Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Spreewerke]

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.

Never did 4-H. Probably explains why I never heard of it.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

When a Ruger 10/22 (a wildly popular small game hunting/target rifle firing the .22lr) can be configured as an "assault weapon" under Feinstein's bill (or most of the state level AWBs), then there's a major problem. The semi-only AR15 (another rifle considered an "assault weapon" by some) has been marketed by Colt since the 60's as a varmint hunting/target rifle (not the only angle Colt took, but one of them). A Remington 11/87 (a semi auto shotgun, usually used for hunting/target shooting) can also be configured into an "assault weapon). Olympic style pistols are considered "assault weapons" by Feinstein's bill or most of the state level AWBs too.

A pistol has less range than a rifle (since the barrel is shorter, there's less room for the burning gunpowder to accelerate the bullet), and a pistol has a shorter sight radius than a rifle (meaning it's more difficult to be as accurate at range with a pistol than with a rifle).

Full auto/select fire weapons are restricted (not freely available as you suggest). Transferable full auto/select fire weapons (those weapons manufactured and registered with ATF before May 19, 1986) can't be owned by civilians until the buyer obtains an ATF tax stamp. That requires paperwork, a $200 fee, a background check, and several months of time waiting for ATF to get back to you.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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

The first is a Remington 870, so no. Pump action shotguns aren't covered.

The second is a Ruger 10/22. In it's current configuration, no.

The third is a chassis for the Ruger 10/22, and IIRC would be considered an "assault weapon" under Feinstein's bill (or most of the state level AWBs) due to the pistol grip. If that stock actually folds, and if the barrel is threaded, that's 3 "evil" features.

What do I win?

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

I bet the Connecticut General Assembly would consider that a thumbhole stock.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

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.

1. Although I have shot archery... pretty extensively... using one to shoot birds and things the size of chipmunks is a bit of a stretch for the skill-levels of most, and dangerous-game (or self-defense on the trail, ranch-defense/patrolling the fence) is probably not going to work at all in your favor unless you're secretly a comic-book character.
Assault weapons are not automatic weapons.
-Those are machine-guns (yes, even assault-rifles), and are covered separately.

2. It means that although I don't see much personal use in owning a handgun, I can see why certain people would feel it necessary to posses one. Therefore it is not my right or place to question their right. And even when I don't see their logic, I would gladly argue on behalf of that right. Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.
-The US Constitution was Batman-prepared for pretty much everything )see also: the Skynet-clause of the roommate agreement), it had to be in order to make a semi-stable nation that has survived 200 years with only one major civil-war. And aside from that, not a single violent-uprising in response to an unfavorable election.

3. No, it wouldn't.

-I'm not sure ou realize how big a Midwestern farm can be.... think something on the order of 1600 acres...

Now, you're one guy. Some city-dood just threatened your life with a sniper-rifle because you have food, a 20kW generator because you live off the grid, and a truck that works and he doesn't. Oh, and hurricane Katrina-Sandy 2.0 just left the sod without shelter... but he brought his gun, and a few friends with guns...

Have fun playing Green-Arrow...

[Gun Manufacturers]

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?

In the US, a rifle has to have a barrel length > 16" (40.64 cm) and an overall length > 26" (66.04 cm), unless it's registered with the ATF as a SBR.

[Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia]

only cops need guns.
(Image)

Only subjects need cops.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

That's wrong. Not banned, restricted.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

only cops need guns.
(Image)

Only subjects need cops.

Meanwhile, this is my rifle, and unlike the SAWT officer pictured above, I know how to use it, and it's pretty hard to miss when you're right in front of me. There are many rifles like it, but this one is MINE and I know how to use it.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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

He's practicing safe trigger habits. Notice his finger isn't on the trigger. BTW, for all we know, that could be an airsoft gun.

[Spirit of Hope]

afely by civilians

He's practicing safe trigger habits. Notice his finger isn't on the trigger. BTW, for all we know, that could be an airsoft gun.

The pistol is actually photoshopped in. Which makes it even more hilarious.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

You can photoshop a gun into that kid's hands without telling him, and he's still better than Feinstein.

[Lemanrussland]

afely by civilians

He's practicing safe trigger habits. Notice his finger isn't on the trigger. BTW, for all we know, that could be an airsoft gun.

We don't know if he's pointing it in a safe direction, though. He's still better than some of the people I see in the gun store, sweeping people with loaded guns and not maintaining trigger discipline...

[Paddy O Fernature]

He's practicing safe trigger habits. Notice his finger isn't on the trigger. BTW, for all we know, that could be an airsoft gun.

