NATION

PASSWORD

Should Assault Weapons be banned?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should Assault Weapons be banned?

Yes.
426
36%
No.
755
64%
 
Total votes : 1181

User avatar
Gun Manufacturers
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9246
Founded: Jan 23, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gun Manufacturers » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:28 pm

The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.


What would banning full auto/select fire weapons do? It won't impact crime (IIRC, there have been 1-2 crimes committed by legally owned full auto/select fire weapons since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and one of those was committed by a police officer), so what benefit are we looking for?

Just because you don't see a legitimate reason for something, doesn't mean it should be banned.
Any accident you can walk away from is one I can laugh at.

DOJ's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi ... -p0126.pdf

Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...


Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo


Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.


Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

User avatar
Laiosenia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Laiosenia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:31 pm

No, it is unnecessary to ban any weapons. What is necessary, however, is a more secure process to acquire them.

User avatar
The Realm of Edenio
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Mar 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

More Problems

Postby The Realm of Edenio » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:35 pm

In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.

User avatar
Arkinesia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13162
Founded: Aug 22, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Arkinesia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:37 pm

What's an assault weapon?
Bisexual, polyamorous, atheist, Southerner, right-libertarian.

Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.

User avatar
Valkstadt
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1107
Founded: Oct 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Valkstadt » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:40 pm

Ponderosa wrote:The price of ignoring the chance of a tyrannical government can be as high as six million dead Jews. So yeah, I'm not going to take my chances. Remember, Germany was a democracy right before Hitler came to power.

Hitler banned guns too. That turned out pretty well.
If guns are banned what happens when America as a Republic falls? America and Rome are alot alike. We just haven't fully became the Empire yet. It will eventually just be whoever commands the military rules the country because no one will be able to do anything. Just like the final century of the Roman Empire.
Last edited by Valkstadt on Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Likes- Conservatism, the South, Classic Rock, the New Orleans Saints, College Football.

If you are so weak as to be hurt by mere words then I apologize. Political Correctness is bullshit. Learn how to take a punch.

User avatar
Valkstadt
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1107
Founded: Oct 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Valkstadt » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:42 pm

The Realm of Edenio wrote:In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal
Likes- Conservatism, the South, Classic Rock, the New Orleans Saints, College Football.

If you are so weak as to be hurt by mere words then I apologize. Political Correctness is bullshit. Learn how to take a punch.

User avatar
Idaho Conservatives
Minister
 
Posts: 3066
Founded: Jul 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Idaho Conservatives » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:43 pm

Valkstadt wrote:automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal


What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?
"Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way" --General George S. Patton

If You're A Fellow Ham, TG me!!!
KF7LCE

User avatar
Gun Manufacturers
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9246
Founded: Jan 23, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gun Manufacturers » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:46 pm

The New One wrote:
Genivaria wrote:First define 'assault weapons'.
I AM very much in favor of banning outright all fully automatic weapons.


Why? During the North Hollywood shootout, two men using full autos killed no one. The Virginia Tech shooter used semi-autos.


The full auto weapons used in the North Hollywood shootout were not legal full auto weapons, they were semi auto weapons illegally converted to fire full auto.
Any accident you can walk away from is one I can laugh at.

DOJ's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi ... -p0126.pdf

Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...


Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo


Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.


Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

User avatar
Gun Manufacturers
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9246
Founded: Jan 23, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gun Manufacturers » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:48 pm

Genivaria wrote:
Idaho Conservatives wrote:
IMO, if you want to go thru a thorough background check, put down as much as $100,000 for the gun, and spend around $10 in ammo per second of trigger time to get a machine gun, then the ball is in your court.

Would that not still effectively put automatic weapons out of reach of the majority of Americans?
Actually let me put it another way.
Which is cheaper and more effective?
Banning automatic weapons outright, or making them prohibitively expensive?


More effective for what? A complete ban on full auto/select fire weapons won't do anything to reduce crime.
Last edited by Gun Manufacturers on Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Any accident you can walk away from is one I can laugh at.

DOJ's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi ... -p0126.pdf

Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...


Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo


Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.


Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

User avatar
Meinkraft
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1832
Founded: Dec 08, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Meinkraft » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:52 pm

I just want the law to be just open enough so I can drive this around.
Last edited by Kirby Delauter on Wed, Jan 7, 2015 2:00 am, edited Delauter times in total.


