Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Eylandia]

What's an assault weapon?

I don't understand this fabricated debate over what an assault rifle is, its entirely clear (clear enough for many countries around the world to write their own legislation on).

To use the UK definition:
A rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action, revolver rifle or carbine.

[Nua Corda]

What's an assault weapon?

I don't understand this fabricated debate over what an assault rifle is, its entirely clear (clear enough for many countries around the world to write their own legislation on).

To use the UK definition:
A rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action, revolver rifle or carbine.

That definition is almost as stupid as this stock:



Which, by the way, would make this rifle California legal.

[Eylandia]

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?

Courtesy of HM Government: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0212.pdf

[Eylandia]

I don't understand this fabricated debate over what an assault rifle is, its entirely clear (clear enough for many countries around the world to write their own legislation on).

To use the UK definition:
A rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action, revolver rifle or carbine.

That definition is almost as stupid as this stock:

http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f12/20616d1287580885-tactical-beer-drinking-toilet-seat-ak-47.jpg

Tell me, what's wrong with that definition?

[Olde Engelond]

Source?

Courtesy of HM Government: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0212.pdf

"636 deaths were currently recorded on the database as homicides in England and Wales for the period between April 2010 and March 2011"

Now sources for gun crime rates in the rest of the world please to back up your claim that the UK has one of the lowest.

[Morganutopia]

Assault weapon?
(Image) yes or no
(Image)yes or no
(Image)yes or no

All of these are band in the uk the uk is stupid.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. 1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

[Eylandia]

Courtesy of HM Government: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0212.pdf

"636 deaths were currently recorded on the database as homicides in England and Wales for the period between April 2010 and March 2011"

Now sources for gun crime rates in the rest of the world please to back up your claim that the UK has one of the lowest.

Well, if you want a list of the entire world you're best place to look is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate.

You'll spot that if you sort descending by numbers the UK 9th from the bottom. These figures are correct, fully referenced. If you really want you can check national government figures to verify them yourself.

[Nua Corda]

That definition is almost as stupid as this stock:

http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f12/20616d1287580885-tactical-beer-drinking-toilet-seat-ak-47.jpg

Tell me, what's wrong with that definition?

Because it covers any semi-automatic rifle

Even if you ignore the fact that gun control groups have said that "assault weapon" is a made-up term designed to create a class of firearms that people can be scared into banning, it would make this;



this



this



and this



"assault weapons"

Protip; they're all hunting rifles, designed for hunting, used for hunting, and very much useful for hunting.

EDIT:

Don't forget this:



this



and this

[Morganutopia]

Tell me, what's wrong with that definition?

Because it covers any semi-automatic rifle

Even if you ignore the fact that gun control groups have said that "assault weapon" is a made-up term designed to create a class of firearms that people can be scared into banning, it would make this;



this



this



and this



"assault weapons"

Protip; they're all hunting rifles, designed for hunting, used for hunting, and very much useful for hunting.

[Eylandia]

Tell me, what's wrong with that definition?

Because it covers any semi-automatic rifle

Even if you ignore the fact that gun control groups have said that "assault weapon" is a made-up term designed to create a class of firearms that people can be scared into banning, it would make this;

http://d12xzpun4kqsb2.cloudfront.net/ge ... d=24642625

this

http://www.chuckhawks.com/browning_BAR.jpg

this

http://cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp ... er1022.jpg

and this

http://img1.findthebest.com/sites/defau ... _Rifle.jpg

"assault weapons"

Protip; they're all hunting rifles, designed for hunting, used for hunting, and very much useful for hunting.

And yet, some of those are allowed under the UK definition for hunting. You are welcome to check the full wording to see what is legal and illegal, but I stand by it as an example of the fact that internationally there has been little trouble in legally defining assault weapons.

[Lift]

only cops need guns.

[Nua Corda]

Because it covers any semi-automatic rifle

Even if you ignore the fact that gun control groups have said that "assault weapon" is a made-up term designed to create a class of firearms that people can be scared into banning, it would make this;



this



this



and this



"assault weapons"

Protip; they're all hunting rifles, designed for hunting, used for hunting, and very much useful for hunting.

And yet, some of those are allowed under the UK definition for hunting. You are welcome to check the full wording to see what is legal and illegal, but I stand by it as an example of the fact that internationally there has been little trouble in legally defining assault weapons.

That does nothing to take away from the fact that the definition is stupider than your average teen pop starlet.

It's a definition that classifies double rifles as assault weapons

You don't get much stupider than that.

The issue is not whether something can be defined or not. I could define a pickle as a wallet, but it would still be fucking stupid.

[Nua Corda]

only cops need guns.
(Image)

Ranchers, hunters, people who live in rural areas want a word.

[Lolzieristan]

I know it might be off the topic, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that knife crime in the UK is higher than both knife and gun crime in the US, when the atatistics take the difference in population into account.

Now, what does that imply about gun regulation's effect on crime?

[Eylandia]

And yet, some of those are allowed under the UK definition for hunting. You are welcome to check the full wording to see what is legal and illegal, but I stand by it as an example of the fact that internationally there has been little trouble in legally defining assault weapons.

That does nothing to take away from the fact that the definition is stupider than your average teen pop starlet.

It's a definition that classifies double rifles as assault weapons

You don't get much stupider than that.

The issue is not whether something can be defined or not. I could define a pickle as a wallet, but it would still be fucking stupid.

I think the confusion here is over my use of the term 'assault rifle'. To put it another way, I think that the guns covered by the UK definition should be illegal. Some would call all of these assault rifles, others would say that only the extreme were. I don't care about the wording, as far as I'm concerned anything that isn't useful to farmers or sportsmen (were talking shotguns and the realm of .22s here) should be banned, and those should be banned from everyone but those groups. I really don't care whether you describe what I would like to see banned as assault rifles or not.

[Spirit of Hope]

-snip-

And yet, some of those are allowed under the UK definition for hunting. You are welcome to check the full wording to see what is legal and illegal, but I stand by it as an example of the fact that internationally there has been little trouble in legally defining assault weapons.

Defining what is an assault rifle tends to be rather easy. From wikipedia "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." Rather strait forward yes? Well it doesn't cover semi-automatic weapons, and doesn't cover the "scary" features of many weapons the people wan't to ban, such as flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, or "high capacity" magazines. banning those features is really stupid since they're essentially cosmetic, but its what many group want to have banned.

I'm personally fine with banning the strict definition (given above) of an assault rifle, or fully automatic weapons in general, its just most bans don't talk about that.

[Lift]

only cops need guns.
(Image)

Ranchers, hunters, people who live in rural areas want a word.

Is all thay need!

All guns do is kill men and wemen!

[Qahadim]

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.

Historically false. The British army tried to confiscate the muskets of Colonial Americans at Lexington and Concord. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a direct result of this attempt to disarm the American Colonists, and ignited the Revolutionary War.

[Eylandia]

I know it might be off the topic, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that knife crime in the UK is higher than both knife and gun crime in the US, when the atatistics take the difference in population into account.

Now, what does that imply about gun regulation's effect on crime?

Even in the absolute worst of the worst areas of London knife crime runs at approximately 0.3% of all crime (2010-11 figures), the average US state rates generally run higher than that from what I've found (although they seem quite cagey on the exact details). What I've really been trying to get at though is that automatic rifles are capable of much greater numbers of kills and injuries in a short amount of time than a single shot rifle or pistol or a knife, logically that makes sense (else why would the military use assault weapons at all?)

[The-_Sicarii]

(Image)

If a civil war were to be started, it would end within weeks unless the Federal Government decided to negotiate, which it shouldn't in that sort of situation. The only reason the American Civil War was able to go on for so long was because both sides had relatively equal levels of technology. The Federal Government has drones, F-35s, and other ground-attack aircraft. If a war were to start, all the assault rifles in the world wouldn't help much against air superiority.

