• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why would you own an assault rifle?

Would you own an assault Rifle? Why?


  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
" The 100 round mag jammed on him. Because bigger mags do that. Had he brought 20 10 round mags and just reloaded, more people would have died as the chance of a jam would have been less."

I love the insanity of your statement. So 100 round mags are defective, but I still want anyone to be able to buy one on the internet and it's a good thing he had one ? If they don't work why do you still want them to be sold? This "slippery slope" BS has gotten ridiculous.

And I ask you the same question how many died from his homemade bombs? None at Columbine either. Guns are far more available and just as deadly.

And why is this nutcases AR-15 so much less culpable that those "evil" weapons that killed Brian Terry?
A better question would be "Since the shooter started his attack using a shotgun, his AR15 jammed early on and he discarded his AR15 with the extended magazine, reverting to the handgun with which he shot most of his victims, why then do anti-gun morons completely ignore ther facts of the case and focus on banning evil 'assault rifles' and 'extended magazines'?"

Answer...because they dont GIVE a **** about the facts...or the truth...and ANY opportunity to attack guns is a good opportunity.
 
"the U.S. firearm homicide rate is about 20 times higher than in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. Unsurprisingly then, they claim that in recent years, among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80 percent of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States. "

Aurora and the U.S. Obsession with Guns: Leadership Wanted to Fight Political Capture | Brookings Institution
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**


The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)
.

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES


More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.


<snip>


Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.
Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack

Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009


article-1196941-015B644E00001005-992_468x309.jpg


In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax. In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
This is from an official parliament report.

GunCite-Gun Accidents

Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).
 
That's not how it works. YOU are the one that claimed that criminals get their guns through normal gun dealers. It is your job to PROVE IT. It's called supporting your argument, you know that thing you don't do.

Hmm, Wasn't that what "Fast and Furious" proved beyond a shadow of a doubt?
 
Constitutional Right my ass, when the Constitution was written we didn't have Assault Riffles. Everybody had guns because they hunted for their food, they didn't have high tech homes where they could protect themselves, and they did not live in an age where they could just fire off a nuke to protect themselves. Times have changed, I'm not saying that gun laws would prevent these shootings, but what I am saying is that not having these laws in place gives people a more easy means of doing so. If somebody were to obtain Assault Riffles illegally, we know that the only thing that can be done is to step up enforcement, there is no question whether if we had a law in place would it have stopped this event. Nobody needs an Assault Riffle for protection, and if you do, then you have bigger problems on your hands.
 
Man, I give up, I have come to realize there is far too much ignorance in this thread. And after all the ignorant talking points are shown to be factually incorrect, along comes a new person spouting off the same BS. It's really pointless. Obviously education is not a priority in many.
 
Constitutional Right my ass, when the Constitution was written we didn't have Assault Riffles. Everybody had guns because they hunted for their food, they didn't have high tech homes where they could protect themselves, and they did not live in an age where they could just fire off a nuke to protect themselves. Times have changed, I'm not saying that gun laws would prevent these shootings, but what I am saying is that not having these laws in place gives people a more easy means of doing so. If somebody were to obtain Assault Riffles illegally, we know that the only thing that can be done is to step up enforcement, there is no question whether if we had a law in place would it have stopped this event. Nobody needs an Assault Riffle for protection, and if you do, then you have bigger problems on your hands.

The "assault rifle" (a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle) is nothing more than the current equivalent of the musket. The idea of the second amendment is to allow all citizens to be able to be armed for self defense. I personally prefer a pistol for this purpose and use a rifle only for hunting. The idea that banning THINGS either makes them rare or keeps them away from criminals can be easily disproven when looking at recreational drugs. It is obvious that our "police protection" is not an ample deterrent for crime, and that ares under strict firearms laws are no safer than the "wild west". If someone is willing to kill you for your wallet, car or shoes they are VERY unlikely to be "afraid" to get caught with a gun.
 
Constitutional Right my ass, when the Constitution was written we didn't have Assault Riffles. Everybody had guns because they hunted for their food, they didn't have high tech homes where they could protect themselves, and they did not live in an age where they could just fire off a nuke to protect themselves. Times have changed, I'm not saying that gun laws would prevent these shootings, but what I am saying is that not having these laws in place gives people a more easy means of doing so. If somebody were to obtain Assault Riffles illegally, we know that the only thing that can be done is to step up enforcement, there is no question whether if we had a law in place would it have stopped this event. Nobody needs an Assault Riffle for protection, and if you do, then you have bigger problems on your hands.
What is an 'assault rifle'? What is the difference between a semi-auto .223 hunting rifle and an AR15? Rather than embarrass yourself, shall I tell you? The AR15 looks scary. Ballistics is identical. Firing action is identical.
 
Let me state my bias first: I have never even fired a gun and I wish 99% of the people who owned them did not. I seriously envy countries where guns are so uncommon, even the cops don't usually carry them. That said, I understand gun-control types like myself lost the constitutional debate and now must accept a country in which gun ownership (should be) virtually uncontrolled.

But as to assault weapons, I think the slippery slope is not as to other guns but as to other weapons. If these are legal, why not other means of mass destruction?
 
Hmm, Wasn't that what "Fast and Furious" proved beyond a shadow of a doubt?

What "Fast and Furious" did prove is the best way to obtain a straw purchased gun is through the US Government.

fast-and-furious-bumper-sticker-drug-cartels-kill-people-political-cartoon.jpg
 
Let me state my bias first: I have never even fired a gun and I wish 99% of the people who owned them did not. I seriously envy countries where guns are so uncommon, even the cops don't usually carry them. That said, I understand gun-control types like myself lost the constitutional debate and now must accept a country in which gun ownership (should be) virtually uncontrolled.

But as to assault weapons, I think the slippery slope is not as to other guns but as to other weapons. If these are legal, why not other means of mass destruction?
Pinkie...if we go STRICTLY by the words and intent of the constitution, the framers INTENT was that the average citizenry NOT be denied military grade firearms by the government. People may not like it, but that is undeniable. Bill of individual rights...the need for a free citizenry and standing militias (US Code clearly defines the organized and unorganized militia) those rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the government. Thats not interpretation...thats verbatim.

But part 2...what IS an assault weapon? I can put a pistol grip on my standard 20 gauge shotgun and I have just made it an 'assault weapon'. I can put a tactical rail system that allows me to attach a flashlight, grip, laser sight, etc and now my standard weapon has become an "assault weapon." Its silly but there it is.
 
Pinkie...if we go STRICTLY by the words and intent of the constitution, the framers INTENT was that the average citizenry NOT be denied military grade firearms by the government.

I disagree that this is the proper reading of the constitution or the decision finding for gun rights. However, I don't disagree that the fundamental question of whether Americans have gun rights has been resolved -- not the way I had hoped, but still, it is a closed question IMO.


People may not like it, but that is undeniable. Bill of individual rights...the need for a free citizenry and standing militias (US Code clearly defines the organized and unorganized militia) those rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the government. Thats not interpretation...thats verbatim.

I don't know if you are quoting from the constitution or from DC v. Heller. Either way, I agree: the gun rights of Americans have been established and if we are to claim to live by the rule of law, we have to accept them.

But part 2...what IS an assault weapon? I can put a pistol grip on my standard 20 gauge shotgun and I have just made it an 'assault weapon'. I can put a tactical rail system that allows me to attach a flashlight, grip, laser sight, etc and now my standard weapon has become an "assault weapon." Its silly but there it is.

Most laws have these kinds of "bright line" problems. When describing the difference between what is legal and what is prohibited, some technicality or other seems arbitrary. Yet we need and want such laws and we abide by them, most of us. The mere fact that a law has to describe what is prohibited does not seem to me enough reason to claim it is foolish.
 
Let me state my bias first: I have never even fired a gun and I wish 99% of the people who owned them did not. I seriously envy countries where guns are so uncommon, even the cops don't usually carry them. That said, I understand gun-control types like myself lost the constitutional debate and now must accept a country in which gun ownership (should be) virtually uncontrolled.

But as to assault weapons, I think the slippery slope is not as to other guns but as to other weapons. If these are legal, why not other means of mass destruction?
Pinkie, two points. 1) Go to a shooting range and fire a gun, you don't know what you are missing, it's a blast(pun not intended) and 2) Assualt rifles aren't really as destructive as some people think, the difference between a semi-auto variant and an assault rifle is a selector switch, assault rifles can fire in either semi-automatic, burst fire, or if the mechanism allows for it a fully auto.

I can tell you that full auto can be classified as "waste fire" due to the rideup on those particular guns, *if* you land a shot in full auto it's a matter of statistics and not accuracy. Burst fire is more accurate but takes practice to master anticipating the rideup. The reason for full auto is suppression fire, or to better explain it's to keep opposing forces heads down so they can be flanked. That said an automatic isn't a WMD by any stretch, their effective range is less than 750 yards typically and are best served at 250yd or less. Not saying a marksman can't hit anything at around 750 but it's not within the weapon's effective zone.

There are mounted machine guns that can tear dwellings apart, but it's a stabilization and rate of fire attribute. They all fire similar rounds, most LMGs and MGs fire the 7.62 Nato round which is a "hot round" which is around 1/3cm larger than the .308 which is among the most common hunting rounds in the U.S. The thing about LMGs or "light" machine guns is that they are mobile but suffer from jamming and the same innacuracies as assault rifles and mounted machine guns do no one any good in an all out assault due to weight and immobility. I guess my point is that automatics aren't really all that scary when you learn their capabilities, they have just as many pluses as minuses and aren't really all that conducive to the most common criminal activity and they are far from super weapons.
 
I disagree that this is the proper reading of the constitution or the decision finding for gun rights. However, I don't disagree that the fundamental question of whether Americans have gun rights has been resolved -- not the way I had hoped, but still, it is a closed question IMO.




I don't know if you are quoting from the constitution or from DC v. Heller. Either way, I agree: the gun rights of Americans have been established and if we are to claim to live by the rule of law, we have to accept them.



Most laws have these kinds of "bright line" problems. When describing the difference between what is legal and what is prohibited, some technicality or other seems arbitrary. Yet we need and want such laws and we abide by them, most of us. The mere fact that a law has to describe what is prohibited does not seem to me enough reason to claim it is foolish.
One thing to consider about interpretation is that not long after the drafting of the constitution citizens were holding military equipment in their private stock, for instance, merchant ships had cannons and with the blessing of our government.
 
I disagree that this is the proper reading of the constitution or the decision finding for gun rights. However, I don't disagree that the fundamental question of whether Americans have gun rights has been resolved -- not the way I had hoped, but still, it is a closed question IMO.
I don't know if you are quoting from the constitution or from DC v. Heller. Either way, I agree: the gun rights of Americans have been established and if we are to claim to live by the rule of law, we have to accept them. Most laws have these kinds of "bright line" problems. When describing the difference between what is legal and what is prohibited, some technicality or other seems arbitrary. Yet we need and want such laws and we abide by them, most of us. The mere fact that a law has to describe what is prohibited does not seem to me enough reason to claim it is foolish.
In this situation the question isnt so much over law as definition...and in fact, two mere words. "Assault weapon". Anti-gun groups seized on those two words and they dominate discussions. People clamor for 'assault weapon bans', meanwhile, most are just repeating words. The Colorado shooting did not begin with an 'assault rifle'. The initial weapon of choice was a shotgun. NO ONE would call for an end to shotgun use. Then, he switched to his "assault rifle with the extended magazine" which promptly jammed on him so he switched to his third weapon...a handgun which (like Cho at VaTech) he used to inflict the most damage. As the smoke clears, what is the rhetoric. Lets ban "assault weapons". See...its not about whether or not it is the right thing to do or whether it will solve or even help anything. Its just a ban...but at least its 'something'.

As for the reading of the constitution...I get that legal minds wrestle with this...but they do so from a position of personal bias. I defy ANYONE to logically explain how the framers meant the Bill of Rights to be ANYTHING other than a declaration of individual rights and limitations on governments with regard to citizens...all of them...well...except the 2nd amendment. That just doesnt even make sense. You may disagree with it...but it doesnt change the words or intent.
 
I'm busy working out 4 days a week so I don't have to be a fat slot cellulite butt anymore. Once I'm nicely toned up, I'm dressing up in hot pink lingerie with rhodamine red lipstick and am paying a professional photographer to take sexy photos of me with an AK-47 for my fiance.

So to answer your question, I want to own an assault rifle because it's sexy. Plus, I plan to use it to go watermelon hunting. (I'm a vegetarian.)
 
One thing to consider about interpretation is that not long after the drafting of the constitution citizens were holding military equipment in their private stock, for instance, merchant ships had cannons and with the blessing of our government.

Exactly. You arm yourself to protect against the most likely threats to be faced. Obviously those that want to stand off a SWAT team must have reason to believe that is an immedtiate threat to them. Personally I feel safe enough with a semi-auto pistol, yet that does not mean that my right to seek a different choice in defense weapon would not ever change. If I had a large ranch to protect, rather than a small lot, my choice would likely be different.
 
Exactly. You arm yourself to protect against the most likely threats to be faced. Obviously those that want to stand off a SWAT team must have reason to believe that is an immedtiate threat to them. Personally I feel safe enough with a semi-auto pistol, yet that does not mean that my right to seek a different choice in defense weapon would not ever change. If I had a large ranch to protect, rather than a small lot, my choice would likely be different.
Yep. Handgun 0-20yd average, good shot can extend that range to around 50. Shotgun, 0-200yd maximum effective, can stretch to about 450, assault rifle sub 250-750 if it's the best you've got. Best defense, good, long range semi-automatic rifle or even a bolt action if the numbers allow for it.
 
Yep. Handgun 0-20yd average, good shot can extend that range to around 50. Shotgun, 0-200yd maximum effective, can stretch to about 450, assault rifle sub 250-750 if it's the best you've got. Best defense, good, long range semi-automatic rifle or even a bolt action if the numbers allow for it.

Unless you own a large enough piece of property and build your own range, you cannot practice long distance shooting. Most ranges I have found are 30 to 100 yards. I did find one that had 250 yrds once. I have heard that south of Shreveport, there is a 1000 yrd range, I am going to try to find it someday and see what their range fees are. Of course, due to driving distance and the price of gas, I won't be able to visit it much.
 
are you on the right thread? that makes no sense whatsoever especially since you did not quote a comment you were replying to

its a responce to the OP.
 
yes, I want to add some convenience to your life and my life, in order to work towards a greater good.

its the same with stop signs, stop lights, traffic signs, speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc etc.

sorry for the inconvenience folks, but its for a greater good. We will all learn to deal with it like adults.

But a stop sign is not a right that cant be INFRINGED on. A gun is.
 
Constitutional Right my ass, when the Constitution was written we didn't have Assault Riffles. Everybody had guns because they hunted for their food, they didn't have high tech homes where they could protect themselves, and they did not live in an age where they could just fire off a nuke to protect themselves. Times have changed, I'm not saying that gun laws would prevent these shootings, but what I am saying is that not having these laws in place gives people a more easy means of doing so. If somebody were to obtain Assault Riffles illegally, we know that the only thing that can be done is to step up enforcement, there is no question whether if we had a law in place would it have stopped this event. Nobody needs an Assault Riffle for protection, and if you do, then you have bigger problems on your hands.

Well that is wrong. they were called gatling guns. And many were privately owned and legal for all to own.
Canons were also avalible and legal to own. And all those Tommy guns the gansters had? ALL legal to own at the time.

They had homes with gun slits in the wondow covers...........LOL ...... wrong agian.

See in 1776 the people and the gov army were armed the same.

Today they have grenade launches etc and all we have is rifles and small arms. this invites Oligarchy.

See when the british army was hungry they jsut stole from the unarmed pheasants of europe.
Then they came to USA and tried to steal the farmers food........LOL......they learned a lesson!
 
Last edited:
Unless you own a large enough piece of property and build your own range, you cannot practice long distance shooting. Most ranges I have found are 30 to 100 yards. I did find one that had 250 yrds once. I have heard that south of Shreveport, there is a 1000 yrd range, I am going to try to find it someday and see what their range fees are. Of course, due to driving distance and the price of gas, I won't be able to visit it much.

you can shoot in millions and millions of acres of public land. Set up your own range and bring targets. Simple. I did it for years.
 
Back
Top Bottom