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 19 of 32 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 313

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

  1. #181
    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=nerv14;1058010241]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post

    I looked on google for a list of gun lethality rating, but I couldn't find it. That list may change my opinion on this thread.
    Lethality is mostly determined by the stopping power of a gun. Energy transfer is VERY relative to the "stopping power". If a small bullet travels fast and penetrates a target through and through, the energy TRANSFER is going to be very small, having little to no impact if no vital organs are struck.

    A larger slower traveling round is less likely to penetrate both in and out and will end up coming to a complete halt transfering ALL of it's energy. This transfer creates involuntary spasms throughout the body, rendering the target immobile for at the very least the duration of the spasm. Most of the time when a person is shot with a large caliber handgun or rifle, they are knocked onto the ground and dazed.

    Here is a "stopping power" guide for handguns.
    Guide to Stopping Power

    Pistols, Rifles, doesnt matter. When it comes to stopping power, the same rule always applies, slow moving, heavy bullets win.

    Do you have any source for gun violence from automatic assult weapons?

    I couldn't find that either.
    How about--->

    Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
    GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns

    Should be a good example of how many legally owned machine guns are used in any sort of crime

    There is a difference from murder rates from guns (because most murders are from handguns as everyone says) and murder rates from other weapons.
    90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type.

    * 1998 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
    Quick Gun Facts

    As I said, there is nothing you can do with preventing most killings with handguns. Groucho Marx had a very interesting point about outlawing guns that can be concealed. But that will create an even larger underground market, and not to mention that it would be harder for people to defend themeselves with guns.
    Banning the guns from law abiding citizens does nothing to stop criminals from getting and using them. Never ever works out the way people want it to.


    Also, even if gun regulations on guns in general normally increases crime, the people who get the guns illegally need to get those guns from somewhere. Therefore, in the long run of having regulations on guns, as the ones that were purchased legally break down, then I would suspect that crimes rates would fall. That may take 50 years or much more though.
    Imported firearms are far more accessible than legally purchased firearms form the U.S.

    In south america you can buy pretty much any weapon you want for cents on the dollar. Drug smugglers, gun smugglers, etc. Are very well aware of the market for illegal (______) in the united states and believe you me, they WILL get the goods in.

    The regulations imposed on civilians does not help with crime. It's that simple.
    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!

  2. #182
    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
    The weapons are not illegal in every aspect. Just hard to attain. But like I said, the people that are more likely to kill are able to attain them "illegally" already.

    What we are all upset with is that people are still trying to ban semi-automatics based on nothing more than appearance. As I posted before, there are three rifles, they are all the exact SAME rifle, the only difference is they are set in a different stock. Think of it as you in different clothing.

    One of them is illegal under the "assault weapon" laws. The other two are absolutely fine.

    That's the problem.

    And about the fully automatic weapon deal. It really has no impact on performance in capable hands anyways. People have too many misconceptions about firearms. It's actually very sad.
    Well then thats a problem with the law... Do you think I am disagreing with you?

    I have a quote below me that seems to say that there is no violence associated with automatic assault weapons, so I am not sure how you can say that violence is going up from them.

    [quote=Goobieman;1058010262]
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    You need something from Google to tell you the lethality of a .30-06 compared to a 9mm?


    There is no such thing as an automatic assault weapon, and so there IS no violence associated with them.
    I don't know how you can say that there is no such thing as an automatic assault weapons. Do you mean that they are just illegal so no one has them?

  3. #183
    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 nerv14 View Post
    I don't know how you can say that there is no such thing as an automatic assault weapons. Do you mean that they are just illegal so no one has them?
    By definition, all 'assult weapons' are semi-auto.
    That is, "automatic assault weapons" do not exist.

  4. #184
    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 Goobieman View Post
    By definition, all 'assult weapons' are semi-auto.
    That is, "automatic assault weapons" do not exist.
    I understand that.

    When I am argueing against guns, My problem is only with "fully-automatic
    weapons" now.

    However, that may change because of the lethality of weapons rating though.

  5. #185
    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=nerv14;1058010304]Well then thats a problem with the law... Do you think I am disagreing with you?

    I have a quote below me that seems to say that there is no violence associated with automatic assault weapons, so I am not sure how you can say that violence is going up from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post

    I don't know how you can say that there is no such thing as an automatic assault weapons. Do you mean that they are just illegal so no one has them?
    "Assault Weapon" is a term made up by politicians to describe semi-automatic weapons with "evil features" (I swear to god california legislature mentions "evil" features)

    They are all semi-automatic. So therefor there is no such thing as a fully automatic "assault weapon".


    And the crimes being committed with fully automatic weapons are rarely if EVER outside of the criminal scene.
    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. #186
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,947

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    By definition, all 'assult weapons' are semi-auto.
    That is, "automatic assault weapons" do not exist.



    there is no such thing as an assault weapon. it is a made up term the gun grabbers coined to make certan rifles sound evil.


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

  7. #187
    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 nerv14 View Post
    I looked on google for a list of gun lethality rating, but I couldn't find it. That list may change my opinion on this thread.

