Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Norjagen]

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.

This. You don't give prey animals a better chance against predators by cutting off their horns and hooves. There seems to be this notion that by disarming innocent people, we can save their lives by making them easier to kill. The would-be killers will be so deterred by the raw, intense ease that they'll just decide to do something more challenging. Indeed, by making it easier for someone to kill a bunch of people by disarming them first, we deter people from even entertaining the notion that they might possibly be able to get away with something so easy.

In addition, the second amendment is the only method of enforcement that the people have when it comes to defending their rights. Without the means to fight back, they'd be at the mercy of any agency or entity that said "Free speech? LOL. No. So shoot me. LOL. Warrant? ORLY?"

One could make the argument that the US military would crush any attempt at domestic resistance. The argument is then made that we should disarm the people even further, to make them more able to defend their rights. With less firepower. The oppressors will be nice to them if they just fulfill their servile obligation to die as easily as possible when police or soldiers want them dead. ...LOL.

[Valkstadt]

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.

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:



Which isn't.



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.



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?



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.

Thank you sir

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Ah.
That feeling when you win an argument on NS.

[Nua Corda]

Addendum:

Now, don't you for a second dare lump me in the with the "Teh ebil gubernemnts wat wanna nom on mah freedomz" lot. If assault weapons bans actually did eliminate gun crime, I'd support them. I'm not afraid of the government. If the government does something I don't like, I fight with the ballot box, not my rifle. I also don't carry for self-defense. My solution to crime is living in a good neighborhood, not carrying cash, not living in a big house and not driving a fancy car. If I was going in a bad neighborhood, and I mean a really bad neighborhood, I might bring a sidearm. Emphasis on might. Any firearms in my house go in a safe, and their ammunition goes in a separate safe. I own guns for one reason, and one reason only: they're fun, and I trust the meat I hunt a hell of a lot more than feedlot beef. And I oppose gun bans for one reason and one reason only: they interfere with my fun, without serving any purpose.

[Zarkanians]

Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

Assault rifle definition;
assault rifle
as-sault rifle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed fully automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Is an AR-15 fully automatic?
No.
Is a Bushmaster ACR fully automatic?
No.
Is a civilian FN FAL fully automatic?
No.
It's not an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon. Now assault weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun movement based on cosmetics. The fact that my rifle is black with a pistol grip, foldable stock and flash hider does not make it any more deadly.
Next false statement?
And if you're going after full auto weapon, why? 1 crime since the tax stamp was introduced, and it was by a police officer.

[Ensiferum]

The fact that there are more yes votes than no votes just show how bad mental health care is in America. You do not need an assault rifle. Period. "Well what if the government is tyrannical?" 1) It has been for quite some time now, people argue when it started but it started alright. 2) Tunisia overthrew their government while having the lowest gun to citizen ratio in the world, which is odd seeing as assault rifles are NECESSARY to overthrow a tyrannical regime.

[Valkstadt]

Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

We aren't defending assault rifles. You just dont know what an assault rifle is. Please read Nua Corda's post

[Nua Corda]

Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

The question is why should you, not why shouldn't you.

1.) That's not going to be fixed. There are just so many guns in circulation in the US already that eliminating illegal guns is just not happening. That lower rate is because of registration and licensing, not bans of any sort. Not to mention that the availiblity of illegal guns is a factor of the illegal drug trade.

2.) The average civilian doesn't kill people.

Maybe because it's not? What ignorant people call an "assault rifle" is nothing of the sort.

[Nua Corda]

The fact that there are more yes votes than no votes just show how bad mental health care is in America. You do not need an assault rifle. Period. "Well what if the government is tyrannical?" 1) It has been for quite some time now, people argue when it started but it started alright. 2) Tunisia overthrew their government while having the lowest gun to citizen ratio in the world, which is odd seeing as assault rifles are NECESSARY to overthrow a tyrannical regime.

Let me reiterate: the question is not "why do you need it", the question is "what good would banning it realistically do".

[Occupied Deutschland]

[snip]
Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

1) Gwaaah!
...
2) You are literally using 'literally' in an entirely incorrect manner,

[Libertarian California]

Define "assault weapon".

[Occupied Deutschland]

...You do not need an assault rifle. Period...

Source?

[Black cats luck]

Uhhhh no. Look at alstrilia after banning semi-automatics. Their crime rate went through the rough. But if you look at Switzerland, they require every person/citizen to have a wepon and they have one lowest crime rates. So no to banning assault riffles.

[Zarkanians]

Concealed firearms should be illegal. Unconcealed firearms should be illegal. Hunting rifles are fine. Semi-automatic weapons of any kind are iffy at best. Automatic weapons NO. There is literally no purpose for an automatic weapon other than to kill civilians. I'm just going to ignore the "tyrannical government" bit, because if the US government really does become tyrannical, civilians aren't going to be the ones fighting your army--the majority of the 1st World countries probably will. And you'll be glad for it, because a rebellion would almost certainly end in the rebels being blown away by the much better trained military, and its tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and military-model weapons.

There are a few reasons that the "they can just buy it illegally" logic doesn't hold water. I'll give you two of them.

1) People use Canada as an example, but many of our illegal gun salesmen actually get their guns from the States. And even if we didn't, we have a lower rate of crime than the US.

2) Even if they could obtain it as easily as is predicted here, it'd be harder for the average civilian to find those illegal gun-stores.

Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

Assault rifle definition;
assault rifle
as-sault rifle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed fully automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Is an AR-15 fully automatic?
No.
Is a Bushmaster ACR fully automatic?
No.
Is a civilian FN FAL fully automatic?
No.
It's not an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon. Now assault weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun movement based on cosmetics. The fact that my rifle is black with a pistol grip, foldable stock and flash hider does not make it any more deadly.
Next false statement?
And if you're going after full auto weapon, why? 1 crime since the tax stamp was introduced, and it was by a police officer.

Point at a target. Pull the trigger with a bolt-action rifle or revolver. You make one bullet-hole; then you have to work the bolt or recock the gun. Point at it with a semi-automatic rifle, pull the trigger. In the same time, you can make five holes. Point at it with a fully automatic rifle and pull the trigger; depending on the weapon, you've made anywhere between five to twenty holes in the same time it takes to fire a bolt-action rifle and make it ready to fire again. And that's a conservative estimate. Point at the target with a knife, and you've made no holes, but I'm smart enough to realize that if anyone tried to ban guns outright in the states they'd have a rebellion on their hands anyway (which is pretty disturbing if you ask me).

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. I'm not saying that rifles aren't deadly, but they are CERTAINLY less deadly than fully-automatic weapons, and if we're going to get anywhere we need to start with banning the biggest threats.

Arguments about how there are lots of guns already hold no water, because the only thing that will happen if we don't ban them is that there will be more guns on on the market than there were before. If we're going to start getting rid of them, we need to start now.

Let's not forget that, in real life, you'd be so scared shitless by a criminal holding a gun that you'd be more likely to hit another civilian than you would be the bad guy. That's if you're trained in hitting moving targets, know exactly where the vital spots are on a human being, and are so precise that you'd be able to hit those spots.

And since we're giving definitions, here's one:

Assault:
Verb
Make a physical attack on.
Noun
A physical attack: "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"; "sexual assaults".

[Zarkanians]

[snip]
Why does anyone even try to defend a weapon which is literally named an "*assault* rifle?"

1) Gwaaah!
...
2) You are literally using 'literally' in an entirely incorrect manner,

Not really. I'm pretty sure that these weapons are named 'assault rifles,' so yes, they are literally called assault rifles.

I'll concede it was unnecessary. But not incorrect.

[Ensiferum]

...You do not need an assault rifle. Period...

Source?

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

[Ensiferum]

The fact that there are more yes votes than no votes just show how bad mental health care is in America. You do not need an assault rifle. Period. "Well what if the government is tyrannical?" 1) It has been for quite some time now, people argue when it started but it started alright. 2) Tunisia overthrew their government while having the lowest gun to citizen ratio in the world, which is odd seeing as assault rifles are NECESSARY to overthrow a tyrannical regime.

Let me reiterate: the question is not "why do you need it", the question is "what good would banning it realistically do".

Well seeing as you don't need them it can't do any bad.

[Zarkanians]

Source?

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

Clarification (or something; too lazy to figure out the right word at the moment) : you don't need to be insane to want one; you do need to be insane to need one.

[Arkinesia]

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.

It also costs money to enforce such a ban. It's a pretty hefty price to pay to *potentially* remove up to five percent of all gun murders, which is itself a subset of murders.

The cost-benefit isn't really adding up when we can just regulate “assault weapons” (nobody can ever give me a clear definition of what the fuck that means) and allow people to exercise their freedoms so long as they don't impede on others' right to life—and besides, when you can regulate “assault weapons” you can do so by levying taxes.

That WILL pass a cost-benefit analysis, when we can have greater public safety, respect for civil liberties, and increased revenues all in one package. How a modified AWB from the '94-'04 law (minus the mag limits, just tax bigger magazines) is not on the table as a compromise continues to bewilder me.

[Ensiferum]

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

Clarification (or something; too lazy to figure out the right word at the moment) : you don't need to be insane to want one; you do need to be insane to need one.

Precisely! Thanks for clearing that up. My point is that, if you NEED one you are mentally unstable or insane but if you WANT one that's just normal. Let's face it, guns are cool, but there is a difference between thoughts and actions.

[Valkstadt]

Can I please be Piers Morgan? He has the most persuading case against guns and why they should be banned.
"You are a very stupid man arent you?"
"Are you insane or something?"
"Why are you so stupid and ignorant?"
this guy is a moron

[Occupied Deutschland]

Point at a target. Pull the trigger with a bolt-action rifle or revolver. You make one bullet-hole; then you have to work the bolt or recock the gun. Point at it with a semi-automatic rifle, pull the trigger. In the same time, you can make five holes (1). Point at it with a fully automatic rifle and pull the trigger; depending on the weapon, you've made anywhere between five to twenty holes in the same time it takes to fire a bolt-action rifle and make it ready to fire again. And that's a conservative estimate. Point at the target with a knife, and you've made no holes, but I'm smart enough to realize that if anyone tried to ban guns outright in the states they'd have a rebellion on their hands anyway (which is pretty disturbing if you ask me). (2)

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. I'm not saying that rifles aren't deadly, but they are CERTAINLY less deadly than fully-automatic weapons, and if we're going to get anywhere we need to start with banning the biggest threats. (3)

Arguments about how there are lots of guns already hold no water, because the only thing that will happen if we don't ban them is that there will be more guns on on the market than there were before (4). If we're going to start getting rid of them, we need to start now. (5)

Let's not forget that, in real life, you'd be so scared shitless by a criminal holding a gun that you'd be more likely to hit another civilian than you would be the bad guy (6). That's if you're trained in hitting moving targets, know exactly where the vital spots are on a human being, and are so precise that you'd be able to hit those spots.

And since we're giving definitions, here's one:

Assault:
Verb
Make a physical attack on.
Noun
A physical attack: "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"; "sexual assaults". (7)

1) Overestimate is overestimate. Besides, if you are comparing it to a revolver you're going to have the SAME EXACT RATE OF FIRE (maybe slightly slower or faster depending on the cylinder mechanism I suppose).

2) Not really. People seem to have this odd connection to things which they need to stay alive. England doesn't really have the problem anymore because they hunted them all out, but for western states in the US bears, wolves, and other sundry varieties of predatory critters are very common and pose a substantial threat.

3) Okay. Semi-automatic rifles aren't the biggest threat. Please check your argument and post again, or dial up your wikipedia for more information. This is a recording application "know your shit please".

4) Oddly, even with more guns on the market (and more dangerous 'assault weapons' as well since 2004) the homocide rate has been steadily decreasing. Hmmm...

5) No thanks.

6) Self-defense uses of guns aren't appropriate when one is being held up by a person who already has a gun. Either your being disingenuous in an attempt to score a point, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

7) Pointless (adj.) - of or having little or no relation to the topic at hand. Being irrelevant to the discussion. Eg: The use of this definition is pointless, much as the term 'assault weapon' is.

Why, you ask? Because if you're REALLY hinging on such technical labeling in the English language then the you have failed.

Besides, in the context of 'assault weapon' 'assault' is being used as an adjective, not a verb.

[Curiosityness]

Why not? This kid would be dead if they were illegal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI

So obviously they shouldnt be illegal due to one occurance?

ok i take banning them back because poeple would just get them some how anyways just like drugs and things like that

[Occupied Deutschland]

Source?

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

So...no source then. Got'cha.

Let me reiterate: the question is not "why do you need it", the question is "what good would banning it realistically do".

Well seeing as you don't need them it can't do any bad.

Why do you insist on using statements of fact that you can't back up with a source?

Precisely! Thanks for clearing that up. My point is that, if you NEED one you are mentally unstable or insane but if you WANT one that's just normal (1). Let's face it, guns are cool, but there is a difference between thoughts and actions (2).

1) Right...because THAT standard certainly doesn't have any holes in it. Because people don't NEED very much. Food, water, shelter. Why do you need a car? Or a television? Clearly these should be banned as well because you don't NEED them you just WANT them. They're cool, but there is a difference between NEED and WANT.

2) ...Okay? Where did this come from? Left-field, is where this came from.