We don't know if he's pointing it in a safe direction, though. He's still better than some of the people I see in the gun store, sweeping people with loaded guns and not maintaining trigger discipline...

If you have loaded firearms on the shelf for sale, you have already failed severely and have bigger problems to worry about lad.

[Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia]

Only subjects need cops.

Meanwhile, this is my rifle, and unlike the SAWT officer pictured above, I know how to use it, and it's pretty hard to miss when you're right in front of me. There are many rifles like it, but this one is MINE and I know how to use it.

ROFLMAO at your pic!

I've visited the local police department's indoor shooting range. Couldn't count as high as how many bullet holes were in the ceiling from all the Barney Fife's trying to quickdraw their pistols with their fingers on the trigger.

Most cops around here are military washouts, and even more useless arriving on the scene of a crime to posthumously "protect and serve" you.

I have guns. I see no use for a cop.

[Paddy O Fernature]

To be fair, even soldiers make mistakes.

Though most are fucking reservists or rear D fucks who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground to begin with.

[Lolzieristan]

To be fair, even soldiers make mistakes.

Though most are fucking reservists or rear D fucks who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground to begin with.

His hands are what makes this perfect. I lol'd.

[Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia]

To be fair, even soldiers make mistakes.

Though most are fucking reservists or rear D fucks who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground to begin with.

ROFL!

that reminded me of this...

http://youtu.be/UGf-sS4js5Y

[Gun Manufacturers]

He's practicing safe trigger habits. Notice his finger isn't on the trigger. BTW, for all we know, that could be an airsoft gun.

The pistol is actually photoshopped in. Which makes it even more hilarious.

Yeah, I missed it.

[Spirit of Hope]

The pistol is actually photoshopped in. Which makes it even more hilarious.

Yeah, I missed it.

Its ok, none of us noticed it a first. Once someone points it out though it is incredibly obvious.

[Sociobiology]

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

The first is a Remington 870, so no. Pump action shotguns aren't covered.

The second is a Ruger 10/22. In it's current configuration, no.

The third is a chassis for the Ruger 10/22, and IIRC would be considered an "assault weapon" under Feinstein's bill (or most of the state level AWBs) due to the pistol grip. If that stock actually folds, and if the barrel is threaded, that's 3 "evil" features.

What do I win?

a cookie for actually reading the law,
which is more than most parties on either side did.

[Alekera]

Meanwhile, this is my rifle, and unlike the SAWT officer pictured above, I know how to use it, and it's pretty hard to miss when you're right in front of me. There are many rifles like it, but this one is MINE and I know how to use it.

ROFLMAO at your pic!

I've visited the local police department's indoor shooting range. Couldn't count as high as how many bullet holes were in the ceiling from all the Barney Fife's trying to quickdraw their pistols with their fingers on the trigger.

Most cops around here are military washouts, and even more useless arriving on the scene of a crime to posthumously "protect and serve" you.

I have guns. I see no use for a cop.

When seconds are on the line, the police are only 30 minute away.

[Sociobiology]

When a Ruger 10/22 (a wildly popular small game hunting/target rifle firing the .22lr) can be configured as an "assault weapon" under Feinstein's bill (or most of the state level AWBs), then there's a major problem. The semi-only AR15 (another rifle considered an "assault weapon" by some) has been marketed by Colt since the 60's as a varmint hunting/target rifle (not the only angle Colt took, but one of them). A Remington 11/87 (a semi auto shotgun, usually used for hunting/target shooting) can also be configured into an "assault weapon). Olympic style pistols are considered "assault weapons" by Feinstein's bill or most of the state level AWBs too.

how? the only feature they have is the forward magazine, unless its weight, but they can't weigh tat much.

A pistol has less range than a rifle (since the barrel is shorter, there's less room for the burning gunpowder to accelerate the bullet), and a pistol has a shorter sight radius than a rifle (meaning it's more difficult to be as accurate at range with a pistol than with a rifle).

the un-necked rounds also has a big influence.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The first is a Remington 870, so no. Pump action shotguns aren't covered.

The second is a Ruger 10/22. In it's current configuration, no.

The third is a chassis for the Ruger 10/22, and IIRC would be considered an "assault weapon" under Feinstein's bill (or most of the state level AWBs) due to the pistol grip. If that stock actually folds, and if the barrel is threaded, that's 3 "evil" features.

What do I win?

a cookie for actually reading the law,
which is more than most parties on either side did.

I kinda had to. I live in CT, and what Feinstein proposed is very similar to what passed here.

BTW, chocolate chip works for me.

[Lolzieristan]

...you're not Kaz, are you?