ANTIFA!

Soldier wrote:And then he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth. And then he hearded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one!
Alert Level:
5- At Peace
4- Raid Watch
3- At War
2- Nuclear War
1- Taking of the Capital
I'm Pan. Deal with it.
Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:55 pm

Divair wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
Ask the Infantry.

Ask them what? How unrealistic fantasies become reality? Do they have experience in that? ;)


To be fair, it's not that irrational a complaint. All states inevitably become self-serving entities, and will eventually descend into corruption. It's happened before in the U.S., it's going on currently, with some of the policies in place currently, and it could get even worse in the future.

User avatar
Nua Corda
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8342
Founded: Jul 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nua Corda » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:56 pm

Arkinesia wrote:What's an assault weapon?


That's very much open to debate.

In the context of military hardware, it's usually something like a SMAW, or a large cannon used for, well, assaulting fortifications.

In the context of paranoid, uneducated people? It's any kind of firearm that looks scary.
Last edited by Nua Corda on Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Call me Corda.
Sarcasm Warning! This post may not be entirely serious
Bullpups, Keymod and Magpul, oh my!
Bong Hits for Jesus!
Like Sci-Fi? Like Worldbuilding? Check out the Uprising Project!
Renegade for Life|Gun-toting Liberal. Because fuck stereotypes|Your friendly neighborhood gun nerd. Ask me anything!|Shameless Mass Effect Fan. I like Quarians a bit more than I should...|This nation is not a nation, and may or may not represent my views|I have been known to draw guns for folks, occasionally
Because people care, right?

User avatar
Valkstadt
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1107
Founded: Oct 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Valkstadt » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:56 pm

Idaho Conservatives wrote:
Valkstadt wrote:automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal


What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.
Likes- Conservatism, the South, Classic Rock, the New Orleans Saints, College Football.

If you are so weak as to be hurt by mere words then I apologize. Political Correctness is bullshit. Learn how to take a punch.

User avatar
Norjagen
Diplomat
 
Posts: 666
Founded: Feb 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Norjagen » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:56 pm

The Realm of Edenio wrote:In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.


It's already happened, in effect. The National Firearms Act of 1934 categorized automatic weapons as restricted items. In order to own one, a prospective buyer needs to register with the ATF, get fingerprinted, undergo a stringent background check, purchase a tax stamp for 200 dollars, obtain written permission from his local chief LEO, and conduct the transfer through a licensed dealer. All of this, of course, is in addition to any state or local laws and permits involved.

In addition, further legislation prohibits the sale of automatic weapons made after May of 1986 to anyone other than Military or Law Enforcement. This has capped the number of registered machine guns circulating in the marketplace, and driven the prices up, pricing all but the very wealthy out of such firearms.

Laiosenia wrote:No, it is unnecessary to ban any weapons. What is necessary, however, is a more secure process to acquire them.


That is an easy suggestion to make, but how do you propose we force buyers and sellers to conduct business in this more secure way? Anyone can visit a friend's house, exchange cash at the dinner table and leave with a firearm. As it stands, this is legal, so long as the firearm remains within a single state. Passing a law mandating background checks would criminalize this behavior, but how would it be enforced?



And regarding semi-auto rifles in general; so-called "assault weapons" ("patrol rifles" if bought by a cop, "personal defense weapons" if fully auto and bought by a cop, btw) account for less than one percent of all murders committed in the United States, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. The majority of murders are committed with handguns. Of course, a politician trying to make a mark without committing electoral suicide can't go after handguns, because they'll lose their right to play the "I support your right to self-defense" card.

Here's why they're focusing on modern sporting rifles: They're an easy target. At least, they were in 1994. They've become much more mainstream since the sunset of the last AWB. Without any real solutions, and yet under pressure to "do something," they're lashing out at semi-autos, because they think it will result in a feel-good moment for their constituents, without fixing the real problems, and without prematurely ending their own careers.
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards. :(

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

User avatar
Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 411
Founded: Feb 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:57 pm

Idaho Conservatives wrote:
Valkstadt wrote:automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal


What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?


