Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Sociobiology]

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.

world, yes
developed world, no
compared to US, way yes.

[Alekera]

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.

Have you ever considered moving to Vermont?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

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.

BTW, want to guess what sort of degree a marksmanship scholarship is for?

Law/Criminal-Justice.

[Sociobiology]

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.

I did a study on chocolate chip cookies for my final project in experimental statistics, Walmart bakery cookies were the most preferred out of 10 brands tested over 500 people.
you will have to settle for an internet cookie.

[Spreewerke]

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.

BTW, want to guess what sort of degree a marksmanship scholarship is for?

Law/Criminal-Justice.

Assuming all Law/CJ majors are aware of/have obtained marksmanship scholarship...

[Hurtful Thoughts]

BTW, want to guess what sort of degree a marksmanship scholarship is for?

Law/Criminal-Justice.

Assuming Law/CJ majors are aware of/have obtained marksmanship scholarship...

I think I'll point out that I know two blind men that can shoot better than the average police-officer out to 100 yards, and have valid driver's licenses.

I shot instinctive out to 30 yards with a stick-bow until I was fifteen.

I think I can handle a firearm from the hip pretty good out to 100.

[Cameroi]

how does this conclusion fallow from its premis?

Here's a better conclusion.
I once used a spoon to poke someone's eye out (I was pissed, he was drunk, it was all I had on hand), thus assaulting him.
Let's ban spoons!

still doesn't fallow, the one form the other, in any logical manor.

[Sociobiology]

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.

And in the right town in Kenya I can shoot a cow with a rocket launcher for 500 bucks that does not make it the intent for which it was designed.
The AR-15 is not a hunting rifle it is a rifle that can be used for hunting.
I don't care if people do it, just that there is no need to use disinformation to justify it.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

The magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip is the only one needed. The new AWBs are 1 feature bans, unlike the old bans.

[Sociobiology]

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


the un-necked rounds also has a big influence.

The magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip is the only one needed. The new AWBs are 1 feature bans, unlike the old bans.

which new one the latest or the failed one?

[Spreewerke]

Assuming Law/CJ majors are aware of/have obtained marksmanship scholarship...

I think I'll point out that I know two blind men that can shoot better than the average police-officer out to 100 yards, and have valid driver's licenses.

I shot instinctive out to 30 yards with a stick-bow until I was fifteen.

I think I can handle a firearm from the hip pretty good out to 100.

You can't.

No one can sans full-auto.

For me, shoulder-fired point-shooting, with a fully-automatic firearm, I doubt my abilities beyond 50m with a full-automatic, at least at this time. If you're trying to hip-fire at 100m with anything, you're going to be having a lot of trial and error.

[Sociobiology]

they can also be used to fend off mobs in the event of a riot. Yeh that does sound a bit lethal and nuts but as far as I'm concerned, looters give up their rights the moment they decided nobody else's matter and acted on that conviction.

And semi-automatic weapons are REALLY nice for home defense.

semi automatic rifles on the other hand are pretty much shit for it, especially if you live with or even near other people.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

Have you ever considered moving to Vermont?

While I love maple syrup, I REALLY hate New England winters. If I ever get a chance to move, it will be either south of here (Virginia or further), or out west (Missouri to Louisiana would probably be my minimum).

[Grinning Dragon]

Wait what.

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

And in the right town in Kenya I can shoot a cow with a rocket launcher for 500 bucks that does not make it the intent for which it was designed.
The AR-15 is not a hunting rifle it is a rifle that can be used for hunting.
I don't care if people do it, just that there is no need to use disinformation to justify it.

What defines a rifle as a "hunting rifle"?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I think I'll point out that I know two blind men that can shoot better than the average police-officer out to 100 yards, and have valid driver's licenses.

I shot instinctive out to 30 yards with a stick-bow until I was fifteen.

I think I can handle a firearm from the hip pretty good out to 100.

You can't.

No one can sans full-auto.

For me, shoulder-fired point-shooting, with a fully-automatic firearm, I doubt my abilities beyond 50m with a full-automatic, at least at this time. If you're trying to hip-fire at 100m with anything, you're going to be having a lot of trial and error.

I believe I just did with a lever-action Henry.

My range doesn't permit rapid-fire.

Takes ALOT of practice, though.

[Spreewerke]

You can't.

No one can sans full-auto.

For me, shoulder-fired point-shooting, with a fully-automatic firearm, I doubt my abilities beyond 50m with a full-automatic, at least at this time. If you're trying to hip-fire at 100m with anything, you're going to be having a lot of trial and error.

I believe I just did with a lever-action Henry.

What was your grouping size?


Also, to whomever suggest a semi-automatic rifle cannot be used for home defense, to that I say: 40gr. V-Max .223 Remington.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I believe I just did with a lever-action Henry.

What was your grouping size?


Also, to whomever suggest a semi-automatic rifle cannot be used for home defense, to that I say: 40gr. V-Max .223 Remington.

.22 Thud-bolt from a Marlin 795 10rd mag.
*Hollow-point .22LR is bad.

About 3 inch from center with a clean barrel. Not quite good enough to split wooden blocks, but still...

On one occasion a local Mexican police official asked Topps to shoot at some silver coins for souvenirs. The chief tossed three silver pesos into the air in rapid succession. Ad scored three hits before the coins reached the ground, winging the bent currency out of the local bull ring.

The dearest wish of Ad Toepperwein's heart was "That every American citizen in good standing shall, in accordance with Article Two of our Bill of Rights, be allowed to keep and bear arms, and that this Constitutional right shall not be infringed! No dictator will ever meddle with a whole nation of marksmen."

Scoped, I can get it down to half an inch and write my name in bullets (time permitting).

[Sociobiology]

And in the right town in Kenya I can shoot a cow with a rocket launcher for 500 bucks that does not make it the intent for which it was designed.
The AR-15 is not a hunting rifle it is a rifle that can be used for hunting.
I don't care if people do it, just that there is no need to use disinformation to justify it.

What defines a rifle as a "hunting rifle"?

a rifle designed from original concept for the purposes of killing non-human animals.
otherwise the phrase has little meaning other than just "rifle".

[Spreewerke]

What was your grouping size?


Also, to whomever suggest a semi-automatic rifle cannot be used for home defense, to that I say: 40gr. V-Max .223 Remington.

.22 Thud-bolt from a Marlin 795 10rd mag.
*Hollow-point .22LR is bad.

About 3 inch from center with a clean barrel. Not quite good enough to split wooden blocks, but still...

Scoped, I can get it down to half an inch and write my name in bullets (time permitting).

You said this was from the hip. Your now-previous post implies otherwise.

[Grinning Dragon]

What defines a rifle as a "hunting rifle"?

a rifle designed from original concept for the purposes of killing non-human animals.
otherwise the phrase has little meaning other than just "rifle".

I see. So hunting rifles in your view should always be of the same design and look, and any attempt to modernize or alter from one of the original designs, designates it as a non hunting rifle?

[Endoria22]

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.

Maybe you should take a look at history and see what happened in Germany, Soviet Russia, China and other places in the world. Millions dead because of "gun-control". It will happen here eventually. You can call me paranoid, but that doesn't mean that it is or isn't happening. Hell, just look at Mexico.

[Occupied Deutschland]

What defines a rifle as a "hunting rifle"?

a rifle designed from original concept for the purposes of killing non-human animals.
otherwise the phrase has little meaning other than just "rifle".

Just to be sure then: FN FNAR

Hunting rifle, correct?

[DuThaal Craftworld]

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) They. Aren't. Fucking. AUTOMATIC.
[a]Try shooting a prairie dog with a bow. I've tried, and failed, and I'm sure so will you. If not, send me the video.
[b]Try killing a moose/Kodiak Black Bear that's been endangering your community for the past few weeks (rooting through trash, getting too close to members of the populace etc) with a bow. Send me a video for this too.
[c]Try getting a bow kill from over a mile away. More video pl0x.
2) Politicians are a thing.
[a]Yes, I can understand why paranoia might rise up when a democratic system is in place. Corruption is also a thing.
[b]The US government works on, and because of, checks and balances. The people having these 'assault weapons', is one of these checks. Take it away and the system becomes unbalanced.
3) I'm sure that people in Germany trusted the police too. And the the SS happened. Same with Cuba. And then there was a coup.
[a]The military and police follow orders. These orders are dictated by politicians. See #2.
[b]THEY AREN'T DESIGNED TO KILL HUMANS WITH MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY! They just look like things that were. And not necessarily with maximum efficiency.

[Tocrowkia]

A great victory was won over the nanny state leftists today. Never forget the heroes who voted no. Never forget the traitors who voted yes.

[Alaskatopia]

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.

As DuThaal Craftworld so eloquently states, you are quite ignorant of other people's realities.

What I get out of your statement is that I'm a wuss for keeping my freezer full of bear, moose, caribou, and reindeer with a rifle. What I want to know though, is my wife incompetent for carrying a rifle for protection in Alaska when she goes fishing or berry picking?

As for your third point: Have you fired an automatic weapon? In past careers I was required to qualify with several belt fed MGs in 7.62, and 5.56 from various positions. I'm not a small guy, and I really have to think to keep an M-4 or M-249 on target on full auto, and that is when I am bracing it. It is problematic with a MK-43 or M240B. Nobody sprays entire classrooms in seconds. Nobody sprays entire bunkers in seconds. Nobody goes "LOLS OMG! FULL AUTO COD4 SNIPER HOLLYWEED MODE ENGAGE!"

People who kill people effectively maintain a controlled rate of fire. I imagine deaths would go down in mass shooting attempts if nutjobs had automatic weapons, because unless you've got a coat size of 56 and a mighty stout frame, you are not going to be controlling 11+ rounds per second of fury.

In regards to the gem in your second point about "being slaughtered by military might", I see that Afghanistan went Peachy for the Russians, and us. Vietnam was a blast for the French (and us). I heard that after 4 or 5 years in the Malay peninsula the Brits sent the commies running and didn't back down by decolonizing mid-fight. All them civilians who shuttled pilots and harassed supply lines during WW2 sure got slaughtered by military might. The Chechen militiamen under command of warlords sure got their asses handed to them on New Year's 94-95.

While there's as many, if not more, examples of a fight gone wrong for the armed citizen, there are fights gone right enough that it is a dangerous prospect. America has a representative gov't, and the 4.0 squared away smart kids don't go into politics. They go into the private sector and make money, or go into the foreign service, hell, some of them even do a stint in the military. However, the people in the head shed are not our best and brightest. They are our people who are naive or narcissistic enough to want power and think they deserve it, and are willing to spend millions campaigning to get it. That is all.