View Poll Results: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    6 11.11%
  • No, because...

    46 85.19%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 17 of 32 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 313

Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  1. #161
    Legend in my own mind!
    MrFungus420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Midland, MI
    Last Seen
    10-15-10 @ 06:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,018

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    No, because it is completely and utter without merit.

    The difference between an "assault" rifle and an "normal" rilfe are mainly cosmetic changes.

    You can turn a regular rifle into an "assault" rifle with tape and cardboard.
    "And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit."
    - The Tick

  2. #162
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shewter View Post
    He says more efficient at murder as if people use them in murders commonly.

    The most efficient murder weapon is a disposable weapon. "Assault weapons" arent very disposable unless you've got alot of "disposable" money as well.

    Also, "assault weapons" are not concealable worth a ****.

    The top 5 firearms used for violent crimes are the mossberg 500 shotgun, and 4 very small pistols chambered in .380 acp and 9x19mm.

    "Assault weapons" are the dangerous ones though right? I swear to god pretty soon we are going to have to register our baseball bats because they're "too dangerous"
    As everyone knows... the main problem with guns is that they can be used to kill one person, with relates to the most violent killings. You can't prevent people from killing each other, you would need to start outlawing knives and bats as you say.

    However, we should get rid of assult weapons (which would include changing the second amendment, I know, I know...). Unlike smaller weapons, assult weapons allow crazy people to kill many other people at once. If a crazy person wants to kill one person, then there is nothing that we can do to stop that. However, we can really stop them from killing many people at once.

    Also, any other semi-automatic weapon can be used to overthrow a government or wage a guerrilla war. All guns don't need to be banned to make it more difficult to kill many people at once.

    I ask myself, what is so special about nuclear weapons and rocket launchers, in why we shouldn't have those. The answer is that they are able to kill many people at once. Therefore, I put those in a simillar catagory with automatic assult weapons. (yes, if an "assult weapon" is semi-automatic then I am fine with it)

  3. #163
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    As everyone knows... the main problem with guns is that they can be used to kill one person, with relates to the most violent killings. You can't prevent people from killing each other, you would need to start outlawing knives and bats as you say.

    However, we should get rid of assult weapons (which would include changing the second amendment, I know, I know...). Unlike smaller weapons, assult weapons allow crazy people to kill many other people at once. If a crazy person wants to kill one person, then there is nothing that we can do to stop that. However, we can really stop them from killing many people at once.

    Also, any other semi-automatic weapon can be used to overthrow a government or wage a guerrilla war. All guns don't need to be banned to make it more difficult to kill many people at once.

    I ask myself, what is so special about nuclear weapons and rocket launchers, in why we shouldn't have those. The answer is that they are able to kill many people at once. Therefore, I put those in a simillar catagory with automatic assult weapons. (yes, if an "assult weapon" is semi-automatic then I am fine with it)
    Let me ask you something. What do you think an assault weapon is?

    The assault weapons that were banned in 1994 were all semi automatic.

    Fully automatic weapons are not available to the public at all. The only way you can even attain one legally is by being an FFL3 holder (lot of work, look it up if you would like) live in a state that allows FFL3 and NFA weapons, and buy one that was manufactured before 1986.

    Now. let me ask you another question.

    Can you dig up any substantial evidence of fully automatic weapons (under the current regulations) being used in crimes? No need to bring up any gang killings or organized crime rings, they don't get these weapons legally and they have never and will never be shut down by laws against the weapons.

    This is a huge problem with the firearm debates. The VAST majority of the anti-gun crowed, and even the in-betweeners are too ignorant and/or uneducated to cut it.

    Sorry if that's offensive, but it's true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    As everyone knows... the main problem with guns is that they can be used to kill one person, with relates to the most violent killings. You can't prevent people from killing each other, you would need to start outlawing knives and bats as you say.

    However, we should get rid of assult weapons (which would include changing the second amendment, I know, I know...). Unlike smaller weapons, assult weapons allow crazy people to kill many other people at once. If a crazy person wants to kill one person, then there is nothing that we can do to stop that. However, we can really stop them from killing many people at once.

    Also, any other semi-automatic weapon can be used to overthrow a government or wage a guerrilla war. All guns don't need to be banned to make it more difficult to kill many people at once.

    I ask myself, what is so special about nuclear weapons and rocket launchers, in why we shouldn't have those. The answer is that they are able to kill many people at once. Therefore, I put those in a simillar catagory with automatic assult weapons. (yes, if an "assult weapon" is semi-automatic then I am fine with it)
    Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.

  5. #165
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.
    Yeah, most people that think an "assault weapon" is a real thing also don't know what a battle rifle is.

    World War II we used the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. Neither of which were fully automatic. Both of which were deadly and hold the title of the most important battle rifles in our recent history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

  6. #166
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.
    I find it hard to quantify a "weapon's relative deadliness" but maybe you can enlighten us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shewter View Post
    Let me ask you something. What do you think an assault weapon is?

    The assault weapons that were banned in 1994 were all semi automatic.

    Fully automatic weapons are not available to the public at all. The only way you can even attain one legally is by being an FFL3 holder (lot of work, look it up if you would like) live in a state that allows FFL3 and NFA weapons, and buy one that was manufactured before 1986.

    Now. let me ask you another question.