When someone 200 yards away is threatening you or your loved ones and you NEED a rifle to take them out, are you going to blast holes in the walls all day or drop the target?

/sarcasm
"One common theme in history is that there was a pop quiz on Wednesdays."

OOC: American-Human married male, enjoys the separation of state and religion and seeks the separation of state and religion from everything else. MT / PMT RPer, but willing to try FT. I want a government small enough to overthrow with a vote.

IC: The Iron Heel + 1984 + Brave New World = 700 years worth of global dystopia to play with, er, as...

"Treat every question as if it were loaded. Never point a question at anyone or anything you don't intend to put a hole in."

User avatar
Gun Manufacturers
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9246
Founded: Jan 23, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gun Manufacturers » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:58 pm

Valkstadt wrote:
The Realm of Edenio wrote:In my own personal opinion, this "banning of automatic weapons" would cause more problems with people wanting them to create chaos in this world. I don't understand why people would have these types of weapons in the first place. "Oh... it is just for our protection." That is what people say, but really, I have met a person who owns a automatic weapon and he says that "it is just fun to 'play with'." That is just plain wrong. Banning automatic weapons is not going to happen... it is simply useless.

automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal


As stated before multiple times by multiple people, the bolded statement is wrong.

As to mag capacity, there are reasons for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Target shooting and defense are good reasons. An argument can be made that varmint (such as prairie dog) hunting can also benefit from magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Any accident you can walk away from is one I can laugh at.

DOJ's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi ... -p0126.pdf

Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...


Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo


Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.


Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

User avatar
Idaho Conservatives
Minister
 
Posts: 3066
Founded: Jul 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Idaho Conservatives » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:01 pm

Valkstadt wrote:
Idaho Conservatives wrote:
What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.


Now that's fifty, not eleven.

Why not fifty? Why not thirty? Why not ten? Why not one? Where do we draw the line on mag capacity at, and why?
"Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way" --General George S. Patton

If You're A Fellow Ham, TG me!!!
KF7LCE

User avatar
Eliasonia
Minister
 
Posts: 2144
Founded: Oct 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Eliasonia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:01 pm

No
╬ The Iron Party ╬
Liberals: Promoting Freedom, unless it's guns, hunting, tobacco, food, what you can drive, how much money you can make, what you can say, and where you can pray
Maineiacs wrote:There once was a man from Belfast
Whose balls were constructed of brass.
In stormy weather
They'd clang together
And lightening shot out of his ass. :D

New East Ireland wrote:
East germanias wrote:no"
*continues to cry*

*Gives a stuffed Hath doll*
Here you go.. When you squeeze its weenier, it talks and shoots fire from it's eyes..

Mushet wrote:
Necro-Paroom wrote:*Leaks pus*

*leaks cum*
:blush: I'm just very excited to be here
Economic Left/Right: 3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31
Political Test

User avatar
DuThaal Craftworld
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1258
Founded: Feb 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DuThaal Craftworld » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:04 pm

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.


What would banning full auto/select fire weapons do? It won't impact crime (IIRC, there have been 1-2 crimes committed by legally owned full auto/select fire weapons since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and one of those was committed by a police officer), so what benefit are we looking for?

Just because you don't see a legitimate reason for something, doesn't mean it should be banned.

Only one, actually. And yes, it was the police officer.
Eldar. Not Dark Eldar. Eldar.
FT+FanT
METAL BAWKSES

Nua Corda wrote:Read the rest of the quote by clicking the 'wrote' button.

Mindhar on The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
Norjagen
Diplomat
 
Posts: 666
Founded: Feb 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Norjagen » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:05 pm

Idaho Conservatives wrote:
Valkstadt wrote:if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.


Now that's fifty, not eleven.

Why not fifty? Why not thirty? Why not ten? Why not one? Where do we draw the line on mag capacity at, and why?


Not to mention, the killer will clearly only have one mag. Right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLYNBF9FajU I mean, it's not like reloads happen quickly or anything. ...Right?
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards. :(

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

User avatar
Valkstadt
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1107
Founded: Oct 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Valkstadt » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:05 pm

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Valkstadt wrote:automatic guns are already banned in the United States. People are freaking out over the semi automatic high capacity rifles. I support the use of semi automatic rifles but the mag needs to be limited to like 10. Thats not such a big deal


As stated before multiple times by multiple people, the bolded statement is wrong.

As to mag capacity, there are reasons for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Target shooting and defense are good reasons. An argument can be made that varmint (such as prairie dog) hunting can also benefit from magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I think the whole Gun Control Debate is a bunch of liberals trying to take advantage of the SHES shooting and make it an issue with gun control. Banning guns will only make those that obey the law defenseless. Criminals will still find a way to illegally obtain guns much like they do with cocaine, pot, heroin and other "illegal" substances that are all over the streets.
Likes- Conservatism, the South, Classic Rock, the New Orleans Saints, College Football.

If you are so weak as to be hurt by mere words then I apologize. Political Correctness is bullshit. Learn how to take a punch.

User avatar
Faith Hope Charity
Minister
 
Posts: 2027
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Faith Hope Charity » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:10 pm

First of all... what a vague question, secondly, what defines an assault weapon? Anyone can pick up just about anything and use it to assault someone else, so methinks the terms is more likely applied to a few tools that a few in the government would like to confiscate from the general law-abiding public and strengthen the hand of criminals.

I for one am not in favor of any weapons ban... weapons help keep the citizens and government on equal footing. I refuse to be a helpless subject with no means of recourse against an abusive, power-grabbing government.
Je Suis Geller
Economic Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian: -6.77

People who denounce the free market and voluntary exchange, and are for control and coercion, believe they have more intelligence and superior wisdom to the masses. What's more, they believe they've been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Of course, they have what they consider good reasons for doing so, but every tyrant that has ever existed has had what he believed were good reasons for restricting the liberty of others.
-Walter E. Williams

http://www.isidewith.com/results/426705837

User avatar
DuThaal Craftworld
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1258
Founded: Feb 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DuThaal Craftworld » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:12 pm

Valkstadt wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
As stated before multiple times by multiple people, the bolded statement is wrong.

As to mag capacity, there are reasons for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Target shooting and defense are good reasons. An argument can be made that varmint (such as prairie dog) hunting can also benefit from magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I think the whole Gun Control Debate is a bunch of liberals trying to take advantage of the SHES shooting and make it an issue with gun control. Banning guns will only make those that obey the law defenseless. Criminals will still find a way to illegally obtain guns much like they do with cocaine, pot, heroin and other "illegal" substances that are all over the streets.

But no, TEH EBIL BWACK WIFLES R KIWWING EBERYONE!
Eldar. Not Dark Eldar. Eldar.
FT+FanT
METAL BAWKSES

Nua Corda wrote:Read the rest of the quote by clicking the 'wrote' button.

Mindhar on The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
Nua Corda
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8342
Founded: Jul 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nua Corda » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:19 pm

Valkstadt wrote:
Idaho Conservatives wrote:
What's wrong with an 11-shot mag?

if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.


Image

This is an SKS. It doesn't have a detachable magazine. It has a 10+1 round integral magazine and is loaded with 10 round stripper clips. It's 100% ban legal. For killing unarmed civilians, it's just as effective as this:

Image

Which isn't.

Image

This is an SMLE. It's a bolt-action rifle. It also feeds from 10 round stripper clips (the magazine is detachable, but only one magazine was issued while it was in service with the British, and clips were expected to be used. The magazine can be welded to the frame). It's also totally ban legal. And guess what? It's also perfectly good for killing tons of unarmed people.

Image

This is a Martini-Henry. It's a single-shot rifle. It was used by the British during the age of imperialism. It was devastatingly effective against the Zulus, and other African tribes which had no guns.


What's the point of all this? "Assault weapons bans" are useless. They ban cosmetic features that have little to no effect on actual functionality of the rifle.

Wanna guess which gun kills more people than any other?

Image

Short-barreled, small caliber revolvers and other handguns. Rifles, according to the FBI, account for roughly 2-5% of total murders. Shotguns account for an almost identical percentage. The rest (~90%) are either handguns, or firearms that defy classification.

