?

A semi-automatic/automatic rifle.

[Olde Engelond]

The English Bill of Rights 1689 grants me the right to bare arms yet my government seems to ignore this and has made it illegal despite the fact the the Bill of Rights is still in effect and is an essential part of the UK's constitution. Why is this?

[Morganutopia]

Assault weapon?
yes or no
yes or no
yes or no

[Olde Engelond]

I have no clue what you're trying to tell us.

Here, have a picture;

Except that image is entirely wrong. The British Crown never tried to cease arms off Americans neither during, nor before the revolution.

[Eylandia]

The English Bill of Rights 1689 grants me the right to bare arms yet my government seems to ignore this and has made it illegal despite the fact the the Bill of Rights is still in effect and is an essential part of the UK's constitution. Why is this?

Because it works, the UK is lucky enough to have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world thanks to those laws and a strict licensing system.

[Olde Engelond]

The English Bill of Rights 1689 grants me the right to bare arms yet my government seems to ignore this and has made it illegal despite the fact the the Bill of Rights is still in effect and is an essential part of the UK's constitution. Why is this?

Because it works, the UK is lucky enough to have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world thanks to those laws and a strict licensing system.

Source?

[The-_Sicarii]

Personally, I am against gun control, but I want to know what NS thinks. Here's my argument against it:

1) The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence

2) Rifles in general only account for 1% of gun murders.

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

Tell me all about how assault weapons will work against drones and tanks.

Please, spare me your excuses. There is absolutely no way that we will be invaded, and the democratic aspect of our society ensures that our government will not become a tyranny. Therefore, there being absolutely no negative impacts to gun control, gun access should be limited as much as possible because, while it will not save everyone, it will save a lot of people.

And before you say that guns allow one to protect oneself, remember that the number of uncontested shootings still largely outweigh the number of times that someone with a firearm has successfully interfered. This is empirically proven, because most of the shootings that happen (Aurora, Columbine, Newtown, etc.) are not (successfully) stopped by people with guns.

While there will still be some criminals who have access to guns, there will be fewer. Even if gun control does not save everyone, it's worth giving up the sport of shooting animals to keep more of our people from dying.