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

Originally Posted by nerv14

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

Two questions:
-Why then do you keep using the incorrect terms?
-When was the last time a legally owned full-auto weapons was used in a crime?

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

A 6.5mm 140gr bullet will easily kill a person at 1000yds.
Are you talking about that kind of "lethallity", or...?

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

so is this:





marlin 60 .22lr rifle.

Tubular magazines are exempt from california capacity laws

Originally Posted by Shewter

Tubular magazines are exempt from california capacity laws

not in NJ....

Originally Posted by nerv14

? How am I using the wrong term?

You are STILL using the term "automatic assault weapon".
There is no such thing.

Was it 1962? I forgot

You're arguing against the posession of automatic weapons, and you cannot tell us the last time one that was legally owned was used in the crime?
If you cannot paint the picture as to how these guns are used iresponsibly, what support is there for your argument agianst them?

If the laws regarding these weapons are so effective, why change them?

Originally Posted by nerv14

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.

No, this is just a personal theory.

Originally Posted by nerv14

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.

Getting rid of handguns would have a tremendous effect, because a handgun makes murder really easy. If you have a handgun within reach, and you get the urge to kill someone, you can get the job done in less than a second — even if you have no training and very little physical strength. But with any other weapon ̶̶— a knife, a rock, a baseball bat, a bottle of poison — you would need some combination of a lot of time, substantial physical strength and/or a significant amount of training.

Originally Posted by nerv14

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.

Well, in this case the typical street gang can't plant a garden and "grow" handguns.

Originally Posted by nerv14

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.

Gun buyback programs in our urban areas have recovered a lot of weapons. A recent gun buyback program in Oakland recovered 1,000 handguns because it offered $250 per weapon. Other programs that offered $25, $50 or $100 per weapon haven't been nearly as successful.

Critics take aim at gun buybacks - USATODAY.com

Buyback programs by themselves haven't been successful since they aren't supported by a ban on handguns. For problems as comprehensive as gun violence, we can't just use a carrot or a stick. We have to use both a carrot AND a stick.

This problem has been growing in our cities for more than a century, and it's widespread. We can't expect a Band-Aid to solve the problem, nor can we expect an instant cure. It will take a lot of resources and a lot of time. But I believe we can achieve substantial results.

Originally Posted by Goobieman

You are STILL using the term "automatic assault weapon".
There is no such thing.


You're arguing against the posession of automatic weapons, and you cannot tell us the last time one that was legally owned was used in the crime?
If you cannot paint the picture as to how these guns are used iresponsibly, what support is there for your argument agianst them?

If the laws regarding these weapons are so effective, why change them?

So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?

What do you think I have been arguing all this time anyway?!? I support keeping the law as it is because "automatic assault weapons" have been illegal since 1982.

Machineguns are used in many crimes illegally, and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them. The price would go down for them, so more of them would be bought. I don't believe citizens don't use machineguns anyway to defend themselves, so whats the use of making them legal?

Originally Posted by nerv14

So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?

What do you think I have been arguing all this time anyway?!? I support keeping the law as it is because "automatic assault weapons" have been illegal since 1982.

Machineguns are used in many crimes illegally, and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them. The price would go down for them, so more of them would be bought. I don't believe citizens don't use machineguns anyway to defend themselves, so whats the use of making them legal?

They are not illegal. They are just well-regulated. As they should be.

And to your final question. Citizens don't have to use S.U.V.'s to commute to work, what's the use in making them period? The list goes on and on.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they are attainable, they are possessed by citizens who have gone through the FFL3 process and paid their tax stamp. There is no reason to suggest that these weapons make life any more dangerous than any other potential weapon today.

The price doesnt matter seeing how if you wanted to get one illegally you can. And you don't pay the same price as a law abiding citzen would.

Is this making any sense? I sure hope so.