Even if an AWB did eliminate all crime committed with "assault weapons", it would stop a grand total of under 5% of gun crime. And it would be incredibly unfair for us responsible gun owners. And that's assuming it would work. See, here's the thing: even if you ban the manufacture of these weapons, there are millions of them out there. Even if you ban the sale of them, there are still millions out there. If you confiscate all of them, you're either going to have to not compensate the owners, or you're going to spend an absurd, and I mean absurd, amount of money in buybacks. And even then it will be almost impossible to enforce. And you'll create an illegal market for them. A market with no background checks, no waiting periods, no oversight of any kind.

So, please. Don't advocate these stupid, ineffective, and unnecessary laws.
Call me Corda.
Sarcasm Warning! This post may not be entirely serious
Bullpups, Keymod and Magpul, oh my!
Bong Hits for Jesus!
Like Sci-Fi? Like Worldbuilding? Check out the Uprising Project!
Renegade for Life|Gun-toting Liberal. Because fuck stereotypes|Your friendly neighborhood gun nerd. Ask me anything!|Shameless Mass Effect Fan. I like Quarians a bit more than I should...|This nation is not a nation, and may or may not represent my views|I have been known to draw guns for folks, occasionally
Because people care, right?

User avatar
DuThaal Craftworld
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1258
Founded: Feb 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DuThaal Craftworld » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:23 pm

Nua Corda wrote:
Valkstadt wrote:if someone were to shoot up a mall only 10 would die before he has to reload instead of 50 because he has a 50 round mag.


Image

This is an SKS. It doesn't have a detachable magazine. It has a 10+1 round integral magazine and is loaded with 10 round stripper clips. It's 100% ban legal. For killing unarmed civilians, it's just as effective as this:

Image

Which isn't.

Image

This is an SMLE. It's a bolt-action rifle. It also feeds from 10 round stripper clips (the magazine is detachable, but only one magazine was issued while it was in service with the British, and clips were expected to be used. The magazine can be welded to the frame). It's also totally ban legal. And guess what? It's also perfectly good for killing tons of unarmed people.

Image

This is a Martini-Henry. It's a single-shot rifle. It was used by the British during the age of imperialism. It was devastatingly effective against the Zulus, and other African tribes which had no guns.


What's the point of all this? "Assault weapons bans" are useless. They ban cosmetic features that have little to no effect on actual functionality of the rifle.

Wanna guess which gun kills more people than any other?

Image

Short-barreled, small caliber revolvers and other handguns. Rifles, according to the FBI, account for roughly 2-5% of total murders. Shotguns account for an almost identical percentage. The rest (~90%) are either handguns, or firearms that defy classification.

Even if an AWB did eliminate all crime committed with "assault weapons", it would stop a grand total of under 5% of gun crime. And it would be incredibly unfair for us responsible gun owners. And that's assuming it would work. See, here's the thing: even if you ban the manufacture of these weapons, there are millions of them out there. Even if you ban the sale of them, there are still millions out there. If you confiscate all of them, you're either going to have to not compensate the owners, or you're going to spend an absurd, and I mean absurd, amount of money in buybacks. And even then it will be almost impossible to enforce. And you'll create an illegal market for them. A market with no background checks, no waiting periods, no oversight of any kind.

So, please. Don't advocate these stupid, ineffective, and unnecessary laws.

You just earned yourself a quote.
Eldar. Not Dark Eldar. Eldar.
FT+FanT
METAL BAWKSES

Nua Corda wrote:Read the rest of the quote by clicking the 'wrote' button.

Mindhar on The Lord of the Rings

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Ameriganastan, Amjedia, Arcturus Novus, Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners, Baltenstein, Berhakonia, Centrum Terrae, Comradeistan, Dazchan, Estanglia, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Gagium, Genivaria, Google Adsense [Bot], Guyomartand, Heloin, Impaled Nazarene, Kelk, Khrovia, Kortunal, Kragholm Free States, Lost Memories, Majestic-12 [Bot], Major-Tom, Ngelmish, Novus America, Nu-Cascadia, Rogue Hyperpower, San Lumen, Shrillland, Slotted Floppies, The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp, The Greater Ohio Valley, The New California Republic, United Massachusetts, Vassenor, Voxija, Washington Resistance Army, Wayskia, Xmara, Yaana Noore

Advertisement

Remove ads