Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Qahadim]

(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.

*sighs* First you assume that the military wont divide itself among lines that places some of them on the side of the government, with the tanks and all the other fancy schmancy toys. Others will side with the rebels, and will provide them with access to the tanks, jets, and all the other fancy toys. You cant win a war with air superiority alone, it takes boots on the ground. In order to combat them, one must need be armed. Second, I need a firearm in case my home is broken into, I'm attacked on the street, to go out for a weekend hunting trip, to go enjoy an afternoon of fun with friends and family. It's not just about protecting myself from the government, but others that are outside of the government, that intend to harm me, or others I may know. You're also under the assumption that, while gun owners fail to stop all shootings, banning "assault weapons" will. It wont. People will still get a hold of firearms, regardless if a ban is in place or not, and use them against people who have ZERO chance of fighting back, because they lack the ability to match the assailant with equal force. To your all caps part: Roll over and take it like a bitch, then. I wont, and you can't make me. I'm responsible for my protection, not you, not the government. I am my first defense, always. You have zero right to remove that from me.

[Spirit of Hope]

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

Their are total around 75,000 gun deaths in the United States each year, including those committed intentionally. It is estimated that their are 270 million guns in the united states. That works out to 1 death for every 3,600 guns.

[Qahadim]

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, I know. That's why I put banned in quotation marks. With the excessive tax stamp, waiting period, and extensive background check, they are, more or less, illegal for the general public to own and operate.

[Norjagen]

Safely by civilians (Image)

He's got his finger off the trigger, which makes him more knowledgeable about guns than Dianne Feinstein..

[Yes Im Biop]

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

How come his arm is bent like that, and his finger is off teh trigger

[Qahadim]

afely by civilians

How come his arm is bent like that, and his finger is off teh trigger

Is this image supposed to be an example of how more restrictions are needed or something? Far as I can tell, this child is doing everything right as far as proper handling of the firearm is concerned. It might be a little big for a kid his age, but his finger is off the trigger, it appears to be pointed down range, and not at anyone, he even looks like he's taking aim. So what is wrong with this image exactly?

[Yes Im Biop]

How come his arm is bent like that, and his finger is off teh trigger

Is this image supposed to be an example of how more restrictions are needed or something? Far as I can tell, this child is doing everything right as far as proper handling of the firearm is concerned. It might be a little big for a kid his age, but his finger is off the trigger, it appears to be pointed down range, and not at anyone, he even looks like he's taking aim. So what is wrong with this image exactly?

Tired post. No His arm looks bent inward at an angle I have done 1 time...Mind you my arm was snapped

[Paddy O Fernature]

Is it just me, or does that pic look like someone took a kid pointing at a cloud, and shopped in a Glock?

[Yes Im Biop]

Is it just me, or does that pic look like someone took a kid pointing at a cloud, and shopped in a Glock?

Good eye Paddy

[Spirit of Hope]

Is it just me, or does that pic look like someone took a kid pointing at a cloud, and shopped in a Glock?

Now that you mention it, yeah it does look like that. In fact after looking at it closer I would say it is a shopped in Glock. The back of the grip doesn't line up with his hand.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Yeah, too bad most people one here don't have a clue as to what youth shooting actually looks like, instead of what they think it looks like.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

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.

*sighs* First you assume that the military wont divide itself among lines that places some of them on the side of the government, with the tanks and all the other fancy schmancy toys. Others will side with the rebels, and will provide them with access to the tanks, jets, and all the other fancy toys. You cant win a war with air superiority alone, it takes boots on the ground. In order to combat them, one must need be armed. Second, I need a firearm in case my home is broken into, I'm attacked on the street, to go out for a weekend hunting trip, to go enjoy an afternoon of fun with friends and family. It's not just about protecting myself from the government, but others that are outside of the government, that intend to harm me, or others I may know. You're also under the assumption that, while gun owners fail to stop all shootings, banning "assault weapons" will. It wont. People will still get a hold of firearms, regardless if a ban is in place or not, and use them against people who have ZERO chance of fighting back, because they lack the ability to match the assailant with equal force. To your all caps part: Roll over and take it like a bitch, then. I wont, and you can't make me. I'm responsible for my protection, not you, not the government. I am my first defense, always. You have zero right to remove that from me.

Short answer: R-Ex '84 assumed they'd also have to contend with the Nat'l Guard of the seceding state and defective Federal personnel and material.

In a state-less civil war, it would be more properly called a revolution or insurrection.

Also, guns make this sort of thing a little more dramatic.

In either case, simply knowing how to use a rifle for when the time comes is often enough more than sufficient.

[Sevvania]

I found this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo

[Llamalandia]

afely by civilians

Their are total around 75,000 gun deaths in the United States each year, including those committed intentionally. It is estimated that their are 270 million guns in the united states. That works out to 1 death for every 3,600 guns.

Gun deaths =/= gun crimes gotta throw out the suicides and accidents, then your talking something like 8000-10000 on the high side for intentional (non-suicide) gun deaths, and that gets narrow down even further when looking at only assault weapons (please cf. the title of this thread) which make up less than 1%.

Source: Any of the billions of much more researched and articulate posts on guns on this forum (some of which I wrote and cited sources for not looking it up again.

[Lolzieristan]

I may refer you to Andrew Mack's Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that we don't have CUAVs and fighter-bombers and IFVs and all that is somewhat the basic characteristic of asymmetric conflict, a.k.a. guerilla warfare. Plenty of wars have been won or lost in ways that contradict the apparent technological/resource skew. Just ask the Vietcong or the Mujahideen.