Besides that, there is absolutely no reason we need guns- our military will ensure that we are not invaded, gun owners almost compulsively fail to stop almost all shootings, and IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO OPPRESS US, LITTLE THINGS LIKE ASSAULT WEAPONS WILL NOT STOP THEM.

[Qahadim]

I know it might be off the topic, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that knife crime in the UK is higher than both knife and gun crime in the US, when the atatistics take the difference in population into account.

Now, what does that imply about gun regulation's effect on crime?

Even in the absolute worst of the worst areas of London knife crime runs at approximately 0.3% of all crime (2010-11 figures), the average US state rates generally run higher than that from what I've found (although they seem quite cagey on the exact details). What I've really been trying to get at though is that automatic rifles are capable of much greater numbers of kills and injuries in a short amount of time than a single shot rifle or pistol or a knife, logically that makes sense (else why would the military use assault weapons at all?)

Those fully automatic military weapons have been "banned" in the United States since the mid 1980s. This topic is talking about semi-automatic sporting rifles that are designed, and intended for, the use of hunting, target shooting, and personal/home defense. Not for use on the batttlefield.

[Spirit of Hope]

I know it might be off the topic, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that knife crime in the UK is higher than both knife and gun crime in the US, when the atatistics take the difference in population into account.

Now, what does that imply about gun regulation's effect on crime?

Even in the absolute worst of the worst areas of London knife crime runs at approximately 0.3% of all crime (2010-11 figures), the average US state rates generally run higher than that from what I've found (although they seem quite cagey on the exact details). What I've really been trying to get at though is that automatic rifles are capable of much greater numbers of kills and injuries in a short amount of time than a single shot rifle or pistol or a knife, logically that makes sense (else why would the military use assault weapons at all?)

Yes, but outside of a few, admittedly large, mass killings assault rifles are almost unheard of in criminal use. Meanwhile thousands (if not millions) are owned and used legally and safely by civilians. Also if you look at overall crime rates (I'll try and get a source) the US is much lower than the UK, per capita.

[Spirit of Hope]

Even in the absolute worst of the worst areas of London knife crime runs at approximately 0.3% of all crime (2010-11 figures), the average US state rates generally run higher than that from what I've found (although they seem quite cagey on the exact details). What I've really been trying to get at though is that automatic rifles are capable of much greater numbers of kills and injuries in a short amount of time than a single shot rifle or pistol or a knife, logically that makes sense (else why would the military use assault weapons at all?)

Those fully automatic military weapons have been "banned" in the United States since the mid 1980s. This topic is talking about semi-automatic sporting rifles that are designed, and intended for, the use of hunting, target shooting, and personal/home defense. Not for use on the batttlefield.

Actually fully automatic weapons aren't illegal at the federal level, though most states have made them illegal. You can legally purchase a fully automatic weapon in certain states though, you only have to shell out an additional $200.

[Yes Im Biop]

What's an assault weapon?

I don't understand this fabricated debate over what an assault rifle is, its entirely clear (clear enough for many countries around the world to write their own legislation on).

To use the UK definition:
A rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action, revolver rifle or carbine.

Does the UK Know which end the bullet comes out of

[Lift]

Even in the absolute worst of the worst areas of London knife crime runs at approximately 0.3% of all crime (2010-11 figures), the average US state rates generally run higher than that from what I've found (although they seem quite cagey on the exact details). What I've really been trying to get at though is that automatic rifles are capable of much greater numbers of kills and injuries in a short amount of time than a single shot rifle or pistol or a knife, logically that makes sense (else why would the military use assault weapons at all?)

Yes, but outside of a few, admittedly large, mass killings assault rifles are almost unheard of in criminal use. Meanwhile thousands (if not millions) are owned and used legally and safely by civilians. Also if you look at overall crime rates (I'll try and get a source) the US is much lower than the UK, per capita.

afely by civilians