    Do you have any source for gun violence from automatic assult weapons?

    I couldn't find that either.
    Well, generally the larger the projectile, the greater the lethality; and the greater the muzzle velocity, the greater the lethality. A deer slug from a 12-gauge shotgun is about as lethal as a lawful personal firearm will get.

    An ordinary rifle bullet (.30-06, .308 and 7.62mm are all roughly the same size) is more lethal than the slightly larger 9mm handgun bullet, because the rifle's much greater muzzle velocity overcomes the handgun's slightly larger caliber. In order to equal the lethality of a 7.62mm rifle, the handgun would have to be a .45-caliber (11.43mm).

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    There is a difference from murder rates from guns (because most murders are from handguns as everyone says) and murder rates from other weapons.
    If you really, really want to kill somebody, you can do it with a rock. Even a woman's "stiletto" high heel, swung with the amount of force that a typical woman could provide, can penetrate the human skull.

    We will never be able to completely eliminate murders in our society. But I believe we can substantially reduce them. Handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill one person. Semi-auto handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill lots of people. I believe we should outlaw handguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    As I said, there is nothing you can do with preventing most killings with handguns. Groucho Marx had a very interesting point about outlawing guns that can be concealed. But that will create an even larger underground market, and not to mention that it would be harder for people to defend themeselves with guns.

    Also, even if gun regulations on guns in general normally increases crime, the people who get the guns illegally need to get those guns from somewhere. Therefore, in the long run of having regulations on guns, as the ones that were purchased legally break down, then I would suspect that crimes rates would fall. That may take 50 years or much more though.
    Reducing gun violence will require a comprehensive approach, and it will be a long-term project. I believe that if we outlaw handguns, provide a "buy back" program in all major cities with no questions asked, and subsidize military and law enforcement personnel (who should continue to be allowed to legally own handguns) in their efforts to (A) provide fair market value to civilian collectors getting rid of their handguns, and (B) provide security for their own handgun collections, we will see a substantial decline in gun violence after five years.

    There will always be a black market, but I believe that if we divert resources in law enforcement and the prison systems from other "crimes" that aren't so life-threatening, we can strangle the black market in handguns. I believe that for unlawful possession of firearms, a mandatory two-year prison sentence per handgun wouln't be out of line.

  8. #188
    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'?

    This rifle is an "assault rifle"



    Pretty scary huh?
    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!

  9. #189
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,947

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shewter View Post
    This rifle is an "assault rifle"



    Pretty scary huh?



    so is this:





    marlin 60 .22lr rifle.


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

  10. #190
    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 Groucho Marx View Post
    Well, generally the larger the projectile, the greater the lethality; and the greater the muzzle velocity, the greater the lethality. A deer slug from a 12-gauge shotgun is about as lethal as a lawful personal firearm will get.

    An ordinary rifle bullet (.30-06, .308 and 7.62mm are all roughly the same size) is more lethal than the slightly larger 9mm handgun bullet, because the rifle's much greater muzzle velocity overcomes the handgun's slightly larger caliber. In order to equal the lethality of a 7.62mm rifle, the handgun would have to be a .45-caliber (11.43mm).



    If you really, really want to kill somebody, you can do it with a rock. Even a woman's "stiletto" high heel, swung with the amount of force that a typical woman could provide, can penetrate the human skull.

    We will never be able to completely eliminate murders in our society. But I believe we can substantially reduce them. Handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill one person. Semi-auto handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill lots of people. I believe we should outlaw handguns.



    Reducing gun violence will require a comprehensive approach, and it will be a long-term project. I believe that if we outlaw handguns, provide a "buy back" program in all major cities with no questions asked, and subsidize military and law enforcement personnel (who should continue to be allowed to legally own handguns) in their efforts to (A) provide fair market value to civilian collectors getting rid of their handguns, and (B) provide security for their own handgun collections, we will see a substantial decline in gun violence after five years.

    There will always be a black market, but I believe that if we divert resources in law enforcement and the prison systems from other "crimes" that aren't so life-threatening, we can strangle the black market in handguns. I believe that for unlawful possession of firearms, a mandatory two-year prison sentence per handgun wouln't be out of line.
    I question if your plan will work... but it sounds pretty comprehensive. Did you get that from some professional report? I would like to check that out.

    But, as you say, there is no way to prevent people from murdering, so getting rid of handguns won't have much of an effect. But anyway, the problem is that you can't really get rid of a weapon that is so small and already so widespread.


    One problem is that the "buy back" reminds me about what they have tried to do in Afganistan to stop opium production. The problem is that if the buyback money is too low, then no one will use it. and if it is too high then people will grow opium (or smuggle in guns) specifically to sell to the government for a profit.

    I don't believe I have heard much suscess with those programs with other illegal items.

    I also am skeptical about any gun violence being effected by allowing military and police officers to have handguns. I can't see that making much effect on handgun levels. Since your programs don't TAKE guns off the streets, then this will really just mean that only the bad guys will have ascess to guns.

Page 19 of 32 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... 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
  •