Granted, our odds would be pretty shitty, I'd say 5 to 1 for a government victory. But many other factors have been mentioned previously, from armed forces defection (as in the French Revolution, 1783(?)...loyalist French troops guarding the Bastille actually sided with the mob outside and then, all of a sudden, half the French Army changed its mind and fought with them. Also, take a look at the wonderful resistance textbook Total Resistance, by Swiss Army Major H. von Dach, or of course Che Guevara's Guerilla Warfare. Once again, small arms versus tanks doesn't automatically mean a loss. There are ways around such disparities, including hijacking enemy weapons and sabotaging enemy equipment, fighting on rough terrain, choosing to fight only when the situation favors you, etc. etc.
And also there's a notable benefit from foreign armaments, as Jeffery Record notes in the 2007 work Beating Goliath: How Insurgencies Win. Wars like the Vietnam War, the Soviet-Afghan War, and the First American Revolution have better track records than wars in which the rebel side scrounged all it's stuff, like the Frenco-Algerian War or the Malayan Emergency. But I feel like between the Mexican cartels, the anti-American Middle East/Central Asia, corrupt officials in the former Warsaw Pact states and in Russia, and the more...radical Chinese military men, a rebel force that made a name for itself beyond the average Ruby Ridge crackpot would be able to find something or other.

Of course, this is all assuming the rebels know what the fuck they're doing. I personally doubt that the organizational system will be exceed the company level in the early days, which is an embarrassment. The average backwoods militiaman has gotten himself obsessed with the "keep and bear arms" part of the 2nd Amendment that he's kinda forgotten about the FIRST FOUR WORDS of it, "A well regulated militia".

So, any US civil war would inevitably be sloppy, long, an hideous. Rebel casualties would easily be ten times that of government forces, especially in the early days. But it's possible, and it sure as hell wouldn't be a hundred-hour war.


Trust me on this. As a Texan and an amateur military theorist, I get dragged into this shit ALL THE TIME.

[Nua Corda]

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.

Pistols are used by sportsmen

Semi-automatic rifles are used by sportsmen

Semi-automatic rifles are used by huntsmen.

Pistols are used by huntsmen.

I could go on.

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

Is all thay need!

All guns do is kill men and wemen!

Hahahhaha

No.


Animals are a major problem in the rural US. Bows are of very limited use. They're worthless against bears, prairie dogs, raccoons, etc. There's a reason hunters, farmers and ranchers prefer rifles. They get the job done better. And sometimes your life or livelyhood depends on getting that job done. Some people hunt for food. A rifle is far more efficient, and ultimately more humane for the animal, than a bow.

Not to mention sportsmen, collectors, and general enthusiasts.

Look, legally purchased guns are rarely used in crime.

Rifles are used in ~2.5% of gun crime. Less than 1% of violent crime in general.

It's not fair to punish law-abiding hobbyists, hunters, sportsmen and farmers for the actions of criminals.

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.

<span>afely by civilians [img]<a%20class="smarterwiki-linkify"%20href="http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kid-with-gun-300.jpg[/img]">http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kid-with-gun-300.jpg[/img]</a></span>

Photoshop should be banned.

It would do far more good than banning guns.

<span>Safely by civilians ([url=<a class="smarterwiki-linkify" href="http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kid-with-gun-300.jpg]Image[/url])

">http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kid-with-gun-300.jpg]Image[/url])

</a></span>

<span>He's got his finger off the trigger, [url=<a class="smarterwiki-linkify" href="http://bloviatingzeppelin.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Diane-Feinstein-with-AK-UNSAFE.jpg]which">http://bloviatingzeppelin.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Diane-Feinstein-with-AK-UNSAFE.jpg]which</a> makes him more knowledgeable about guns than Dianne Feinstein.[/url].</span>[/quote]

[Samozaryadnyastan]

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

Is all thay need!

All guns do is kill men and wemen!

The Longbow killed Europeans and Arabs by the million between about 1300 and 1600. The Compound Bow is highly fucking lethal, and merely an evolution of the highly simple longbow.

(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.

You act like the US government could withstand the fallout of launching mass strikes on its own citizens. It would become a complete pariah state. Doing so also goes against a number of tenets on what American interpretations on freedom even is.

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.

Plus the ludicrous rarity costs.

afely by civilians

Their are total around 75,000 gun deaths in the United States each year, including those committed intentionally. It is estimated that their are 270 million guns in the united states. That works out to 1 death for every 3,600 guns.

There are 75,000 gun injuries, Spirit, only 30,000 deaths
And 314mn firearms.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I found this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo

This girl deserves a standing ovation.

[Big Jim P]

I found this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo

This girl deserves a standing ovation.

Indeed.

[Spreewerke]

Why wasn't I ever informed that shooting scholarships existed?

wat

I could have done so much better in life.

[Yes Im Biop]

Why wasn't I ever informed that shooting scholarships existed?

wat

I could have done so much better in life.

You didn't know this?

[Lolzieristan]

Oh, yeah, totally forgot about this part of gun ownership:

Lol societal collapse for no clear reason and then the police don't do shit for no reason whatsoever and the Marines get deployed like during the Rodney King riots but they don't do their jobs and the entire American society collapses and suddenly you just have to shoot people for some reason or whatever because everyone pretty much turns into mindless non-negotiating zombies with less rational-thought capabilities than a 410 AD Visigoth raider.


B/C America.

[Spreewerke]

Why wasn't I ever informed that shooting scholarships existed?

wat

I could have done so much better in life.

You didn't know this?

I didn't, and I am surprised.

[Nua Corda]

You didn't know this?

I didn't, and I am surprised.

>Is 'muricah
>doesn't expect gun scholarship

[Lolzieristan]

You didn't know this?

I didn't, and I am surprised.

Did you grow up in a rural area? Because 4-H and stuff like that offers shooting scholarships for pretty much every type of weapon.