    Can you dig up any substantial evidence of fully automatic weapons (under the current regulations) being used in crimes? No need to bring up any gang killings or organized crime rings, they don't get these weapons legally and they have never and will never be shut down by laws against the weapons.

    This is a huge problem with the firearm debates. The VAST majority of the anti-gun crowed, and even the in-betweeners are too ignorant and/or uneducated to cut it.

    Sorry if that's offensive, but it's true.
    Great. The laws all work then.

    Maybe people aren't killed by automatic weapons very often because they are illegal. Do you know?

    I don't have all of the info, but after hearing the wealth of knowedge from you I am more confident with my view. Maybe its just that the educated gun crowd interprets the information wrong. who knows
    Last edited by nerv14; 05-04-09 at 12:34 AM.

  7. #167
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I find it hard to quantify a "weapon's relative deadliness" but maybe you can enlighten us.
    Stopping power of the round fired and the accuracy of the gun determines it's lethality not rate of fire it doesn't matter how many shots per minute you can fire if they can't stop the target or even hit it. If you need a rounds effective stopping power, there are ballistics formulas all over the place.



    Great. The laws all work then.
    ???? How do you figure, since the U.S. murder rate is up from when full autos were legal and readily accessible.

    Maybe people aren't killed by automatic weapons very often because they are illegal. Do you know?
    No, it's not because they are illegal, because as it has been pointed out, they are legal if you meet the proper requirements. People aren't killed by full auto weapons often because the guns are easily traceable, they are expensive so it isn't a weapon you'll just ditch somewhere, the rounds get expensive after a while. A cheap .38 will kill someone just fine, and a 20$ street gun isn't going to be missed when thrown into the river.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #168
    User Groucho Marx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    06-03-09 @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    69

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.
    Put a terrorist with a fully automatic Uzi and plenty of extra clips in the center of a crowded commuter train station at rush hour, and he'll kill one helluva lot more people than if he had a semi-automatic weapon.

    The fact is that full auto is illegal but semi-auto is legal. I have no problem with that.

    Honestly, I don't believe the argument is (or should be) full auto vs. semi-auto. The definition of the term "assault weapon" has been expanded by the gun grabbers to include anything that looks wicked, fires semi-auto and has a large magazine capacity.

    Very few murders are committed with semi-automatic RIFLES. I believe these should continue to be legal. However, the Virginia Tech shootings (which provided a lot of momentum to the current gun grabbing frenzy) were committed with a semi-automatic HANDGUN.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here, and argue that it is handguns that should be illegal, not semi-automatic weapons. Handguns are easy to conceal. They are used in the vast majority of firearm related crimes. Even Olympic medal-winning marksmen have trouble hitting a target with the finest handguns in the world if the target is more than 50 yards away, so sporting applications of handguns are limited.

    And anyone who has served in the Army or Marines will confirm that if given a choice between a rifle or a handgun, any infantryman with at least two brain cells functioning will choose the rifle. So a handgun ban would be consistent with the Second Amendment purpose of having a well-armed militia. If you want to own a gun, buy a rifle or a shotgun. Buy semi-auto if you choose to do so.

    For the record, I'm a combat veteran, a gun owner and an NRA member, my weapon of choice is a bolt-action Remington .308 with a Nikon scope, and I think most AK-47s are useless from a sporting perspective. But if you choose to own one, have fun -- as long as it's just semi-auto.

  9. #169
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    68,004

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx View Post
    Put a terrorist with a fully automatic Uzi and plenty of extra clips in the center of a crowded commuter train station at rush hour, and he'll kill one helluva lot more people than if he had a semi-automatic weapon.
    1. "magazines" not "clips"

    2. incorrect. as the ROF would mean more bullets in less people.


    The fact is that full auto is illegal but semi-auto is legal. I have no problem with that.

    Honestly, I don't believe the argument is (or should be) full auto vs. semi-auto. The definition of the term "assault weapon" has been expanded by the gun grabbers to include anything that looks wicked, fires semi-auto and has a large magazine capacity.

    Very few murders are committed with semi-automatic RIFLES. I believe these should continue to be legal. However, the Virginia Tech shootings (which provided a lot of momentum to the current gun grabbing frenzy) were committed with a semi-automatic HANDGUN.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here, and argue that it is handguns that should be illegal, not semi-automatic weapons. Handguns are easy to conceal. They are used in the vast majority of firearm related crimes. Even Olympic medal-winning marksmen have trouble hitting a target with the finest handguns in the world if the target is more than 50 yards away, so sporting applications of handguns are limited.

    And anyone who has served in the Army or Marines will confirm that if given a choice between a rifle or a handgun, any infantryman with at least two brain cells functioning will choose the rifle. So a handgun ban would be consistent with the Second Amendment purpose of having a well-armed militia. If you want to own a gun, buy a rifle or a shotgun. Buy semi-auto if you choose to do so.

    For the record, I'm a combat veteran, a gun owner and an NRA member, my weapon of choice is a bolt-action Remington .308 with a Nikon scope, and I think most AK-47s are useless from a sporting perspective. But if you choose to own one, have fun -- as long as it's just semi-auto.


    your pistol is a tool one uses to fight thier way back to thier carbine.


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  10. #170
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    As long as those that own guns realize that they are part of the Militia and are willing to defend this nation, then I don't care either way.
    This is incorrect. Not everyone that owns guns is part of the militia.

Page 17 of 32 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •